Friday, January 12, 2018

Challenging Nilesh Oak's dates of Mahabharata and Ramayana.

Many have attempted to date the Mahabharata war and Ramayana taking inputs from the two Epics. Mr Nilesh Oak ( ) is one among them who has dated Mahabharata war at 5561 BCE and Rama- Ravana war at 12,209 BCE. In an exchange with him on Twitter for an open debate I sent to him the following transcripts in a series of tweets on January 8th and 9th of 2018. 

Till now he has not replied to my arguments.

- Jayasree

Date of MB is non-negotiable as it is connected with Kali yuga that started 36 yrs after MB war. Traditional date of K.Yuga is 3102 BC, so that of MB is 3138 BC. 3102 BC is the basis of time frame all these 5000 yrs used by rishis & ancestors in Sankalpa for yajnas, puja and lakhs of times everyday even today.

Tamil Siddha hymns also give a formula to deduce the day, star etc of any day, anytime of this time frame of K.Yuga which is perfectly working. To deny this date is Videshi Indology. Our attempt should be to locate this date matching with hints given by Vyasa in MB. If we don’t get this date, it means we haven’t understood the hints correctly.

Hints in MB: Planetary position, Upagrahas, Gara Karana (one of Pancha angas) and terrestrial sightings.

1.Planets:-The reference to planets and their motion at the start of MB war pertains to Nimittha (निमित्त ) and the results/ predictions connected with planetary motions pertain to astrology, and not exactly about the position of those planets as per astronomy. Therefore one must not take the reference to planets at face value.

2. Upagrahas:- Syama, Dhuma and Ketu mentioned are Upagrahas of planets and located in relation to the respective planet on a particular day. They must support planetary position.

 3. Panchanga factor:- Gara karana appearing in Chitra (5-141-9)
नूनं मह भयं कृष्ण कुरूणां समुपस्थितम
विशेषेण हि वार्ष्णेय चित्रां पीडयते गरहः

Based on all these I derived 3 water-tight  features - Mars in Sravana, Saturn in Purva phalguni and an eclipsed Amavasya in Jyeshta with no eclipses in the preceding and successive pakshas and asked Dr N.Achar in Aug 2013 to check for the date in his astronomy software. He got two dates 3178 BCE and 3030 BCE, of which 3178 BCE is within 40 yrs of traditional date of MB. Details of this decipherment here:

Anyone showing a date less than this is welcome.

Why another year also appeared for the given inputs? Because we took only 3 factors that we are so sure about and they had existed at another date also. But the date closer to traditional date is taken, as the traditional date forms the basis of this research.

4. Terrestrial sightings:- Fierce winds, colour of the sky & of sun, showers of dust, trembling of earth, roaring noises, high waves at the seas, strange behaviour of animals etc narrated by Vyasa as terrestrial happenings fit in with after-effects of a meteor or asteroid hit somewhere on earth. In this context he speaks about Arundhati ahead of Vasistha. Immediately after that he notes that the deer image on the moon had deviated from original position.

Movement of Arundhati and deer image on moon are reported (seen) at the same moment. This is possible due to some atmospheric refraction. (Today both are all right). A meteor/ comet hit somewhere in the globe can cause this making the above mentioned sightings possible.
Around the same time of these sightings, a comet had hit Austria. A Cuneiform tablet prepared in 700 BC explains a meteor-fall 5000 years ago in Austria. Read

The date is deciphered as 29th June, 3123 BC! This is 15 yrs after MB war. A dating error could have caused this deviation. But description including the deviation of Arundhati and deer image of the moon is possible due change in the refractive index of the atmosphere caused to particles thrown in the air by meteor-hit.

Next catastrophe happened 36 years after Mahabharata war when Krishna left the world. Massive waves that hit Dwaraka could have been caused by an asteroid hit off the coast of Madagascar 5000 yrs ago. The chevrons around Madagascar testify this. My article here

Now taking up Oak’s theory of shift in the position of Arundhati, it can happen only under 2 circumstances. 1. If the earth reverses its direction of rotation, the stars in the circumpolar constellation (Ursa Major) will reverse the direction in which Arundhati will move in front of Vasistha. This reversal is impossible.

2. When Arundhati (Alcor) comes in front of Vashishta (Mizar) which can happen only after 375,000 yrs!  Read This cannot happen in a measurable span of human civilization.

What Oak says is with reference to change in equinoctial position or change in poles over 26000 years. The change in equinox – showing a shift in poles can be in understood by this figure.

In the hour-glass like span, earth’s axis draws an arc to and fro. Points A,B,C,D are four pole stars seen aligned with earth’s axis once in 6500 years. Shown in the figure.

For a terrestrial observer on the earth, this to-and fro movement will be 2-dimentional.  See the figure below where points B & D will be noticed at the same point in space. After all within 6500 x 4 yrs shift, the background cosmos does not shift much for observer.

The same is what our ancients had noticed which I showed in another article in another thread. With axis falling in Aries- Libra, the motion goes upto 27 degrees to and fro.

Within this the poles shift. For the naked eye observer, Ursa Major does not undergo any change. Take a look at the figure. To and fro oscillation for poles and Ursa Major does not cause change in position of Arundhati for an observer. She will be seen following Vashishta due to the same directional rotation of the earth. 

Even across time of 1000s of years, Vashishtha- Arundhati orientation to each does not change due to the gravitational coupling between them. Ursa major may change its shape, but Mizar- Alcor orientation and location  as seen from the earth won’t change. See this video

So what Vyasa noticed was an optical illusion caused by change in the refractive index of the atmosphere, which in turn was caused by a catastrophic meteor hit which is what his observations are about.

That Arundhati would not change position was noticed as early as Skanda’s times. MB 3-229 is about how the wives of 6 out 7 sapta rishis were disowned by their respective husbands and allotted motherhood of Skanda. The import is Arundhati alone stayed put without changing position. That is why she is made an icon of chastity. Such an Arundhati could have never changed position in the past or future. That is why she is exceptional. To say she changed position in the near past was poor understanding of why and how our ancients created certain icons like Arundhati.

Talking on Skanda we move to Ramayana date as Skanda is worshiped in the Mantra of Indra dvaja by Manu (Brihad Samhita 43:54-55) Means Skanda aka Muruga existed before Manu’s times. He was born in Pandyan dynasty as ‘Ugra kumara’ or Muruga and hosted the 1st Sangam age. The dates of 3 sangams deduced after research:

9990 BCE is the date after which Manu must have given the Indradvaja mantra. Only after that the  Ikshvaku dynasty was formed in which Rama was born much later.  Southern Madurai was capital of 1st Sangam age (5550 BC – 9990 BC). After it submerged, Kavaatam became the capital of 2nd Sangam age (5550 BC – 1850 BC). This capital is mentioned in V.Ramayana.

Internal evidence of Ramayana is “Kavatam of Pandyas!” कवाटम् पाण्ड्यानाम् – Valmiki Ramayana, chapter 41 -19). Sugreeva asked vanaras to search there. Date is anywhere between 5550 BC – 1850 BC

That Pandyans were contemporaries of Ravana is known from  Sinnamanur copper plates 

In Sanskrit it is written "Dasaanan sandheepa rakshakaara". In Tamil the same is written as "dasavathanan saarbaaka sandhu seithum" Ravana bought peace with Pandyans – same thing told in Raghu Vamsam of Kalidasa 6-62

The location of Pandya is mentioned as “Aalavai” – another name for Kavaatam of the 2nd Sangam age. Read my article.  So Rama lived during 2nd Sangam age of Pandyas. Definitely not before 5550 BCE.
Another internal reference: From my ppt presentation in SI3 conference

Now coming to Oak’s date, his date of Ramayana even pre-dates the beginning of Holocene which started around 11,500 yrs before present (BP). It marked the end of Ice age when Himalayas was heavily snow clad. Warmth flowed from south to north starting from 11,000 yrs to 7000 yrs. Only gradually Himalayans glaciers started breaking. So Ganga was not yet born in the time period he has given.

The Indian monsoon had not started at that time – a fact confirmed in Hancock’s vegetation map of India at 10,600 BC. Look at interior Deccan – no Dandakaranya forest. Description of rainy season of V.Ramayana is invalid in this period.

In Oak’s scheme, Vedic civilization goes beyond 15,000 yrs ago. Look at Hancock’s map prepared based on climate, rainfall etc of those times. Only habitable place was west coast, extended beyond present limits and in SE Tamilnadu.

If Oak still thinks that is date is right, let him challenge Hancock who prepared these maps.
Now coming to sea level, a bridge (Setu) could be built only if there is water between India and Srilanka. In the beginning of Holocene Lanka was landlocked like a peninsula – similar to Kathiawar Peninsula. Check out these maps of Hancock based on sea-level maps of Glen Milne. There was no need to build Setu in Oak’s date of Rama!

Till 8,900 BP there was land connection between India and lanka

By 7000 BP sea level almost reached the current level. Between 7700 BP to 6900 BP, sea waters completely separated Lanka from India for the first time. Only in this period Setu could have been built.

Note this period concurs with Bhatnagar’s date, 2nd Sangam date, and science channel date of boulders and geological studies done there. My article

Nutshell: Absence of Ganga and land-locked Lanka in Oak’s date demolish his date of Ramayana. Plus Indian monsoons not yet started and absence of forest formation in Deccan makes his date unrealistic. If he wants to challenge these, let him first disprove Hancock’s maps and the sea-level data. 


Srinivasan Kalyanaraman said...

Jayasree ji,

A brilliant monograph, well-argued and evidenced. Certainly advances the ongoing efforts to resolve varying interpretations of the astronomical references in the Mahābhārata text, the most accurately dated document of Itihāsa events, in the history of world literature. Ananda Coomaraswamy provides a remarkable insight: 'Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.' Thanks again, the Kali yuga that started 36 yrs after MB war, is 3102 BCE, so that of MB is 3138 BCE. Kr̥ṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa (the dark, Ganga islander) records events around this date of 3138 BCE. Narahari Achar, Srinivasa Raghavan and you have demonstrated a date of November 22, 3067. Congratulations for an outstanding astronomical contribution to studies of Bhāratīya Itihāsa. जीवेम शरदः शतम् Mirrored the blogpost here:

Arun said...

Nilkanth ji talks only about motion of Arundhati whose interpretation is doubtful and motion over long periods is inaccurate. Calculation only on basis of eclipses is also not proper as they are repeated after 18 years 10.5 days which is joint motion of Rahu and Sun. Even half periods or 3339 Tithis is also symmetric which is indicated in Rigveda 3/3/9 and puranas. All our calendar calculations are from start of Kali on 17-2-3102 BC Ujjain midnight. Vakyakaran calculations and many dates of Kerala texts on jyotish are given on that basis. By trying to change many thousands of such calculations to show our wisdom, we are denying the whole knowledge structure of India. If Indian chronology traditions are inaccurate, then we should not calculate on its basis. There many other broad indicators of Rama period. It was long after glacial floods of 10000 BC, Matsya incarnation during this flood and Rama birth after that were in years when it was Prabhava year both as per Pitamaha and Surya Siddhartha. Rama was in 24th Parivarta Yuga and Vyasa was in 28th yuga-each of 360 years ending in 3102 BC. These are given in Brahmana, Vayu, Kurma puranas etc.

jayasree said...

Thanks for yourinputs Kalyanji.

jayasree said...

Thanks for your valuable comments Arun ji. If Nilesh ji is taking change of Arundhati's position as a factor, he must also account for why the deer image seen in the moon looked deviated- as both appear in the same context. He hasn't done that. He has only picked out features without giving thought to the context. Second point is your concurrence of Ramavatara only after the glacial flood of 10000 BC. Geological time period is the substratum or canvas over which one builds the theory. Nilesh ji miserably failed in looking at the viability of the canvas he has chosen. This demolishes at one stroke the numerous references he has cited on seasons to support his date. On yuga, I am preparing my article now on how our ancients (acharyas) deduced yuga. I will be posting it shortly

sriramlion said...

Hi maam..if yu can, pl make a post on andal..Just wanted to know about tat..And how many years our tamilnadu will be facing problems like this..From religion,weather,politics everything

Navaratna Rajaram said...

I discuss these and related topics in my new website,
There is also a Youtube video on Krishna based on my book Search for the Historical Krishna, which has other evidence also. P.N. Oak is not a reliable source.
In my book I attributed the destruction to a possible Tsunami, but have given another rational explanation. The data you have supplied are excellent. Please keep up the good work: Navaratna Rajaram

Raghunathan K said...

On yuga, I am preparing my article now on how our ancients (acharyas) deduced yuga. I will be posting it shortly.

I look forward to this, madam.

A simple question I have been asking my friends but still have not got the answer yet.. in our daily sankalpa, we mention the manu, year, thithi, etc. How is, for example, today's sankalpa different from the same thithi of same year (say, Hevilambi) of the last cycle 60 years ago. I request you to enlighten me on this.

jayasree said...

Mr sriramlion,

This article might be of interest to you:

It is in Tamil and written in 2012 exposing the wicked designs and lies of Daniel Selvaraj in his 're-visit' of Andal's life history. The same appearing in the book /paper published by Indiana University makes me wonder whether his paper has found a place in that book / paper or was used as a reference by someone else in writing about Andal.

For historical and philosophical info on Andal and her compositions, you may click the category "Thiruppavai" in the side-bar.

On the other part of your question, its Time and Ruler that decide the Dharma which in turn decide the good or bad experienced by the people. It does not need any predictive tool to say that both are on the negative side at the moment.

jayasree said...

Thanks for your comment Rajaram ji. I think you are referring to Nilesh Oak, not P.N.Oak.
I will go through the links you have mentioned. I have read your articles on AIT / Indus issues and was greatly inspired by your works. My pranams to you.

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Raghunathan,

Good question. But in the sankalpa, apart from the year-name, the 5 angas of Panchanga, namely day, star, thithi, yoga and karana (though we just say shubha yoga, shubha karana) also take place. In addition to this the location of Sun and paksha of moon also matter. The LCM of all these only will show you the date / day exactly repeating again. I don't think anyone had worked on it, but the probability is very least in thousands of years.

(Stretching this further): The one who makes the sankalpa - his name and gotra put him in a specific point in space and time which does not replicate. So we can say, the repetition of all the sankalpa factors will not occur for the same person in his life time. When they occur, the sankalpa-maker will be a different person - where the reference to time and space pertains to some one else.

Raghunathan K said...

yoga and karana (though we just say shubha yoga, shubha karana) also take place

Thank you Madam, for the clarification. this perfectly answers my query. No one pinpointed this.

Pranams & Regards,


Krishna said...

Mam, Based on the regular date provided for dob of Lord and MB, the lord played the major role in the entire story and lives of pandavas and kauravas, could we check the dasas in his chart of a major catastrophical events of MB war? I personally came across few people who are sadhaks (not into mundane life) of high calibre, who claimed the sravana bahula astami of His birth was indeed wrong and there are many such things that are locked or kept as secret in kaliyuga. I personally believe kaliyuga started even before Lord's death or probably before or after MB war but Kali entered only after His demise. I did not see your comments on Dr Raghavan's date of MB war anywhere in the blog or I could not find. Btw, I missed very basic part - are the dates Julian or Gregorian?

jayasree said...

@ Mr Krishna,

// Based on the regular date provided for dob of Lord and MB, the lord played the major role in the entire story and lives of pandavas and kauravas, could we check the dasas in his chart of a major catastrophical events of MB war?//

Dr B.V.Raman had done an astrological analysis of Krishna's horoscope in his book "Notable Horoscopes" I have written the salient features covered by Dr BV Raman in this article :

It is not possible to relate the individual events of MB war from Krishna's horoscope. But entering into war, preaching of Gita and his unnatural death are all indicated.

Rama's horoscope constructed using the birth positions given by Valmiki also tally with Rama's life events. A part of it I had written here:

On the other parts of your comment:

# Dr BV Raman constructed the horoscope of Krishna based on textual hints on start of Kaliyuga at the time of his death. He has extensively covered those issues in his book.

# Kali Maha yuga of Devamana (Divya yuga scale of devas / celestials/ nakshatras) started on 3102 BCE. Lets not confuse it with what our ancients talked about Yuga scale of Dharma. Please wait for a couple of days, my article on Yuga will be ready by tomorrow, in which I have explained everything.

# I never commented on Raghavan's date or anyone's date. My work is to look at the original / source texts and decipher / interpret the meaning of the hints given. Gather inputs / data that are strong enough and/ or cross-checked well. That is all. I once gave such data to Dr Achar and he came up with the dates. If others concur with my date, leave it. If they don't I will first satisfy myself with my interpretation. Then I will look at their data and find out why and where they had gone wrong. Nilesh Oak's falls in this category.

# The dates are from Gregorian calendar.

My pick on reliability of softwares:

They can never give accurate dates as the speed of earth and the tilt of earth are not constant for all times. And we have never known what they were in different times in the past. What we get now from softwares is based on the values fed into making them - perhaps the present data.

I can give as evidence the strange things I noticed in the astrology software which was prepared from the same data used to make astronomy softwares.

(1) I can see Mercury jumping 3 degrees within a day and lagna jumping 10 degrees in 5 minutes for dates 5000 years before present. But strangely the date of Rama is so close / or same in both astronomy and astrology software whereas they are not so for MB. This makes me wonder whether the current speed of earth and precession were the same 7000 years ago (5114 BCE as Rama's date) and not so 5000 years ago.

(2) When I fed the birth date of Krishna, derived by going back 125 years before Kaliyuga date (19th July 3227 BCE - BV Raman's date) into the astrology software, it showed Krishna's year of birth as Sreemukha. 126th year from that is the first year of Kali yuga, which is Pramadhi. This is also the first year in the 60 year cycle in vogue in North India even today. But when I searched for the 126th year by feeding the year 3102 BCE (Gregorian calendar) it shows Plavanga and not Pramadhi!

Lesson: Better go by what texts say and rely on those that are supported by cross-refernces. Reliability of softwares is a big question.

Saranathan TG said...

According to your article, I understand that when Sri Rama entered Dandakaranya, sage Agastya had not moved South. According to various inputs, I understand that Agastya discovered Tamil or the First grammar Agattiyam was formed only after Agastya came to South to Podigai mountains. If my understanding is correct, then in one of your blogs you had mentioned that Tamil was spoken at the time of Sri Rama (Sri Sita spoke to Sri Hanuman in Tamil). How do we reconcile this? Please pardon me if I am impertinent!

jayasree said...

I agree there is discrepancy in the narration on Agastya. And I also believe that there were two different Agastyas appearing in two different sangam ages. Let me explain.

Agastya of Ramayana must have been from 2nd sangam age because internal evidence shows that 2nd sangam was in Rama's times. Agastya's presence in Rama's times has better consistency. Apart from the evidences I had shown here, there is one more evidence found in Uttara Khanda of Ramayana. When on the advice of Narada, Rama went about looking for Sambuka, he could not find him out easily. He mounted on the Pushpaka vimana and went to the South!! There in Saivala mountain he spotted Sambuka. After killing him Rama proceeded to meet Agastya who was doing a penance of standing in water for 12 years.

For our cross- checking, Saivala is the Saiya mountain which was the name for Western ghats that receive the first rains of south west monsoon according to verse 11 of Paripaadal (sangam text). That means this is the southern half of the western ghats of peninsular India where Kodagu is located. Kodagu was the first abode of Agastya after he shifted to south.

Further cross-reference comes from Kishkindha Khanda where Sugreeva narrates the regions of south to look for Sita (VR 4-41-16 &17) Sugreeva refers to river Kaveri and the Malaya mountain where Agastya was staying. Therefore Agastya was living in that part of Malaya when Rama went to destroy Sambuka. Prior to that he was living near Chitrakoota when Rama came to meet him for the first time - in the 1st year of Vanavasa.

This Agastya comes in the early part of 2nd sangam age. So who was the Agastya of 1st sangam age? There are no cross-references to check that. The only info we have is from "Irayanaar agapporul urai" by Nakkeerar. He says that "Agatthiyam" was the grammar book of the 1st sangam. The 1st assembly of this period was decorated by Shiva (ruler of Pandya land, husband of Meenakshi), his son Muruga (Ugra Kumara in sangam texts) and Agatthiyar (and two more names whose names do not appear in any other works).

Their location was deep south - now under water in Indian ocean. I have located it off Sundaland and north of Australia. Sugreeva also talks about 'Kunjara' mountain in that part of the globe having Agastya's abode. That is, in the same narration of southern route, Sugreeva identifies 2 places as Agastya's abode, one near Kavery and another in Kunjara mountain.

This Agastya must have been a the first Agastya of the 1st sangam age. But this name could have been a Tamil form like "agatti" or Agattiyar" - derived from 'agam' - inner or that which pertains to personal life. 1st sangam contained 'agam' verses only and not 'puram'. So it is possible to assume that the grammar of 1st sangam was on 'agam'- from this, the name could have come as 'agatthiyam' for the grammar book, and the composer was Agattiyar. This is like how composer of Tolkappiyam is known as Tolkappiyar.

There is a strong justification for interpreting like this. The name Agastya is not a generic name but a special name. The sage Agastya got this name due to 'staying the mountain' - agam sthyayathi ithi agasthyah. Therefore no body else other than him could have got this name. His descendants might have inherited this name, but certainly not those who lived before him. On this basis, I am saying that the Agattiya of 1st sangam was not agastya, the Rig vedic sage who was contemporary of Rama and who got that name for subduing Vindhyas. Somehow with degenerating times, we have identified both (Agattiyar and Agastya) as the same. But both have authored the grammar book of Tamil.


jayasree said...

On the question of Tamil spoken at Rama's times: The Agastya issue does not alter it. Tamil or proto-Tamil was in existence right from Vaivasvata Manu's times. One of the evidences I can say is that the only God (other than vedic deities) found in Indra dvaja mantra attributed to Manu was Subramanya! So Subramanya / Muruga had lived before Manu!

In this connection I request you to go through the ppt of my paper to SI3 conference:

In that, slides 57-59 are about the commonality between Tamil and Sanskrit by virtue of they being sister languages from a common proto language. I will expand them in a future article.

You may even read this article:
- particularly under the sub title 'Pali-Tamil connection to Proto Tamil' to know about my justification for such an olden existence for Tamil.

I hope I answered your questions.

jayasree said...

Tail piece: No one knows the real name of Rig Vedic Agastya, the one who appears in Ramayana.

Krishna said...

Mam, I was talking about those major events only apart from his birth in a prison. Another major event was Rasa leela which was a trans state of numerous gopikas at high pedestal spiritual awakening. I read your posts and also Sri Raman's writings. I am just curious to know if you do consider unwritten but orally passed on such info. Atleast you would agree that there are people even today who would love to witness of happenings of those times in their secluded, secretive meditative sessions willingly. In my case, I am fine with and consider such information as well. All your points noted and understood your view. Regarding the reliability of software, I trust what you say because I am not subject expert in astronomy(logy). The last time, I was in touch, you were using JH 7.3/7.4. However the Data derived from The full and new version using Pushya Paksha Ayanamsa differ a bit here or there (and I just do check the placements of Grahas based on the dates of studies).

kish said...

With due respect, ms Jayashree, ramayana took place in treta Yuga which lasted around 1296000 years... Dwapara Yuga is 864000 years.. so if dwapara Yuga ended on 3102 B.C, then timespan of dwapara Yuga is from 3102 b.c to 867102 B.C... and treta Yuga will be from 867102 B.C to 2163102 B.C. So Ramayan must have happened between 2163102 B.C to 867102 B.c and ramayan also mentions Rama ruled kingdom for 36000 years.. bcz in treta Yuga life span was between 1000 and 10000 +/- years ....

Saranathan TG said...

Thank you very much, Madam.Based on your elaborate reply and before studying your other references (I am a slow reader!), I have a very quick supplementary query.
If the Rig Vedic sage of Sri Rama's time got the name Agastya for having stalled a mountain, and I assume this happened after Sri Rama met him in His First year of Vanvas, how could Valmiki mention the name Agastya when Sri Rama met him? Because, after Sri Rama met him only, this sage migrated to South.

mythra81 said...

i feel the length of a yuga is denoted by the lunar tithis not years so 432,000 could be lunar months which works out to be around 35,000 years for kali yuga and corresponding lengths for the other yugas

jayasree said...

Posted a short series (3 part) on Yuga and addressing various issues such as life span of man in different yugas. 1st part here Other parts can be accessed from this link.

I think I have addressed all probable questions in this series. If any more questions are there, post them under the relevant articles.