So just talking about the mentoring on one of the forum, number of you might be aware of it. If not there is one forum called Bharat Rakshak Forum, some of you might know this, BRF. Of course you can have a handle there, it doesn’t have to be your own name. There are few handles I have, I won’t tell you the others. But the one, the obvious one is Nilesh Oak. And one time I wrote, just very recently, someone gave me another project to work on, you know as a suggestion. And I said you know, I have, I am working on 30+ different projects, so I can’t take that on and so, that’s fair but this person came back again, a good friend of mine, he is based in Washington DC and he said if you have a 30+ projects, that you are working on, something is wrong with you. You need to delegate and which I am doing, but also it has its challenges, you know. So there is that baby sitting at some point, you know that you have to do and then let them go. Anyways, so, what I want to cover with you is 17,000+ years of Vedic civilization and a multi- disciplinary evidence. Now, why 17,000 plus? What I will show you through different disciplines of science. There is evidence objectively testable evidence that we can talk, we can share, we can discuss, that goes up to 17000 years. But beyond that we don’t have something to catch on right now. It’s going to change, in fact I assure you it’s going to change very soon. Ok? And I may allude to that when I talk about it. But my style is I would rather let the evidence comes first, objectively testable and then go with the inference rather than let the inference override the evidence. Ok? So I am being, so when I say 17000 of course hopefully, fortunately no one falls of their chair here, “17000”. But that happens at times, you know, people fall off their chairs, that long. But actually this is very conservative in some sense. Ok? But we will also talk about the limits. So I have lots of slides to cover and I will tell you the context why I want to talk about this multi-disciplinary evidence. Ok? But instead of giving you the preamble, I will talk about it when the slide comes.
Three big points that I want to make. The first one is the scientific method. Now many people will just claim you know ok, well I have done this scientifically, scientific way of dating something, scientific method. People throw these words. But what is a scientific method. ? Ok? And it is very important and I am going to share that in an educational spirit. In fact, when you go and read another book where someone makes a claim whether they use the word scientific or not. Or when I myself, I mean you can question me on this. But I am going to show you a five point formula it’s not my formula, it always existed. Anyone claiming something, you can always ask them a question in terms of this 5 points. Everyone claiming something scientific should able to answer those 5 points. If not, If they fail on even one, there is something missing. There is some problem. So we will talk about this.
The second one is which I said, the Multi-disciplinary and decisive evidence for Rigveda based civilization. You can call it Indian civilization, Hindu civilization am not stuck on names. Indic civilization, Indian civilization. Pick you word. Ok? But 17000 + years of civilization. At least the evidence that we have. And the plus sign is there and I will tell you some additional exciting research that is happening. And the last one, how to overcome dogma, authorities, logical fallacies, faulty inferences, entrenched believes and outdated theories. A huge list there. Right? Although it looks huge, really know they all can be combined into a dogma. Authorities you know so like in opinion of so and so and many times we attach the titles. You know whatever it is. You know what? Authorities, experts they all have a place, we are not denying their place. But where is their place? If they can use the expertise of their fields to make the material easy for every one of us to understand, then they are doing their job. But when they try to pull their authority so say, because I am in this position and I am seeing it, science doesn’t want to listen to it. So these are the three key points.
So, Purva-Paksha. Ok? Now the word always existed but in the recent times, Raju Malhotra has made it more popular. So yesterday, I gave a talk at the Vedic Saraswati conference in Kurukshethra, and next to Purva -Paksha I wrote something. I will tell you the title of my talk there. I said river Saraswati and Mahabharata and then said space time odyssey. So that’s what I talked about, In Purva -Paksha what I am going to talk about the AIT group, the Indic group and I also something called the Yuga dogma, I will talk about this and then I said it is a space time tragedy. Ok? So what is this tragedy? Well of course we know about the AIT, AIT, you know. Even when we are either convinced based on objective evidence or based on subjective conviction, we still talk so much about AIT that this AIT will not go away. Just last month I gave a lecture on what falsifies AIT, at the Swades Indology conference no: 3 in IIT Chennai. So AIT stands for Aryan Invasion Theory. Ok? And that talk, you took that talk should come out very soon and I will encourage all of you at Rajiv Malhotra portal or Swades Indology portal to listen to that. So the typical timing is what? — 2000 BCE, 1500 BCE and since Rahul mentioned it, I will give you a quick definition of Aryan Invasion theory. You can define Aryan Invasion theory in terms of 4 aspects. Ok? Where, when, who and what. Where, I don’t have a diagram I will show you in the slide when it comes. According to this Aryan Invasion Theory, people who call themselves Aryans, that is who. Those who call themselves Aryan, came from somewhere outside India to Inside India, just putting it in a simple way, ok? Sometime after 2000 BCE but before 1500 BCE and the forth claim of this invasion theory is that they brought with them either Sanskrit language or pre cursor to Sanskrit language. Ok? Those are the four things. And what I showed in my plenary address there is that you can show with evidence that all of them are decisively false. But I am not going to that now.
The second Dogma, what happen if this, once the AIT was falsified in the Indian context by many of the Indian receptors. They went into this second bucket. So what you here see is a small pond and in the language of Vinoba Bhave, you know sometimes what happens we go from one pond to another. Ok?
So now here is a bigger pond but pond nevertheless. So what timeline do you see? I am just giving you approximate from 800 BCE to 6000 BCE and in this timeline, people try to sandwich Mahabharata, of course the Buddha and sometimes everything Mahabharata, Ramayanaa, Rigveda, everything. Ok? And why is that? Well, we won’t go to the why but I will tell you what drives them. And then there is this favourite thing. In fact you know I can assure you at least one percent in this August audience here will ask about the Yuga. You know you cannot stop yourself from asking that question, about the Yuga. Please but what about this Yuga? Well I call it Yuga Dogma and what I mean by that this is the Kalpa and Manvantar and many Manvantar. Yes we have this information in our literature. We are not doubting that, we are not denying it. But do you know what? There are more than 30 specific, independent, contradictory, conflicting definitions of Yuga. So any time someone wants to stand up and says well but your chronology does not match for Ramayanaa and Mahabharata with these million years or whatever thousand years of Yuga. My question to you is, why did you pick up that one specific definition out of 30? Ok? So you can just pick one, solve this whole problem of Yuga and then we can discuss it. Ok? So there is an information that there are multiple theories why there are these different definitions. Ok? I am not going to go into it unless you force me and ask me a question, I’ll definitely answer. But that’s the Yuga dogma. And what’s common for that’s millions of years going back. What’s common among these three? Now we recognize that I am very critical of this middle group and that’s our group guys, these are our folks. Ok? I mean they have the right intentions but there is a challenge, there is a problem and what is common among these all three because many of them, even when they moved from their AIT to Indic, the number of methods, the type of methods they were using did not change and what are some the methods? Actually many times, it is a stray evidence. Yes, they use the evidence. But it is a stray evidence. Some random evidence. Some subjective evidence, some arbitrary evidence. In fact if you go to Aryan Invasion theory, do they use the evidence? Ya, they start with evidence. Ok, they start with the similarity of European languages with Sanskrit. Ok? Apparent or real, it is there. So ya, they start off from a genuine point but then they go downhill right away. So while this is happening, there is agreements and disagreements. People talk in terms of oh! I don’t agree with you. I have a deep disagreement. Now, what is the problem with this? Agreements and disagreements are very easy thing guys, you know, very easy. We can agree or not. For anything controversial, what does it take? One person has to disagree and things become controversial. What we need to focus on is the evidence, which is the framework I am going to show next. There is a nice quote by Voltaire, it’s worth remembering, it says, cherish those who seek the truth, but beware of those who find it and that goes to the word that Mahatma Gandhi made very famous. Satyagraha. Insisting on a truth. In fact that is not a very best word. Now because it’s very popular, Mahatma Gandhi made it very popular, so we use it. The best word should be Sathyashodhan. And why is that? Insisting on a truth, I mean, sounds good. But to insist on a truth we should know what the truth. Ok? In Many cases what happens, whatever I am suggesting is the truth. Sathyashodhan, how does Satya comes to you? The truth comes to you? It comes in spurts. “Aunsh aunsh se aa jatha hai” And it comes in an iterative fashion. In science it comes in an iterative fashion. Think of the whole cosmology story, from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Tycho Brahe to Kepler to Galileo to Newton to Lagrange to Einstein, these are in iterative the fashion. It doesn’t come to us and do you think Einstein is the last word? Of course not. If it was, then everything would have been explained and of course it is not explained. Quickly take a minute and read this.Now some of you may think I am very, it’s not my cartoon by the way, I just pulled it from somewhere. Some of you may think I’m harsh on social science. Actually I am not. In fact what I am discussing here is a Social Science. History, Chronology, Mahabharata, Ramayanaa, Rigveda, that’s all comes under humanities and Social Sciences and culture. So what I am talking is, again this is a generalization. But what you see here is that’s when people try to change the reality. You know push themselves, not allow themselves to get out of it. Alright. this is what I wanted to remember when I’m done, maybe I’ll bring this slide back and any time you ask the question, I am going to ask you out of those 5 points, which particular point your question belongs. At the beginning, at the top, we start with the theory. How do we come to a theory? It starts with a problem. Ok? Any time we are acting, you know what, we may not be aware but there is a fear in the back of our mind, with everything. So we start with a problem, then we try to solve a problem we guess a solution and then what you see at the bottom is basically explanation prediction testing in the context of the background knowledge or as Pathanjal says Prathyaksha Anumana Agama Praamanani. Ok? So that’s the framework I will come back to.
Now real science, as Pathanjal says Prathyaksha Anumana Agama Praamanani meaning explanation prediction, testing, in the context of a background knowledge and what he says next is actually very important. That makes a difference between real science and non-real science, you know instead of calling Social Science. Anyone knows, I’m sure VinodjI just arrived and he can say what the next one is. The next one he says is Viparyayo Midhyagnanam apadrupapradhishtam. Anything contrary to this, the first line, anything contrary to this is established as a Midhyagnanam – false knowledge. Ok? Not a right way to do it. or sage Gotama says something with slight modification or Karl Popper, the best philosopher of science, one of the best if not the best talks about essentially what Pathanjal is saying, explanation-prediction-testing, in the context of a theory and in the context of background knowledge or many of you, I’m sure you know this name Richard Feynman, the physicist right, and he talks about, to solve a problem you take a guess, you compute consequences, you compare with evidence.
Ok, we are going to start with astronomy evidence of the epics. Now many people, many of the other Indic researchers not all but many, they complain. They say, you know I mean at least complain about me in some sense, sometimes they don’t take my name but just say you know this is so much insisted on astronomy, so much insist on astronomy. This is not the primary evidence or so on and so forth I don’t understand those arguments. But I will tell you this. We shouldn’t just stick to astronomy that’s fair but in fact if you are looking for a specific date Ok? Only discipline of science capable of estimating exact dates, is astronomy and is not by fluke. This is not true for many other cultures. We are just lucky. It is true for only Indic culture and the reason is because we happen to use a lunisolar calendar. Ok? If you wouldn’t have used lunisolar calendar, you know I had to continue my job. I didn’t have a chance to write the books. It’s really that true. Lunisolar calendar is a beauty, it may be coincidental, it may be deliberate, whatever it is, that is the only reason, astronomy becomes such a strong evidence and allows us to predict exact date. Wrong or right, but allows to predict. And then we can test.
Ok! Astronomy poison pills and I will also talk about the inferential acumen. Last time I gave a talk at Srijan foundation here I used this first example. I am not going to take a long time. But just to give you an idea what it means by astronomy poison pills or decisive evidence. We must still argue within the range, like professor, Tiwari, Shashi Tiwari mentioned, upper limit and lower limit. We may argue about a specific date within the limits but as far as the limits are concerned, we can be so confident that nothing can happen outside those limits. So quickly to give you an example I gave this Lokmanya Tilak, Savarkar, Gandhi and if there is a claim, a claim says Lokmanya Tilak, Savarkar and Gandhi met in Pune 1923 to discuss the state of British rule in India. True or false. What is your answer? False- many of you are saying false and why is that? Ok. Tilak was no more in 1920. Ok so you are good student those of you are attending this for the second time because we did this now you know it 1920 he passed away right. So, that was 1920. Now that’s the kind of decisive evidence, Tilak was not there after 1920. So we can talk for hours about the philosophical differences and what not. But the fact he was gone in 1920 provides us with a decisive evidence. That’s a kind of thing I’m talking when I talk of astronomy poison pills. Alright this gives you, for example you look at Lokmanya Tilak’s lifespan and that gives you the limits on what is possible. Right? If there was indeed a meeting it has to happen here. If you look at Swatanyryaveer Savarkar, that gives you another limit. But now we are looking for overlapping areas. Ok? And then Mahatma Gandhi and something like this. So if anything has to happen, it has to happen in between. We can argue where it happen in between. But definitely outside those limits, it did not happen, we feel confident. Let’s take this another quick example of Vernier Caliper when we did Mahabharata Manthan and my colleague Aparna was there to present it. This is the example. So for example of you want to see if this cricket ball matches the specification of Indian cricket board, what you need to do is first place that ball appropriately between these two prongs and take the approximate reading on this main scale. Ok? Once you do that then you tighten the screw and you take the very precise and accurate reading on the secondary scale but the point I want to make is if you are not careful in placing this red ball properly between those prongs, it doesn’t matter how accurate you take the readings on the secondary scale. It’s going to be precise and it’s going to be wrong. So, what it means is first you must gets things approximately right and then only you can do it precisely accurate.
So, last time I showed it, the first part, the five point formula, the first is the theory. So what is my theory? In fact I’m going to tell you the astronomy theory but also I’m going to share a lot of evidence from other fields. I’m going to tell you the theory for other fields as well. Any time we talk about a theory it has to be a simple, generic, universal statement. So the universal statement for astronomy theory is this – All astronomy observations of the epics are visual/ factual/ actual observations of the sky of those times. This is for astronomy. What would be my theory for say Geology? Geological evidence, climatological evidence, oceanography evidence, all kinds of thing. My theory would say the geological events tend to keep their signatures in geological recurs. Watch my language, tend to keep. We cannot guarantee that they will do it but they tend to keep. That is a very generic statement. And if there is another discipline that I discuss I’ll give the generic statement of that theory. And then depending on what it is we have this, in this case astronomy, so we have precession of equinoxes, proper motions, the formulas of modern astronomy, that’s our background knowledge and against that we test it and when we did this Arundhati-Vasishtha observation, now very famous ok, or infamous and what do we find using, we test it objectively I’m not going to go through it but I will encourage you to go back, check your YouTube, Srijan foundation video from last year and watch that. So again we get this limits -upper limits and lower limits, what it tells us is based on this one piece of evidence Mahabharata war did not happen in 11000 BC did not happen after 4500 BC.
We are going to go quickly. I am going to summarize on one slide Astronomy evidence from the epics, all evidence included tested objectively, inferred logically. So in case of Mahabharata, more than 200 specific observations I objectively tested them sometime individually, sometime in groups if appropriate, and arrived at 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war. In case of Ramayanaa, more than 500 specific observations again objectively tested them to arrive at 12209 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war. All I want to remember is kind of like a six millennium BCE or 5500 BCE for Mahabharata and 12000 BCE for Ramayanaa. These two books they are already there. Ok, so astronomy. Now this is going back to the Aryan Invasion Theory. If we draw a horizontal axis of time ok, starting with our time there and going back to antiquity, the definition of Aryan Invasion Theory that I gave you, ok, the timeline is here. So this is outside India where ever that is, this is inside India or greater India and Inside India is from what, Afghanistan to Sri Lanka. We cannot just say today’s India and against this, the timeline that is projected by the Aryan Invasion is here. 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE and according to them, these Sanskrit or pre cursor to Sanskrit came somewhere here and afterwards. Against this I am going to plot these claims for the Mahabharata, and these claims for Ramayanaa. I always call them claims, claims for the chronology and to me they will always remain claim. I feel very convinced about them but nevertheless the claim. Einstein said all the great theories are only one data point away from falsification. Ok. Any day this gets falsified, I would be the happiest person and I assure you. I will be celebrating. That means because we have made a progress. But until then, my claim is that these are the best claim among all available claims for both Ramayanaa and Mahabharata. Alright. That’s Sanskrit based culture in 6th and 13th Millennium BCE, we should ask what is AIT? Don’t bother.
Multi-disciplinary evidence extravaganza. Why is that? Because once I did this and it’s a very subtle point. I want you to understand this. So now people start asking me, other researchers has started asking me ok, but where is the multi-disciplinary evidence and you know what, what they may not realize and many times the audience may not realize is this. The very fact they are asking for a multi-disciplinary evidence in support of my claim, whether they realize it or not, they are accepting my claim. The point is lost on them. Ok? But they are accepting my claim. Because if they are not accepting my claim they shouldn’t go and ask me demand multi-disciplinary evidence. So, but what I thought is actually multi-disciplinary evidence exists. How much we can discuss is only limited by time. I’m going to show you a list. So, here is this list. The only reason I stop is because I said all the listed on one page and no more. And you know what happened here, I’m almost running out of a page. So, I listed whatever I could think of. Ok, you have to stand up in the back there, I’ll read it for you. So actually, I will not go through all of it, but you can trust me that this exist and we can share but I’ll try to go at least say up to 10, you know and then in question answers we can go into the next. I might discuss little bit genetics. Ok? So that’s our agenda, that’s the menu. We are going to through that ok? Take a deep breathe, exhale and get ready.
So, we looked at astronomy evidence. Now let us look at the chronology evidence of the Mahabharata text. Actually very simple. You know astronomy people think it’s beyond me, I don’t understand precision of equinoxes, how can I trust the equations. Here if you read Mahabharata and actually I will show you my third book that is coming, it just list every single words that just supports this particular narrative. The pure chronology evidence of the Mahabharata, chronology meaning simply descriptions, this happened on this day and then after 10 days so and so happened and so on. It takes us again to 6th millennium BCE, the date I arrived otherwise from based on Arundhati Vasishtha and many other planetary observations. So, again the beauty of scientific discovery or method is this. In case of Arundhati, I started at the talk. Like I started at this corner point, at the peak. That is the explanation we don’t know why Arundhati is walking ahead of Vasishtha. Then I spend 15 years and figured out why it is walking. In this case once we made that claim 5561 BCE, so that was easy. Now that I claim 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war and there is a specific day 16 October 5561 BCE. How do I decide the day of Bhishma Nirvana? When did Bhishma passed away? You know the specific day right. Uttarayan, The day of winter solstice. So in that year if I start from the 16 October is the first day of war, Bhishma fell in the battle on the 10th day, that is 25th of October and from there I continue to just go in my calendar until I find the day of winter solstice or day after winter solstice, that is the claim, claim day for Bhishma Nirvana. That happens to be 31st January 5560 BCE. Again it’s a calendar, Julian calendar going backwards, ok? So don’t get stuck on 21st December or 14 January anything like this. So this is the claim and now we can, you know what, from there we can go backwards and ask the question is there a way to figure this out , and is there a sufficient evidence in the Mahabharata text that can justify this 31st January. Ok? This is just came back from Kurukshethra, this is the place where Bhishma passed away- Baanaganga and this is the cover of my upcoming book Bhishma Nirvana.
Simple 3 chronology assertions:
The first assertion, now everyone can understand this, you know there is no complexity. There is no astronomy, at least not here. Bhishma was on the bed of arrows for more than 92 days leading to the day of Bhishma Nirvan, which is the day of winter solstice. Simple, like more than 92 days that is the claim of Mahabharata text. Yesterday I repeated this. I said you know what, majority of the Mahabharata researchers in fact almost all- 99.99 %. Instead of 92, they claim 58 days. Ok? And what I’m saying, I’m going to repeat that, which is anyone will think its 58 days ok? There is one reference and that’s what they took. But anyone who thinks 58 days what is very clear doesn’t matter who that person is, what is his name/her name, what is their titles. They have not bothered to read Mahabharata text because there are more than 60+ references that will all lead you to 92 days. The second, the earliest “tithii” that Bhishma fell in the battle can be Margashirsha Shukla, I won’t go into the details why that is so. You will see that in the book. The third one is major portion of the 18 days of the Mahabharata war took place during the Margashirsha Shukla Paksha. Ok, so started with Amavasya now it’s getting bigger and bigger. Now why is that important? Because there are some researchers who don’t think is started on the Amavasya. But the Mahabharata evidence is so strict, so constraint that you cannot select anything else. There are more than 30 specific observations that lead you to that. Now look like very simple thing, like 3 Newton’s laws kind of thing, 3 inferences. The first one says, the majority of the 18 days of Mahabharata war took place during the first half of Sharad season. I will quickly tell you how we reached that conclusion from assertion 1. Just to walk you guys with me, it’s nothing complex if you put your mind to it. The day of Bhishma Nirvan is the day of winter solstice that is the end of Hemant season, would you agree? Six seasons, each season of 2 months. So, from that day of winter solstice, if you go backwards by 60 days approximately, the Hemant season is over. I’m going backwards, then if you go back by additional 30 days, the second month of Sharad season is over. Are you with me? Ok? And then we are left with the 2 days, and remember Bhishma fell on the 10th day, so 10+2 thats how I’m saying at least 66 percent 12 out of 18 days of the Mahabharata war took place during the first half of Sharad season. Just stay with me. The next one is if I combine assertion 1 and 2 it leads to the evidence that the day of Bhishma Nirvan cannot be interns of lunar tithi, cannot be before Phalgun Shukla 12 or Phalgun Shukla Dwaadashi. How did I come to this conclusion? It has to start with Margashirsha Shukla 9 as the earliest day + 92 days worth of thitis. Ok? So slightly plus one or so. So it will go to Margashirsha Shukla 12. Now don’t get too strict in the sense of well is it potentially possible Margashirsha Shukla Ekadashi, ya. Sure, why not. It doesn’t change anything. Then combining assertions 1 and 3 it leads to the inference that lunar month of Margashirsha occurred during the first part of Sharad season at the time of Mahabharata war. Because remember we have evidence to say that it happened during Margashirsha Shukla Paksha and I’m combining that. Now I’m going to ask you to take a leap of faith like Indiana Jones movie. Trust me that what I am going to say is true but it can be astronomically tested. If you combine assertion 1 and 2, I call it epoch of Bhishma Nirvana and these are actually very flexible dates. In reality the dates that come out as constraints, upper limit and lower limit is actually 7000 BCE to 4700 BCE but there is some error that you can actually add. I’m not going to discuss it here, it’s in my book. So, I gave 15 days, 15 + – 15 days that’s 15 times 72 is some of you astronomers can relate to that, that’s 1000 years. So I added+- 1000 years, so 8000 BCE to 3700 BCE. But these are very very strict. I mean now someone starts negotiating with me ok, how about 3699 BCE and I’m going to say no. You understand what I’m saying? 3700 is very generous. Now, if you take the second one that’s the beautiful, guys. When I started researching these I did not know that. There is no predetermined agenda when I do research. So the second one, when you combine assertion 1 and assertion 3, the timing of Mahabharata war actually leads to a vary tighter interval what it saying is Mahabharata war would not, could not, should not have happened any time before 7285 BCE and any time after 5125 BCE. Somebody says how about 5124 BCE and the answer is no. I mean the calculations are that strict and then, I’m just repeating, additional 200 + additional observation that lead me to 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war. This is in some sense of the summary, you know, of what I have covered. Now let’s take the 5561 BCE, this is the Bhishma Nirvana, 31st of January.
Now let’s look at river Sarasvati evidence from Mahabharata and Ramayanaa. So we are going away from astronomy now. It’s purely Sarasvati geology evidence. What you see in the picture at the top, this is the current path of river Sutlej/Shutudri. Ok? On the other side, this is the current path of river Yamuna and what do you see in the middle very broad, that grey area? That’s a wide paleo channel of Sarasvati. Right from there, and then what you see here is this is where Shutudri used to come straight down. It’s a huge Paleo channel, it’s not shown how wide it is. I’ll show you another picture. Huge paleo channel of Shutudri that’s how it was coming down, so this is not arbitrary line that is been drawn. Same thing with the Yamuna, multiple places, different streams, but huge paleo channel of river Saraswati. Now against this, if you look at Mahabharata evidence of Sarasvati, there are more than 100 specific references to Sarasvati in the Mahabharata. And what it pans is a mix picture. In many places, it is flowing beautifully with lots of water. In other places it has gone under the sand. Now, as I was travelling from Kurukshethra there was a geology professor travelling with me and you know we had a discussion of Antherdheeyathe which means sometime translated as disappeared and other times it means went under the sand and you know there was a discussion of that kind. Other places it has gone under the sand. Some places it is described flowing below the sand and some other places it is emerging from the sand. So it’s a very mix state for Mahabharata. If you go to Ramayanaa, you get descriptions of River Yamuna already meeting river Ganga. So Yamuna is already separated from Sarasvati in that sense. And you also find a interesting reference to river Shutudri. Someone in the audience corrected me but the reason was different. So I will give you the improved version there. So what you see here in the top is a description of river Shutudri or Sutlej is the river with a wide paleo channel and the last word says flowing in the west direction and I said it turned in the west direction I will still say that but the reasoning behind that is there is a sufficient evidence going in antiquity that it was coming down straight to south and meeting Sarasvati. So in that sense I said turned and so, river Shutudri is described as flowing west as supposed to flowing south. Now why is that important? If, by the time of Ramayanaa, I’m assuming my claim is correct for 12000 BCE, if Yamuna is gone away from Sarasvati and if Shutudri is gone away from Sarasvati. So now the question is what is feeding the waters to Sarasvati. So if we go backwards, again this is my conjectures. So think of the time or descriptions of Rigveda, the grand river, you know, starting with high mountains coming and going all the way to the sea Nadi thvame Ambi, thvame Devi thvame Saraswati, the grandest of the grand river. We have to, this is my conjecture, we have to go back in further antiquity beyond 12000 BC, to look at the grand Sarasvati of Rigveda. Now the question is does science, meaning other disciplines of science corroborate this kind of evidence. The answer is decisively yes. Now lots of evidence from hydrology. Now these are different words guys,but you know what, many times they prefer to the same thing like, hydrology you might here, morph-dynamics, geology, ok? They are referring to the same things. You can have many sub sub areas within Geology, its all Geology. So again my generic statement for the theory is geological events tend to keep their signatures into geological records, that’s the theory. So here what I am doing is this now based on what I just showed you the textual evidence, I am making certain conjectures, for example, was Sarasvati in a state of flux during 5561 BCE? My question is that’s what Mahabharata says, but do we have an independent evidence, from say Geology to support that. The next one is Sutlej had turned west before 12200 BCE based on Ramayanaa because I’m saying Ramayanaa in 12200 and Ramayanaa is saying Sutlej is flowing westward. Ok? So that’s the claim. So do we have any evidence that Sutlej had turned west before 12200 BCE ok? Do we have any evidence? And again 3rd one the grand Sarasvati of Rigveda do we have evidence that it possible appears to be before 12200 BCE are you following what we are doing? Ok. Alright. So let’s look at some Sarasvati evidence. This is paper of Peter Clift from Abadin, now he is actually in US and I’m going to meet with him.2012 paper, wonderful paper. Now what they did is this. So this is where river Sarasvati is beginning here in the mountains and then going all the way to the sea. The area that they did the grill course, like you know you go down and sample of 40-50 meters or whatever depth you want to go and then you analyze those sections and I’ll show you just an illustration of that. The area that is covered there is now in Pakistan.
So the downstream to river Sarasvati and what they found, see this is how the core samples will look like. And you can analyze that, I’m not going to get into details and make you experts in Geology, but essentially, quickly, what this area, what this analysis area, analysis of the core is telling us is that Yamuna possibly had separated from river Sarasvati as far back as 50,000 BCE. How do they do that? quickly, again, we are lucky here, which is that each of these rivers seems to have their signatures based on the type of crystals they bring, you know, going back millions of years and where they originated and so on. I won’t go into the details. So, trust that, this paper is worth reading, you know, and don’t feel like you don’t understand geology. If I can understand something guys, anyone of you can understand it. Ok?
There is another evidence there, but I will skip that. Now this is not just Peter Clift, this is Peter Clift 2012. But going as far back as I said, Francfort 2010, or actually, Francfort paper, that’s the error, its going back to 85, 86 possibly, and then Mary Courty and then many others and they have done the studies and the conclusion is consistent. Now, what is good think of this as a double-blind experiment. These folks has nothing to do with Mahabharata, nothing to do with Ramayana, and they are not trying to prove anything, they are not trying to disprove anything. They are doing this purely form the geology, hydrology perspective. So their evidence not because they are from the west, their evidence has the additional value because they are blind to these whole history, the Indian history. Ok,
So, Yamuna has separated. Now the second one, Singh, this is from IIT Kanpur and many universities from United Kingdom. This is hot from the press in the Nature November 2017 like, less than 3 months old. Now what they did is, they did this section, this is wonderful paper guys. In fact, I will come to the controversy or how some people, our researchers, but also newspapers spin the story. Ok? This has been spin a lot. So, what they did, they did the core sections into the upstream part of the paleo channel of river Sarasvati. And what I’m going to tell you is this one paper, the evidence that is presented in this one paper, is sufficient to corroborate my chronology for Mahabharata, my chronology for Ramayana, my chronology for Rigveda. But actually, more than 10 or 15 people sent this paper to me. Well thanks to them. I only had a copy, stating that now how are you going to explain this? The reason I’m bringing this up is because the lack of inferential acumen. Ok? You just go by the headline. The headline said counter intuitive evidence for the river based civilization in India or something like this. There is nothing counter intuitive about it, if people read our text and share narratives.
So, what they found here, very interesting, I don’t know if the people in the back can see this, but you know, this is the paleo channel of river Sarasvati, this is very interesting the split that Vinod family is interested. So this is the place that it once goes straight down and another one goes west to Pakistan. And they took the course at many places. One is here at Kalibangan, then going further north and especially here, which is the paleo channel of Sutlej that brought the water in the past to Sarasvati. This is Kalibangan, the paleo channel is as wide as the like, 10-11 km and what they did is they took the cross sections across. They need 5, Ok, now you can do 10, that’s great, the more, merrier. You know better resolution. So this is the cross by the way, 8 kms that’s the length and the yellow line that you see is the current Ghaggar-Hakra River. Now what is that telling us? They are telling us some phenomenal stuff. These are the course going down to like, 40 meters approximately. This is one, that one is the one end of that paleo channel. This is another end, ok? And then in between, the Ghaggar-Hakra River kind of flows here. Ok? They didn’t do any core into the river itself, the current small river. Quickly, I should have highlighted this further. So here, it goes also here. What this is telling you? These are the years, 23.7k etc., what it is telling you, the quick conclusion is, that grand river, where the water was flowing through this entire wide paleo channel, It stop flowing by 20000 BCE. So, quick subjective, bit relative conclusion is if you are looking at the Grand River, this is not a firm conclusion, but the grand Sarasvati of Rigveda, possibly did that described beyond 20000 BCE. Ok? Now there is sufficient evidence. I’m not going to talk about it today.
But there is a second conclusion. The Yuga folks, who want to talk about millions of years, if you go down further and continue to look where actually the water stops. We have a paleo channel. But at some point, it stops. There is no more evidence for water ever flowing there and at this height, you can go say inconsistent, there was no water, anywhere, that is, that comes to around 150,000 years, like, 1.5 lakhs, which means if you go back to that far, then there was no water here. There was no grand Sarasvati here. Now some of you might claim. May be there was another path, another paleo channel? I’m not denying that but that means somebody need to do the research, somebody need to identify that paleo channel, you know, by different things. But as far as this evidence is concerned, there was no paleo channel or grand Sarasvati more than 150,000 years. It is very important for the extreme Yuga scales that we hear. So now this is a wonderful map, against this, and Vinod ji, like what I was referring yesterday, when I said turned west. This is Sutlej coming here and this is the place Ropar, or Rupnagar and that’s where I mean Kalyanraman ji asked me to go there and actually observe. I haven’t done that. Anyone been to Ropar? Where it changes?
And so like, the people say the landscape is very obvious, how it has shifted or changed. I’ve not been there. But you know, it has taken a sharp left turn here, and that’s the one I was referring. So, here if you go here, you can actually find out how wide the Paleo channel is, depends on satellite maps and so on. And what they did? they did a core here at location SRH 5 the designate. I don’t have a picture here, that you can go to the paper. The beautiful evidence that they talk about here is that Sutlej inflow at their place coming down, stop before 13000 BCE. Now if you are paying attention to my Ramayana chronology, you should have a aaha! moment here. Ramayana is saying Sutlej was flowing western. The independent geology evidence from 2017 is telling us that Sutlej stop feeding waters down to Sarasvati coming down in 13000 BCE. So, if the dates are correct, 800 years before Ramayana and actually if you look at the errors, they are very very small, like we are talking + – 500 years, the errors on those estimates. Alright, so quickly, 13,000 years before that Sutlej turned this way, Yamuna turned more than 50,000 years somewhere there, or after that. The question now is, so in 6th million BCE where is this water? Because Mahabharata describes Sarasvati flowing with copious amount of water in many places. Where is that water coming from?
We jumped to another discipline of science. Ok? Climatology. You see I’m saying like, you solve one problem usually that should lead to additional problems, that’s what happens. So now you are happy that the river is going in different direction. Now it’s like, oh, please bring that back. What you have evidence here from 3 different studies. Ok just combined together, this is the paper by Sarkar and others, this is 2016 paper. This is evidence from the Arabian Sea in the center the evidence from the lakes, ok? In the North West region and then there is a lot of evidence including Harappa and that area. See if you can see from the distance but this bracket here 7000 BCE to like 4500 BCE. There was an intensification of monsoon in this area and then it started going down again after 4500 BCE. But this doesn’t prove that Mahabharat war happened there, all it says if you have independent claim from another discipline of science such as say, astronomy and now you also have textual descriptions of river Sarasvati flowing with lots of water. This gives you a corroborative evidence, a supportive evidence, that yes, we have a good reason to believe why the water could be there in sufficient quantities even if Sutlej was not feeding water, Yamuna was not feeding water. Now what I want to show you is, this is just a quick summary of what I showed you. Ok? Enough data to support the chronology claims of 6 millennium BCE 13 millennium BCE and timing beyond that. River Sarasvati from Rigveda, what does it has to say.
Now, before I get into the river Saraswati evidence, we have to understand the internal structure of Rigveda. Now, there are many folks here who would definitely know about the claims for the internal structure. I’m going to pull the data, I’m convinced about that data, I’ve tested in at least 7 different ways. The relative chronology presented by Shrikant Talageri, those of you who know the name, has written 3 books, all are great, but definitely read the book number 2- the Rigveda the analysis. Ok? What he has showed so I’m just instead of going into the details I’ll say he has claimed and I’m convinced of course I’m willing to be wrong and you know he has to be willing to be wrong. The oldest mandalas are 6, 3, 7 then 4, 2 so there are 10 Mandal in Rigveda they are not like 1, 2, 3 and that’s the oldest. After that 4, 2 then 5, 8, 9 then after that long gap we have 10th Mandal and there is a deliberate reason why I have aligned like this and I’ll show you in a minute. But this is correct whether the 10th Mandal matches Mahabharata and 5, 8, 9 matches Ramayana, that’s a different story but directionally they are correct as a relative chronology and the Sukthas of first mandal are all over. Ok? They go from old to new.
Now let’s get to the river Sarasvati evidence from Rigveda. All the grand descriptions of River Sarasvati giribya: samudra: Ambi, thvame Nadi thvame, or the river flowing with a great speed, you know and all those description, taking mountains and you know you describe it with the mountain, the ice looks like the lotuses and what not. That all come into 6, 3,7,4,2. And by the time you come to the last Mandal, the Nadi Suktha 10.75 they are again all those 19+ whatever rivers are listed. And if you read the descriptions, you will find that the emphasis is on the river Sindhu that appears to be grand. River Sarasvati exists but is no longer appears to be grand, it’s just one of the river. That’s therefore I put this as a relative chronology. These are, I’ll just quickly go and highlight those like here you know giribya: samudra: or Nadi thvame, Ambi Thvame Devi thvame Saraswati, this is from Rigveda. And this is the Nadi Suktha, where you have the list of all the rivers and if you go further verses 2 or 3 you will see the emphasis on the river Sindhu. Ok?
Let’s look at the genealogy evidence and we need this to check the relative chronology to bit of absolute chronology. So I’m looking here at genealogies of kings and sages. Now I know, as soon as they say genealogies you are going to think of puranas and a list of 26 kings and 36 kings, we don’t have that in Rigveda. But we are going to do with whatever we have. So, for example, the same picture, but instead of river Sarasvati evidence we are going to look at the composers listed in Anupramanik, for example. So if you take the oldest mandala 6, 3, 7 predominantly, the composers that are assigned to those are Vasishtha and Vishwamithra. And then Ram, somewhere in between and then by the time you go to the 10th Mandal, you have the 10.98, you have a mention of Shantanu and Devapi. Now, those of you who are aware great, if not, Shantanu and Devapi are brothers, I mean you see this description and who is Shantanu? Father of Bhishma. So some you who wonder how did those names went into Rigveda. So, Shantanu and Devapi are there and if anyone wonders how did they enter into Rigveda. If you go to Mahabharata, we have a reference there, you know how Veda Vyasa does describe, he expanded the Vedas. So not unusual. In fact, 10.93 or so, it also mentions Prithu, it also mentions Vena, it also mentions Rama, these are all three great kings of Ikshvaku dynasty. In fact think of it how much knowledge is lost, just to our common folks, including myself.
I mean we know reasonable amount of information about Ram, but Prithu and Vena, I mean we don’t know much someone you might be hearing first time, other times you might have just heard the names, but we don’t know much. Ok? But obviously, they must be great kings to be mentioned. Now what this does the relative chronology find when the genealogy gives you additional evidence to say that the absolute chronology also makes sense. The 6th millennium, the Mahabharata times, the 10th Mandal and so on. These are the names Prithu, Vena were and this is from Mahabharata, so Vyasa, edited, re-casted whatever is the appropriate but did something you know. That’s why he was called Vyasa and so on and then he taught his disciples. So, quick summary, The Mahabharata there, Ramayana there so, people ask me what is my chronology for Rigveda. I’m saying I don’t know how far back in the past we have to go. I don’t have answer. If anyone of you do, I’m happy to hear that. But as far as the last portion, or the last recasting, re editing, whatever you want to call it, I like to claim that it happened around the Mahabharata time, that’s 6 millennium BCE.
Alright. Oceanography evidence. Again start with the 5561 BCE as the claim for the Mahabharata war. Now let’s add to it 36 years and we get 5525 BCE. Now what is that? That is the year for the flooding and destruction of Dwaraka. Because 5561 is the claim based on astronomy, Mahabharata textual evidence says Dwaraka was flooded and destroyed 36 years after the war, so that gives us 5525 BCE and many people have asked me, so do you have any evidence for that? And what happens here is many people will find, will go to the west coast Gujarat and find from archaeological oceanography records evidence for the flood. If it’s an ocean guess what, there are going to be many records for the floods, tsunamis and so on, you can find it. But just because you find a certain flood you cannot jump and say ah! That’s Dwaraka and therefore let’s go 36 years backward and that’s Mahabharata war. The claim needs to be established and then it becomes a solid corroborative evidence. So is there a evidence for 5525 BCE So again we put the inference there 5525 BCE, the question is, is there an evidence and until we know the type of evidence, we don’t know how to test it or what kind if background knowledge. There is a lot of evidence around the world. Ok?
In fact last time I gave a talk I said I have more than 50 references, 50+ different papers, In fact that number is growing up, it’s now more, in less than 1 year its more than 100. But what I’m going to show you is 3 distinct events. Something very obvious, very clear data all around the world. So one near Caribbean here, that’s in Barbados. Another one from the Istanbul, like Turkey and then of course there has to be something from Dwaraka. Right, otherwise, what is the point of you know showing something from far away in the world. Ok, let’s look at the Barbados, that’s here, and actually this person he is alumnus with me, I went to University of Alberta for my masters chemical engineering, in fact same time he was doing his Ph.D. in Geology. So he started at Barbados but then he looked at 6 additional locations in Gulf of Mexico and a very consistent evidence. This is again frequently asked question, what people think is that, after the ice age, the ocean levels are increasing right, and increasing all the time smoothly. Those of you know that, that was happening. You can see that.
If I draw this it is a smooth increase, if I can draw a line that is true But that smooth increase is interrupted by something known as CRE, Catastrophic Rise Event. And in this case they found the evidence for 3 of those events. They call it CRE 1, 2, 3, the only one I’m going to talk about is what’s relevant to the 5525 BCE. So the evidence from the Caribbean and consistent evidence, 6 different locations, is that there was a sudden sea level rise 6.5 meters. Imagine that, 6.5 meters + – 2.5 meters and then 5600 BCE + – 100 years. So what you to check is does 5525 fall within that range. Ok, that’s location in Caribbean. Let’s come to the border of Asia and Europe, thats Istanbul. How many of you have flown over Istanbul. Very good. So, if you remember seeing the Bosporus channel you know, before you land depending on which you are coming in and take a turn and come down. I made a point to go there and actually go to the black sea you know, particular sections but they actually show the film, you know they can go underground channels and how they look. Anyways, the quick point is, this black sea was a sweet water sea. In fact it was sweet water lake.
There is sufficient evidence And when the sea levels rose what you see here is the sea of Marmara and then if you go down again sea and then goes into Mediterranean here, So this water came up and at some point it started flooding the black sea and the timing for Black sea becoming a salty water sea, the blackish sea, it didn’t happen over a long period of time. It happened essential instantaneously. Do you want to guess the timing? This is the work of Columbia geologist two of them, Ryan and Pitman 1998 and the timeline that they came up is 5550 BCE, you want to know the error? Very impressive error +/- 30-40 years, that’s very impressive 55, 50 +/- 30 40 right on that border and lets come to the west coast, this is the area of the Arabian sea, what you see is you know, this is, here Iran, this is all the UAE and all that , this area is the Iraq, ok. So there are many many studies, actually more than 40 specific studies, 40 specific studies all are showing that there was a significant sea level rise in here, look at the timing, this are before present, ok. So if you go here, this is (indistinctive) of 7, 8, 9. So this is what, 5, 6 and 7. So between like 5000-7000 BC significant sea level rise and if you want to see how significant look at the very specific chart I’m going to show you, this again for the Arabian Sea.
This is combined study of seven different studies, combined into one graph and I’m going to draw the lines to, hopefully you can see, the first two lines from the left that’s the 6th millennium BCE and you know how much was the sudden sea level rise? 15 meters; one five, sudden sea level rise and then you go to 5th millennium BCE another 8 meters. In fact what you see is the sea level rise went further than where it is today and you see evidence in the west coast by the way, ok in fact it went up like 3 meters and lot of area was flooded and after some time, in fact let’s see so after 1500 years or 2000 years, then the water started receding. So when you think of Dolavira and all those as ports and it matches up with the Harappa times and what not. Actually the explanation is right here, the water levels were actually gone up, ok? 3 meters, they stayed there up for a long time and then started coming up and those of you in the process control, you know the PI, PID type of controls, you know does the oscillations and comes to a standstill. So that’s exactly what it did, ok and what we have the labels. So that’s oceanography evidence 6th million BCE ok? We are almost done but not completely.
Look at the seismology evidence, earthquake type of evidence again for the near Dwaraka 6th millennium BCE. This is the graph that shows recent earth quakes by recent I mean for last 2000 years , ok I will not read the dates and how many of you have heard Mul-Dwaraka a place called Mul-Dwaraka, not the Bet-Dwaraka , not where the current Krishna Mandir is , many of you know, who doesn’t know? Who hasn’t heard until now the Mul-Dwaraka, Ok very good! Google is our friend, if you go to google start typing Mul-Dwaraka, before even you going to finish, it’s going to say Gujarat India and then you go there, just south of Somnath, there is a place called Mul-Dwaraka, I’m showing the ocean is not in the ocean, its straight on the sea shore, just south of Somnath and what I’m conjecturing is that is the proxy for the original Dwaraka, which is of course under the Ocean. Those of you who might have read Graham Hancock or watch his film documentary, he describes an island I mean shows an island based on Glaenmill, Im working with Glaenmill now, OK. Describes the geology, you know sea level rise and the island disappears during the 6th millennium BCE, OK, and so he has made a same claim. So our location of Mil-Dwaraka, Bet Dwaraka is here, the current Dwaraka what we consider ok.
Now this is 2000 years but let’s go back, the first evidence for earth quake, a serious earth quake, we get around 8000 BCE, now that could be a potential one for destruction of Dwaraka, now there are folks who claim Mahabharata war happening around 800-900 BC by the way , like we have those. So just for that reason I’m also going to show you what was happening on the oceanography side, when the earth quake happened. So here, that first star there 800 BCE, that is represented here, this big star, so what do you see? Actually the water is going down, at least just from the oceanography level, there is another record around 200 BCE if you look at where there is that happening, the water is also going down. I am not making any strong conjectures from this, but I leave it for you to guess .There is small (indistinctive) there and the water is going down and bingo! There is one more earth quake record 5540 BCE+/- 130 BCE and where was that? Of course you know where it is, ok that’s in a huge surge in the water level. This is work of Rajendran, from Trivandrum, now he is at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, ok the seismologist.
Alright so I’m just summarising these, these different studies that I showed you and that leads us to flooding and destruction of Dwaraka, quickly genetic evidence, I’m not going to connect it with Mahabharata and Ramayana and if it comes to the question answer, actually I do have a conspiracy theory kind of genetic evidence but I would love to share it by the way, if it get into question and answer but you know that will lead to more speculation, you know well see how that goes. So I’m not going to share it here but quickly in the context of Aryan invasion and all that, if you look at the gene flow on the mother side, so to say matrilineal gene flow, we hear lots of these thing coming in guys; the picture, these are not pictures drawn by any Indians or these are pictures are of the Google or Wikipedia for example. The matrilineal gene flow, genetic research based on X chromosome what you see is the initial in flow from Africa, now we are going to stick with this theory but I want to mention that there is sufficient evidence emerging from all over the world that possibly Africa is not the only source for human origin, there could be multiple origins but for now, we are going to stick with this because I don’t have a graph of … and not enough data. So once it came in, now we are talking 60,000 80,000 years ago, 100,000years ago after that it’s going out in all directions, multiple times.
If you look at the patrilineal gene flow, so called gene flow from the father side, ok ? This is based on Y chromosome, not very easy to see, will draw it. Here you see African gene, patrilineal gene coming here but the you try to follow any graph, you know this pink, this blue and this light blue, they are all going out from India in all directions , going back 70,000 80,000. So if I can quickly plot them against this so called Aryan invasion nonsense here, what you see this antiquity going back 100,000 or so , so the initial African migration let’s say coming to India 80,000 years ago 100,000 years ago but after that it’s all out and people will tell you there is no evidence for outward migration. There is sufficient evidence for outwards migration, in genetics ok. Now all the way outward migration the last line is 1991 when I went to Canada, ok that there and of course there are some in flows like Shaka, Huna, 2000 years ago or so or Islamic invasion about 1000 years and so on so we can find of course in history but if you take the blood sample gene sample, you will also find it, you can find the variation where they came from, now in this so called AIT zone, I did not show anything in fact nothing exist there right now but that is when you know this whole the newspaper, the Hindu, there is a non-Hindu nonsense starts , any time a new paper on genetics come out ok , and I have given a, one time rebuttal to Tony Joseph and you can read that on myind.net but you know you get tired of it and you know he gets paid for writing that stuff , I don’t get paid for giving the rebuttal .
But what happens is this. As the advances in genetics takes place the resolution, the resolution of the gene code Haploid group is going to go up. So, at some point you may even actually see the gene flow that is coming from outside to inside. I’m revisiting right, I’m coming back to India and visiting, many people are, NRIs are migrating. So not a surprise in the past that happened, and you will also see many forms going from India to outside. Once the resolution goes up but that’s not the reason to suddenly jump and start shouting AIT and so on. Now if you are not convinced about this I quickly give you a highlight there. This little mouse, little domestic mouse, look at this, this is based on genetics. Where does it begin and where does it go? Who said India doesn’t export stuff? This is like the little mouse, some few varieties but starting from India and going in all directions and don’t miss those arrows here, you know going to America and going to Polynesia, even the Polynesian samples of the mouse, going all over. Now you know what, just look at mouse and we might smile and let it go, but what is the implication? Where does domestic mouse comes into the picture? With a settle civilization, with agriculture-based civilization and a migration of that agriculture, you know, it’s not just going to happen suddenly or navigation or commerce. So when that happens, that’s how the little mouse has gone all over and based on the genetic estimate, now remember we talked about genetics, remember genetics is a statistical science. I mean, yes, there are actual data points, but there is a lot that can go wrong, people can quickly reach wrong conclusions. So we have to be careful, but here the data is overwhelmingly supporting this picture and I’m just going to give you the estimate. The timing for this mouse migration is estimated to be 25000 years ago, 30-35, 40 thousand years ago. There are some estimates up to 3,00,000 years ago, and you know what happen, that could be true, I don’t know but people say ah! I’m going to get in trouble if I publish that and people stop. So let’s forget 300k for now, but 25-35k and what is it? That means there was, I mean this is the evidence for a potential agriculture in India in that times, not only that but the agriculture migrating, the technology transfer happening from India, just this little mouse, can show you that, if you know how to read it.
Alright, now people… but people are not convinced. I know you are convinced. But people are not convinced, now this is alright, Mahabharata in 6th millennium, Ramayana in 12th millennium, Rigveda before that but how come nothing happening in between? So I am going to show you what is happening in between and well stop. I’m going to pull the data from little small book called Surya-siddhantha, and the work I am going to present, most of it is by a former ISRO scientist name Anil Narayanan, a wonderful person, I communicate with him all the time. He is based in Washington DC. What he showed, the based on…, Surya-siddhantha is a very cryptic book, it is not meant to be an introduction, it is meant to be a pocket book for someone who already understands everything about Astronomy. So you know it’s not very readable book.
What he showed is that we can detect in the language of Surya-siddhantha, a specific timings where updates to Surya-siddhantha were made and when do we make updates? When the calendar goes out of fact, you know because of many reasons and I won’t go into the reason. In fact, Anil Narayanan didn’t want to go into the reasons, but I spend time and I have a reason for each of those change, that’s not the subject today. He came up with at least 4 updates, but I’ll tell you why there are 5 updates. So first one is very obvious 570 CE, that’s obvious based on the updates to the latitudes, longitudes for the Nakshathras. Then there is another update around 3100 BCE, OK. It can be detected that something was made. Now remember when you update you don’t necessarily update everything, you update what needs to be updated, like if you are upgrading the house you may just do the kitchen because that needs upgrade something like that. There is another evidence for 5300 BCE, something was updated in Surya-siddhantha, when I say something, I know exactly what it is. I am just leaving it at that level and these 4 papers you can read them and there is another update around 7500 BCE and when we thought that was the end of it, myself and another researcher based in Gandhidham, Roopa Bhatti, we discovered another update in Surya-siddhantha and that goes to 12000 BCE.
So Surya-Siddhantha that simple small book, you know that many western Indologist simply claim that may be 15 year old, it captures the data that go back to at least 14000 years, because we don’t know what else is hiding in it. So if I plot those now, now do you think it’s filled now? At least someone was there updating it, if the other thing doesn’t exist. But you know, you can go back to as much as you want guys. I mean there is no limit to it. For example, a Satapatha Brahmin, and we have a Satapatha Brahmin expert here. You know Aparna, her work was on Satapath Brahmin or Yajurveda Brahmin. So Prag jyothisha na chavanthe. You know, Kritikas do not deviate from the east, and Shankar Balakrishna Deekshith’s interpretation based on that he estimated 3000 BCE. But I want to add something, I mean this was also at the time when we have this notion and still the notion exist that the Rigveda samhithas first, and then Brahamanas then Aranyakas, Upanishads and so on. You don’t have to necessarily go that way. Also this Prag jyothisha na chavanthe, the Kritikas rising due east is a repeatable phenomenon. So just like it happened in 3000 BCE, I just want to give you food for thought, actually it also happened around in 14000 BCE, 14900 or so, and it does have additional evidence. I won’t go there, but it comes into the Mahabharata evidence.
Take the story of Trishanku for example. So Trishanku has to be before Ram, ok. Many royal generation before Ram and at the time of Trishanku, the story appear in Mahabharata, the story appears in Ramayana, story appears in many other Puranas. You might remember the sage Viswamitra, he became angry, he created the… at least some descriptions is like that and he created a PrathishrishtI with Shravan as the main Nakshathra, Shravan as the first Nakshathra, you can explain that for 13000 BCE like 1000 years before Ramayana and the fall of Abhijith, number of you might know this, if not that is from Mahabharata, it doesn’t refer to Mahabharata times, it is an ancient phenomenon that Markandeya RishI is describing to Yudhishtira and again you can explain the whole 8 verses for the 14th – 15th millennium BCE.
My point being if you start digging into our ancient literature, start objectively testing it, it can quickly fill the timeline. So don’t feel like suddenly there is nothing between Mahabharata and Ramayana. Quickly removing the weeds, and I’m almost done. Once you have the right methodology imagine the cave which has not seen the ray of sunlight for ling time and then you happen to discover it you go inside and then you lit a candle or a torchlight, you know attached the head, how long does it take to light the cave and remove the darkness? It’s instantaneous and in fact it’s not a two-step process, all you have to do is light the candle, the darkness just goes away, you know. Alright so similarly when you look at the method that they describe the 5 step framework when you use that right framework, the establishing truthful claims and eliminating false claims is not a two-step process as much as lighting a cave and removing the darkness, it’s actually a one step process and I’m going to show you an example of this.
Again, therefore I brought this up here but how to resolve between conflicting claims. Now that is at the heart of many individuals, Neera Mishra ji is here, many others in fact at the Chennai, I ran into professor Tilak, Srinivas Tilak. He wanted to do this, he wanted to take a lead and bring various Mahabharata researchers working on astronomy, but even otherwise to bring together and how to resolve those conflicts and again if you use this scientific framework it can be done. It shows five points, there are many points about the science, for example, just out of those five I can take evidence, I plot on one axis I can take testability and plot on other axis, it gives me 4 quadrants, ok I have given them names, this is Preservation of tradition: Not a bad thing like Bhandarkar oriental critical edition. What they did is they collected all these manuscripts ok, created one edition what they thought was most appropriate but anything that did not match they did not throw it away. They just wrote it down at the bottom, for others to study. That’s a great effort, no testing, they are not interested in testing, but they are interested in preserving.
If you look at this, I call it Dharmic Assertions: you can give a different name, fearless assertions, fearless and humble assertions. Fearless because they are daring they can make a claim, humble because they are willing to be wrong , if you are there but what they are doing here is they are looking at all the evidence not leaving anything outside even that evidence that supports but that evidence that contradicts and they are all testable.
Tamasic Skepticism: what’s the problem here? First thing they are looking at arbitrary. Suppose I show with the 215 observations, 255 – 261 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war, they say what about Draupadi Vasthraharan? Where did the sarees come from? Nothing wrong with that question, but not relevant to the theory. What is the theory? All astronomy observations are actual factual visual observations of the sky, there is no scope for a saree there guys. So, it’s perfectly ok, and in fact, in the last lecture I mentioned, if you take a problem like that, actually I have, I don’t want to discuss it here again. Draupadi Vasthraharan, you can talk about it, for against that Vasthraharan, the actual, the magical Vasthraharan, there are 30+ references that goes against it, including Krishna’s own statement and many more, and just like I shared in another place, Rama’s age, whether Rama was 17 years old or 25 years old. It’s in my book. Some of you read that, right? I mean what do you think?
Like very logically we can figure out with luck and the last one superficial and manipulative claims: in some sense you may think it’s unfortunate, but it’s not unfortunate. I will tell you why. So If you take all the 130 claims and split them into this 4 quadrants, they kind of fall like this – 95% claims fall into the superficial and manipulative claims, and now when I say that, people think its personal, is nothing personal. My definition is very simple. Its superficial because they are looking at only selective and arbitrary evidence. Let’s say you plot all the data points, in X and Y axis you close your eyes and draw multiple lines, doesn’t matter where you draw the lines, by chance there is a very high probability, the line will go through few data points and you say bingo! That’s my correlation. What about the other data points? Maybe it’s not a line, maybe it’s a cat that you have to draw, with all the dots you know, that’s what it is.
The manipulative part because little evidence, arbitrary or selective that they test, they do test it in objective fashion, ok? Sometimes the inference is wrong, but they do test it. So people think it’s all scientific. Anyone can use the word scientific. Now why this is not necessarily a bad thing? I mean Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about it. He says, if your work is original or revolutionary, you know it’s not defined by nobody else made a claim of that kind but in fact multiple claim exist and they are contradictory, that’s a revolutionary work.
Now quickly (indistinctive) and others two of course, what happens or what can be done or what type of pre-work that needs to happen for many Mahabharata researchers to come together and hash this out. This is based on a scientific criterion. So what we can do is before actually discussing anything here we may make a list, in fact I have made a list so the criterion is year proposed, of course we just want to know, want to know this for information, it’s not like good or bad or anything , just tell us what year you think 5561 BCE, the question you are asking is are you making any a prior assumptions , and ideal is that you don’t make any a priori assumptions.
One of the very common a priori assumption is what 3102 BCE is the timing of Kaliyuga. Kaliyuga is also the timing of Mahabharata, ok? Yes, that’s true but Mahabharata text says nothing about those two statements. Let’s not make a priori assumption, we can bring in afterwards but if we are deciding Mahabharata, Mahabharata has to be the primary evidence. If you are deciding the timing of Ramayana, Ramayana has to be the primary evidence. Now then again sticking to one discipline of science, what I mean is, at any given point you should stick to one discipline of science, once you establish, then you can go multi-disciplinary and see what happens. What about clear statement of a Theory? I told you my statement, what you will find is, I mean, number of you know many other researchers and this is not about me v/s them or anything like this. Try to ask them what is your theory? Can you describe what is your theory and please let share those answers with me, you will be amazed what answers you get or answer that you don’t get, then all the evidence listed? Many people talk about a 150 observation, then 120 but they don’t list those observations. OK, I claim 215 ones. They are in the back of my book, I also send those as files, whoever ask for it and the detail, exactly where they occur in the paper. Theory leads to objective testing? Yes/No. Auxiliary hypothesis, again that’s not good or bad but you have to explain it.
Then the consistency of the theory and you know people may answer whatever way they like. For example, now if I have to answer this question, how do you think I’m going to answer for my theory? Like this, perfect match right? But you know Karl Popper said if you are not critical of your own theory then someone else will. So better be yourself actually look through that, ok? But you know this there for everyone to question it, you know that’s the whole idea and I’m going to quickly give you a summary as analysed by me, ok, for some 1 2 3 4 5 6, 6 additional researchers and the way I selected this and by the way, you are taking pictures. That’s great, but if you want a PowerPoint I’m very happy. I don’t know what other people think. In fact you can take my power point, go to the front page, change it to your name and start talking about it, ok, I’m very happy. So this is my analysis and you know, now again back to this. If I am doing this analysis, if it is being recorded and if somebody does to me the other way, I will get in action, I tell you that.
I will talk to those people, I say here is why I think it’s wrong and so on and so forth, that is my hope, that is my desire and therefore I selected only those individuals who are around, with the exception of Mohan Guptaji. I mean I know him, but I couldn’t find his email for a long time and Ashok Bhatnagar jI again you have it. I have communicated personally with each one of those researchers and 50 others, you know like, Anand Sharan for example. I have not listed Anand Sharan for different reason but look at the priori assumption based on very specific thing, again I am just showing it to you. Now this is before even the evidence is analysed. Now if you do a similar analysis after the evidence is analysed, ok, is the theory been falsified? Is there a non-testable observation, is there a theory claim evidence blah blah blah? You can read the list and here are my answers you know. Sorry here is the desired criteria and here is my answer, ok so you see that one red in the Yes, which is the desired thing for non-testable observations is NO, but for my claim it is yes. When I wrote that, and I published it, somebody said Nilesh you are too modest, you know that’s not true, it’s not yes, it should be no. I said no, no there is out of 215 one small observation. He said no, no that doesn’t make sense. Then I told him that I said it’s a bait, you go fishing you put a small bait, you know I am hoping one of the researcher comes and says oh! I got you, there you know and then hopefully we can open the discussion. So it’s a bait, remember that. Alright. if I analyse this, after the analysis, this is my analysis. My analysis of the other researchers, I mean it’s open for criticism, its open for questioning but Neeraja again my point is something like this, the pre-work needs to happen before folks come together to discuss this.
Quickly last one, in case of Ramayana, I am taking just two claims, the reason is the other claim that is most popular is of late Pushkar Bhatnagarji the 5114 BCE, number of you may know this, just quick interesting fun, I have selected 5 specific Ramayana events. They are in the first column there and then the Valmiki Ramayana description, again this is all open to criticism. So Valmiki Ramayana description for Rama janma is the Sharad season. Many people don’t even know that. Rama leaves for vanavasa again Sharad season. Rama – Khara yudha is the Shishir season. Bali Vadha, many of you would know that it’s the beginning of the rainy season, right? Because then Rama says I am going to wait outside Kishkindha for 4 months. So many people know that and the last one Hanuman in Lanka, again sort of a disputable, many people don’t know that it’s the Vasant season. This is the Valmiki Ramayana description.
Now let’s look at the Puskar Bhatnkarji’s assumptions for those things. This is from his book, published in 2000 or somewhere around there. He is no more unfortunately, you know, but what is happened is, there are many many individuals who are running away with this claim, for example Saroj BalajI is one, then DK Hari. I don’t know if he made it to your conference from Chennai. He also sticks with 5114 BCE and there are many others, ok and if you saw on Twitter like all kinds of things going on before, I’m not following Twitter these days since I was travelling. Now this is Bhatnkar ji’s assumption for the season against that quickly you can go into highlight and actual Bhatnkar ji’s proposal what I want to quickly show you is this.
Bhatnkar ji is assuming something that is not what is said in Valmiki Ramayana, that is, step one. But then you actually go to Bhatnkar ji’s date and what you find? Valmiki Ramayana says Sharad, Bhatnkar ji thinks its Vasant season, but the actual date that he shows is the peak of Shishir season, are you with me? Sharad season what is Valmiki Ramayana says is again peak of winter. Valmiki Ramayana for Khara-Rama yudha thinks its Shishir season. Bhatnkar ji agrees with Valmiki Ramayana descriptions, but when he shows the date it is the end of Sharad season. Are you following what is happening? Again, beginning of rainy season. Bhatnkar ji agrees with it, but the date he shows is the peak of Vasant season. There is a whole Grishma Rithu in between and the rainy season. If you look at the last one Vasant season and Bhatnkar ji thinks it’s the end of Sharad, beginning of Hemant season, based on his book and then actual dates he shows is the peak of Sharad season. Against that you can look at my claims. Don’t take my word for it just because I write in the bracket. You can go and check it very easily and so Sharad season – Sharad season, Shishir – Shishir, this is what beginning of rainy season- beginning of rainy season and look here so if it doesn’t match I will write as is, it says Vasant season and what I could find for my date, is late Vasant/ early Grishma. So, if you have any problem with it, I’ll accept it. You know there is some variation but goes with it.
Alright, time for questions and objections. Alright.