Year Of The Mahabharata War: Reestablishing The Tradition of 'Vada' - 2 | Nilesh Oak | Manish Pandit

Vada is the discussion of two different claims or positions, based on the evidence and logic, without deviation from the established tenets of Nyaya-darshana (science of reasoning/logic). Bhagavan Krishna describes genuine debate as ‘वाद: प्रवदतामहम् i.e. Philosophical discussion to discern the truth as the manifestation of the Bhagavan.
There are multiple claims for the year of the Mahabharata War. Shri Nilesh Nilkanth Oak claims 5561 BCE while Dr. Manish Pandit claims 3067 BCE, for the year of the Mahabharata War. They make these claims based on internal astronomy evidence of the Mahabharata text.
It will be for the audience to listen to both positions and use their knowledge of the scientific method and logical reasoning to ascertain which of the two claims (5561 BCE or 3067 BCE) they consider closer to the truth
Round 1 - • Year Of The Mahabharat...
About Speaker: -
Nilesh Oak is an author, researcher, speaker, and corporate consultant. He holds BS, MS in Chemical Engineering and executive MBA. He has published 3 books and writes extensively on ancient Indian history. Nilesh helps Indians become aware of the deep antiquity of Indian civilization so that they truly comprehend, present or defend the grand narrative of India unlike most other Indic researchers because he builds it through scientific acumen and logical reasoning.
Dr Manish Pandit is a practising doctor and filmmaker who has made close to 40 films including well known investigative documentaries on politics and religion. He holds a double FRCS in General Surgery and ENT with a Masters from King’s college in Nuclear Medicine. He was the first to make the scientific assertion that “Krishna existed as a historical person” and propagate it through the medium of film. He has authored a book on Krishnamurti Jyotish and is a Jyotish Visharad apart from publishing and presenting.
Subscribe to our KZbin channels:
KZbin English: / sangamtalks
KZbin Hindi: / sangamhindi
Follow Sangam Talk on social media :
Telegram : t.me/sangamtalks
Twitter: / sangamtalks
Facebook: / sangamtalks
Instagram: / sangamtalks
Website: www.sangamtalks.org
Donate: www.sangamtalks.org/donate

[@usc4405]

Nilesh Oak ji is an Old Soul. I love his Smile. Much Respect.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@NileshOak]

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@usc4405]

@@NileshOak 🙏🏻

[@usc4405]

@Mi Jo Yes.His work no less than a wonder.👍🏻

[@pintubhavana]

Yup

[@scooby990]

Coincidence with Dr Pandit, I was in Wolverhampton aged 4 since 1966 to 1987. I am reviewing these challenges for the second time and all three of these discussions are absolutely 💯 fascinating. My body is telling me go to bed but my inner souls is telling me to listen and try and understand. I have to attend office in the morning and it is already 2am. W O W Nileash ji , you were amazing in your presentation. It seems the other team could not figure out the effects of the precession/orbit/wobble of our home planet. You were too easy on Dr Pandit probably out of some level of respect that at least he was standing there to challenge you. All the best to you both.

[@NileshOak]

Folks, Pick up a copy of Sage Gotama's Nyayadarshana. Go to Book 5 (chapter 1 and chapter 2). Note down specific instances of Vitanda, Hetvabhasa (fallacies), Chhala (quibble), Jati (futilities), and Nigrahasthana (Points of DEFEAT). Cheers!

[@Endangereds]

waiting for the 3rd sir. :)

[@pratham5719]

@@Endangereds waiting? Nilesh oak already got destroyed in this round 🤣🤣🤣 same goes with manish pandit both have done blunders both have failed 🤣🤣🤣😇😇😇

[@Endangereds]

@@pratham5719 Imbecile.

[@vsn1333]

@@pratham5719 bro ur also here nice to see u namaste 🙏🙏

[@pratham5719]

@@vsn1333 😉😉😉

[@KP_Oz]

Such a beautiful debate, between two highly knowledgeable and respectful scholars. Respect to you both!🙏🏼

[@jeevanraya]

I would heartfully thank both Sri NNO and Dr.Pandit sir, However,i would like to see how each one try to refute or explain about the conflicting points in their theory raised by the other ,bcz some points are really serious like for eg: 1) the problem of full moons in Sri Oak's theory , 2) the conflicting assertions by prof Achar regarding the hemant ritu......because these questions can clearly make or break a theory. At last,the discussion between u both regarding the comet observation was very exciting, looking forward to such discussion ,where the questions raised by one party is directly answered by the other.🙏🏻

[@neetasaus]

I am a Geologist and my years of training between evidence and avoidance of it, is a very fine art and easily gets camouflaged when presented to the less knowledgeable. Still Dr. Pandit seems tentative while Dr. Nilesh Oak is very confident of his understanding of the evidences presented. I'd score 2-0 in favour of Dr. Oak.

[@vishwajeetagrawal5923]

Dr. Oak is applying logics of science in humanities. Why should there be a universal theory like all astronomical references are real observations. Dr. Pandit's logic of separating comets from planets, separating real observations to analogies and separating nimitta looks more rationale.

[@madcircle7311]

what skymap does DrOak use

[@choudhurysaheb8326]

You are a geologist from where ?

[@12440jayjay]

Excellent! all of them including the organizers deserve kudos! In past I have interacted with Nilesh and Dr. N. Achar. I have regards for their dedication. As for Dr Manish Pandit, who is a physician, I admire his talent to deal with complex issues of non medical science. A great presentation!

[@prashanthmotadoo6084]

Great debate and I love the fact that finally we are getting back to our tradition of Vada. I have to admit Nilesh is more convincing than Manish Pandit in this debate. Again it goes back to whether one has a theory or not. Manish doesn't have a theory and does pick and choose what suits is narrative. Nilesh on the other hand says all observations are astronomical observations and whatever doesn't suit his narrative he points them out. Even if 5561 BCE may not be correct date but it has most(not all) of the astronomical observations going in its favour.

[@KKpandita88]

And nilesh oak has said himself that his predicted timeline is not 100% accurate but it is most likely to be accurate

[@NileshOak]

@@KKpandita88 Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that my predicted timeline is not 100% accurate. What I have said is that my claim of 5561 BCE is the best claim among all existing claims for the year of the Mahabharata War. This can be verified/critiqued/challenged based on the principles of scientific acumen, the logic of scientific method, logical reasoning, Vapti-Jnana, philosophy of science, Shad-darshanas.

[@KKpandita88]

@@NileshOak sorry and thanks sir. I have seen your own video in which you said that your claim is 'most likely'. And you said that if anyone can come with more profounding claim with better proofs than yours, you will accept it. I am supporting your timeline sir. My point was that you are not arrogant about your claim being final and 100% accurate.

[@NileshOak]

@@KKpandita88 Thank you. I try my best to be particular about the words I use. Even then, dogma/illogical crowd either twists my word or create Strawmen and then fight to claim victory. That is why I commented. I did sense your intent but did not want someone else to start quoting that first sentence of yours as if I said it somewhere. Of course, those who make fake stuff can make these too. Thanks again.

[@NileshOak]

@@KKpandita88 Yes, I did say what you just said. More likely vs less likely and that I am always open to someone coming up with a better claim. Not just I am open to it, but if someone comes with a better claim, I will give at least one 90 min talk on that claim and why it is better and how it leads to further growth of knowledge, etc. at Sangam Talks. -- Now watch the fun. Folks with comprehension issues will come and start saying I don't believe in my claim! :)

[@ToobMee]

Looking eagerly for this debate to happen. Both are stalwarts and it is such a treat to hear from both.

[@pintubhavana]

Both are not stalwalks.only one is syalwalk. Manish pandit is british crook on church payroll.

[@indiancoder8301]

@@pintubhavana actually Ramayan was before Mahabharat so even if 3067 is proved 4004 then how will Ramayan be proved before 4004 though I seem to align with 5061

[@shivashankar4016]

Most awaited video, iam just relaxing.

[@vikramrazdan5680]

Nilesh Oak's approach is scientific and he has based his premises from ‘astronomical evidence’ as per verses in the Mahabharata. Manish Pandit approach is quasi-scientific since he is interpreting his own meaning ‘without a reference’ from verses in Mahabharata (eg. Comets, days to live for Bhishma) to suit his narrative.

[@piyushshukla3812]

Hmmm

[@Odin_Borson]

But major blunder in oak's theory is this full moon on multiple consecutive days, also upma given to humans is taken as an astronomical event

[@G-Man01]

What you are accusing Manish Pandit of is exactly what Manish Pandit is accusing Oak of. Pandit has stated in a separate video that Oak has misinterpreted more than 50 words in Sanskrit and taken them to be literal in meaning when they are not.

[@mayureshponkshe9325]

Shri Nilesh Oak ..he's taken it in right spirit with right astronomical evidences... great work Sir. 👏

[@pawanmandekar6785]

Oak sir seems closer to exact dates . He has not only taken 300+ astronomical observations , but also has multi-disciplinary evidences.

[@Rahul-ys3yh]

Oak says 300+ astronomical observations, but couldn't list at least 10. Dr Pandit has arrived at the date closer to the one that has been proposed by Sriman Madhvacharya.

[@Yogi_The_Bitter_Truth_2408]

@@Rahul-ys3yh Pandit is denying that there are no astronomical evidences and the scriptures are refering to the faces of humans 16:16. I mean what nonsense. Nileshji Wins here.

[@venkatrao3514]

I Do have any knowledge on mahabharat still enjoy the discussion questions comments the way it's been shown in this video. Thanks to educate us.

[@chary23pr]

The way I see it, Dr.Oak seems to have got answer for every question and Dr. Pandit is being a bit careful. While Dr. Oak is challenging the very basis of 3067 BCE, Dr. Pandit focusses on a few aspects of 5561 evidence and seems to ignore the rest of it. If 5561 has to be disproved, it has to be done by falsifying majority (if not all) of 5561 BCE evidence. Nevertheless, appreciate both for agreeing to debate. Waiting for third round.

[@arjunkulkarni4164]

What a great discussion by two bright minds...I loved it...waiting for round 3...keep the good work..

[@aroonakalita8892]

Love you both simply because your discussion is proof that Mahabharat is true part of earth historical events

[@ranveerchoudhary6407]

Excellent debate 👌👌👌 In My view Mr Nilesh oak has more logic and facts to proof thier argument than Mr Manish pandit. Both are genius and admirable.

[@jeevanraya]

I haven't decided a side right now,but I just can't imagine how Sri Oak would feel,when others refute his life's work on Vashistha-Arundathi as it was just a passing comment,or an omen or nimmittha. I wish more strength to you sir..

[@NileshOak]

I smile every time someone talks of AV as either an omen or nimitta or a past observation. The comment has no effect on me (other than me smiling to myself), on Vyasas or the Mahabharata. The joke is on them who make such comments. It shows how little they know of Mahabharata text, how they have not bothered to do Purva-Paksha of Mahabharata evidence include AV observation, how they lack scientific acumen, logical reasoning, Vyapti-Jnana and utter ignorance of Philosophy of science, Nyaya-darshana and more. It is also fun to see everyone trying their best to discredit AV observation, its inference, its objective testability and of course DrNO. Do you know why? Because when these folks are alone and the Truth dawns on them, away from the limelight, they know the truth of AV observation and 5561 BCE. That is precisely the reason folks with claims from 800 BCE, 1200 BCE, 1400 BCE, 1600 BCE, 1900 BCE, 2300 BCE, 2500 BCE, 3000 BCE, 3500 BCE, all are obsessed with the removal of AV observation by hook or crook. I smile to myself, again.

[@mr.greengold8236]

@@NileshOak But Nilesh Ji the context matters. The AV had been happening for thousands of years before Vyasa mentioned it. Why suddenly mention it as though an anamoly when it was happening already for thousands of years?

[@NileshOak]

@@mr.greengold8236 Thank you. Indeed. The context is the king and the context matters. AV observation is mentioned because it was true (as described) at the time of the Mahabharata war. This is true of all additional 300+ astronomy observations of the Mahabharata text. None of them are unique and were occurring for 1000s of years if not millions of years. They become significant only as part of the jigsaw + crossword puzzle of Vyasa in his method of documenting the dating of Mahabharata in an ingenious fashion. Ditto for Ramayana (500+) astronomy evidence.

[@RAMESHT1976]

Great discussion. Salute to both Gurus and organisers. We would greatly benefit both scholars working together and coming out with a joint paper or presentation after reaching a consensus. I see great merit in both view points. Public debates can only widen the gap. The outcome has far reaching significance for Indian history in general and far bigger than deciding who is right or wrong here. I am saddened to see division of line between supporters of both authors in comments and social media in general. There are few other authors who challenge both speakers on multiple data points and assumptions. It would be a great contribution to India if all of them put aside their differences and ego and really solve the puzzle than justifying positions already taken by individuals or team of researchers. Thank you again for an enlightening discussion.

[@satishdandekar4790]

I would like both Nilesh & Dr Pandit ......prepare a presentation module and spread this dialogue ....wide into University and High School ......it will enlighten many ! Hari Om

[@myke_770]

i will go with dr. Nilesh oak because his theory is supported by 90 % of the astromincal observation out of 300+. u cant ignore or say any of the astromincal observation in MBH as symbolic or nimitta unless u r the writer of that text or u contemporary to that event. also other supporting and corroborative evidence are also neccesory which nilesh oak has presented but not manish pandit ji

[@hindurebel]

Oak's theory doesnt support Krishna's travel as messenger and Balram's pilgrimage.

[@pratham5719]

Where do u got this 90 percent astronomy observations they are mostly analogies

[@pratham5719]

@@hindurebel yup neither the verse samvatsaro sthiyenancho cha graho prjvalita vubhav vishakhao samipasthao brahaspati shanishchiro Here jupiter and Saturn should be near vishakaha "near" But they are two nakshatras away from each other and Oak claims it as a satiafactory corrabartion.

[@pritamgolatkar8862]

@@hindurebel so for 2 events we ignore rest 300+ that match in order. Excellent.

[@montuedge]

I think these kind of debates should be shown in schools too

[@sreevasudevanme4266]

Fantastic Nileshji.. nearing to truth..

[@manojjadhav7518]

Waiting

[@MrShrikumar]

I agree with nilesh oak's theory for simple reason of arundhati vasishta explanation because it is the only dual planets which fixes the timeline

[@ompihoo3449]

Oak sir time line is doing well

[@pratham5719]

Me seeing notification for round 2 between nilesh oak and manish pandit Me- 😆😆😆😇😇🤯🤯🤯😁 yeeeeee (After seeing premiers in 7 days) Me-☹️☹️☹️☹️

[@shamanthg7566]

Can you direct me to the link of round 1 please?

[@shamanthg7566]

@Notspecial Itsok thank you

[@Endangereds]

@@shamanthg7566 Part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2PHnmVqmq6MeZI

[@pratham5719]

@Mi Jo yeah 😊😊😊

[@ToobMee]

Fabulous discussion! I am just in great admiration for both arguments. With so much desired to be unequivocally substantiated on either sides it would be not a trivial task to takes sides with anyone. But respect both theories and the scholarly discussion. One feeling I come out after all this is the definite occurrence of Mahabharat and that in itself is a great revelation! Amazing indeed.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Please go through dr pandit's blog www.astronomyofindia.wordpress.com Hare Krishna Prabhu ji.

[@dibeshshrestha8934]

I respect both sirs for this. I feel the later sir is explaining like the blind man describing an elephant. Explaining the date line of based on war nights and ignoring other references.

[@riteshkaushik]

I am at best a novice at this but even without understanding found it fascinating. Looking outside astronomy and more archeology - what dates have been proposed for the under water Dwarka that was discovered? I wonder which date is that closer to and also climate change - which dates the sea rose?

[@Jasminiumauriculatum]

I have huge respect for both, and was very much delighted to see them dive deep into research to bring out beautiful truths . One thing I noticed, and that made me sad was that this "vaada" (वाद) was developing the elements of Vitanda (वितण्डा) at points. According to the tradition of Vaada, it becomes futile when the participants, just to win, start calling each other bad names {the foolish/fraudulent terms went beyond the मर्यादा on such a respected stage of वाद tradition} and then the debate is no longer वाद but वितण्डा . The biggest problem of Hinduism today is that all its warriors are fighting a lone fight today- and as if it is not tragic enough that they are fighting lonely, they are fighting enemies and fighting each others too...All are limited in their own circles.. Whereas it would have been great to see such researchers coming together to work towards the greater good, it was very disappointing to see them blame each other of fradulence- that was the least expected on such a stage ! This makes the entire effort of establishing the Mahabharata as Historical go into danger as- { इसने उसकी गलतियां गिनाईं, उसने उसको धोखेबाज सिद्ध किया- and the 95% audience is not well versed in Jyotish/Sanskrit or astronomy so they can not even verify their claims and totally depend upon what they say to be taken as truth ! So what may many interpret out of this is that none is right or credible ! And anti hindu forces might take these clippings as well to selectively show where each one's weak point is to do the so called "debunking" of Mahabharata being historical.....And making this whole research a joke ! I pray to Bhagvaan that we all come together to join hands and research to find out the truths eg. the true timeline of our Shri Krishna and Shri Rama. Both are great scholars and are respectable for us as Acharyas who have devoted their life in the Anusandhan of Sanatan dharma. In that sense both are great, more great than most of us here judging them and passing comments. That way, none is wrong or fraudulent, and it is easy to get misguided in research due to the complex nature of our Shastras, terse aphorisms and most of the literature having been lost. So may be the scholars don't agree on many terms, but certainly they are not fraud or foolish.... And Off course however tempted we are, we're no one to take the role of judge until we seriously take up the deep study of these fields and invest decades of our lives into it like they have done! . Thank you Sangam Talks, to bring these gems of Acharyas and their videos to us! Hari om ! संघे शक्ति कलियुगे ☺️

[@AshishYadav-gz3jq]

Jai shree Krishna

[@ompihoo3449]

Waiting for 3rd round

[@ak3549]

both r great intellect ....great debate .... hope they dnt watch Arnab Goswami debate...,🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@sureshparikhful]

This is a brilliant debate, and both are to be congratulated. Problem: different conclusions are arrived at based on Astronomy (as understood in the West today) evidence. Dispute revolves around: is this an astronomy statement or a descriptive phrase (poetic licence: your face is like the full moon); does the observation or statement in the text refer to a planet, comet or something else; which eclipse occurred when; and so on. My point is that scholars should take each subset and arrive at a general consensus and then show where that consensus leads us to, and whether such an exercise was fruitful or a dead end.

[@NileshOak]

Thanks. Many claimants don't want to do this (scholars should take each subset and arrive at a general consensus and then show where that consensus leads us to, and whether such an exercise was fruitful or a dead end), because that would mean end of their game! So their strategy is to confuse the masses (unconsciously drenched in apriori date, more or less fixed in their mind, based on what they grew up hearing) with a confusing set of tools (word trickery, dogma, faith, tradition, quoting some religious individual who is revered - of contemporary or ancient variety) to preserve their agenda. With time, we can only hope that what you desired to have happened will happen. This was my preliminary attempt in this direction. There are easily 40+ different living individuals with a specific year as a claim for the year of the Mahabharata War yet they dare not participate in an open debate such as this. Indian academia and government organizations are busy, for the most part anyway, in a lazy way of life and do not contribute or encourage any of such efforts. So those who participate (as you see here) are on their own to do their own things with their own time, money and resources. Vent off.

[@mahabaleshwarnbhat122]

Wonderful analysis

[@Satyam0701]

Crossfire is so cool.... Humble.... Learning...n.. Lesson

[@agastya8999]

Nilesh Oak's side was Winning today... Two places that Other guy was beaten badly.. Bhishma Nirvana & Balaram Teertha I mean it's very simple how can't he understand It..? Even I can.😌😌🙏.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Both places Prabhuji Nilesh ji lost completely. He confused Dr Achar's pilgrimage and war timeline with Dr Pandit's war and pilgrimage timeline. Simple question Agastya ji Prabhuji: Whats the 18th day of the war in terms of Moon position at a fixed star? What is the reference? What is that day in 5561BC and what is that day in 3067BC?

[@agastya8999]

@@suhasinidasi3126 Are you Pandit Sir's PA? Or something Close friend? You always come here Battling for him.. You haven't understood the Basic concept on "What their Theory is? " Pandit is taking observations as his CONVINCE .... Once he says they're not astronomy just Nimitta.. Once he says no they're astronomy... Suddenly he quotes Varahmihira who was 5000+ yrs LATER than Mahabharata War.. Pandit is a total mess Do you even understand the Bhishma Nirvana??? How Pandit fell so badly on it??? And do you even saw how the seasons and dates are NOT MATCHING in 3067 ??? Or just because you're from ISKCON what Shri Loknath Swami Prabhuji said in his lectures you're believing that itself??? Watch 11:05 how self contradictory claims!!! Hare Krishna Hare Rama 🙏🚩

[@pratham5719]

Well really do u think like that was manish pandit dancing or cracking some joke when he completely destroyed nilesh oak on moon phases and adhikmasa and non corabaration of war timeline balaramas piligramge and late moon rise on 14th day of war if he cannot corrabarate this that means and that is final that his claim of 5561 bce falls apart and same goes with manish pandit he wasn't able to answer the changes in dates he made both 3067 bc and 5561 bc OUT!!!

[@agastya8999]

@@pratham5719 Pandit has just picked up 12 observations and He doesn't even Describe about Arundhati Vaishishtha Observations.. Also the seasons DON'T CORRESPOND with his dates given.. He puts Varahmihira who was 5000 yrs later than Mahabharata into his theory He doesn't even have a CLEAR CUT statement for his Theory as Nilesh Oak's theory has .. He's just cherry picking up whatever he likes and suits his background other He discards as Nimitta ... Oak has backed his theory not just by Astronomy but also Geology Hydrology Climatology Oceanography Seismology Botanical references Genealogy and many different evidences from different fields of Science You haven't watched his videos previously and About Ramayana Dating he's just unchallenged by any other Researcher it's that Precise His work on Saraswati River is also unbeatable that kind of research he has done And this Pandit is just another folk from all others.. Who doesn't have any other evidences from other fields of Science Just started to research in this filed since last 15 yrs.. Nilesh Oak has Dated Ramayana and Mahabharata also Rigveda mandalas since last 25 yrs

[@suhasinidasi3126]

@@agastya8999 Hare Krishna. Just like you come battling for Prabhuji Nileshji just like I used to do so too for him many years ago at ISKCON, I now come and talk in favour of Prabhuji Dr Pandit because he is able to answer all the questions. After checking all dr pandit's videos I can safely say that he has understood Mahabharat much better than all of you combined. Balarama's pilgrimage is corroborated in 3067BC and so is the war timeline with the Moon phase. In fact it is Prabhuji Nilesh ji who has fallen down very badly on all three points. Bhisma Nirvan is badly messed up in 5561BC. Hare Krishna.

[@shashank5665]

8:25, 10:00, 11:05 what a self contradictory assumptions! I can't believe it.

[@NileshOak]

Thank you for noticing. Most others are in the gaga and lalaland.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. There is a confusion about Dr Pandit and Dr Achar's theories. The first proves the pilgrimage and the last does not. Prabhuji Dr pandit said in the first part of the debate that he fixes the 18th day of the war with Balaram's return. Hare Krishna.

[@NileshOak]

There is indeed much confusion about Dr. Pandit and Dr. Achar's theories, as admitted by HG Suhasini Devi Prabhu. It will require a book or series of books and will serve as a good demonstration of what not to do. For now, I will make an illustrative list of issues and the cause for confusion. 1. There is not a single observation - astronomy or otherwise, that can decisively determine the timing of Mahabharata war anywhere near 3000 BCE, in fact nowhere in the interval 3000 BCE +/- 1000 years (4000 BCE - 2000 BCE) 2. There is sufficient evidence (multiple, running into 50 to 100 pieces of evidence) that decisively puts Mahabharata war before 4500 BCE. 3. Prof. KS Raghavan used the assumption of the beginning of KaliYuga in 3102 BCE and then claimed a timing for the birth year of Krishna and then claimed 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War. 4. Any decent researcher with basic knowledge of Mahabharata and astronomy ought to know the falsity of the claim of 3067 BCE 5. Instead, Prof. Achar claimed that he had verified the claim of KS Raghavan and that validates 3067 BCE. Here begins the first confusion: When it is crystal clear how Prof. KS Raghavan arrived at 3067 BCE, what confused Prof. Achar who keeps on claiming that the determination of 3067 BCE has nothing to do with the beginning of Kali Yuga in 3067 BCE. 6. Ditto as in #5 for Dr. Manish Pandit. -- Folks, if you pick a number between 7 and 100, I will write those many confusing things about the theories of Dr. Manish Pandit and Prof. Narahari Achar, by editing this comment. Cheers!

[@suhasinidasi3126]

@@NileshOak Hare Krishna. Prabhuji, Nilesh ji, you have already confused many things. There is indeed much confusion about your theory, as admitted by many people including you. Many books and in fact a series of books have been written on 5561BC and are serving as a good demonstration of what not to do in Mahabharata research. For now, I will make an illustrative list of issues and the cause for confusion. 1. There is not a single definite observation - astronomy or otherwise, that can decisively determine the timing of Mahabharata war anywhere near 5000 BCE, in fact nowhere in the interval 5000 BCE +/- 1000 years (6000 BCE - 4000 BCE) 2. There is sufficient evidence (multiple, running into 50 to 100 pieces of evidence) that decisively puts Mahabharata war after 3500 BCE. 3. PV Vartak used the assumption of Halley's Comet and then claimed 5561BCE as the year of Mahabharata War. 4. Any decent researcher with basic knowledge of Mahabharata and astronomy ought to know the falsity of the claim of 5561BCE 5. Instead, Prabhuji Prof. Oak claimed that he had verified the claim of Prabhuji PV Vartak and that validates 5561BCE. Here begins the first confusion: When it is crystal clear how Prabhuji PV Vartak ji arrived at 5561 BCE, what confused Prabhuji Prof. Oak ji who keeps on claiming that the determination of 5561 BCE has nothing to do with periodicity of Halleys comet? -- Writing many confusing things about the theories of Dr. Manish Pandit and Prof. Narahari Achar, does nothing at all to disprove their theories. Hare Krishna.

[@NileshOak]

@@suhasinidasi3126 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKnYXnqtYrFqa80

[@NETKINGSHUBHO]

I agree with Nilesh sir

[@dollylee5855]

Just love to see they coming to the real time with proof

[@rajeshuniyal1140]

Multi disciplinary evidences are important to prove any theory. And mahabharata text references should be taken as first hand evidences than other things. So I think Nilesh Oak has done some systematic research.

[@moonwalkerindia4919]

The Morden Shastrath.. and if feel very fortunate that I get to watch it 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@indiancoder8301]

Yes let anyone be correct we will never know who is perfect and both have done immense research which must be acknowledged and we can't also sent the possibility of any one of those 300+ observations taken wrong so no one can be 100%sure but 5561 seems better

[@xyzchannel86]

Oak sir is very near to accurate timeline

[@madcircle7311]

Could someone tell me what spet of skymap DrOak uses for his research?

[@enjoyparents]

Love ur TARKA.

[@prakashparanjape150]

You need to have a moderator for this debate. It lacks a sense of purpose without one.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Here it was especially important to pick up that Prabhuji Nilesh ji confused Balaram's pilgrimage of Dr Achar with Balarama's pilgrimage of Dr Pandit. He gets the Moon phases of the entire year wrong too, that was the only thing I picked up the last time around.

[@NileshOak]

@Mi Jo Seniority is through intellect, Tapasya, expertise, Samyak-Jnana, ardent attachment to the truth, and expertise in Nyayya, Mahabharata, philosophy of science and more. Otherwise: थोर लहान बुद्धीपासी सगट कळे ना लोकांसी आधी उपजले तयासी थोर म्हणती -(Samartha Ramadasa Swami)

[@NileshOak]

@Mi Jo This is very true, i.e. a warm body is not better than nobody. Ability to moderate is not most difficult yet to achieve such skills takes Tapasya but a certain attitude - Satya, Samyak-Jnana, Tapasya to do background and pre-work before the debate and being assertive. Also a good knowledge of Nyaya, decent knowledge of subject matter and good facilitation skills.

[@ghanshyamsarda4402]

superb

[@ankurdesai1120]

Modern way shashtrath, wah maja aa gaya. On to 3rd part 😀

[@vikramnalawade626]

Whoever is right At least it is clear that Mahabharata war occured and is historic event

[@indianfromsouth7756]

Why don't you guys release such premiers on Saturday and Sundays?

[@pratham5719]

Yeah they are releasing it on Tuseday wonder why 🤣🤣🤣

[@daruiraikage]

You can always watch them whenever you like though

[@Arun-mh7br]

Please initiate, Saraswati river revival project. It can be done and help connecting western India to central and northern India. River interconnect project was under Sir Nitin Gadkari ji.

[@dariusmotmavilin3666]

Pandit bases his argument almost completely on moon phases. I have been studying the planetary movement for sometime and can tell you with almost certainty that the earth orbital plain has shifted to the current plane around the sun between the last 15000-7000 years. Pluto's current orbital plain synced earth's so as to give a clear site until a swarm of celestial events redid earths position. If the swarm of events were to occur within a very short period it is quite possible to have witnessed multiple full moons and no moons as well as a sun which does not set for a few days. Earth catastrophe is not a slow moving event, its short intense spans. From rapid freezing of mammoth to almost instant surge in sea levels are all based such events.

[@varunnrao3276]

What exactly are the details of Balarama's pilgrimage.

[@montuedge]

Nice research by Manish pandit Ji too

[@lakshyabhardwaj8003]

500th like, they should be more

[@indianfromsouth7756]

Nilesh ji some doubts Many thanks to both the researchers for their wonderful work. Your claim is Pandit ji cannot use Varahamihra and Brihat Samhita Hora Sashtra for explaining astrological or more correctly astronomical evidences. If that is so then there is no liberty for you also to take scientific evidence or the triangular theory or any other resources except Mahabharata itself. Even if it boils down to that of taking only Mahabharata there are enough astrological evidences that is easily reproduced for 3067 BCE over 5561 BCE. Please enlighten me on the points I have misunderstood or less understood. Thank you 🙏🙏🙏

[@NileshOak]

Study Nyaya-Darshana + Mahabharata + works of Sir Karl Popper.

[@NileshOak]

You may also watch my recent talk - Chai Pe Chintan, Liverpool, UK, when it comes out kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ-am4WEl69seJY

[@indianfromsouth7756]

@@NileshOak Many thanks Shri Nilesh ji. Cannot thank enough for your contributions 🙏🙏

[@NileshOak]

I did not say that Manish can not use Varahamihira's text or Parashara Hora Shastra. He can use anything he wants, yet before he does that he has to state the universal and generic statement of his theory. He has not understood what it means and keeps on throwing multiple statements claiming they are the statements of his theory (or theories). The statement of a theory determines what evidence will be used and what background knowledge will be employed. Thus theory provides the constraints on evidence, background knowledge and reasoning/Hetu that will be employed in testing of a claim. The confusion is so deep, it is beyond the scope of KZbin comment or even youtube debate. That is why it is critical that Indians or Mahabharata enthusiasts take up to study of Mahabharata, Nyaya, logic, Scientific acumen, scientific method in large numbers.

[@indianfromsouth7756]

@@NileshOak Sure sir, Thank you very much for such detailed explanations and answers to even silly and simple doubts like mine. Sure will try to understand the principles that have been put forth. 🙏🙏

[@ks20234]

Very wonderful debate, need of the hour of having more such so that certain truths about our past are clearly established. But for a novice, this went very fast. I would want them to have a 1 hour each clear presentation of their point of views and then they can have vada. While Nileshji's presentation is very erudite, logical, he made one statement in part 1 towards the end, which I dont consider logical - he said that the tithis +/- 4 or 5 to full moon are full, similarly 3-4 tithis around new moon look like new moon. That is not right and doesnt make sense. Our ancients who gave such copious astronomical references, we are probably the only civilization that has tithi in our astronomical repertoire, we understand very well which tithi it is. Secondly he must respect the jyotish persepective. I believe Manishji knows Jyotish very well. So in our tradition there is very clear understanding of the planetary positions at birth of Sri Krishna. Can Nileshji give an alternative date for Sri Krishna's birth, in line with the 5561 BCE date.

[@ela86jeevan]

Is the discussion over?

[@dilbhai2904]

Sir, can someone explain logic that being wrong by 60 days puts one off by 60*72 years. ( At approx 6:45 to 7:00 in video)

[@mr.greengold8236]

Precession of eqinox takes 26000 years for 360 degrees. So approx 1 degree takes 72 years. As Sun approximately moves 1 degree per day, 60 days means 60 degrees means 60*72 years.

[@aryandhikle8901]

Nilesh sir is there any chance that Mahabharata war could have happened some 3 to 4 thousand years more older/back than 5561 BCE based on repetition of same stars and flooding of Dwarka in 9th milenium BCE ?

[@NileshOak]

No. However, if you feel some deep conviction inside, you should work on it. Do read my works in detail, multiple times and watch all 100+ presentations and read 500+ blogs so as not to waste your valuable energy on this and rather focus it on many unsolved problems of Indian civilization.

[@montuedge]

@15:48 that's how you conclude, sadhu sadhu

[@dacsaab5352]

If Ramayan is 12000 years ago.. And mahabharat 6000 years ago, Then arnt we in the end of kaliyuga? Because precession of equinoxes is around 25000. Arent we gonna stop facing the polaris as the pole star anytime soon and enter satyuga.

[@NileshOak]

@@srt-fw8nh The concept of Yuga was always there but as I have shown multiple meanings and multiple contexts. The rest of your summary is correct. NileshOak.wordpress.com

[@bhuvanc4992]

This ending of Kaliyuga was Sri Yukteswar Maharaj's assertion too

[@pintubhavana]

Nilesh jee aapka bahut dhanyawad.main aapke sare video dekhata aa raha hoon from bharat rakdhak forum days. A small request .willl u please take an effort in creating an online desi hindu astronomy course for us indians. So that these white men or theor sepoys can not take us desi indians for aride and fool us.thanks.

[@NileshOak]

Very much in works. It begins with the first course on 'Introduction to Indian calendar'. Coming soon.

[@pintubhavana]

Thank u so much for replying.eagrly waiting for your course. May god bless you in all your efforts.

[@ravindrashevade]

Why the possibilty that the people writing this, may have confused the planetary and other positions while describing the events is not considered. They obviously did not have access to compute positions over a few thousand years' span. So there have to be corroborative evindence based on other disciplines such as archealogy, lingustics etc. Also there is matter of placing this within timelines of other ancient literature.

[@selvaraj-rs4sg]

What about Aryabhatta's statement about Mahabharatha timeline ??

[@sg04f]

What was Aryabhatta's statement?

[@ranapratapsingh3416]

Cherry picking data points in Mahabhaarata will not help. We need to explain all the data points. Like that statement 😀

[@himanidasnandy808]

When is the current Kali yug ending sir?

[@swagkingitachi9311]

Tomorrow

[@Zenvinu]

@@swagkingitachi9311 😂 lol

[@spica-perspicacious-observer]

Can the Mahabharata be approached with a question. The rice weevils are a human dependent species and originated from below the Himalayas. From this I assume that origin of agriculture is from India. All the action in Mahabharata happens on the Gangetic plains. Now could there be a connection of agriculture to Mahabharata ? And consequently to the war?

[@mytube12]

I disagree Ok you can disagree Wow, nice debate

[@Sunny-rh6ik]

💪🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩💪🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩💪🚩

[@nibiruresearch]

The ancient Indian scriptures describe a high tech ancient civilization that could fly, used beam weapons, nuclear weapons and they used a kind of internet. That highly educated and skilled civilization disappeared 20,000 years ago. How can I be sure? Because civilizations come and go in a cycle of seven. As is described in the Mahabharata and ancient books from other peoples. The cause of this cycle is a planet that approaches our sun and its planets every few thousand years. To learn much more about the cycle of civilizations and recurring floods, ancient high tech and aliens, read the e-book: "what I know about Nibiru". You can read it nicely on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Just search for: know Nibiru

[@Ramarao-dq8mf]

A pictorial lecture would be better for us. It looks experts explaining to experts.....who is an expert.who confused and confuses ordinary people more.hihi Gentlemen sit ,discuss, give a final and unbiased explanation. We are planning for Mahabharata 2 kurushetra war 2. Hihi Second gentlemen is not very clear.... He seems to be confusing to prove his points...

[@chidunarayanan]

I see that Dr. Pandit is not able to admit that their theory (not stated clearly) is falsifiable. This is the key point. You have a theory, then you need to make a prediction with this theory and then see if that prediction is true. If this prediction turns out to be false, then it should mean that the theory is strictly speaking false (or weakly speaking needs improvement). Other way to look at is, what do we gain by the theory MBH3067? If it is clarification of history, then it should predict something else (historical event) that was not clear until now - and this should be verifiable - otherwise the theory is not needed. As far as I see, the only statement that they are making is 'MBH war happened in 3067 BCE'. How to use this statement as a theory? What new happening does it predict?

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Prabhuji, The biggest advantage of Dr Pandit's theory is that he proves that tradition was correct and in line with Prabhu Krishna and Prabhu Balram's appearance according to Bhaktivedantka tradition. But in fact, he is correct about many things beyond perhaps what even he knows and showed.

[@chidunarayanan]

@@suhasinidasi3126 Namaskaram. How would the Bhaktivedanta tradition be affected if the date is not 3067? What if the date is sometime different? How does that affect the path propounded by Shri Prabhupada and his illustrious sampradaya starting with Shri Chaitanya? My point was about falsification of a theory. It would help the cause of MBHW3067 if it is used to predict something. As Shri Oak says the scientific method is not a Western concept and was already well described by authors of Nyayasutras, etc.

[@ssekhar8660]

@@chidunarayanan , The idea of falsifybility of a scientific theory is in the context of it's testabilty & is meant to separate science from pseudoscience. In this backdrop theories of both are astronomy based & assumed to be testifiable through Astronomical Simulation apps. In that sense, you can call those theories as scientific. Now first question is for a year to be reckoned as the year of MBH, it need to have an adhikamasa. Whether 5561BC has any adhikamasha? I will be glad to know it. Second question is, whether MBH war can commence on Amabashya? You go through the verses of 14th night moonphase. You will find, waning moon rises in eastern horizon late at night. It would be impossible if war commences on an Amabashya date. Check it in any astronomical app. This is basic astronomy brother. Now, you decide for yourself whether 5561BC suceed? These two are just vital cursory test.🤗🙏

[@chidunarayanan]

@@ssekhar8660 I am not vouching for MBHW5561 as I have not read the book carefully enough. Neither can I vouch for MHBW3067. Even you are falling prey to the same fallacy. You have chosen 2 data points as the 'most important' and are fitting the date according to that. What Mr. Oak is asking is to state your 'hypothesis/theory' in clear terms.

[@ssekhar8660]

@@chidunarayanan , Same here brother. I am just of traditional view with practical approach & follows "NETI" niti. Being a traditionalist, I am of the view, per our Sankalpa mantra that Mhb happened somewhere around kali 3102BC, Idea of which is deduced from our ancient astronomical treaties, corroborated by inscriptional evidence. What, I meant to illusidate is that approch of both Manishji & Nilesh ji, being based on mostly archaeo astronomy, we can call it scientific. If one is obsessed to call it a scientific theory, so be it & for same, It is not necessarily required to give any statement of theory, when it is apparently clear. Now, as I have said earlier Falsifybility nature of a Scientific theory is in the context of it's testability to separate science from pseudoscience. Whether Manishji ever said the mbh astronomical timeline datas & evidences as per his theory, are not testable? As such, your comment on him is misconcieved. Have you gone through his Tripushya theory & explanations on vital timelines including moonphase & verified in astronomical apps? If so did you find any inconsistency in them? If not done so, don't pass any comment. I am not saying, his MBH timeline is correct though feel same to be plausible having more approximate value in comparison to MBH timeline of 5561BC, because though all these astronomical apps are admirable but still are simulation only & for past antiquity, can give only approximate value. If not so, why then Oak ji, still expect the assumed acclipse as per his timeline, which as per apps are visible only in Antartica, might actually be visible from Kurukhsetra. Regarding your view that I have given only two points as vital, I would say this space is not sufficient. For detais you can see their debates in all social media. BTW, to check whether your broth or dishes are properly cooked or not, you test the sample or test the whole?

[@KasDlonewolf]

As with most Doctors or Academics, as with Ravana himself, Dr. Pandit is becoming a cauldron of ahankaar infront of our very eyes. Poor chap.

[@sriramr2437]

Shri Nilesh Oak wins hands down. Nothing to take away from Mr. Pandit for his yeoman research work but his justifications for not agreeing to Nilesh's work seems weak.

[@AdityaPavan]

I'm surprised that the guy like Nilesh would use harsh language in a professional debate. He is putting words in the mouth of Dr. Pandit without letting him answer and would never like to answer Dr. Pandit's questions unless it's a agree/disagree question. In the West, this is considered as poor behavior (Specially in Dartmouth) ;)

[@sriramr2437]

Purely your perception. Nileshji was not putting words into the mouth of Mr.Pandit but was reconfirming with Mr. Pandit on his theory. Because of the low audio you must not have heard Mr.Pandit's response. Nileshji's conduct was exemplary in that he always took permission from Mr.Pandit on whether he can answer or wait for his question

[@nkmahale]

NIlesh says Manish is wrong. Manish says Nilesh is wrong. Apparently both of them right.

[@shubhamdubey9561]

We had all the knowledge about Mahabharata but due to destruction we lost all of it and now we are again finding it which will be wrong every single time because we can't connect the dots without our old written scriptures

[@tirthshah1580]

We have new knowledge with old khnowledge, so we can find the truth or at least get closer to it.

[@shubhamdubey9561]

@@tirthshah1580 but due to lack of solid evidence people will reject it and already propaganda has been spreaded

[@tirthshah1580]

@@shubhamdubey9561 Look, Christian invaders thought earth was created only in 4000 bce. So they could not think of anything older than that. But we can. What you see here is people debating and accepting. Do you know that Nilesh Oak's Ramayan date also has archaeological evidence?

[@bharathvyas997]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZ2mfGOBq8mhkKM Shivam bhai please watch this video.This is about Aihole Inscriptions written by court poet of the King Pulakeshi-II in Badami the capital of Chalukyas in the present day Karnataka.Please watch the video from 11:00 to 12:00.Here it is clearly described Mahabharata War date to be 3735 BCE in the year 635 CE.If we add 1385 with 3735 we can arrive the Kaliyuga to be around 5120 BCE a very close date to Nilesh Oaks argument.

[@ssekhar8660]

@@bharathvyas997 , Vai Arithmetic to thik karlo. Inscription, 3735 from MBH,( BC nehi) aur jo ki 634 CE b tha, usi samay mey, likha gaya. To fir Inscription likha gaya 3735-634CE= 3101 BC mey. Naki 5120 BC. Han apko 5120 BC aur 5561 BC Karib lagta hai. Usishey apka Arithmetic gyan ke barey mey pata chalta hai.🤗

[@chandak9]

Nilesh Sir proved his point far convincingly than Pandit sir in this Vada. He blasted Acharya's conflicting statement about his book and paper about Hemanth Rithu about Krishna's Peace mission. Panditji's theory showed Balarama came after three days after the war and the mistake of Dec 8 for 14th day of war and layman can work out as Dec 5. Nilesh ji Proved that Kaliyuga was taken the base for predicting Mahabarata which is absurd. Arjuna and Krishna were made of the same age and in fact, Arjuna was 65 as per evidence from Mahabarata. Pandit ji theory also failed to explain Balramji's departure and arrival. Panditji wasn't sure of Adhika Masa. Analogies can be made seeing the moon or as it is close to Poonam, possibly people mistook as it is close to Poonam and this fact was not considered by Panditji. Panditji mixed up Astronomy with Astrology to prove his theory which Nileshji bombarded him. Pluto would be invisible to naked eyes but not on Astronomical calculations, comet theory was not convincing when Nilesh ji Argued. The solar eclipse was visible from Antarctica and errors are possible which Panditji agreed. Yudhishthira is pacifying Bhishma saying a few days for a man who has lived 100s of years nothing wrong viewers see. Nilesh ji took Astronomical data into consideration whereas Pandit ji changed into something else when it doesn't fit into his data. Thanks for the debate Hats off to both but in my point of view Nilesh ji convincingly proved that Mahabaratat was in 5561 BC.

[@yogeshroy9913]

Obviously idiots would be convinced. Mahabharata clearly says the peace mission occurred at end of Sharad & beginning of Hima (Hemanta) while your Oak has taken it as monsoon. Nobody confuses about full for seven days. Pluto was discovered in 1930s. No ancient Indian text ever mentioned it. The comets are described in Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita.

[@chandak9]

@@yogeshroy9913 Please watch the debate as Acharyaji told that he never mentioned Rithu and the other point they were talking about planets not pluto. Planets were there and named pluto was named recently. One may discard other planets as their names are in Hindi or Sanskrit.

[@chandak9]

@@yogeshroy9913 I agree Idiots would be convinced based on Kaliyuga date and timeline and western idealogy.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Prabhuji Dr Pandit has explained Prabhuji Balram's pilgrimage perfectly. His book on Academia provides a full set of proofs for Balram's pilgrimage. Moonphase for 5561BC, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and Pluto are completely wrong. Bhisma Prabhuji attains Prabhu Krishna's side in Magha not in Phalgun (long in 5561). Vyasa Maharaja also mixed up astrology with astronomy. Hare Krishna.

[@chandak9]

@@suhasinidasi3126 Hare Krishna. As per the dates Balaram ji comes after three days after the war.

[@chaitanyatalegaonkar8629]

Usine Varahmihir for explanation of Comet is correct.

[@Endangereds]

Part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2PHnmVqmq6MeZI

[@vivayare]

I gone through nilesh sir's many lectures I find if he don't get any point to argue. Or oppositions questions him.. he thurrally pointed out towards congress govt or secular persons and says, see who are these persons. What is this sir?.. no one opposing mahbharata Or ramayana.. we are just deciding it's period. Accept the others arguments too. We are here to know the exact truth not misrepresentation.

[@thecoolsmart9002]

cant all the geniuses in sangam have a debate to corroborative answer of the exact date of events in the history...not to prove their own ideology but to open up a new possibility to unravel our ancient history....who knows may be we will be able to find the 3 sigma to this question.....

[@surajchauhan7182]

andhvishvas ki bi ek hd hoti h or vo had in viewro ne sare hde to di ghr me geeta ka lesson ek shlok k bare me inhe ptani hoga or janne aaye h bhagvan krishn ki Mahabharat exact kis date hui or vo bi exact dava thokre h na ek sal km na jyada ghr jao yaro geeta pdo or use apne jivn me utaro or ye smjhlo li Mahabharata Ramayana hmari history h hme kisi ko koi proof dene ki jurt nhi h or pooja kr liya kro ghrme

[@tatsavitar7281]

I am standing with Manish pandit ji as Aryabhatta stands with him too. And Nilesh oak is not that close as Aryabhatta was in his time. He has written about Mahabharata date yudhishthir samvat in Aryabhattiyam. So Nilesh oak is wrong.

[@komalsirohi-ahlawat3586]

Couldn’t sit through this - one settles in to watch an intellectual debate and it’s between a sarcastic, derisive and manipulative man and an intellectual. Cheap punches and sly undercuts. Why do you even bother with him Dr Pandit?

[@vivayare]

Please invite someone like Dr M L Raja for debate.. will clear the subject.

[@srinivasshastry7497]

Mr Oak, do not propagate wrong theories... You can speak well.. but you are wrong... Dr Manish Pandit proved it...If I start explaining why, it again becomes a book.

[@sriramr2437]

Mr. Nilesh Oak clearly stated that there are 10 out of his 300 observations that do not fit in his prediction. All that Mr.Pandit does is pick the 10 already listed and counter Mr. Nilesh Oak. Basic assumption itself of Mr. Pandit is wrong. It seems Mr.Pandit decided a date and then looking for evidence all over the ancient text. Whereas Mr. Nilesh Oak presents his evidence strictly based on astronomical observations from Mahabharat and other sources are only sighted as corroborative evidence - this is the correct scientific approach

[@bharatt.v.5060]

I am yapping you listen... out of 132crores how many understand what you are saying...MARK THE TITLE.. ASTRONOMY,GRAHGYAN,...

[@ranapratapsingh3416]

Both of them point to deficiencies in each other's approach. Totally confusing. Both of them have serious deficiencies in their dates. Looks like we have to depend on other evidence from Mahabharata.

[@ak3549]

both r great intellect... great debate👍👍... Republic TV debate "India wants to know" Arnab Goswami made debate all about quarrel, fish market, hatred, and last but not least he call people to debate but he speaks all alone🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣that too entirely rubbish....

[@rohitchintamani]

It seems you ,good sir ,have an axe to grind against mr goswami... enjoy this debate on a very important aspect of our glorious past n if you find it educative and informative.... fantastic!

[@yogeshroy9913]

So both claims- of Oak & of Pandit, are false. We still don't know the correct date.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Mr Nilesh Oak has made multiple mistakes here. The last day of the war shown by Dr Pandit is 12th Dec shown clearly in the last part of the debate. So the first day of the war as per Dr Pandit is 25th November and not 22nd November. Its there in his slide in first part of debate. Second mistake: isn't the issue that Moonrise time will differ by a few hours when extrapolated back. First day of the war as per Dr Pandit is Rohini/Mrigasira and not Bharani. Third Mistake: In his workshops, Dr Pandit has shown 300 references, so all the observations were taken. Fourth mistake: Solar eclipse only seen at Antartica will never shift in 5561BCE no matter what Prabhu Nilesh Oak. Fifth mistake: The tense of the eclipses are correct. Lunar eclipse must come before Solar eclipse. Sixth mistake: Magha month mentioned clearly by Vyas Prabhuji in many verses and so how can Prabhu Nilesh Oak take Phalguna masa for Bhisma Nirvana?

[@NileshOak]

What you are saying (25 Nov - 12 December) as the new claim of Dr. Pandit is exactly what I was asking during the debate for Dr. Pandit to admit. Why did he not admit there? This means he has clearly admitted the error and blatant fraud (written evidence exists in papers of Prof. Narahari Achar + his 2014 book) and that Dr. Pandit disagrees with the timeline claim of both Prof. KS Raghavan and Prof. Narahari Achar. This would mean the time to go back and ask the question, how and why Prof. KS Raghavan arrived at 3067 BCE in the first place. And since that argument (beginning of KaliYuga) is already discarded (do you know why!!!??) by both Prof Narahari Achar and Dr. Manish Pandit, it would be only logical for them to begin from scratch. The attempt of Prof. Achar to use Udyoga 81:7 backfired as I showed in this part of the debate (BTW, Dr. Pandit was the person behind that series in Pragyata.com) In addition, Prof. Achar's invoking of Udyoga 81:7 shows 3067 BCE disagrees with Udyoga 81:7 + Prof Achar's interpretation of Kaumude = Kartika means Mahabharata War happened after 500 CE, i.e. last 1500 years! Still, having fun!? All the Best! Hare Krishna.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

@@NileshOak Hare Krishna. Didn't Dr Narahari Achar arrive at 3067BC by due consideration of Saturn and Mars at their respective positions ? In fact, your question should be the other way round. How did you arrive at 5561BC? Secondly all the other mistakes are definite mistakes on your part. Thirdly I pointed out that your Moon phases are all wrong and Dr Pandit's are correct. Finally when you ask the question about somebody else's supposed mistakes, you must first make sure that you are able to show Prabhu Balaram's Pilgrimage. You admitted yourself that you cannot show the pilgrimage and Dr Pandit can show it accurately. So you have lost the debate there itself. Go figure. Hare Krishna Prabhuji.

[@nikhilgarg4572]

@@suhasinidasi3126 well with all due respect ,for us, sh. Pandit lost the debate when he asked how varsha happening in varsha ritu is an evidence.

[@ssekhar8660]

@@suhasinidasi3126 , Bang on Madam. The question how Oak ji arrived at 5561 BC, is by copying Vartak ji ditto. For that You can see he has dittoed Vartak ji, even for his date of war, consideration of tran saturnian planets like Uranus, naptune surprisingly even pluto & many more such thinge, except he has introduced one more fallacy i.e AV epoch, which was only a Nimmita observation & is not supported by any scientist till dates. As such, am least surprised, he is confusing Achar ji's date of war as manish ji's date of war. Besides the often quoted falsifiability of a scientific theory as repeatedly mentioned by okji is in the in the context of it's testifiabilty under the assumption that it separate science from pseudo science. In this backdrop, the theory of 5561 BC on being tested fails miserably to explain the vital timelines including Moonphase of MBH. The entire verses of Mbh on 14th night of war clearly shows it was late night waning moon rising in eastern horizon. If someone fails to understand this, then it is understood that he is bluffing it out or his scientific acumen is in doldrums. Regards Madam.

[@suhasinidasi3126]

@@nikhilgarg4572 Hare Krishna. Prabhuji Nilesh Oakji has so far shown the wrong Moonphases for the entire year, the wrong war timeline, the wrong pilgrimage timeline, the wrong positions of Saturn and Mars, the wrong month of Bhisma nirvana and the wrong Mission of Peace Timeline. Can anything else be wrong in this theory? Hare Krishna.

[@surajchauhan7182]

tum jitne bhi yha comment krne ya in paglo ko dekhne me khud ko bde tagde intellectual smjh re to ladlo ak baat smjo bi or suno ye dono mahamurkh tumhe btare h ki ye ldai exact is time hui thi or koi bolra nhi is time hui thi or tum murkho ki in dono ki bate sunne me are ladlo inse ye pucho 1 hfte pehle in dono ne exact is time ky bola tha fir😂😂 chlo rehne do ghar jao gorakhpur press book ko phone milao or unse bhagvat geeta ki ek ek copy apne apne ghro me mngvao or in mndh budhiyo se palla jhado kuki ye baat smjo science or sanatan dharm ko compare mt kro tum log sanatan dharm ko science se proof krne me kbi kbi sanatan ko hi nicha dikha dete ho kuki science abi 0.00000000000008% bi sanatan k brabr nhi h isliye ghr jao dil me bhagvan krishn ko rkhke geeta pdo or mahabhart kb hui thi ye janne se acha Mahabharat ku hui thi or usse hme kya shiksha milti or geeta ki or shri krishn kitne jruri h hmare liye ye dekho vo English me thought h na ki kbi kbi hm details me itna uljh jate h ki kahani k beech ka lesson smjh ni pate (we just can't read between the lines)🙏❤

[@shambhu9004]

Dont know who is correct but Nilesh is definitely Arrogant..

[@tirthshah1580]

And he has more evidence, reasoning, and logic.

[@bharathvyas997]

Yogesh bhai emotions pe dhyan kam karo aur facts pe jyada dhyan do.....

[@suhasinidasi3126]

Hare Krishna. Prabhuji. Dr Pandit's Balaram's pilgrimage and Bhisma Nirvana is completely correct. He showed it in his workshop video many times now. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4GQnpJvr5ufbaM

[@thrinethran2885]

@@tirthshah1580Rather, his crude remarks at the opening indicates his being rattled. Use of impolite adjectives.

[@tirthshah1580]

@@thrinethran2885 Manish Pandit was looking rattled throughout his talk.

[@gouravdey497]

Prof. Manish Pandit claims sounds logical, for every instances. Whereas, Nilesh sir's dating doesn't sound logical, if u take everything, Archaeology, Literary evidence, traditional datings etc.. The Aihole inscription of Pulikeshi II, dated to Saka 556 = 634 CE, claims that 3735 years have elapsed since the Bharata battle, putting the date of Mahābhārata war at 3137 BCE. Aryabhata's date of 18 February 3102 BCE for Mahābhārata war has become widespread in Indian tradition. Some sources mark this as the disappearance of Krishna from earth. So, u can see the dating are moving around near 3000BCE. U can't place Mahabharata 5000Bc and Ramayana 14000BCE, it makes laugh of us. Archaeological we have our current data, :- Harrapan:- 3300BCE Rakhigarhi:- 6500BCE Mehrgarh:- 7000BCE Bhirrana:- 8000BCE Archeological site near the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers yielded a C14 dating of 7106 BCE to 7080 for its Neolithic levels. So, according to current datas. We cannot make such claims. And the genealogy of kings shows, Around 1000-1500 years gap between Parikshit and Mahapadmananda..

[@aps7802]

Mahabharat happened around 4000 BC. But would like to hear what these intellectuals say.

[@pratham5719]

On what basis?

[@Ramarao-dq8mf]

pl write the year with evidence.

[@indiaplus761]

Please give evidence also aihole inscription say it near 3137 bc

[@pratham5719]

@@indiaplus761 no aihole says 3162 bc or 3138 bc

[@indiaplus761]

@@pratham5719 okay but point is what oroof is 4000bc