Fact Check: The Mahabharata Debate: 3067bc vs 5561bc Part 2 (Dr Manish Pandit vs Nilesh Oak)

By Suhasini Devi dasi

Hare Krishna.

In the first part of this analysis, (Link to First part of the Analysis) 
I did a fact check on Balarama's pilgrimage: The results were that Dr Pandit did prove his two timelines war and pilgrimage correctly. I had suspected that this might have been the case but it was also possible that what Nilesh Oak was saying was true. On checking I found that Balarama's pilgrimage is proved in 3067bc and it was not proved in 5561bc. (and admitted by Nilesh Oak). This would also mean that straight away that a significant part of the debate (on Balarama's pilgrimage and Nilesh Oak's mistakenly calling it fraudulent) was won by Dr Pandit.

The proof can also be found in chapter 3 of Dr Pandit's book which he appears to have kindly allowed to download here:

https://www.academia.edu/42657451/3067BCE_Fresh_Perspective_on_the_Astronomy_of_the_Mahabharata_War

In this section I fact check a few other points:

Point 2: Adhika Masa

During the first part of the debate, Nilesh Oak says that he is able to prove Adhika Masa by the Sunnasepa methodology. Again I needed to read up on this and the answer is somewhat convoluted.
First of all, it appears that the definition of this method may vary. I found the answer on Twitter where the following video suggests that Nilesh Oak may only be partly correct. He is not able to prove an intercalated month in the year and month he desires (Oct 5561bc) but is able to do so in Oct 5560bc which is not of much use. The next point is that the Adhik mas is not provable by the normal method of 13 New Moons either.

Here is the video on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/mmpandit/status/1281570638432538625?s=20

The lack of the Adhika masa which is an ad hoc conjecture then puts Nilesh Oak's entire pre war timeline in considerable doubt. 

Point 3:  Moonphase Analogies and 14th war night Moonrise

During the  second part of the debate, Dr Pandit said that Nilesh Oak's Moonphases were completely wrong because of an Eastern sky Moonrise. This was quite a revelation. I thought the Nilesh Oak was quite right in what he was saying what he was saying initially because I had been reading his book but the first inkling that he might have gone wrong came when I realised that he had taken this 14th war night Moonrise as a conflicting observation. My heart sank and I realised that he had not taken this observation of the sky into consideration but instead had taken some smilies and metaphors of warriors earrings, canopies of chariots and faces of dead warriors with the full Moon as his references. This is not apparent on first glance when one reads his book. 

Well caught by Dr Pandit but in any case, Nilesh Oak had not taken it into consideration and made up his own references. So Nilesh Oak's war timeline is totally wrong as he got the Moonphases wrong but its a honest mistake I suppose. Anybody can make mistakes of this sort and he does say that he excludes the real Moonrise observational data from his work.  However his claim of a conjectured dust storm has been destroyed herein this video by Dr Pandit.

Conclusion: Nilesh Oak's Moonphases made up his own moon phase references. His war and pilgrimage timelines are broken. He must have excluded a large number of observations as he himself says that the Moonrise data is conflicting to his work. This means that much of his theory is unfortunately quite wrong.

Point 4: Arundhati Vasistha Observation
During the closing section of part 1 of the debate, Dr Pandit answers in an offhand manner about the Arundhati Vasistha observation and Nilesh Nilkanth Oak lets it go.
Nilesh Oak has taken the Arundhati Vasistha observation in that part of time where Arundhati leads Vasistha. This appears to be a reasonable idea per se (and I would have tended to believe Nilesh Oak's words that Dr Pandit had introduced a Omen filter) until I found out that Vyasa Maharaja had actually said that this observation was indeed a Nimitta or omen. Here is a Screengrab from the video, I could check that it was from the critical edition.

So I have had to change my opinion quite a lot on this observation, it requires deep thought showing that what Dr Pandit said was actually the truth.
I got a transliteration from a Guru of the Hare Krishna mission nearby for this verse: It shows that the Vyasa Maharaja refers to all the observations which follow as omens:

iha yuddhe mahārāja bhaviṣyati mahān kṣayaḥ yathemāni nimittāni bhayāyādyopalakṣaye || verse 16 from chapter 2
Thus the Arundhati Vasistha observation must also be an omen (Nimita) and nothing else. Now comes the deep part. I had to think for quite a while to understand the time interval in which this verse would be an omen. It would thus be an omen only in an interval when Arundhati was following Vasistha. It would only be here that Arundhati leading Vasistha would become an omen. This would imply that the time interval taken by Nilesh Oak for the dating of the Mahabharata would be strictly a no no (11000bc to 4450bc where Arundhati was already leading Vasistha) and instead we must take the time interval 4450 bc to 1000bc for the dating of the Mahabharata. Thus 5561bc cannot be the date of the war by any means.

What gives this theory real credence is a video I saw where Nilesh Oak says that Dr Pandit has introduced a Nimitta or omen filter. This means clearly that Nilesh Oak simply did not consider that such the Arundhati Vasistha observation could ever have been an omen/ or a Nimitta. This proves Dr Pandit's point.

How could Arundhati walk ahead of Vasistha?
Dr Jayasree Saranathan gives an entire theory for the same in her book making it possible for Arundhati to walk ahead of Vasistha momentarily due to a change in atmospheric refraction. There are many other reasons why this could be a possibility including a momentary reduction in visibility of Arundhati.
Thus the omen possibility is only when Arundhati is following Vasistha as the norm. (3139nc /3162bc /3067bc)
A short video I found on youtube is more easy to understand: its worth spending some time to watch this below.

Link to the 3rd part of the Analysis of the Debate