Friday, January 31, 2020

சோழர்களும் ராமரும் ஒரே வம்சம் (Part 1 of my video talk in Tamil in 'Desiya Siragugal' channel)

Other episodes:
Part 2   "Muruga initiated the first ever Vedic Homa"
Part 3   ""No curse on the Big Temple"
Part 4   "Dravidian architecture does not mean 'Tamil' architecture"


In the light of the raging controversy over the language to be used in the Kumbhabhishekam of Brihadeeswarar temple of Tanjore, I was interviewed by Mr Sai Ganesh owning the YouTube channel "Desiya Siragugal". The 1st part of the video was released today. It can be viewed here:


In this part I have brought out the information on the origin of the Cholas. Quoting two inscriptions, one by the son of Rajaraja chola and the other by the grand son of Rajaraja chola, I have shown that the Cholas claimed their origins from Manu and also from Rama. They claimed direct ancestry from Bharata, the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. I have highlighted the literary sources too that claim Rama as the ancestor of the Cholas.

These evidences raise a serious question on the exclusivity of Tamil origins, mainly of Cholas. It also highlights the pan-Indian nature of the Cholas and through them the Tamils and their practices. More in the next video.


தஞ்சை குடமுழுக்கு சர்ச்சை: ராஜராஜ சோழன் தமிழன் தானா? (காணொளி)



தஞ்சை பெரிய கோயில் குடமுழுக்கு நெருங்கி கொண்டிருக்கிறது. இந்த வேளையில் குடமுழுக்கை சமஸ்க்ருதத்தில் செய்யக்கூடாது என்றும் தமிழில்தான் செய்ய வேண்டும் என்றும் ஆர்பாட்டம் செய்து கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். இது தொடர்பான விளக்கங்களைக் காணொளி மூலமாக மக்களுக்கு எடுத்துச் சொல்ல விரும்புகிறேன். அந்த முயற்சியின் முதல் பகுதியாக ராஜராஜன் தமிழன் தானா என்ற கேள்விக்கு இந்தக் காணொளி விடை கொடுக்கிறது.



இதில் முதலாவதாக தஞ்சாவூர் என்பதே தமிழ்ச் சொல்லா என்று ஆராய்ந்து அது தஞ்சலா என்னும் சாதகப் பறவையின் பெயரால் அழைக்கப்படுகிறது என்று தெளிவு படுத்தி உள்ளேன். தஞ்சலா என்பது சமஸ்க்ருதப் பெயர்!

அடுத்ததாக சோழர் வம்சாவளியை ஆராய்ந்துள்ளேன். ராஜராஜன் மகன் முதலாம் ராஜேந்திரனின் ஆறாம் ஆண்டில் வெளியிடப்பட்ட திருவாலங்காடு செப்பேட்டில் கொடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ள சோழர் வம்சாவளியை சுட்டிக் காட்டியுள்ளேன். அதில் சோழன் பரம்பரை மனுவில் ஆரம்பித்து ராமனின் வம்சாவளியுடன் ஒத்துப் போவதைக் காட்டியுள்ளேன். அந்த வம்சாவளியில் சிபியும், அவனுக்குப் பின்னாளில் துஷ்யந்தனும் வருகிறார்கள். துஷ்யந்தன்-சகுந்தலைக்குப் பிறந்த மகனே பரதன். அவனுக்குப் பிறந்த மகன் சோழ வர்மன் என்பவன். அவனே சோழ தேசத்தையும் சோழ வம்சத்தையும் உருவாக்கினவன் என்பதையும் சுட்டிக் காட்டியுள்ளேன்.

தொடர்ந்து சோழன் என்றால் என்ன அர்த்தம் என்று ஆராய்ந்துள்ளேன். சோழன் என்பதற்குத் தமிழில் பொருள் இல்லை என்பதையும் அது சமஸ்க்ருதத்திலிருந்து வந்தது என்பதையும் நிரூபித்துள்ளேன்.
இந்த ஆதாரங்களின் மூலம் சோழர்கள் வடக்கிலிருந்து வந்தவர்கள் என்பது தெளிவாகிறது. அவ்வாறு வந்தவர்களைத் தமிழன் என்பதா? வந்தேறி என்பதா? காணொளியைப் பார்க்கவும். பகிரவும்.


Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Should DD (Doordarshan) promote mis-interpretations of Valmiki Ramayana?


Today the resurgent youth of India, convinced about the dubious nature of the Aryan Invasion / migration theory promoted by western Indologists and Left leaning Indian Indologists, are craving to see the Vedic past as old as possible with Ramayana and Mahabharata at any olden time, preferably much anterior to the Biblical 5000 year- mark of creation. When marketed with ‘scientific’ and ‘software’ approach, those who have no exposure to Indic (Vedic) way of life, never had the patience to read or study the Itihasas and never bothered to know the basics in the subjects needed for understanding or dating the Itihasas are found to fall a prey to what is being marketed. The Government funded DD News seems to be the recent victim of this market trend!

This thought was upper most in my mind when I watched a video of an interview with Mr Nilesh Nilkanth Oak by DD News on the date of Ramayana. He is quoting three pieces of information from Valmiki Ramayana all of which are wrongly interpreted by him.  The last two are Sanskrit verses which one can read and know why he is wrong.

To get a quick idea of all the three, watch the video from 1-05 to 2-50 minutes.


Was Rama born in Sharad ritu?

The first mis-information and mis-interpretation by Mr Oak is about the season (ritu) of Rama’s birth. Rama was born in Caitra month when five planets were in own or exalted houses. Mesha being the exalted house for the Sun, it is an obvious reference for the Sun in Mesha and not in any other sign. That is the time of Vasanta ritu.

Contrary to this, Mr Oak claims that the description of the Valmiki Ramayana of the time of Rama was that of Sharad Ritu!!  In support of this he quotes in the video rainfall and dance of peacocks of which the latter comes in the context of coronation and not at Rama’s birth. But then that was a comparison and not a real situation. 

This is the peacock verse:

इति ब्रुवन्तं मुदिताः प्रत्यनन्दन् नृपा नृपम् |
वृष्टिमन्तं महामेघं नर्दन्त इव बर्हिणः || --१७

(Meaning: Those delighted kings complimented king Dasharatha so speaking with a loud applause as the peacocks cry in delight when they see the raining great cloud.)

Can anyone take this to mean that the event took place in the rainy season? But Mr Oak thinks so. He has a penchant to treat analogies as actual astronomy references that I have already revealed in my video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5nKmvIRWM&t=584s) and it is up to us to hold on to our common sense.

Coming to the other reference in the video, at the time of Rama’s birth there is no reference to rainfall or sharad season. Mr Oak has mistaken the shower of flowers from the heavens as referring to real rainfall (पुष्पवृष्टिश्च खात्पतत्  1-18-17 = heaven) and flowering season. Such rain of flowers appears in the context of celebration of any event. For example there was a rain of flowers at the time of Ram-Sita marriage (पुष्पवर्षो महानभूत् 1-73- 29 and पुष्पवृष्टिर्महत्यासीदन्तरिक्षात्सुभास्वरा 1-73-37). Such rain of flowers happened when Rama killed Ravana (निपपातान्तरिक्षाच्च पुष्पवृष्टिस्तदा भुवि 1-108-28).

The same expression reported at the time of Rama’s birth is mis-interpreted by Mr Oak to suit his date. That date is what he sees in his software designed to deduce the tropical zodiac whereas the Vedic calendar follows the sidereal zodiac. With least thought and application about this feature Mr Oak passes on wrong information in the name of research and that is being aired by Doordarshan funded by our money. Why didn’t anyone there in the DD do a minimal research on whether Mr Oak’s claims are true to what Valmiki says before calling him for the interview?


Valmiki on Vasanta ritu as the time of Rama’s birth.

Coming to what Valmiki says about the season of birth of Rama, there is a sequence of events starting at Vasanta ritu three years before Rama was born. The sage Rishyasringa was brought to the kingdom by Dasharatha. When the Vasanta ritu started the preparation for the Asvamedha yajna was also started.

ततः काले बहुतिथे कस्मिंश्चित्सुमनोहरे |
वसन्ते समनुप्राप्ते राज्ञो यष्टुं मनोऽभवत् ||-१२-

{Meaning: After a lapse some time when spring season has come the king Dasharatha desired to perform the Vedic ritual(1-12-1)}

The preparation went on for a year at the end of which the ritual of the Asvamedha was started. This also happened in the Vasanta ritu, says Ramayana.

पुनः प्राप्ते वसन्ते तु पूर्णः संवत्सरोऽभवत् |
प्रसवार्थं गतो यष्टुं हयमेधेन वीर्यवान् || -१३-

{Meaning: On completion of one full year another springtime arrived, and then Dasharatha a determined one to beget progeny by performing Horse Ritual entered the ritual hall. (1-13-1)}
The ritual of letting out the horse went on for a year at the end of which the horse returned to the ritual hall.

अथ संवत्सरे पूर्णे तस्मिन् प्राप्ते तुरंगमे |
सरय्वाश्चोत्तरे तीरे राज्ञो यज्ञोऽभ्यवर्तत || -१४-

{Meaning: Then after completion of one year and on regaining the ritual horse, the Emperor Dasharatha commenced his Vedic Ritual on the northern banks of River Sarayu. (1-14-1)}

By now the next Vasanta season had commenced when the final Yajna was done for three days. By that yajna Dasharatha got rid of his sins (1-14-58) and commenced the Putrakameshtai yajna performed by Rishyasringa. The Yajna Purusha appeared from that yajna and offered a vessel of “PAyasam”.

It was here there is a description of jubilation in the ‘antahpura’ (inner chambers or chambers of the queens) that was compared with the sharad sky illuminated with moon-rays.

हर्षरश्मिभिरुद्द्योतं तस्यान्तःपुरमाबभौ |
शारदस्याभिरामस्य चंद्रस्येव नभोंशुभिः || -१६-२५

harSarashmibhiH uddyotam = lit up with beams of happiness; tasya antaHpuram = his, palace chambers; abhiraamasya shaaradasya = heart pleasing, of autumn; chandrasya amshubhiH = with moon's, rays; nabhaH iva = sky, like; babhuuva = became.

{Meaning: Lit up with beams of happiness Dasharatha's palace chambers shone forth like the autumnal sky brightened with moonbeams. (1-16-25)}

The link word ‘iva’ (like) says what this is about. This is not a reference to the actual sharad season.
The narration further continues with how the PAyasam was distributed among the three queens of Dasharatha. All these had happened in immediate succession in the vasanta ritu (The 3 day Asvamedha, Putrakameshti and drinking of pAyasam).

Upon the completion of the yajna (Putrakameshti) six ritus passed by and in the twelfth month which happened to be Caitra month Rama was born. From the previous Vasanta ritu when the yajna was done and pAyasam was drunk, six ritus had gone by. Once again it was the time of Vasanta ritu. That is the deduction from Ramayana.

ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतूनां षट् समत्ययुः |
ततश्च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ || -१८-

{Meaning: On completion of the ritual, six seasons have passed by; then in the twelfth month, i.e., in chaitra-mAsa, and on the ninth tithi of that chaitra month (1-18-8)}

The deduction of the ritu running at the time of Rama’s birth must be done in this way from the text of Valmiki Ramayana. There is corroboratory support from other texts of yore for Vasanata ritu in Caitra month. “Madhus ca mAdhavs ca vAsantikAv ritu” is the pramana from Taittriya samhita (4.4.11.1) and Vajasaneyi Samhita (13.25), where Madhu refers to the solar month of caitra. That this was applicable to Rama’s times is ascertained from the fact that the rules of performance of the Asvamedha yajna done by Dasharatha as a prelude to Putrakameshti yajna are detailed in Taittirya samhita. Valmiki says that the rules are as per Kalpa sutras. But all these rules contain one important element namely, Time! The time was Vasanata ritu.

The preparations started in Vasanta ritu, the Asvamedha yajna started in the next Vasanta ritu, the regaining of the horse and sacrifice of the same happened in the subsequent Vasanta ritu, the Putrakameshti yajna done in the Vasanta ritu and the birth of Rama occurred in the next Vasanta ritu.

Rejecting all these, or perhaps unaware of all these Mr Oak claims that Valmiki Ramayana referred to Sharad season at Rama’s birth. Then only he can ‘corroborate’ it ‘scientifically’ using his western astronomy based software.


Was Abhijit the Pole star in Ramayana times?

Abhijit was never recognised as a pole star in any text of Vedic culture. It was one among the 27 stars of the zodiac in the past but was removed from the count and replaced with Krittika when Uttarayana no longer started from Abhijit. Brahma rashi was another name for Abhijit. The verse quoted by Mr Oak in the video is this. Let the interviewer whose proficiency in Sanskrit is exemplary or anyone in the know of the language tell the world whether this verse says that Abhijit was the pole star.

ब्रह्म राशिर् विशुद्धः शुद्धाः परम ऋषयः |
अर्चिष्मन्तः प्रकाशन्ते ध्रुवम् सर्वे प्रदक्षिणम् || --४९

brahmarāśir viśuddhaś ca śuddhāś ca paramarṣayaḥ
   arciṣmantaḥ prakāśante dhruvaṃ sarve pradakṣiṇam.

{Meaning: The Brahma Rashi (Abhijit) is becoming clear; the Parama rishis (Sapta rishis) also are clear. They are shining with bright light and all of them are going around the Pole star (6-4-49)}
The verse doesn’t say that Abhijit was the pole star. It only says that Abhijit and the Sapta rishis having become clear are going round the pole star. The pole star was different from Abhijit. In Mr Oak’s date of Ramayana at 12K BP Saptarishis were not circumambulating the pole star as seen from the south Indian latitude reported by Lakshmana.


The above illustration is from Stellarium simulated for Mr Oak’s Ramayana date. Abhijit was not at the polar point (NCP), it can never be as it lies outside the precession circle. At that date Abhijit was circulating the Pole point while Saptarishis were crossing the sky from east to west. Saptarishis were nowhere near the pole star at 12K BCE. This is a strong evidence to disprove Mr Oak’s date of Ramayana.


Did Sun set at Pushya in Hemanta Ritu?

The third absurdity promoted by Mr Oak is that the Sun set near Pushta star in Kataka nakshatra in Hemanta Ritu thereby theorising that Uttarayana started in Kataka! The verse doesn’t say so. And at no time any text of the Vedic culture said that Uttarayana started at Kataka.

निवृत्त आकाश शयनाः पुष्यनीता हिम अरुणाः |
शीता वृद्धतर आयामः त्रि यामा यान्ति सांप्रतम् (3-16-12)

This verse looks complex but discernible only when one knows the meteorological indicators of rainfall ingrained within. The season was Hemanta ritu and Lakshmana was going to the river in pre-dawn time with Rama and Sita. Overnight there was heavy dew enveloping the Pushya star that seemed to be in sleep in the sky. After it reappeared from the tawny dew, the chillness continued for three Yaama by which time the pre-dawn set in and the three were on their way to do morning works.

There is early night fog in Hemanta ritu hiding the rise of Pushya. Pushya rises after sunset only in Hemanta ritu. But Mr Oak has mis-interpreted this verse by assuming that अरुणाः means Sun. The verse does not say anything about the sun. It says हिम अरुणाः to mean tawny coloured fog. The explanation for this verse along with the reasons why Mr Oak is wrong can be viewed in this video from 30 to 36-30 minutes.




The DD video shows three crucial views of the Vedic culture mis-interpreted by him in the course of his research that gives an unrealistic date. Why unrealistic?  Ice Age was still going on at that time with most of North India in severe cold. The Himalaya was heavily snow-clad and glaciated at that time. There was no scope for de-glaciation of Gangotri giving rise to the river Ganga before that date. I asked Oak to give proof for Ganga running at his date of Ramayana. He has not given any till date. He can never give one, for Ganga didn’t come into existence at that date.

Setu was a thoroughfare at his date of Ramayana. At 12k BP, the ocean level around the world was 120 metre below present. The sea level rise maps clearly show that the water had not risen to the present level until 7000 years ago. Today Setu is just below 3 feet to 3 metre depth from the sea surface. There is a natural bund connecting the Indian and Lankan landmass and that was well above the sea level at 12k BP. In Oak’s date of Ramayana, Rama could have just walked across the bund. There was no need to build a bund.

How many in the DD know at least these two basic in-congruencies? Our name, our research community and our Itihasasas are at stake and will be damned and ridiculed as unscientific, unintelligent and lacking in common sense if Mr Oak’s research on Ramayana is accepted by the Indian public or media. Let not Doordarshan be in the forefront to bring such disgrace to India, Indians and their immeasurable treasure of Itihasas.


The inundation maps produced by Graham Hancock are given below.


A comparison of them for different time periods is given below to pin point the date when the need arose to link the two countries by human efforts. The availability of maps start from 21,300 years BP.



It can be seen that Setu was well above the sea surface at 12,400 BP, the date close to Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Ramayana. Rama could have just walked across this part if Mr Oak's date is true. 


Until 8900 BP, the land connection was there naturally, helping in the movement of people. But things changed after this period as sea level rose above the connecting land by 7700 BP. 
The below-maps show this.

By 7700 BP sea water passed through the connecting land. By 6900 BP the connecting land was completely under sea water.

So any construction of a bridge could have happened only between 7,700 and 7000 years BP. The naturally occurring base is already there. What people had to do was to raise structures on the base for a few meters. This was what Rama’s Vanara sena had done!



Related posts:






Sunday, January 19, 2020

Why Nilesh Oak’s dating of Surya Siddhanta is wrong.


Mr Nilesh Oak claims to have dated an ancient update of Surya Siddhanta based on a verse from Surya Siddhanta. Following account taken from my book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak establishes why he is wrong in his claim.

*****
Kali Yuga date is Siddhanta based and with the 3rd Shaka Era in progress now, time computation is well laid out to be accurate to seconds. It involves only Gaṇita or mathematics and identifies time through mathematical calculation.  To cite an example an inscription found at Parthivasekara puram in Kanyakumari district about a grant given to a Vedic learning centre records the date in number of days such as “fourteen hundred thousand forty nine thousand and eighty seventh day having expired after the beginning of kali Yuga[1] This points out to the 9th century CE when deducted from the traditional date of Kali Yuga. Cross-referentially the king in whose name this has been issued is also found to belong to the 9th century. The kind of computation in number of days found in this inscription is a special feature of Jyothisha Siddhantas.

The Siddhanta gives theoretical exposition of the rules and concepts of different features of astronomy and time computation. The time period of the Siddhanta is given only mathematically by calculating from the beginning of the Kalpa, the Maha Yuga or the Yuga at the time of composition of the Siddhanta. Without knowing this basic lakshana of Siddhanta, Nilesh Oak has attempted to ‘date an ‘update’ of Surya Siddhanta in an article[2] and a video[3] recently. This is being highlighted here to show the lacuna in his understanding of the fundamentals in arriving at a date.

Picking out a verse in Surya Siddhanta that says that when seen from a place situated at no-latitude (niraksha desa samsthana) i.e. at equator, the pole star (Dhruva tara) is at the horizon,[4] Nilesh Oak has gone on to date the Surya Siddhanta (according to him, an update among many updates of Surya Siddhanta). Thinking that the verse refers to visual sighting of pole stars at the two ends (north and south) he ran his simulator to locate the time when pole stars were visibly present at the two horizons (north and south) and arrived at a date 12,000 BCE!

No Siddhanta gives a hint like this to find out the time of its composition nor does it give such a hint to derive any other date. Siddhanta being Gaṇita (mathematics), it only talks about calculations for deriving any time period.

The same idea of Surya Siddhanta used by Nilesh Oak to “date” Surya Siddhanta is also found in Siddhanta Shiromani by Bhaskara II, that “a man situated on the equator sees both the north and south poles touching (the north and south points of) the horizon.”[5] Would Nilesh Oak accept that Bhaskara II also lived in 12,000 BCE?

There need not be a star present at the point, but the location is Dhruva, a fixed point. The Siddhantas mention this as a universal statement. The same idea can be seen in modern astronomy in the context of Declination. The Wikipedia article on Declination gives the same idea.[6] Can it be used for deciding the date of writing the article?
From another verse in Surya Siddhanta[7] Nilesh Oak has claimed to have deduced the obliquity at the time of sighting the pole stars at the horizons, using it as an additional hint to substantiate the date he got from the simulator. That verse tells about the maximum extent of one fifteenth part of the circumference of the earth, i.e. 24˚that the Sun goes on either side of the equator (solstices). That is a standard statement and the calculation of rising periods, ascensional differences and other details are given for that limit. Bhaskara II mentions this in his book besides giving methods to derive the same for latitudes less than 24˚N.[8] By Nilesh Oak’s claims, Siddhanta Shiromani of Bhaskara II can also be traced to 12,000 BCE by interpreting that the axial tilt was 24˚ when Bhaskara II wrote his Siddhanta.

This ‘research’ of Nilesh Oak exposes how he picks out his evidences or Basic sentences without recourse to the admissibility of them from the text. His first step is to interpret a verse in the way he thinks is right, without any background knowledge of the fundamentals. The next step is to check it in the simulator. Then the research is done. The same pattern laid already in the discovery of the “Epoch of Arundhati” is replicated in other ‘researches’.

The Surya Siddhanta dating ‘research’ is highlighted here to show how Nilesh Oak is woefully lacking in fundamentals. Be it the tradition of Arundhati or methodology of Popper or Patanjali or nimitta of Samhita or Siddhanta to understand the calculation of time, Nilesh Oak can be seen looking through a limited ‘window’ to claim success.

******

Another issue with his SS article:

In the India Facts article by Mr Oak on Surya Siddhanta
( http://indiafacts.org/ancient-updates-to-surya-siddhanta/) he has written that "that the Earth’s obliquity was indeed 24 degree in the year 2900 BCE and 12000 BCE!" That means the earth reached 24 degree tilt in 2900 BCE and before that in 12k BCE. Means the earth had oscillated within a span of 9000 years! His software shows that span only and not 26K or 41K span. Vedic wisdom says that the span was 7200 years. The difference was due to precession calibrated from the present value in the softwares. The rate of precession is not constant at all times. That is why our seers had mentioned in terms of time and degrees. This limited precession is explained in my video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6xc8HPfR4&t=2448s



[1] Travancore Archaeological Series, Volume I, page 30.
[2] “Ancient Updates to Surya Siddhanta”, Nilesh N Oak and Rupa Bhatty, 19-03-2019 http://indiafacts.org/ancient-updates-to-surya-siddhanta/
[4] Surya Siddhanta 12- 43 &44
[5] Siddhanta Shiromani. 3-48, Translation by Pundit Bapu Deva Sastri.
[7] Surya Siddhanta 12-68
[8] Siddhanta Shiromani. 9-19 & 20

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Vaikuntha Ekadasi is the day of Gitopadesa.


The day of Vaikuntha Ekadasi that opens the door to Vaikuntha is an important day in all the Vishnu temples of South India. Lord Vishnu mounted on his Garuda vehicle leaves the temple through Vaikuntha Dvara (the Gate to Vaikuntha) or ‘Paramapada Vaasal’ (the Gate to Paramapada) well before sunrise followed by his devotees. This is the only day this special Gate is opened in any Vishnu temple with the concept that Vishnu is taking along with him his devotees to Vaikuntha. This day falls on Shukla Ekadasi in the month of Margashira.

Gate to Moksha

This also happens to be the day Krishna rendered Gitopadesa to Arjuna. The intriguing fact is that this concurrence with the date of Vaikuntha Ekadasi is lost in the memory of our people for very long. Many think that Margashira Shukla Ekadasi identified as the day Krishna preached Bhagavad Gita occurred in the lunar month of Margashira. As a result the Gita Jayanti is being celebrated in the solar month of Kartika before the occurrence of Full Moon in Kartika star. Flawed understanding of the Time computation has led to this mistake.

Four-fold calculation of Time.

Time is calculated on the basis of four factors simultaneously. The location of the sun, the moon, the star transited by the moon and all these three occurring at or after sunrise in a day determine the time running on that day. A reference such as Margashira Shukla Ekadasi means the sun is in Margashira or Sagittarius with the moon in the 11th tithi of the waxing phase at that time. The star of the day could vary in different years, and therefore it is omitted in this particular reference, but these three (solar month, lunar paksha and tithi) pertaining to solar and lunar movement are always noted as a marker to denote a specific day.

The Sun being the cause of Time, it cannot be left out in any reference to Time. As such Margashira Shukla Ekadasi as the day of Gitopadesa can be observed only when the Sun is in Margashira and not in Kartika (Scorpio). This combination further denotes that the lunar month is Pushya. This leads to the revelation that the Mahabharata War had taken place in lunar Pushya month.

The month-wise analysis of the Mahabharata events done by me based on the internal evidences shows the date of Gitopadesa with the Sun still confined within the sign of Margashira. (The ayanamsa is not exact but close to it by a degree or two further inside Sagittarius.)

Date of Gitopadesa.

Krishna’s advice to Arjuna being two-fold, one, showing the way to Moksha (Liberation) and the other, projecting Himself as the protector of the Good and the annihilator of the Evil, these two are remembered on the day of Margashira Shukla Ekadasi as Mokshada Ekadasi or Vaikuntha Ekadasi by the followers of Vishnu.

Explaining the first, Mahabharata has never been treated as a historical document, but as Veda accessible to all and understandable by everyone. The core teaching lies in Bhagavad Gita and that has been infused in the day Krishna imparted. More than the Mahabharata connection, the importance of the teaching of Krishna to attain Vaikuntha has taken precedence and a mock rehearsal is enacted on the same day in the solar month of Margashira. In the absence of knowledge of even the existence of the observance on this day in other parts of India, it is no wonder Gita Jayanti has lost touch with the time when it ought to be observed.

The second feature is the ingeniously designed idea of Garuda Seva – of Vishnu flying in his Garuda Vahana on this day. Krishna had given the word to protect the Dharmic people from the adharmic ones. Whenever He comes out mounted on Garuda, it means He is out to destroy the Evil. This “ugra roopam” of the Lord with ‘panchayudhas’ – the five weapons is in tune with his promise of protecting the righteous from the evil that Krishna had given on Margashira Shukla Ekadasi.

The two core concepts of Gitopadesa enshrined in the observance of Vaikuntha Ekadasi can have no other rationale than remembering the day Krishna gave Gitopadesa to mankind through Arjuna. Vaikuntha Ekadasi observance must put at rest any doubts on the solar month of Gitopadesa.