There are numerous problems with the AV Or Arundhati Vasistha observation. To read a full critique of this, please look here:
Those who wish to attend a session of the lecture series by Dr Manish Pandit on dating of the Mahabharata, get Dr Narahari Achar’s book on the Mahabharata free and come to know how to critically evaluate the data… please contact Dr Pandit and attend his talks. He is distributing Dr Achar’s book free of cost.
Apparently Shri Oak calculated his AV observation with an older ephemeris and the newer ephemeris shows the AV observation to be from 10,248 BC to 4636 BC. This piece of new information does not change the fact that his the original hypothesis is erroneous. You may ask why. Read further and enlighten yourselves.
But for those who wonder what the entire problem is about, let’s go deeper into the issue of AV:
Now for the basic flaw in the original Arundhati Vasistha hypothesis:
Q1: What is an omen? Does the so called AV observation occur in the omens section?
A: By definition, an omen occurs when there is a change in celestial position. It is a temporary observation, which was not there before and then happens and is no more. AND YES, AV observation occurs in the minor list of omens part of the Mahabharata.
Q2: When did the change between Arundhati and Vasistha’s positions occur?
A: The change in her behavior occurs in 11091 BCE. That means that for 6000 years, Arundhati is following Vasistha. Can this be an omen, which by definition is a transient phenomenon? So can MBH occur in 5561 BCE?
Q3: WHEN (which period) therefore would Arundhati Vasistha observation count as an omen?
A: Check the diagram.
It’s in 11091BCE when one can say that AV observation changes… and that’s when the change triggers an omen. NOT in 4508 BCE, when the change is in the opposite direction and certainly not in 5561 BCE. In 5561 BCE, she is still leading Vasishtha, but the amount by which she leads is decreasing. For some five thousand and five hundred years, Arundhati is leading Vasistha, not following. It is also between 4508BCE and 1000BCE where such an observation is away from the norm (as in this period Vasistha Mizar leads Alcor Arundhati) and that is the place when the Arundhati Vasistha phenomenon counts as an omen. Hence war occurred in 3067BCE.
The mistake made by the researchers in 5561BCE is as simple as that.
Q4: Does Oak’s observation of a new ephemeris vs old ephemeris bear any merit?
A: The point that a new ephemeris shifts Oak’s observation makes no difference to the fact that the original hypothesis is erroneous. Whether Oak finds that his ephemeris was old or new is not the argument and hence is of no use. The fact is simple, it is only in 11091 BCE that the change is triggered, either THAT or a point between 4636BCE and present is triggered is the point where the Arundhati Vasistha observation would count as an omen.
Q5: What does this mean for followers of science?
A: We should accept that the modified Arundhati Vasistha theory means that the war can only take place between 4508BCE and 1000BCE as that is the place when the Arundhati Vasistha phenomenon counts as an omen. Hence war occurred in 3067BCE.