Refutation of Nilesh Oak’s dating of ancient texts

Surya Siddhanta was NOT written over 14,000 years ago (Response to questions raised by Rupa Bhaty)

In an article in IndiaFacts and two presentations [1–3], Nilesh N. Oak and Rupa Bhaty have claimed that astronomical text Sūrya Siddhānta contains information that can be dated to 12,000 BCE. I had written a refutation of this claim in April 2021 [4]. Following the publication of my article, Bhaty had raised some questions in the Bhartiyavidvatparishat email group of Indic scholars and also posted comments on the Medium.com site of my blogs. I had not responded to these emails and comments as I was busy refuting the 12209 BCE dating of Ramayana by Oak [5] and then exposing him on twitter [6]. Last year, Bhaty had reminded that I have not responded to her questions, so I am writing this article in response to her two emails and comments on my previous article.

  1. Response to email 1

Here is the first email by Bhaty in BVP email group:

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 6:44 AM rupa bhaty <rupabhaty16@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Roy,

You said, “I will begin by discussing why Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than 2,000 BCE.”, are you sure there were no multiple updates in SUrya Siddhanta itself?

You said, “1. Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa”, what has Sūrya Siddhānta to do with Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa? How do you define that Vedāṅga is older and Sūrya Siddhānta is younger? That was a completely baseless argument.

You said, “Even in ~320 BCE Greek navigator Pytheas knew that a star more than 7° away from North Celestial Pole could not be called a Pole star, but Oak and Bhaty have made Agastya (Canopus) a South Pole star in 12,000 BCE that was 12°…” Do you know the story of why Abhjit was named so or Agastya was named so, if you had then you wouldn’t have said this.

You said “If one has read Indian astronomy texts carefully, it would have been obvious that Indian astronomers were describing NCP and SCP which are theoretical points and not North Pole Star and South Pole star, which are actual stars. ”, Do you proclaim that, in Sanskrit, tārā represents the pole points and has nothing to do with the stars?

You said, “The obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated from the following equation [16]:”, “ε = 23° 26′ 21.448″ − 4680.93″ t − 1.55″ t**2 + 1999.25″ t**3 − 51.38″ t**4 − 249.67″ t**5 − 39.05″ t**6 + 7.12″ t**7 + 27.87″ t**8 + 5.79″ t**9 + 2.45″ t**10”, “where ε is obliquity and t is multiples of 10,000 Julian years from J2000.0 (year 2000 CE). Based on this equation, the obliquity was 23.62° in 580 CE, 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE. Though the formula is valid for 10,000 years from present [17] i.e. 8,000 BCE, we will assume it can be extended to 12,000 BCE.”, “So we have evidence that the obliquity was 24° according to Sūrya Siddhānta and 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE according to modern estimates. ” Do you want to say or are you proclaiming that the modern calculation methods are applicable to Sūrya Siddhānta’s obliquity?

You said, “Furthermore, Śrīvāstava also says that Sūrya Siddhānta is wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer [21]”-This is the brilliant observation made by Śhri Śrīvāstava here in his commentary on Sūrya Siddhānta saying “its wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer” which actually is not happening in our times, and not even in 500 CE, thus it suo moto explains that the text is much much older than today’s time or even from 500 CE and its all about apsidal precession. You could not even deduce evidence where it was happening during Sūrya Siddhānta’s time. So, kindly do not waste our precious time.

You said, “Does Sūrya Siddhānta say what was the speed of sun in summer and by how much it differed in winter?” — Onus is on to you to produce evidence against what you are claiming. Please read the Sūrya Siddhānta text and find it for yourself for how many types of speed are mentioned. We have given one type, Manda, that too in — winters.

1. It is a pity that you don’t even know how to deduce the obliquity with the help of sine table of Sūrya Siddhānta text, instead you are blaming SS people for the same and trying to thrash away our sages’ minute observations in the name of rounding of 23.5 to 24 deg, what Burgess had already suggested, when there are two seperate pieces of evidence available in Sūrya Siddhānta text itself- 1. with 24 deg and another with 23.xx.

2. It’s distasteful that you continued with the Burgess translations instead of looking at the apsidal evidence lying naked in front of your eyes.

Rupa

Let me respond to these comments one by one.

You said, “I will begin by discussing why Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than 2,000 BCE.”, are you sure there were no multiple updates in SUrya Siddhanta itself?

I am sure that there is no information in Sūrya Siddhānta that goes beyond 2,000 BCE. Whatever evidence Bhaty presented in her article to the contrary has been refuted in my article [4].

You said, “1. Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa”, what has Sūrya Siddhānta to do with Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa? How do you define that Vedāṅga is older and Sūrya Siddhānta is younger? That was a completely baseless argument.

This was already answered in my article [4]: “Now the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa is decidedly earlier than Sūrya Siddhānta. Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa has 5-year yugas compared to the 4.32 million years Mahāyuga system of Sūrya Siddhānta. Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa deals mainly with the motion of sun and moon, while the Sūrya Siddhānta deals with motion of planets as well. Sūrya Siddhānta is simply too advanced compared to Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa and there can be no doubt that Sūrya Siddhānta was composed much later than Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa.”

You said, “Even in ~320 BCE Greek navigator Pytheas knew that a star more than 7° away from North Celestial Pole could not be called a Pole star, but Oak and Bhaty have made Agastya (Canopus) a South Pole star in 12,000 BCE that was 12°…” Do you know the story of why Abhjit was named so or Agastya was named so, if you had then you wouldn’t have said this.

Arbitrary interpretations can not be used to deny established facts. No one will call a star 12° away from South Celestial Pole a Pole Star. More on this later in this article.

You said “If one has read Indian astronomy texts carefully, it would have been obvious that Indian astronomers were describing NCP and SCP which are theoretical points and not North Pole Star and South Pole star, which are actual stars. ”, Do you proclaim that, in Sanskrit, tārā represents the pole points and has nothing to do with the stars?

This is just nitpicking. The meanings of words depend on context.

You said, “The obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated from the following equation [16]:”, “ε = 23° 26′ 21.448″ − 4680.93″ t − 1.55″ t**2 + 1999.25″ t**3 − 51.38″ t**4 − 249.67″ t**5 − 39.05″ t**6 + 7.12″ t**7 + 27.87″ t**8 + 5.79″ t**9 + 2.45″ t**10”, “where ε is obliquity and t is multiples of 10,000 Julian years from J2000.0 (year 2000 CE). Based on this equation, the obliquity was 23.62° in 580 CE, 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE. Though the formula is valid for 10,000 years from present [17] i.e. 8,000 BCE, we will assume it can be extended to 12,000 BCE.”, “So we have evidence that the obliquity was 24° according to Sūrya Siddhānta and 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE according to modern estimates.” Do you want to say or are you proclaiming that the modern calculation methods are applicable to Sūrya Siddhānta’s obliquity?

More nitpicking. This calculation was to examine the claim that obliquity was 24° in 12,000 BCE, which was verified.

You said, “Furthermore, Śrīvāstava also says that Sūrya Siddhānta is wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer [21]”-This is the brilliant observation made by Śhri Śrīvāstava here in his commentary on Sūrya Siddhānta saying “its wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer” which actually is not happening in our times, and not even in 500 CE, thus it suo moto explains that the text is much much older than today’s time or even from 500 CE and its all about apsidal precession.

You could not even deduce evidence where it was happening during Sūrya Siddhānta’s time. So, kindly do not waste our precious time.

No, it doesn’t. I had written in the article [4]: “The key point is that seasons are not determined by how close the sun is to earth at a given point instead seasons are determined by the earth’s tilt towards the sun. Even more important point is that we know that but the authors of Sūrya Siddhānta didn’t. Instead of recognizing the error made by authors/editors of Sūrya Siddhānta, Oak and Bhaty use the erroneous observation to claim a date of 12,000 BCE for Sūrya Siddhānta when sun was nearer to earth during summer compared to today when sun is nearer to earth during winter. Even today many people believe that earth is closer to the sun during summer according to NASA [23]:”

You said, “Does Sūrya Siddhānta say what was the speed of sun in summer and by how much it differed in winter?” — Onus is on to you to produce evidence against what you are claiming. Please read the Sūrya Siddhānta text and find it for yourself for how many types of speed are mentioned. We have given one type, Manda, that too in — winters.

I had pointed out in the article that Bhaty has misinterpreted the meaning of “Manda”. I had written [4]: “Śrīvāstava also translates this verse as sun’s rays being very hot in summer due to exceeding nearness and milder in Hemanta due to being far [21]: … The translations by Burgess and Śrīvāstava are significantly different from the translation provided by Oak and Bhaty. Again, Oak and Bhaty fail to mention the accepted version and present their version as the accepted version.”

It is a pity that you don’t even know how to deduce the obliquity with the help of sine table of Sūrya Siddhānta text, instead you are blaming SS people for the same and trying to thrash away our sages’ minute observations in the name of rounding of 23.5 to 24 deg, what Burgess had already suggested, when there are two separate pieces of evidence available in Sūrya Siddhānta text itself- 1. with 24 deg and another with 23.xx.

This point was already refuted in my article [4]: “So we have evidence that the obliquity was 24° according to Sūrya Siddhānta and 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE according to modern estimates. Can we conclude that Sūrya Siddhānta was written or updated in 2,900 BCE or 12,000 BCE? Simple answer is no because the obliquity was 23.62° in 580 CE and the editors of Sūrya Siddhānta could either have rounded it to 24° or the measurements at that time were not accurate enough and the astronomers of that time measured the obliquity to be 24°. Both these possibilities must be discounted before considering the dates of 2,900 BCE or 12,000 BCE. Oak and Bhaty don’t refute either of these possibilities and insist that obliquity has to be taken as exactly 24°.”

It’s distasteful that you continued with the Burgess translations instead of looking at the apsidal evidence lying naked in front of your eyes.

This point was already address above. Here I am repeating the quote from my article [4]: “The key point is that seasons are not determined by how close the sun is to earth at a given point instead seasons are determined by the earth’s tilt towards the sun. Even more important point is that we know that but the authors of Sūrya Siddhānta didn’t. Instead of recognizing the error made by authors/editors of Sūrya Siddhānta, Oak and Bhaty use the erroneous observation to claim a date of 12,000 BCE for Sūrya Siddhānta when sun was nearer to earth during summer compared to today when sun is nearer to earth during winter. Even today many people believe that earth is closer to the sun during summer according to NASA [23]:”

Basically, Bhaty is only interested in nitpicking. My article had already addressed all her questions.

2. Response to comments posted by Bhaty on my article

Here are the comments made by Bhaty on my article at medium.com [4]:

Rupa Bhaty

4 months ago

If this is true then clearly all of the editors of Sūrya Siddhānta over this long period from 12,000 BCE to 580 CE were a bunch of idiots and not astronomers, who didn’t know how to upd…

This comment “ bunch of idiots” shows how naive you are and unaware of multiple updates in Suryasidhanta.

Narayanan (2011) showed that for determining the Sun’s longitude, the pulsating Indian epicycle is far more accurate than the Greek eccentric-epicycle model and that the pulsating Indian epicycle for the Sun becomes progressively more accurate as one goes back in time. Peak accuracy, of about 1 minute of arc, is reached around 5200 BCE.

Dr. Narayanan carried out extensive simulations by varying 1. Time (which includes proper motion),2. Ecliptic Obliquity, 3. Ecliptic Node location and 4. Vertical motion of the ecliptic. We summarize his results. Several matches were obtained in the timeframe 7300 BCE — 7800 BCE.

This has been shown to be false with the declination of Agastya (Canopus) being only -78° 14′ instead of being between -85° and -90° to be called a South Pole Star.

Kindly also show which Indian text, or Suryasiddhanta, mentions -85° and -90° criterion to name a pole star in Indian context. I shall be grateful.

Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. According to modern astronomy, at the time of perihelion, distance is 91,402,500 miles (147,098,070 km) and at the time of aphelion, distance is 94,509…

Are you hundred percent sure that 3.4% difference doesn't make any difference. You want to say that Sun w.r.t earth didn't have manda in Surya Siddhanta.

The obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated from the following equation [16]:

Are you sure that the obliquity of earth's axis can be calculated by this modern formulae (ignoring SS's sine table). What kind of investigation do you do? I am surprised.

This has been shown to be false with the declination of Agastya (Canopus) being only -78° 14′ instead of being between -85° and -90° to be called a South Pole Star.

Please wirite to all the forums including Wikipedia that Canopus cannot be designated as a polestar. I will be glad to see the changes made by them on your recommendations. I hope you understand the "Eigth directions" mentioned in the vedic texts. There is a section of southern direction too mentioned in many text and has certain degrees assigned to it.

Let me respond to these comments one by one.

If this is true then clearly all of the editors of Sūrya Siddhānta over this long period from 12,000 BCE to 580 CE were a bunch of idiots and not astronomers, who didn’t know how to upd…

This comment “ bunch of idiots” shows how naive you are and unaware of multiple updates in Suryasidhanta.

Narayanan (2011) showed that for determining the Sun’s longitude, the pulsating Indian epicycle is far more accurate than the Greek eccentric-epicycle model and that the pulsating Indian epicycle for the Sun becomes progressively more accurate as one goes back in time. Peak accuracy, of about 1 minute of arc, is reached around 5200 BCE.

Dr. Narayanan carried out extensive simulations by varying 1. Time (which includes proper motion),2. Ecliptic Obliquity, 3. Ecliptic Node location and 4. Vertical motion of the ecliptic. We summarize his results. Several matches were obtained in the timeframe 7300 BCE — 7800 BCE.

I had written in my article [4]: “In the same paper, Narayanan has dated Sūrya Siddhānta to 7300–7800 BCE based on computer simulation of Sūrya Siddhānta data. This date does not match the date of 2900 BCE from the obliquity data so Narayanan has proposed multiple updates to Sūrya Siddhānta [18]. This article is not about refuting the paper by Narayanan, so I will get back to the work by Oak and Bhaty.” Narayanan’s simulation results are flawed because he is basing his argument on latitude only without taking longitude into account. Further, he has not taken into account the various boundaries of nakshatras. Also, Narayanan didn’t claim 12000 BCE as a possibility, which is the claim I have refuted.

This has been shown to be false with the declination of Agastya (Canopus) being only -78° 14′ instead of being between -85° and -90° to be called a South Pole Star.

Kindly also show which Indian text, or Suryasiddhanta, mentions -85° and -90° criterion to name a pole star in Indian context. I shall be grateful.

Great, so I have to go look for evidence in all Indian texts for what is obvious. What is the criterion for a star to be called a Pole Star? Pole star is called “Dhruva Tārā” in Indian texts. Dhruva means fixed, so obviously the Pole Star should not be seen moving through out the night. Now let’s see how Agastya (Canopus) looked through a 24-hour period in 12000 BCE. Here are the images (Figures 1–12) every two hours as seen from Chidambaram (latitude 11° 24') in South India on 1st January, 12000 BCE (Julian).

Figures 1–12: Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Chidambaram (latitude 11° 24') on January 1, 12000 BCE (Julian), every 2 hours starting at 00:00

Here are the azimuth and altitude and of Agastya (Canopus) through the 24-hour period as seen from Chidambaram (latitude 11° 24′), Table 1:

Table 1: The position of Agastya (Canopus) in sky as seen from Chidambaram on January 1, 12000 BCE (Julian)

A star’s position in sky as seen from a point on earth is determined by azimuth and altitude. The altitude is determined by measuring the angular distance from the horizon to the star along the great circle passing through the star and the zenith. Azimuth is determined by measuring the angular distance along the horizon from the north direction going eastward. Both Azimuth and altitude vary by more than 23°. A negative value of altitude means that star is below horizon and hence not visible at that time. As seen in Table 1 above, Agastya (Canopus) is below horizon most of the time. How can anyone consider it a pole star if it is not even visible?

The situation is similar if we go further south at Madurai. Here are the images every two hours (Figures 13–24) as seen from Madurai (latitude 9° 56') in South India on 1st January, 12000 BCE (Julian).

Figures 13–24: Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Madurai (latitude 9° 56′) on January 1, 12000 BCE (Julian), every 2 hours starting at 00:00

Here are the azimuth and altitude and of Agastya (Canopus) through the 24-hour period as seen from Madurai (latitude 9° 56′), Table 2:

Table 2: The position of Agastya (Canopus) in sky as seen from Madurai on January 1, 12000 BCE (Julian)

Both Azimuth and altitude vary by more than 23°. In addition, Agastya (Canopus) is below horizon for over 18 hours in a 24-hour period. How can anyone consider it a pole star if it is not even visible?

Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. According to modern astronomy, at the time of perihelion, distance is 91,402,500 miles (147,098,070 km) and at the time of aphelion, distance is 94,509…

Are you hundred percent sure that 3.4% difference doesn't make any difference. You want to say that Sun w.r.t earth didn't have manda in Surya Siddhanta.

This is more nitpicking. It is the job of Bhaty to provide evidence as she has made the outrageous claim that Surya Siddhanta is over 14,000 years old. There is no evidence that “manda” refers to speed in the verse cited by Bhaty. It has been translated as milder (in temperature) by translators. I repeat again [4]: “Śrīvāstava also translates this verse as sun’s rays being very hot in summer due to exceeding nearness and milder in Hemanta due to being far [21]: … The translations by Burgess and Śrīvāstava are significantly different from the translation provided by Oak and Bhaty. Again, Oak and Bhaty fail to mention the accepted version and present their version as the accepted version.”

The obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated from the following equation [16]:

Are you sure that the obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated by this modern formulae (ignoring SS’s sine table). What kind of investigation do you do? I am surprised.

If Bhaty has reason to doubt modern formulae, she needs to state why? It is obvious that modern science is far more accurate than Surya Siddhanta.

This has been shown to be false with the declination of Agastya (Canopus) being only -78° 14′ instead of being between -85° and -90° to be called a South Pole Star.

Please write to all the forums including Wikipedia that Canopus cannot be designated as a polestar. I will be glad to see the changes made by them on your recommendations. I hope you understand the “Eighth directions” mentioned in the vedic texts. There is a section of southern direction too mentioned in many text and has certain degrees assigned to it.

No one who watches sky will designate a star 12° away from celestial pole as Pole Star. It is common sense that Pole Star has to look fixed in the sky, which a star 12° away from celestial pole will never do. It will be seen rotating around celestial pole during the night. I have shown it above with the position of Agastya (Canopus) over a 24-hour period in 12000 BCE.

3. Response to email 2

Here is the second email by Bhaty in BVP email group:

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:35 AM rupa bhaty <rupabhaty16@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mister Raja Ram Mohan Roy,

Kindly refute the articles which is your favorite timepass, and have patience for I will also refute yours. BTW you have not yet answered the criteria you sought of the polestar being called as a polestar from any Indic scriptures. As you follow my blogs ardently you might know which blog I am referring to.

Refer to https://rupabhaty16.medium.com/chinese-still-remember-the-old-man-of-the-south-pole-20f2a88115b1

Regards

Rupa Bhaty

This point has already been elaborated above by showing that Agastya (Canopus) could not be a pole star in 12000 BCE as it was below horizon most of the time from anywhere in India. Contrast this with the statement of Bhaty in her article on IndiaFacts [7]:

In nutshell, after evaluating the empirical evidence and by testing them, it was found that the latitude of Chidambaram was the threshold from where Agastya became invisible while navigating due north away from this latitude when Canopus was at its highest declination, very near to the south celestial pole being a pole star. This astronomical event happened during 11000BCE- 13000BCE. Below Chidambaram latitudes Canopus was always visible. This is tested via computational simulation.

I wonder what computational simulation Bhaty has done to make the statement “Below Chidambaram latitudes Canopus was always visible.” I have shown this statement to be false with images obtained using Stellarium software. As Canopus was 12° away from South Celestial Pole (SCP), it was making a circle with 12° radius around SCP over a 24-hour period. Thus, as seen from Chidambaram (latitude 11° 24'), it was on horizon for a brief period and then went as far as nearly 24° below horizon (See Table 1). As seen from Chidambaram on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian), Canopus rose at 4:15 (see Figure 25) when its altitude became positive and set at 6:13 when its altitude became negative (see Figure 26). It was above horizon for less than two hours. How can it be Pole Star then?

Figure 25: The rising of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Chidambaram on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)
Figure 26: The setting of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Chidambaram on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)

Going further south, as seen from Madurai (latitude 9° 56'), Canopus rose at 2:59 when its altitude became positive (see Figure 27) and set at 7:21 when its altitude became negative (see Figure 28). It was above horizon for less than four and half hours. How can it be Pole Star then?

Figure 27: The rising of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Madurai on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)
Figure 28: The setting of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Madurai on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)

Going to southern most city of India, as seen from Kanyakumari (latitude 8° 5'), Canopus rose at 2:06 when its altitude became positive (see Figure 29) and set at 8:21 when its altitude became negative (see Figure 30). It was above horizon for six hours and 15 minutes only. How can it be Pole Star then?

Figure 29: The rising of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)
Figure 30: The setting of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)

Even from southern most city of India, Kanyakumari (latitude 8° 5'), maximum altitude of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian) was only 3° 41' (see Figure 31). Its minimum altitude was -19° 51' on that day (see Figure 32). So, Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari went nearly 20° below horizon on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian).

Figure 31: The maximum altitude of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)
Figure 32: The minimum altitude of Agastya (Canopus) as seen from Kanyakumari on 1 January, 12000 BCE (Julian)

Thus, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Agastya (Canopus) was not a Pole Star in 12000 BCE. Any genuine researcher will agree to this conclusion, but I don’t expect that from researchers whose objective is to fool people instead of searching for truth.

References

1. Oak, N.N. and Bhaty, R. (2019). Ancient updates to Sūrya-siddhānta, https://www.indiafacts.org.in/archives/ancient-updates-to-surya-siddhanta/.

2. Nilesh Nilkanth Oak & Rupa Bhaty on Surya Siddhanta at Oxford, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtfKxScLFrQ.

3. Ancient Updates to Surya Siddhanta, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQNhQ7wxOvA

4. https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/s%C5%ABrya-siddh%C4%81nta-was-not-written-over-14-000-years-ago-1591a02a293e.

5. https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/refutation-of-nilesh-oaks-astronomical-dating-of-ramayana-to-12209-bce-d78749c6d7e0

6. https://twitter.com/RamMohanRoy108

7. Bhaty, R. (2018). Astronomical Association Of Natarāja’s Dance With Apasmara And Agastya, https://indiafacts.org/cosmic-consciousness-and-astronomical-association-of-natarajas-dance-with-apasmara-and-agastya/

Here is the link to the original article: Surya Siddhanta was NOT written over 14,000 years ago.

Here is the link to my talk on Surya Siddhanta refuting 12000 BCE dating by Mr. Nilesh Oak and Ms. Rupa Bhaty: Dating the Surya Siddhanta | Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy | #SangamTalks

--

--

--

Vedic Scholar, Materials Scientist, Author of books on Vedic Astronomy, Jain Astronomy, and Ancient Indian History

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

For 32 Years a Director Has Lied About the Material Used To Build U.S. Submarines

The Crazy History of Studio 54 in the 1970s

The Anachronistic History of the Table

An Incredible Story Behind One Of The Most Iconic Photos In The 20th Century

World Passover

Thanks to Graverobbers a 1300-Year-Old Crime Has Been Solved

7 Tips for Genealogists from the Library

When the Catholic Church Sold a Child

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy

Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy

Vedic Scholar, Materials Scientist, Author of books on Vedic Astronomy, Jain Astronomy, and Ancient Indian History

More from Medium

100 Seconds to Midnight

The Sense of Emptiness: Egoism and the Embodied Phenomenology of the Unique.

International Day of Human Space Flight

Diet-Size Relationship in Animals Disturbed by Humans