Dr. Jayasree Saranathan arrives at the timeline of Ramayana in three dif...

The date of Ramayana is still elusive and vexatious with different claims. Though I have not zeroed in on any date for Ramayana, I am able to see a limit before which Ramayana could not have happened. The obvious obstacles in dating Ramayana are (1) lack of hints to arrive at the ayanamsa (precession rate, whether forward or backward) at that time and (2) the absence of the year name of Rama's birth. Though I intend to get deeper into them after my book on Mahabharata date is published shortly, for now I am bringing to the notice of readers three reasons on why Ramayana could not have happened before the 6th millennium BCE. The 3rd reason happens to be a direct challenger to Nilesh Oak's date of Ramayana.

Watch and share your views.


Updated on 9th October 2019

My reply to one Mr Sam Didymus in the comment section under the video is reproduced here:

Sam Didymus said, Sam //@26:00 What utter ignorance packaged with attitude! This "researcher" is clueless about astronomy and is talking RUBBISH regarding Canopus/Agastya and Great Bear/Saptarishi. In 5200 BCE, there was NO pole-star in the northern hemisphere. // Me: So this is your ‘astronomy’ knowledge or the knowledge you gained by reading Nilesh Oak’s books. Always there is a Dhruva – the fixed point (NCP) in sky around which the entire sky seems to revolve around. Whether there is a star present in that region or not, our ancestors had looked at that region for all the millennia atleast at the time of marriage before identifying Arundhati. The very fact that they used star markers to locate the Dhruva goes to show that there were times the Dhruva was a point and not occupied by a star. Sam //The only stars at the pole were of very LOW MAGNITUDE AND NOT VISIBLE TO NAKED EYE. Where is the question of Saptarishi going around Dhruva WHEN THERE WAS NO DHRUVA? // Me: Another ‘fantastic gem’ from you! So only if Dhruva is there, the Saptarishis will be going around it? Sam // In fact, the NEAREST visible star to north pole was MARICHI in 5200 BCE, 13 degrees away from pole, part of Sapta rishi. It would have been MORE accurate to say THE REST OF THE SAPTA RISHI GO AROUND MARICHI. But the texts do not say that, do they, Madam Researcher? // Me: What an understanding!! Even Marici at 13 degrees away was going around the central Dhruva. Let me come to your date itself - but the date that you ascribe to Mahabharata. Your date of Mahabharata is 5561 BCE which is closer to 5200 BCE of Ramayana in our reckoning, right? There is some 300 years gap between these two dates and you would agree that not much had changed in the sky between these two dates. Now tell me, how did Vyasa make a statement that the Dhruva made apasavyam movement? “dhruvaḥ prajvalito ghoram apasavyaṃ pravartate” (Mahabharata: 6-3 -16). The year according to you was 5561 BCE when there was no visible star near the North Pole. And you only say that there was no visible star at Dhruva just 300 years after this date. But Vyasa had seen a Dhruva nakshatra and even said that it made reverse movement, how was that possible if there was no pole star at or close to Dhruva (NCP) at that date? And what star was treated by him as Dhruva nakshatra? In Oak’s date of Mahabharata war there was no visible pole star upto 6 to 7 degrees close to the NCP. Only two stars were closest to the NCP. One was Asellus Primus (Theta Bootis) at a declination of +82˚04ʹ38.6ʺ and another, Edasich (Iota Draconis) at +83˚16ʹ12.2ʺ. Which of the two was treated as the pole star by Vyasa when he said that the pole star made apasavyam movement? Compared to Oak’s date, come to our traditional date of Mahabharata which was 3136 BCE (read my recent book critiquing Oak’s Epoch). At that time Thuban was close to the NCP within just 2 degrees. So Vyasa’s verse on Dhruva nakshatra is suitable for 3136 BCE and not 5661 BCE of Oak. If you stick to Oak’s date of MB war, show me the pole star referred to by Vyasa. The horrible fact is that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak remained oblivious of this verse. So now I have two astras- one each for Ramayana and Mahabharata. For Ramayana, I stated in the video, for Mahabharata I am asking you/ Oak which star was identified by Vyasa as pole star that made reverse movement in Oak’s date of Mahabharata?

Sam: // Between 5200 BCE to 10000 BCE, THERE WAS NO VISIBLE BRIGHT STAR AT THE POLE. Meaning, there was no visible pole star. So the legend of Dhruva was impossible in this time frame, though rotation of Saptharishi would have been observed (except there is no Dhruva in the picture). // Me: You said it, now justify the statement of Vyasa (at 5561 BCE) that the pole star made reverse movement. Sam: //In 12000 BCE, Abhijit or Vega a VERY BRIGHT VISIBLE STAR was the pole star, approaching the pole thousand years earlier. Here, the legend of Saptarishi going around Dhruva is valid, because the Saptarishi can be seen clearly going around Vega.// Yes Vega (Abhijit) was the pole star at 12,400 BCE, but what does Ramayana say? It says (the verse I meant) that Abhijit (Brahmarashi) and parama rishis – both were going around the Pole star. The verse is brahmarāśir viśuddhaś ca śuddhāś ca paramarṣayaḥ arciṣmantaḥ prakāśante dhruvaṃ sarve pradakṣiṇam.(VR : 6-4-43) The verse first refers to Abhijit (Brahmarashi) looking clear. And then tells the same for the great Rishis (sapta rishis) and all of them circumambulating the Pole Star (Dhruva). Means both Abhijit and Sapta rishis were circulating around the pole star. This was not so in 12K+ BCE. The mistakes in Oak’s version are that (1) Abhijit and Pole star were not the same in this verse. They were different. (2) On Oak’s date of Ramayana the Sapta rishis were not circling around the Pole star, but were moving from eastern to western horizon for all latitudes of India. Sam: // She is so clueless, she thinks the latitude of Kishkinda/Hampi matters for seeing the northern pole region from India - this is moronic, especially because she keeps repeating this as if it is something relevant. This is utterly irrelevant, because north polar region is visible anywhere from India.// Me: A follower of Nilesh Oak suffers from the same kind of lack of knowledge of basic tenets of astronomy, like Oak himself is suffering from, which I have seen aplenty in his book and exposed! Northern polar region can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere, no doubt but can one see the circulating Saptarishis from any latitude? Check it yourself and come back.
Sam: // In 12000 BCE, Saptarishi would have been 50 degrees away from the pole star. // Me: There you are. Sapta rishis at 50 degrees away (assuming you refer to the declination of the sapta rishis which is however absurd for a group of stars) from the pole star would be seen circling around the pole star from the latitudes higher than 50 degrees N. Always the latitude of the observer is equal to the distance between the local horizon at North and the NCP. A star within that region is seen to circle the NCP. But Kishkindha was 15 degree N. So only those stars having declination of 90-15= 75 degrees can be seen circulating the pole star. By your own admission the sapta rishis were not circulating the NCP at Oak’s date of Ramayana from Kishkindha. Now you understand why I kept repeating Kishkindha in the video. What is viewed from Kishkindha is not the same from say, from Ayodhya. Sam: // Even from Chennai latitude, you can see about 20 degrees of polar region. Saptarishi would have extended 225 degree sweep of the sky around Abhijit as seen from Chennai.// Me: There you are, once again From Chennai I can see 13 degrees around the NCP. But when was the last time a Chennaite could see the sapta rishis ‘circulating’ around the NCP? You are seeing the 225 degree sweep from the Voyager simulator like Nilesh Oak. Only he comes up with ideas like this. For an observer from the ground, maximum limit of the so-called ‘sweep’ is only 180 degrees!
Sam: // Every one of the Saptarishi will participate in going around the polar region, whether they are 13 degrees away or 89 degrees away. Madam researcher is spreading WRONG information here. // Wrong information from you. Saptarishis go around the NCP only in certain periods of the precession cycle. They were very close to the NCP while circulating Thuban at NCP (traditional date of Mahabharata) Even now they are close to the present NCP and so seen always in the sky for high northern latitudes. But in Oak’s date of Ramayana, they were rising in the east and setting the west for all latitudes of India. Read my book released today. I have given an illustration of the position of Saptarishis in relation to Thuban and Vega. When Thuban was the pole star Saptarishis were very close by (traditional Mahabharata date). When Vega was the pole star, Sapta rishis were very far away. That is why I said that the Ramayana verse (I quoted) does not suit Oak’s date of Ramayana. Sam: //The crux of this person's argument is: (a) there was a Pandya king mentioned by Kalidasa, a playwright, as connected to Ramayana, and his time-period is around 5000 BCE (b) Agastya and Vidhyas are dated to 5200 BCE (never mind that Agastya presided over 3 Sangam periods ranging over 10000 years!). Therefore 5100 BCE is the time-period for Ramayana. This is such a failed approach to research that (i) assumes these datapoints are somehow most important in dating Ramayana (ii) none of the other evidence that goes against the 5100 BCE is relevant (iii) does not bother whether the internal evidence ALL line up for 5100 BCE? // Me: The problem with Nilesh Oak is that he has never looked at deciphering the date conceptually and by cross references within the text and outside the text. By that you arrive at a date and then you look for authenticating it by the simulator. Simulator is a technique to test the results already attained through conceptual, analytical and other means. It cannot be a substitute to get results. This is how research is done. His book will be a straight reject at any University, in India or the US for the shoddy kind of ‘research’. Sam://If this is the quality of Ph.D researchers in India, Bhagavan must help the country! This person has a nasty approach to discussing research by people she does not agree with. In her public works, she attacks other researchers calling them names, attributes motives to them. Is this the way you do a literature survey, Madam researcher? // Me: Show me an instance I called other researchers by names. Personal attack is Nilesh Oak’s style of ‘refuting’ his opponents, not mine. Tell me your true identity so that I can initiate action on you for this comment. Sam:// Pathetic that you have such a confrontational approach to research. I have deliberately chosen your style of confrontation in this comment.// Me: I know I will be replying to Ids who don’t know the difference between debate and confrontation, whenever I am questioning Nilesh Oak’s works. I know the ‘debating’ skill of Nilesh Oak. Sam:// Mr. Iyer, I am shocked that you have provided a platform to attack Mr. Nilesh Oak's work without him present to rebut. I fully expect you to provide an equal platform to Nilesh to rebut. Don't degenerate your respected, great brand of "Pgurus" into a smear machine - give Nilesh a chance too and show that you are not invested in taking sides.// Me: Sure. I request Mr Iyer to call for an open debate between me and Nilesh Oak for this video and also for the book that I have released today critiquing Nilesh Oak’s Epoch of Arundhati. I am ready, but is Nilesh Oak ready?

Update on 13th October 2019

Sam Didymus1 day ago (edited)

@Jayasree Saranathan declares: "You are seeing the 225 degree sweep from the Voyager simulator like Nilesh Oak. Only he comes up with ideas like this. For an observer from the ground, maximum limit of the so-called ‘sweep’ is only 180 degrees!" This ignorant statement shows the depth of Madam researcher's knowledge about astronomy and elementary geometry, and her undignified, illogical hatred for Mr. Nilesh Oak. If you draw a semi-circle with centerpoint on the ground, yes you can only sweep 180 degrees. However, in the latitude of Chennai where I live, the northern pole star is at 13 degrees elevation. Let each centimeter be 10 degrees. Place your compass point at the pole star (NOT THE GROUND, BUT 1.3 cm PERPENDICULAR TO GROUND), choose a radius of 5 cm and draw an arc from East to West on the ground line - it will sweep nearly 225 degrees. This is the path taken by Saptarishi as seen from the latitude of Chennai in 12000 BCE, and anybody with half a brain can infer and interpolate the remaining circle. Now read the rubbish you wrote. Madam researcher, given how ignorant you are of elementary facts, why should anybody bother with the rest of the rubbish you write? You are so ignorant of astronomy, but pronounce your wrong opinions arrogantly in your writing and videos. The people who buy your book are wasting money and learning wrong notions.

Show less

Sam Didymus1 day ago (edited)

@Jayasree Saranathan provides these gems: "Read my book released today. I have given an illustration of the position of Saptarishis in relation to Thuban and Vega. When Thuban was the pole star Saptarishis were very close by (traditional Mahabharata date). When Vega was the pole star, Sapta rishis were very far away. That is why I said that the Ramayana verse (I quoted) does not suit Oak’s date of Ramayana." No, Madam researcher, I will not read your book, given that you have zero knowledge of elementary geometry or astronomy. You do not appear to be a scientific person. Just because Thuban was close to polar region in 3000 BCE does not mean you can jump to such a conclusion. Did you do your Ph.D by considering just 1/3 of the available data, and ignoring 2/3 of the data that does not fit your theory? Who was your thesis adviser? Tell me, so I can initiate action and write to your university to revoke your degree.

Sam Didymus1 day ago

Finally Madam researcher, it is very strange that you bring up Mr. Oak's work in my comments about your video. I don't know Mr. Oak personally. Never met him, he is not part of my SM, I have NOT read his books, despite your wild allegations in your comments. I have only seen his videos and Googled and seen your strange obsession with attacking him. I don't care if he is correct or you are correct about time of the Ramayana. I have only pointed out your errors and your strange manner of attacking your critics. I have deliberately adopted your confrontational style of writing to show you how it feels. You should adopt a more refined tone in your future communications befitting a researcher.

Nilesh Oak5 days ago

Dr. Jayasree Saranathan Ji claims that Yuddha 4:48 does not match for 12000 BCE but only for 5200 BCE. Let's assume this is true (only for the sake of argument). Now a question to you all. (No knowledge of astronomy is required. Only common sense and logical thinking will do.) How many of you would be surprised to know that not a single researcher claiming Ramayana around 5000 BCE ( from the list of Late Pushkar Bhatnagar, Dr. Jayasree Saranathan, DK Hari/Hema Hari, Arun Upadhyaya, Vedveer Arya, Saroj Bala and there are more) ever dare to quote this reference (Yuddha 4:48) which Dr. JS so emphatically claims that apply to 5200 BCE? Do read the works of these researchers to confirm why they are either clueless or provide some digressive explanation or run away from the discussion of this reference. I assure you that you will have lots of fun. It will be highly educational. And there are 575+ more references ahead (from Valmiki Ramayana). Be ready for Strawman fallacies, cherry-picking fallacy, running away and other digressions.

My Reply

@Nilesh Oak //How many of you would be surprised to know that not a single researcher claiming Ramayana around 5000 BCE ( from the list of Late Pushkar Bhatnagar, Dr. Jayasree Saranathan, DK Hari/Hema Hari, Arun Upadhyaya, Vedveer Arya, Saroj Bala and there are more) ever dare to quote this reference (Yuddha 4:48) which Dr. JS so emphatically claims that apply to 5200 BCE?//

Me: Two cents to judge the common sense and logical thinking that Nilesh Oak speaks of:

(1) Should a verse be quoted by the researchers of the day for that to be qualified as a factor to determine the date? Is it not enough the verse is given by Valmiki? If the researchers did not take note of that verse, should it be disqualified from use to date the event?

(2) Don't the names Dr Jayasree Saranathan and Dr JS refer to the same person? But Oak quotes Dr Jayasree Saranathan as one among other researchers who dared not quote this verse and Dr JS as one who dared to quote !

Nilesh Ji, really lot of fun generated in your comment!

Pradeep Deshpande4 days ago

There are at least 2 major lacunae that i can see in the above arguments. 1) Referring to astronomical evidence selectively.   Ms. Jayasree has not checked whether ALL the astronomical markers in the Valmiki Ramayana Text point towards her claim of 6th millenium BCE. (or at least there is no such mention in the above interview). If her claim is correct, then ALL the astronomy descriptions internal to the Ramayana Text should match with the positions of Grahas & Nakshatras shown by modern astronomy software, 2) When Dasharatha expressed his wish to coronate 'Rama' as crown prince, in the Lunar Month of Chaitra, he described the forest to be blooming with flowers. For forests to bloom, the season has to be either Vasantha (spring) or Sharad (immediately after Varsha-the rainy season.) Due to precession of equinoxes, seasons shift by 1 lunar month in approx. 4000 years. Therefore, Chaitra (which coincides with Late Vasantha season presently) could not be coinciding with Vasantha Ritu in the 6th millenium BCE. Neither would it have coincided with the Sharad season. Also, in Ramayana times, the star 'Abhijit' (Vega) was the pole star in the northern hemisphere. That was true only during the time period 10,000 BCE to 14,000 BCE.

My reply

Jayasree Saranathan2 days ago

Pradeep Deshpande (PD)://There are at least 2 major lacunae that i can see in the above arguments. 1) Referring to astronomical evidence selectively. Ms. Jayasree has not checked whether ALL the astronomical markers in the Valmiki Ramayana Text point towards her claim of 6th millenium BCE. (or at least there is no such mention in the above interview). If her claim is correct, then ALL the astronomy descriptions internal to the Ramayana Text should match with the positions of Grahas & Nakshatras shown by modern astronomy software,// Me: Two things to note: (1) Using a single marker to demolish the dates of all the researchers is Nilesh Oak’s strategy, and I have used that strategy here. He calls it the ‘falsifier’ following Karl Popper. To quote his own words from his book on Mahabharata dating, “ability of Arundhati observation to predict the time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War is not affected, when all other Mahabharata observations are eliminated.” Similarly in the marker I have given in the video, the ability of the observation of the circumpolarity of a few rishis of the Saptarishi (Big Dipper) to predict the time of that observation is not affected, while Oak’s date of Ramayana at 12K+ BCE is affected. So this is the falsifier in Popparian terms that Nilesh Oak cannot object to. The date could not be before 5200 BCE +/- 100 yrs for the observation of Lakshmana of the circumpolar stars of the sapta rishis. But this observation is impossible in Oak’s year of Ramayana. 12K+ BCE is Oak’s derivation, but 5200 BCE is Ramayana observation. Which date is highly reliable - to use Oak’s reasoning - for use of falsifier? Should I need to tell the obvious? (2) It is a fallacy that planetary alignments help in determining a particular time, while the fact followed by the Vedic culture is to align the Sun and the moon for a minimum of five features. They are Years (60), months (12), stars (27), tithi (30) and weekday (7). An event that happened on a day accounted by all these 5 features would repeat again only after 60 x 12 x 27 x 30 x 7 = 40,82,400 years (which is almost close to the duration of a Chatur Maha yuga /43,20,000 yrs). That is why we in the Vedic society follow the Pancanga features rather than planets to identify a date or an event. Therefore the astronomy evidences that PD refers to or referred to by Nilesh Oak must take into consideration all the 9 planets that include Rahu and Ketu for a given date of the pancanga feature. But that has NOT been done by Nilesh Oak or anyone. And it is impossible too, given the fact that the ayanamsa of Ramayana time is not indicated anywhere nor derived by anyone including Nilesh Oak. In the absence of knowledge of ayanamsa of Rama’s times, the next best clue lies in determining the polar axial tilt by the circumpolarity of the stars. I have taken that as the falsifier. PD: //2) When Dasharatha expressed his wish to coronate 'Rama' as crown prince, in the Lunar Month of Chaitra, he described the forest to be blooming with flowers. For forests to bloom, the season has to be either Vasantha (spring) or Sharad (immediately after Varsha-the rainy season.) Due to precession of equinoxes, seasons shift by 1 lunar month in approx. 4000 years. Therefore, Chaitra (which coincides with Late Vasantha season presently) could not be coinciding with Vasantha Ritu in the 6th millenium BCE. Neither would it have coincided with the Sharad season.// Me: You say that seasons shift by 1 lunar month in approx. 4000 years. Nilesh Oak says that it happens so in 2000 years (Page 39 of his book on Mahabharata dating). But the reality is in our Vedic society we expunge even a run-away (Adhika) month and bring back the lunar month with the solar month every two and a half years. The Vedic society aligned the sun’s position with the stars so that it always rained in Ashadha and was always hot when the Sun crossed the fiery stars Bharani and Krittika. Let me give you a falsifier for seasons from Ramayana itself. In Ramayana, the peak rainy season had started from Ashadha month only. Rama speaks about rainfall for four months starting from Ashadha when people had remained wherever they were by observing a 4-month vratā (Chatur masya vrata). This vratā continues to be in vogue till date for the same rainy months. Similarly the Sama upakarma was done in Bhadrapada month of the same rainy season then and even now. Let me quote them ch 4-27. 34 māsi prauṣṭhapade brahma brāhmaṇānāṃ vivakṣatām ayam adhyāyasamayaḥ sāmagānām upasthitaḥ 35 nivṛttakarmāyatano nūnaṃ saṃcitasaṃcayaḥ āṣāḍhīm abhyupagato bharataḥ koṣakādhipaḥ Where is the scope for or proof of shifting seasons in Ramayana times or from Ramayana time to now? So before blindly chasing the seasons of the astronomy software designed to suit the western concept of seasons and shifting zodiac, take a look at the verses and compare them with the current times. Hope at least now you realise that you are being fed with wrong information by Nilesh Oak. Or Nilesh Oak may not have intended to give wrong information, but he has wrongly understood the way seasons are aligned to sidereal positions for all these millennia and that the astronomy software is useless in locating the seasons of Ramayana. PD: //Also, in Ramayana times, the star 'Abhijit' (Vega) was the pole star in the northern hemisphere. That was true only during the time period 10,000 BCE to 14,000 BCE.// Show me the verse from Valmiki Ramayana that says that Abhijit was the pole star during Ramayana.

UPDATE on 16th Oct

Pradeep Deshpande9 hours ago

@Jayasree Saranathan Thanks a lot to respected Ms. Jayasree for taking note of reply of an amateur like me. (a) I stand corrected in stating that season shifts by 1 lunar month every 4000 years. ( I should have said that 'There is a shift of 1 SEASON with respect to Lunar Calender, every 4000 years. That is how, we can explain shift of 3+ seasons (from Sharad season in Ramayana days to End of Vasantha season in present times)in the course of approx. 14000 years. My unequivocal apologies for this mistake. (b) If you use the principle of 'falsifiability' to Mr. Oak's (or anybody else's) claim to dismiss it, it should apply to your claim too, is it not ? Therefore, may i ask if you have tested your claim against every astronomy marker in the Ramayana Text ? If so, does it come out to be true in every case?

(c) May i understand that, the main difference between your and Mr. Oak's research is that of 'Shift of seasons with respect to Lunar months due to precession of equinoxes'. If the seasons DO NOT shift, then your analysis will be proven right & if they do, then Mr. Oak has a valid point. Is that correct understanding ? If so, the matter can be resolved objectively. (d) I am not 'fed' by Mr. Nilesh Oak. His research methodology looks scientific. He has given all references and is open to objective falsification. That is why i am ready to accept it. (e) When i stated that 'Abhijit' (Vega) was the pole star in Ramayana times, i relied on the reference stated in Mr. Oak's book (page 66 of Indian Edition)- ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च शुद्धाश्च परमर्षय: | अर्चिष्मन्तः प्रकाशन्ते ध्रुवं सर्वे प्रदक्षिणम् || (I also accepted his explanation in this connection in his 'Mahabharata' book). I will be very happy if Mr. Oak is proven wrong and his proposal gets superseded by a better proposal (by you or anybody else). The best part is that, your proposal too disproves the 'Aryan Invasion/Migration theory'. Trust, therefore, you too will use your good offices to dispel it from our History Textbooks. Thanks & Regards.

Show less

REPLY

Jayasree Saranathan2 seconds ago

@Pradeep Deshpande My reply (a) Please correct your stand that seasons do not shift in Indic system of time keeping. As given in my evidences from Ramayana, it always rained from Ashadha month to Kartika in Rama’s times, in Krishna’s times and in our times. This is made possible because of the sidereal calendar. So whenever one wants to locate a season of Ramayana, one should do it mathematically or by use of sidereal based astrology software and not the shifting zodiac of the astronomy software that has no use for dating ancient Indian past. (b) Your comment makes it obvious that you don’t know what a Falsifier is. Even Nilesh Oak has no knowledge of ‘Falsifier’ a term he liberally uses in his book and videos. Read Chapter 6 of my book exposing his faulty understanding of Popper’s falsifier. https://www.amazon.in/dp/B07YVFNQLD/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_unuNDbFWYGMVS%20via%20@amazonIN (c) The main difference between me and Mr Nilesh Oak is that I follow scientific methodology of research whereas he just does lip service to scientific methodology. Not just seasons, the entire book of Nilesh Oak on the date of Mahabharata and Epoch of Arundhati is unscientific and lacks logical reasoning. Enough to read the sample pages of my book in the above given link, to know what I mean. (d) If you are not ‘fed’ by Nilesh Oak’s ideas, you won’t be defending him like this. All his experiments and references have been debunked by me in my book. (e) It is fine you have quoted the verse from his book. Did you check the meaning of the verse and did you know that the rishis were not circulating the NCP at that time? Thanks for the appreciation of my work to disprove Aryan Migration theory