Cholas were descendants of Rama (Vijayvaani.com)

 Published in Vijayvaani

The link between Tamil Nadu and Rama starts from the Chola dynasty itself.  The Chola Kings have written in copper plates and inscriptions that they were the descendants of Manu and his son Ikshwaku. Rajaraja Chola’s father, Sundara Chola has stated in the Anbil copper plates, issued to his minister Aniruddha Brahmaraya that the royal Chola family emerged from Vishnu’s eyes. This cannot be ignored as an attempt by the king to project himself equal to God because there are other inscriptions claiming that the Chola-s descended from Rama, the incarnation of Vishnu. The hereditary link with Rama was not disclosed by the other two Tamil dynasties, namely, the Chera-s and the Pandya-s, though they too claimed some divine connection of their own.

Ancient texts and dictionaries mention a titular name ‘Vaanavar’ to the Chera-s which refers to Indra. The Pandya-s claimed that they were the descendants of Meenakshi Devi, the consort of Shiva, and therefore called themselves as ‘Gowriya’ (the sons of Gowri). Compared to these two dynasties, the Chola-s were more specific about their origins by claiming that they descended from the Ikshwaku dynasty. Four inscriptions of the Chola-s make a notable list of the lineage of the Chola-s with all of them - though slightly divergent from each other - ultimately pointing towards Rama, the scion of the Ikshvaku-s. They were the Anbil copper plates by Sundara Chola, the Leyden Copper plates issued by Rajendra Chola I, the Tiruvalangadu copper plates by the same king and the Kanyakumari inscription by his son, Virarajendra Chola.

Bharata, Sibi and Rama in the Chola lineage.

The early kings of the descent given by them, is the same as the names mentioned by Vasishta at Rama’s marriage in Valmiki Ramayana. Till Mandhata, the names are similar in both the Chola and Ikshvaku genealogy. After Mandhata, Muchukunda appears in the Leyden inscriptions of Rajendra Chola. Further on, the lineage goes up to Sibi and then Chola Varman who founded the Chola dynasty. This is found in Sundara Chola-s Anbil plates too. In Tiruvalangadu plates of Rajendra Chola, the list continues after Sibi, with Marutta, Dushyanta and his son Bharata born to Shakunthala, after whom Chola Varman is given as the son of Bharata.

In the inscriptions carved on the pillars of the Kanyakumari Amman Temple by Virarajendra, the list begins with Brahma, Marichi, Kashyapa, Vaivasvata, Manu, Ikshvaku, then continues with Harishchandra, Sagara, Bhagiratha and goes on till Rama. Rama is praised in four hymns, and thereafter it is mentioned that a king named Chola was born in Rama’s family. Sibi’s name which appears in the other three inscriptions is not found in this inscription. Only this inscription speaks about a direct link with Rama for the Chola dynasty.

Conflicting claims on ancestry

All the four inscriptions were created by the decree of the Chola kings spanning across four generations in the 10^th and the 11^th centuries of the Common Era. There is no need for them to include Rama and Sibi in their ancestry unless there is an element of truth in them. Moreover, clubbing together Sibi, Rama and Bharata as common ancestors for the Chola-s makes a strange reading because they were not supposed to be related with each other as per our current knowledge of the olden inputs about them. The lurking question on how they could be the ancestors for Chola Varman, the first king of the Chola dynasty is probed in this write-up.

A common feature about all these four engravings is that they are found in Sanskrit. It has been a practice among the Tamil dynasties to inscribe their edicts bilingually whenever they wanted to include their genealogy in detail. In such instances, the lineage is given in Sanskrit, as to make it readable by anyone from anywhere in Bharat, and the donation part is written in Tamil which covers the dimensions of the land, or the articles gifted. Only Sanskrit scholars were found to have written the ancestral lineage in well composed verses with colophon attached in most cases, but they couldn’t have written them on their own, without the concurrence of the king. The kings must have approved of the dynastic lineage they wanted to be etched in stone or in copper plates. Otherwise, how is it possible to find the first chola as the descendant of Sibi in the edict issued by the grandfather (Sundara Chola) and as the son of Bharata in the grandson’s (Rajendra Chola) inscription? The great grandson (Virarajendra) surpassed them all by claiming the birth of the first Chola in Rama’s family. There should have been some connection among all the three ancestors – Sibi, Bharata and Rama, undetected so far.  

Bharata, the father of first Chola

Examining Bharata’s connection given in the Tiruvalangadu copper plates, Dushyanta’s son Bharata had three wives and nine sons through them as per Vishnu Purana. Bharata admonished his wives that none of the nine sons were like him, which caused the wives to kill all the nine sons, says Vishnu Purana (4-19). From the version of Tiruvalangadu plates, it is learnt that the sons were not actually killed but abandoned by Bharata.  Cholavarman was one among them. According to Kanyakumari inscription of Virarajendra, he left his parents, travelled southwards, and reached Poompuhar where he set up his rule.

Chola Varman’s connection with Sibi

Granted that Chola Varman was the son of Bharata, in what way he got linked with Sibi?  In fact, the Chola Kings enjoyed a title “Chembiyan” attributed to descent from Sibi. Many Sangam texts extol them as Chembiyan-s by citing the rare event in the life of Sibi of offering his own flesh to save a pigeon.

A search for the antecedents of Sibi leads us to a vital information that he was related to Bharata’s paternal grandfather. This begins from the five sons of Yayati. Among the five sons, named, Yadu, Turvasu, Druhyu, Anu and Puru, Dushyanta came in the dynasty of Puru. Marutta was a descendant of Puru’s sibling Turvasu. Since he had no children, he adopted Dushyanta of Puru’s family (Vishnu Purana 4-16). Sibi was the son of Usinara, born in the dynasty of another sibling Anu. In this way, they all are agnates born to the sons of the same father, i.e., Yayati.

By this, Sibi born in the lineage of Anu was a patrilineal cousin of Bharata born in the direct lineage of Puru. This makes Sibi the paternal uncle of Chola Varman who was Bharata’s biological son. Since the Tamil Sangam texts often state that Chola was born of Sibi’s lineage, it is highly likely that he was taken in adoption by Sibi’s family on being rebuked by Bharata.

The Chola-s for a long time must have nursed a grudge against Bharata for abandoning Chola Varman, the first Chola who set up the Chola dynasty. They remembered only Sibi and not Bharata or his father Dushyanta. This continued to get expressed in ancient Tamil literature too, but not until the 10^th century when Rajendra Chola wanted to put on record the beginnings of his lineage from Bharata.

Chola’s relationship with Rama.

How does the genealogical connection of Chola Varman with Bharata and Sibi, continue with Rama too? This puzzle can be unlocked from the way Rama was related to Yayati, the father of those five siblings. Yayati’s name appears as Rama’s ancestor in the Valmiki Ramayana (1-70-42). He was the son of Nahusha mentioned by Vasishtha who listed out all the ancestors at the time of Rama’s Marriage. The direct genetic connection between Rama and Yayati becomes apparent from this list.

In the same Valmiki Ramayana, Vasistha narrates the names of Rama’s ancestors once again when he along with Bharata went to the forest to persuade Rama to return to Ayodhya. In a bid to convince Rama that only the eldest son was crowned in Rama’s dynasty, Vasishtha started telling the names of the eldest in each generation who took up the mantle of ruling the country. In that list, Nahusha appears and not Yayati! Vasishtha says that after Nahusha, his son Nabhaga was crowned (2-110-32) whereas Nabhaga appears as the son of Yayati in the list given by him during Rama’s marriage.  This shows that Yayati did not get the rulership of Ayodhya but his son got. Nabhaga’s great grandson was Rama!

Looking for further clues, Vishnu Purana (4-6) says that Yayati was from Chandra clan (Soma-Vamsa). This clan traces their ancestry from Ikshvaku’s eldest sister Ila. It looks strange to find the names of Nahusha and Yayati as father and son in Chandra Vamsa. In other words, Nahusha and Yayati appear in Surya Vamsa as well as in Chandra Vamsa. Of the two only Nahusha came to the Ikshvaku throne followed by Yayati’s son Nabhaga. For some reason, Yayati did not become the king of Ayodhya. The reason can be understood only from the Chola ancestry given in the inscriptions.

Of the common ancestors of the Chola-s, Bharata and Sibi were the descendants of Yayati through Puru and Anu. Rama was the descendant of Yayati who was the father of Nabhaga of Surya Vamsa. Yayati’s name appearing in both Surya Vamsa and Chandra Vamsa shows that he as one born in Surya Vamsa was adopted by a Chandra Vamsa king. Irrespective of the clan-name, all his descendants carried the same genetic markers which made them all share the same patrilineal pool. This made the Chola-s recognise all the three – Bharata, Sibi and Rama as their ancestors. This information clearly stated in their edicts turn a new page in the history of Bharat that there is no North-South divide. The Ikshvaku’s had spread to South India as far as Pumpukar in a distant past even before the river Kaviri was born, for, there is a reference in the Tiruvalangadu plates to a later day descendant of Chola Varman, by name Chitradhanvan who brought Kaviri from the Western Ghats like how Bhagiratha brought the Ganga.

Bhagawan Ranganatha: Rama’s gift to Cholas

The Vigraha of Bhagawan Ranganatha housed in the temple at Srirangam in Tamilnadu has a legend around it that it was the deity worshiped by Rama and given to Vibheeshana during his coronation. Valmiki Ramayana refers to a ‘Kula Dhanam’ handed over by Rama to Vibheeshana (6-128-90). There was a reference to this deity once again when Rama was getting ready to leave the earthy plane. He advised Vibheeshana to worship the Ikshvaku deity ‘Jagannatha” (7-121).

Prior to this, Valmiki describes about Rama worshipping Vishnu on the first occasion of the coronation organised by Dasaratha. It was stated that Rama and Sita worshipped Vishnu at that time, did Yajna for Vishnu, and spent the night in the abode (temple) of Vishnu (Va. Ra. 2-6). All these indicate that Rama possessed the vigraha of Vishnu for himself. A question arises that, if a vigraha was family property, how would anyone give it to people outside the family? If it was given to Vibheeshana, why did he leave it on the island on River Kaviri? If it was given to him by Rama, it is only natural to expect him to take it to his own abode (Lanka) and not leave it on the way. But he left it on a mound amid Kaviri, which became known as Srirangam. Was it because that region was under the control of the Chola-s?

Parallelly, we come across an information in the form of an inscription that Bhagawan Ranganatha of Srirangam was the ‘Kula Dhanam’ of the Chola-s!  In an inscription of the period of Kulottunga-III, found on the inner wall of the White Tower of the Srirangam Temple, it is stated that the Srirangam deity has come to the Chola King as the ‘Kula Dhanam’ (SII Vol 24, NO. 133, A.R. No. 89 of 1936 – 37).

The same expression – Kula Dhanam – found in the Valmiki Ramayana for the vigraha given to Vibheeshna is found in the inscription as a possession of the Chola-s. It conveys just one meaning – that Rama sent his Kula Dhanam as his gift to his descendant Chola who could not have attended the coronation ceremony which was called for in short notice upon Rama’s return from Lanka. Yayati was just a few generations older than Rama and the first Chola (Chola Varman) could have been much closer to Rama’s time, that Rama remembered his cousin in distant South by sending his own deity through Vibheeshana who had to cross the Chola region to reach his hometown. Vibheeshana merely served as a carrier to hand over the deity to the Chola-s. It is also mentioned in the Srirangam temple chronicle called ‘Koyil Olugu’ that the deity in the possession of the Chola-s right from the time it was brought by Vibheeshana. If Rama had meant it for Vibheeshana, Vibheeshana would not have left it in Srirangam.

This inscription also stands in support of the ancestry from Rama mentioned in the Kanyakumari inscription. There are literary references too from Sangam age to middle Chola-s in the 10^th century on Rama as the ancestor of the Chola-s. It is a pity that this precious connection of the Chola-s with Rama remains forgotten by Tamils themselves. At least now the connection among all the three – Bharata, Sibi and Rama – with the Chola-s (Tamils) down South must be publicized throughout Bharat in the spirit of Ek Bharat, Sreshtha Bharat.

Is Sati a product of Sanatana Dharma, as Udhayanidhi claims? (Vijayvaani.com)

Published in Vijayvaani

Recently, a huge furore was created by Mr. Udhayanidhi, the Minister for Sports and Youth welfare of Tamilnadu who also happens to be the son of the Chief Minister, that he stands for eradicating Sanatana Dharma. In defiance of the criticism and legal cases against him, he clarified that he is not against Hindus or Hinduism but only against the evil practices promoted by ‘Sanatana Dharma’. He also clarified what those practices are in a review meeting in Thoothukudi by stating that he is against Sati and ill-treatment of women like slaves by Sanatana Dharma. The same view was repeated by the HR & CE Minister, Mr. Sekar Babu who said that they did not oppose the followers of Sanatana Dharma but only wanted to abolish the Sanatana Dharmic policies like Sati, hereditary education and untouchability. Ultimately, according to them, eradication of Sanatana Dharma means abolition of Sati and untouchability.

 

This makes a surprising reading for the people of Tamilnadu because Sati was not seen in the Tamil lands. The subsequent explanations given by Udhayanidhi, and his colleagues make two things clear: that they are not aware of what Sanatana Dharma means and not aware of what the olden Tamil texts that they proudly speak about have got to say about Sati. There is no known event of Sati being committed in the last 2000 years or so in the Tamil lands, but there does exist a poem by a queen of the Pandyan dynasty just before she immolated herself on the pyre of her husband. In what way Sanatana Dharma played a role in her decision is questionable. To know whether a practice is dictated by Sanatana Dharma or not, it is essential to know what Sanatana Dharma stands for.

Scope of Sanatana Dharma

Sanatana by its very name means that which is ever-lasting, universal or relevant for all at all times. The principles and practices which are applicable to all is Sanatana Dharma.

This can be explained by means of Newton’s third law of Motion which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Once action takes place, the reaction cannot be avoided. In human life this has relevance as we know that action begets reaction. This forms the basic concept of the Karma which applies to everyone irrespective of one’s religious background or nationality or gender. This concept is applicable to people of all times – in the past, present and future. By this we can say that the concept of Karma is a Sanatan idea.

Since the reaction for one’s action must be necessarily experienced, one cannot escape from it. Suppose one’s life gets terminated before experiencing the reaction, one will have to experience it in the next birth. Thus, rebirth too applies to everyone. This makes rebirth a concept of Sanatana Dharma.

If actions are good, the reactions also will be good in which case they are called as Punya. If actions are bad, they bring hardship. Such actions are called as Paapa (sin). So, Punya and Paapa are also Sanatana concepts. In a nutshell, Sanatana Dharma encompasses those concepts that are indestructible and applicable to one and all – irrespective of whether one believes them or not. When seen through this prism of clarity about Sanatana Dharma, we can judge whether a practice such as Sati was a creation of Sanatana principle or not.

Self-immolation is not a Sanatana principle.

DMK’s biggest allegation is the Sati issue. They criticize Sanatana Dharma as promoting it without realising that the ancient Tamil Grammar book, Tholkappiyam talks about it. This book is not just about Tamil grammar but also about the lifestyle of different types of people. In the context of describing the nature and condition of widows, it describes something called Kaiyaru Nilai. This is about what a woman does upon losing her husband. Among the list of things done by the widow, it says that some of them self-immolate themselves on the pyre of their husband.

Verse 77 of Puraththinai Iyal says that a good wife will self-immolate on her husband’s funeral fire. By specifically stating ‘good wife’ does Tholkappiyam impose an ideology on women that unless she chooses to self-immolate, she cannot be considered as a good wife? No one asked this but just accepted it as it is. One can interpret the verse as a proof for Tholkappiyam encouraging Sati practice. Why doesn’t Udhayanidhi and his coterie find fault with Tholkappiyam as regressive that deserves to be eradicated?

If it is a Sanatan practice, it should have been practised by all widows. Such a thing never happened. The same Tholkappiyam talks about different ways of expressing grief and not necessarily insisting on Sati, but the reference to Sati done by good wives does find mention in the text. Looking at persons who committed it, we have a long list of people who had not committed it. A popular example is Kannaki; she didn’t self-immolate herself. The other woman in Kovalan’s life Madhavi too did not commit sati. 

Kannaki did speak about self-immolation. On hearing about the death of her husband, Kovalan, Kannaki lamented that she neither self-immolated herself nor pursued widowhood penance, but only became the object of insult by the people. Why should she suffer a miserable life because of the mistake done by the king, asked Kannaki.

Madhavi too spoke about not doing Sati. In Manimekalai, people teased her for not taking part in Indra Festival to do her hereditary job of dancing. Madhavi refused and stopped her daughter from pursuing the hereditary job of dancing in public festivals. In that context she said that she was unfazed for not doing it. She was ashamed only for not mourning the death of her lover Kovalan, by not committing Sati, not dying along with Kovalan and not doing widowhood penances so that she could unite him in the next birth.

These talks by two of the top heroines of Tamil lands make it clear that self-immolation was not a choice. Even the widowhood penance was not compulsory. Whenever they had chosen it, it was due to their extreme distress of having lost the loved one. The society had censured them for not doing such acts but that in no way influenced their decision. Their talks reveal that it was mostly due to a self-choice dictated by the societal pressure or one’s own extreme emotion and not a rule of law dictated by Sanatana Dharma. If it was a Sanatana principle, it would have been mandatory. It is not so.

In the Sangam period, a queen by name Perum Koppendu, self-immolated following the death of her husband, Bootha Pandiya. This woman was in her middle age and not someone who seemed to take emotional decision.  She kept insisting on joining her husband on his pyre which she penned in a moving verse which exists in the Tamil Sangam corpus. Everyone from ministers, staff and people tried to dissuade her from her decision but she could not be influenced. Her decision to commit Sati and another poet’s moving verse on her committing Sati are found in verses 246 and 247 of Pura Nanooru.

In the poem 246, the message given by the Pandiya Queen Perum Koppendu is shocking. She says: “If I did not self-immolate, I should follow widowhood penance, should eat uncooked rice spread on the ground by mixing white sesame paste and raw tamarind, should sleep on a bed of pebble stones. Instead of enduring that suffering, I can die by falling into the fire.” Her poem gives the message that she preferred to self-immolate than to endure lifelong widowhood penance. Coming to think of the ‘good wife’ jibe of Tholkappiyam, this poem makes disturbing reading. What Kannaki and Madhavi chose to ignore, this Pandyan queen could not take lightly.

Tholkappiyam doesn’t say that this way of life had to be undertaken. It just says that some women chose to do so. If the tough widowhood penance is the cause for this, it is for the woman to convince herself because of the belief that such a penance would enable her to get the same husband in the next birth. Such ideas are the product of the society and the individual as well for which one cannot blame Sanatana Dharma, nor Tholkappiyam.

Similar lamentation was expressed by menfolk too. In the 245^th verse of Pura Nanooru, king Cheraman kottambalathu thunjiya Maakkothai (சேரமான் கோட்டம்பலத்துத் துஞ்சிய மாக்கோதை) lamented why he was alive when his wife perished in fire. Despite the expression of extreme grief, he didn’t give up his life. It appears that women become more emotional than men that they take the extreme step of self-immolation by not being able to cope with the loss of the dear one. They needed psychological support and close monitoring in such circumstances. The Pandyan queen ignored all the support she was given. Perhaps it worked in the case of others that Sati is more or less absent in the Tamil society.  

With the huge hullabaloo raised in Tamilnadu for NEET suicides, it is almost similar to the Sati psychology. If persons who failed in NEET Exam committed suicide, can the NEET Exam be blamed for that? We say that we should help to change the mentality in facing failure.  Likewise, the woman should have been given the strength to endure the loss of her husband. There was evidence to that effect when the British government enacted legislation to prevent Sati practice. Whenever there was a news that someone was for self-immolation, counsellors were sent immediately to psychologically counsel the vulnerable woman. At Vizadroog in the South Konkan region, when a Judge came to know that a lady was going to self-immolate, he sent a Brahmin to change her mindset. The Brahmin spoke spiritually about death and Atman and managed to change her mind. Brahmins prevented self-immolation. They had not encouraged self-immolation.

As far as the Tamil Nadu is concerned, there is no history of anyone, forced by religious tenets or by the society to commit Sati. If at all Udhayanidhi wants to blame someone for Sati, Tholkappiyam with a sutra of ‘Good wife’ appears more vulnerable. Will Udhayanithi conduct Tholkappiyam Abolishing Conference for that? Why such a line is present in Tholkappiyam? Will he work for removing that line? How can he blame Sanatana Dharma as promoting evil when there is no evidence of linking Sati with Sanatana Dharma? Sanatana Dharma means that which is applicable at all times to all people.  How can he blame Sanatana Dharma for something which is not sanctioned by it?

 

Date of Adi Shankaracharya

 Previous article

A great feature of Adi Shankara’s birth date is that almost all the ancient authors are unanimous on the Panchanga features of his date of birth. His year of birth is admitted as Nandana, the tithi was Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, his birth star being Punarvasu and the weekday being Sunday. This is authenticated in ‘Brihat Shankara Vijaya’ by Citsukhacharya, the boyhood companion of Adi Shankara and ‘Shankara Vijaya’ by Cidvilasa. (page 21, “Date of Shankara”, edited by N. Mahalingam)

While the availability of the Panchanga features seem to offer the best means to find out the date using the astrology software, we come across lot more information – contradictory to each other in the works of ancient authors. These are about the planetary combinations in the birth time horoscope of Adi Shankara. For example, Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya offers the planetary combinations that are similar to Rama’s horoscope. It is reproduced below. The Kali year is given as 2593. Deducted from 3101 BCE, the date was 508 BCE. (From p.16, “The Traditional Age of Sri Shankaracharya and the Mathas” by A. Nataraja Iyer and S. Lakshminarasimha Sastri)

                                                From Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam

The year tallied with Nandana Varusham but the planetary combinations are totally different. Saturn was shown to be in exaltation in Libra whereas it was in Pisces in that year. Before producing the horoscopic combination from the software, let me introduce another horoscope, this one given by Citsukhacharya and quoted by N. Mahalingam in his book and also produced with the exact verse by T.S. Narayana Sastry (pp. 39, 40)

The Panchanga details are given. The planetary positions slightly differ from Madhaviya’s Shankara Vijayam. This horoscope also seems to be created to emulate Rama’s horoscope.

The date is given in Yudhishthira Shaka but the author (T.S. Narayana Sastry) has counted it from before Kali Yuga. This is a major error found in most books on the date of Adi Shankara. The writers of the modern times have interpreted Yudhishthira Shaka as being different from Kali Yuga, whereas the fact is that the Yudhishthira Shaka was the first shaka (sub-division) of the Kali Yuga. It did not start from the time Yudhishthira won the Mahabharata war and ascended the throne. Dwapara Yuga was running then and there was no Kali Yuga then. Kali Yuga started only on the exit of Krishna from whence the counting of the first Shaka, namely, Yudhishthira Shaka began. To explain this let me show the duration of the each of the six shaka-s of Kali yuga which when totalled together gives rise to 4,32,000 years.

The count of Yudhishthira Shaka starts from the 1^st year of Kali Yuga, but almost all the authors have counted from a previous time – not even knowing when the Mahabharata war ended. It was really shocking to know that scholars have dated Adi Shankara without even knowing what the Yudhishthira Shaka year means. Yudhisthira Shaka 2631 means 470 BCE (3101 BCE - 2361) which was Pramoda year, not Nandana.

Now having shown two oft quoted horoscopes from Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya and Citsukhacharya’s Shankara Vijaya, let me reproduce what the same date shows. I checked for both Drik ayanamsa and Surya Siddhanta (SS) Ayanamsa to get the Panchanga details intact. The following is for SS ayanamsa.

                                

I produced the same for Drik Ayanamsa which showed the same date, March 28^th in 508 BCE, but the weekday was Monday and not Sunday. The star was Arudra. The planetary combinations were not at all as shown by Madhaviya or Citsukhacharya.

                                    

The most important date features, particularly the star and weekday do not match for these years.

The data in possession of Sringeri Matha is also that of Citsukhacharya’s Brihat Shankara Vijaya but the scholars have deduced the year 44 BCE for those details. It is reproduced below.

                                

The year Dhata was running in 44 BCE, not Nandana. The weekday and star of the day do not match with Adi Shankara’s birth details.

The Dwaraka Peeth also gives the same information as that of Citsukhacharya (provided by Kanchi Mutt) that Adi Shankara was born in Nandana year, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami in Yudhishthira Shaka 2631. The year was 470 BCE which was Pramoda. If by chance the year was more by one, then also it was not Nandana, but Shukla year. For 470 BCE, the details are as follows:

                          

I produced for 471 BCE also.

The Govardhan Mutt also provides the same kind of birth details and horoscopy details like Kanchi and Dwaraka Matha-s. We must note that the Panchanga details are the same in all the Matha-s. Even today Shankara Jayanti is celebrated on Shukla Panchami / Punarvasu star, but the planetary combinations are certainly not exactly recorded.  As far as Jyothir Mutt is concerned, the birth details are not available. All the Matha-s, particularly, Kanchi Matha adopted 509 BCE based on the following input on the Chronogram.

The year of birth of Adi Shankara is given as Chronogram which read as 2593. Counted from the beginning of Kali Yuga, this is 508 BCE (3101- 2593). The year was Nandana, but the star was not Punarvasu as shown earlier. For long, the year was taken as 509 BCE by deducting from 3201 BCE which is not the beginning of Kali Yuga, and which gave the year Khara and not Nandana.

Thus, there is a severe dichotomy in deriving the date. First of all, the date features have not tallied for any of the years given by the scholars or Matha-s. Secondly the horoscopic features do not tally for the year 508 BCE derived from the chronogram. With the date features not tallying for that year, there is a greater chance for an error in the chronogram too, because it is all about exchanging the words. Therefore, the best way is to search for the date that combines Nandana year, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Punarvasu and Sunday. The time is given as Abhijit Muhurtha in many chronicles and as Dhanur in some. We will check them all to find out the exact date matching with the birth details.

I checked for a 1000-year period from 500 BCE to 500 CE for both Drik and SS ayanamsa.

The following dates had the features closely, though only one year matched with all the details.

1.     March 28, 508 BCE, 12-30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Monday, Arudra (Drik & SS)

2.     March 27, 448 BCE, 12-30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Thursday, Arudra (Drik & SS)

3.     April 21, 388 BCE, 12-30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Chaturthi, Saturday, Punarvasu (Drik & SS)

4.     March 19, 328 BCE, 12- 30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Saturday, Mrigashirsha (Drik & SS)

5.     April 13, 208 BCE, 12- 30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Friday, Punarvasu (Drik & SS)

6.     April 11, 148 BCE, 12-30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Sunday, Punarvasu (Drik & SS)

7.     April 17, 332 CE, 10-30 PM: Nandana, Vaishakha Shukla Panchami, Sunday, Punarvasu (Drik & SS) Dhanur Lagnam

For all the dates except the last one, the lagna was Abhijit Muhurtha (12-30 PM) at Kataka or Simha. For the year 332 CE, all the birth details matched only after 10-30 PM at night. That gets the lagna at Dhanur as quoted by Atmabodha. But that lagna does not indicate sanyasa ashrama. Only 148 BCE (April 11) had all the birth details found together. The rashi, Bhava and Navamsa charts for that date are produced below (April 11, 148 BCE, 12-30 PM).

The combination of Rashi and Bhava charts simulated to Drik ayanamsa show Pravrajya Yoga. The lagna is Kataka in the Bhava with the Sun joining Mars in the 10^th house. Mars is the Yoga karaka, which is powerful in shadbala strength and joins the Sun indicating taking up of Diksha. The Janmesa (lord of Janma) Mercury is joined by Saturn and not aspected by any other planet. In the Navamsa, the Janmesa and Moon are aspected by Saturn. Moon is in Saturine Drekkana. These features ensure that he had taken Diksha and lived a renounced life. Jupiter is in the 9^th from the Bhava lord, owning the 9^th house which shows that he would write sastras, sciences and commentaries. In all, six planets are powerful – Jupiter and Mars in own houses, Sun in exaltation, Venus and Mercury in Parivartana yoga, Ketu in the 12^th bhava. Saturn which is shown exalted in the horoscopes of olden acharyas is in the right place that ensures sanyasa yoga. So, this horoscope is highly reliable for a great Sanyasi whose contribution to sastras is immense.

The mis-spelling in chronogram

The date 148 BCE is equivalent of Kali 2953 years.

This makes a surprising reading because the chronogram from Prachina Shankara Vijaya quoted by Atmabodha was Kali 2593 – it was just a misplacement of a number which was taken to mean 508 BCE by the Kanchi Mutt.

Reproducing the chronogram in the verse, it says,

“tishya prayāthya anala shēvāthi bāṇa nētra” where

Anala = 3, shēvāthi = 9, bāṇa = 5, nētra = 2.

3952 was reversed to give 2593.

Now it appears, it should have been 2953 by which the chronogram should read as

‘Anala bāṇa  shēvāthi  nētra” = 3592. The reverse will be 2953.

Kali 2953 (tishya is Kali yuga) means 3101 – 2953 = 148

The chronogram, if corrected by just a jumble of a word, gives the exact year of birth of Adi Shankara which fulfils all the date features.

By using the chronogram with a single number misplaced, the year 508 BCE was got.

This seems to be a transcription error when people in the old misplaced a single letter of the chronogram when they copied down. This completely changed the date that did not match with the original date.

Scholars working on original manuscripts can look for this jumble in the olden manuscripts and correct it to the satisfaction of all.

Thus, the date is available. It was in the pre-common era.

Earlier It was proved that this date tallied with Karikāl Chola’s time who built the city of Kanchi on the advice of Adi Shankara.

Adi Shankara’s life events.

The horoscope shows that Adi Shankara was born in Jupiter Maha dasa- Moon Bhukthi.

He lost his father in his 8^th year. That was in Saturn Dasa.

He became a Sanyasin in his 12^th year. That was in Saturn Dasa – Ketu Bhukthi.

A turning pint in his life was meeting of Kumarila Bhatta in his 16^th year. He was running Saturn Dasa- Sun Bhukthi at that time.

There was no turning back in his life after that as he was completely immersed in writing commentaries and regulating Dharma. His end came in Mercury Dasa – when he was shining in knowledge and Mukthi.

The setting up of the Matha-s

The setting up of the Matha-s follow quick succession in his agenda.

1.     Dwaraka Pitha – Sadharana varusham, Magha Shukla Saptami: January 14, 129 BCE, Saturday, Bharani

2.     Jyothish Mutt – Rakshasa Varusham, Paush Shukla Purnima: November 29, 125 BCE, Monday, Arudra.

3.     Govardhan Mutt – Nala Varusham, Vaishakha Shukla Dasami: March 21, 124 BCE, Tuesday, Magha.

4.     Sringeri Mutt – Pingala Varusham, Paush Shukla Purnima: December 7, 123 BCE, Friday, Punarvasu

5.     Kanchi Mutt – Siddharthi Varusham, Vaishakha Shukla Purnima: April 22, 121 BCE, Tuesday, Vishakha

Shankara’s date of ascending to heaven is also given in Panchanga features. It was Rakthaskhi year, Vrishabha Masa, Shukla Ekadasi. This tallies with March 23, 116 BCE, Sunday Purvaphalguni.

This date very much matches with that of Karikāl Chola who built the Grand Anicut in the year 111 BCE. Adi Shankara did not live to see the Kallanai built. But he got what he wanted – building the Ekāmbareswarar temple and the Varadarāja temple besides the Kamakshi temple.

With only 5 years left between his setting up of the Kanchi Mutt and his Swargarohanam, it is highly unlikely he made a walkathon to North India to leave his mortal coils in Kedarnath. Kanchi being a Moksha sthala, it is highly likely he spent his final days in Kanchi, taking great satisfaction in having established Kamakshi Amman and praising her as Dravida Shishu – as a resident of the Dravida region of Kanchi.  

Having completed the date related issues, let me now focus on he issues raised by scholars on his contemporaries.

Purnavarman in Adi Shankara’s writings.

In his article, ‘The date of Shankaracharya’ published in the India Antiquary, 1884, volume no: 13, Mr. K.T. Telang raised certain names used by Adi Shankara in his commentaries. (p. 95, https://archive.org/details/indianantiquary1884vol.13_218_H/page/96/mode/1up ). Since then, they are being discussed by scholars with varied results.

In his Bhashya to Vedanta Sutra, II-1-17, Adi Shankara refers to a king by name Purnavarman, which gives the impression that he was living during his time or around his time. Suppose we find out the identity of this king, we can establish Adi Shankara’s date – this was the opinion of the scholars who quoted this passage. The passage runs as follows:

“If somebody should use, for instance, a phrase such as the following one, 'The son of a barren woman was king previously to the coronation of Pûrnavarman,' the declaration of a limit in time implied in that phrase does not in reality determine that the son of the barren woman, i.e. a mere non-entity, either was or is or will be king. If the son of a barren woman could become an existing thing subsequently to the activity of some causal agent, in that case it would be possible also that the non-existing effect should be something existing, subsequently to the activity of some causal agent.” (https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34157.htm )

The passage talks about whether we can establish the existence of an entity by a comparison such as – the son of a barren woman was the king before the coronation of Purvavarman.

Certainly, a barren woman cannot give birth to a son. But by saying that the son of a barren woman was the king before Purnavarman was crowned as the king, it indicates the impossibility of such a person and not relate his nonexistence to the existence of a king who was crowned after him. In this passage, the king Purnavarman appears like a real character. Adi Shankara was referring to a real king by name Purnavarman and makes a comparison with an impossible entity of one born to a barren woman. So, who was this Purnavarman? This question was haunting the scholars. Either he must have been a contemporary of Adi Shankara or must have lived and died very closely to Shankara’s time.

Mr. Telang identifies two Purnavarman-s – one who lived in Java in the 5^th century and one who ruled from Magadha and mentioned by Hieun Tsang.

Purnavarman of Magadha looks quite agreeable but his identity is variously disputed by Telang and almost all the scholars who tried to identify him. It is important to note that Telang found out from the writings of Hieun Tsang that Purnavarman was the last of the Maurya kings. Though Hieun Tsang mentioned about him, the scholars make an unnecessary fuss that he did not attempt to meet him, thinking that Purnavarman lived in the 7^th century when Adi Shankara also lived!

I tried to locate the work of Hieun Tsnag to know what exactly he had written but couldn’t get the original write-up. All that I could get was the secondary writings which invariably said that Hieun Tsang did say that Purnavarman was the last of the Maurya kings of which Ashoka was an important king.

The problem in identifying Purnavarman arises from another information that the celebrated Bodhi tree was destroyed by Shashanka and it was Purnavarman who successfully restored it. The identity of Shashanka is another issue which scholars tend to link with Harshavardhana. This brings the date of Adi Shankara much later and runs against the date we found out.

So, I decided to go with the original and initial information on Purnavarman as the last king of the Maurya-s. One will be surprised to know that most information on Maurya-s and others are drawn from Vishnu Purana and Jain or Buddhist chronicles and not supported by archaeology.

Only nine emperors have ruled from the Maurya dynasty of Ashoka. The last and the nineth emperor was not named as Purnavarman but as Brihadratha. The main kings were as follows:

Ashoka – 304- 232 BCE

Dasharatha Maurya (grandson)

Samprati

Shalishuka

Devavarman

Shatadhanvan (8th emperor of Maurya)

Brihadratha (9th emperor) 187- 185 BCE.

Brihadratha was overthrown by Pushyamitra Shunga who founded the Shunga dynasty.

Upto Brihadratha, Buddhism was supported by the kings and Hinduism was not favoured. Only with the ascent of Pushyamitra Shunga, Sanatana Dharma found a revival. It was in his period, Patanjali wrote the Mahabhashya. Vedic homas were done, Vedic literature got back its pre-eminence.

The date of Brihadratha appears just before Adi Shankara’s year of birth at 148 BCE. Someone of his Maurya predecessors had disregarded Buddhism. There is no name Shashanka appearing in the lineage given in Vishnu Purana but there was one Shalishuka given in Yuga Purana as a Mauryan king who was described in disparaging terms. Perhaps he attempted to cut off the Bodhi tree but was stopped. Brihadratha continued to be a Buddhist and worked against Sanatana Dharma. It seems there was resistance to the royal patronage of Buddhism which is known from the fact that Pushyamitra, an army chief of the Maurya-s, while conducting a parade in front of the Mauryan king Brihadratha, crushed him in the pretext of showing strength.

Once Brihadratha was killed by Pushyamitra, there was no opposition which by itself shows that people disliked the king and his Buddhist leanings. Once on the throne, Pushyamitra established the revival of Sanatana Dharma.

In this background, Adi Shankara comparing a non-existent king born to a barren woman with Purnavarman, appears to convey the thought flow of Adi Shankara himself. Purnavarman was as good as the son of a barren woman, in being an opponent of Vedic religion.

Scholars identify another Purnavarman, but he belonged to the Gupta dynasty. Since Hieun Tsnag clearly stated that he was the last emperor of the Maurya dynasty of Ashoka, and the date matches with Adi Shankara’s date, there is no need to look for Purnavarman from other periods.

In the same trip to Bharat, Hieun Tsang also visited Kanchi. If Adi Shankara was living at that period or close to that period, he would have mentioned about him because of Adi Shankara’s penchant for defeating Buddhism wherever he went. Such debates were not active during the 7^th century when Hieun Tsang visited Bharat.

Purnavarman and Rajavarman.

Adi Shankara once again makes a mention about Purnavarman in his commentary to Chandogya Upanishad, 2-23-1.

Here he says, “service under Purnavarman brings only food and clothing, while that under Rajavarman brings rewards equal to kingship”.

The reference establishes the reality of a king by name Purnavarman but shows that he was not well respected by Adi Shankara. Rajavarman could not have belonged to the same country, namely Magadha, but if so, Shankara could not have meant Pushyamitra. Earlier we found Rājasena as the king of Kanchi in Adi Shankara’s time who was very much dedicated to Shankara. Perhaps Rajavarman was a reference to Rājasena of the Chola dynasty who did everything for him, including the establishment of Sarvajna Peetha.

Devadatta and Yajnadatta

Adi Shankara also raises the names such as Devadatta and Yajnadatta in his commentary to Vedanta Sutras to say that one of them lived in Srughna and another in Pataliputra. In II-1-18 of the Brahma sutra he says that Devadatta cannot be present in Srughna and Pataliputra on the same day due to the long distance between them. He often uses the name Devadatta – a name which is found in Ramanuja’s commentary to Brahma Sutras too.

It is said in Ramanuja’s commentary that Devadatta is a common name among men used in grammatical and other examples to indicate ‘anyone’ or a ‘certain person’. For example, it is common to say, ‘that is that Devadatta’ ‘Devadatta has cut off all that is above’ ‘tell Devadatta that his father is well’ ‘Devadatta is brown, youthful’ and so on. Therefore, not much meaning needs to be attached to the identity of Devadatta and Yajnadatta in Adi Shankara’s writings. This is not the same as Purnavarman or Rajavarman who seemed to be true historical characters.

Srughna and Pataliputra.

The name Srughna is used by Adi Shankara to denote a place. In the same context he has said that a person cannot be in Srughna and Pataliputra as well. Thus, Srughna is understood to be the name of a place but scholars are at a loss to identify the place.

Srughna is likely to be the original name of the Shunga kings. The dynasty’s name as Shunga or the kings name as ‘Shunga’ is used by us but not found in any source. Vishnu Purana uses the name Shunga. The Bharhut stupa is said to have been made “at the time of the Suga kings” (Suganam raje), but it is not known who these “Suga kings” were. From other contemporary inscriptions such as Heliodorus pillar inscription and the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana we hear that Pushyamitra was denoted by them and that he was the “Shunga”.

After overthrowing the Maurya empire, Pushyamitra Shunga expanded his empire in the northwest as far as Sagala (Sialkot). He sent army to destroy the Buddhist monasteries and rewarded for brining the head of the Buddhist monks. A place by name Srughna was located in this region of Sagala in the northwest. Srughna is often mentioned in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, Patanjali’s Mahabhashya, the Divyavadana, the Mahabharata, the Mahamayuri, the Brihatsamhita of Varahamihira, etc.

Srughna, also spelt Shrughna in Sanskrit is also known as Sughna, Sughana or Sugh. There is an old archaeological mound in the village of Sugh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugh_Ancient_Mound) Excavations done in 1965 showed artifacts from 600 BCE to 300 CE. A broken figurine of a headless child with writing board in lap with Shunga (187 BCE to 78 BCE) period alphabets is an important finding from this place, confirming the connection with Pushyamitra Shunga.

 Another important find is the image of an elephant.

https://haryanatourism.gov.in/Destination/ancient-site-of-sugh

Interestingly, the Shunga-s also had elephant in their coins and emblems.

Bronze coin of the Shunga period, Eastern India. 2nd–1st century BCE.

Elephant in Shunga coin

                              Fragment of gold ornament, 185-72 BCE showing an elephant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga_Empire#/media/File:India,_periodo_sunga,_pendente_a_elefante_inj_oro,_185-72_ac_ca.jpg

A surprising element is that the Bhoja-s, the relatives of Krishna who fled to the west for fear of Jarasandha had Elephant in their banner (Mahabharata: 7-47-8: mārtikāvatakaṃ bhojaṃ tataḥ kuñjaraketanam).

Eighteen groups of Bhoja-s fled to the west, said Krishna to Yudhisthira when he announced him of his decision to move to Dwaraka. Of them the Bhoja-s who went to Matrikavara had elephant as their emblem. In course of time, the descendants of these Bhoja-s must have settled down in Srughna and established their rule. Pushyamitra must have been a descendant of that dynasty. Even his name Pushyamitra could not have been his original name because it was meant to be the mitra (friend) of Pushya (Kali Yuga). He, with strong leanings on Vedic culture, must have been greatly disturbed by the rise of Buddhism in Magadha and waited for a time to remove the Buddhist friendly regime from Magadha. When he succeeded in this endeavour, he was greatly welcomed by one and all. It was only with the arrival of the Shunga dynasty, a Sanatan Renaissance became possible. Pushyamitra was credited with having conducted Ashvamedha yajna.

Adi Shankara lived during that time, perhaps during his successor’s time. The removal of Purnavarman must have been welcomed by one and all that Adi Shankara felt it apt to quote him at places where he wanted to indicate a drop in standards. After Pushyamitra Shunga, Agnimitra ruled between 149 to 141 BCE.

During Adi Shankara’s northern sojourn, Vasujyeshtha, the third emperor of the Shunga dynasty must have been ruling (141 – 131 BCE). The Shunga kings were not in power for a long time. This perhaps made Adi Shankara to choose the much stabler Chola country at Kanchi to spend his final days.

Nepal visit.

Sometime during his visit to establish Jyothish Mutt, he must have visited Nepal. According to Nepalese Vamsavali, the 18th king of Nepal’s Surya Vamsa dynasty was Vrishadeva Varman. He built viharas and erected the images of lokeswara. His brother Bālārchana was also a Buddhist. Adi Shankara visited Nepal in his period and destroyed Buddhism.

During the time of the 31st king Vishvadeva Varman, Vikramaditya came to Nepal and established his Shaka (57 BCE). So, Adi Shankara lived long before 57 BCE.

The date of Adi Shankaracharya

The year of birth of Adi Shankaracharya is clearly made out from the astrological software that can produce all the birth features together for the year 148 BCE. It is reproduced once again (Drik ayanamsa).

His contemporary was Karikāl Chola, also known as Rājasena. In the north, Shunga dynasty was ruling from Pataliputra at that time.

Adi Shankara seemed to have spent considerable time in Kanchi, as seen from his images in various temples. In the Varadaraja temple itself, the image of Ekadandi, Advaita, smarta sanyasin is seen which scholars think is that of Adi Shankara. Similar images are found in Vaikuntha Perumal temple and a temple at Sevili medu. The details of these images can be read in the book ‘Kamakottam and Nayanmars’ authored by VA Devasenapati ( https://archive.org/details/kamakottam-and-nayanmars/page/27/mode/1up ).

Adi Shankara lived at a time when the Vedic religion was not classified as Shaivite or Vaishnavite and so on. It was he who classified for some orderliness but that started causing rigid divisions among the Hindus. Reading through several works on Adi Shankara and works of Adi Shankara for the sake of this article, it gave me a better understanding of our Dharma and the futility of sectarian divisions. He appeared at a time when Renaissance of the Vedic religion was the need of the hour in the North which was under the influence of Buddhism. The South was mostly Vedic and must have given a peaceful time for Adi Shankara to focus on the Almighty.

Before concluding, let me express my sincere thanks to Sri Bharat Subramanyam who believed that I would be able to find out the date of Adi Shankara convincingly. He was led to believe so after seeing my book on Ramanuja. For long I had many self-doubts on whether I would be able to do as he believes. The foremost reason was I knew nothing about Adi Shankara – I feel ashamed to say this. Moreover, my focus was on writing the date of Ramayana, but somehow I could not progress in that venture.

It was then I started wondering whether I have to pay back some Rishi runa by way of finding out the date of Adi Shankara. Somehow, I have worked for the cause of Madhvas by dating the Janamejaya inscription in possession of the Madhva Matha where Madhvacharya took up his deeksha. The Mutt is trying its best to get this inscription approved by the Government of India for which they are using my book on the Mahabharata.

I have done my bit for the Ramanuja sampradaya too by establishing the dates in his life and the identity of the Chola king who persecuted him.

Only the Shankara Sampradaya is pending, I thought. Perhaps I have something to do to make Adi Shankara’s name shine more. Then I started reading the material they sent and several other books as part of research, as and when I started getting doubts and questions. Within two weeks, I could get the date intact for 148 BCE. Then I started reading all the peripheral issues and write-up-s by other scholars to ensure that I am going in the right track. Bhagavadapadal guided me throughout and enabled me to finish this.

Now I seek Adi Shankara’s blessings to begin and finish Ramayana dating too without hassles and as quick as possible.

Acharya Devo Bhava.

***