Route to Citrakūta deciphered from the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription (Sri Rama Navami special)

 The 85th chapter from my upcoming book "Ramayana 5114 BCE" is reproduced here:

85. Route to Citrakūta deciphered from the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription

A significant archaeological discovery was made on December 18, 2024, at Garwah Fort in Prayagraj District, Uttar Pradesh. A stone slab bearing an 11th-century inscription, issued during the reign of Chaṇḍela king Kīrtivarman (1060-1100 CE), was unearthed. The 16-line inscription, written in Sanskrit and composed by the king’s minister Vatsarāja, provides a eulogy (Praśasti) of Bhagavān Rāma.

Rāghava-yātrā inscription (Image courtesy: Avatans Kumar)

Dated to 1095 CE (1152 Vikram Saṃvat), the inscription was erected on the eleventh day of the waxing half of the Caitra month (Caitra śukla ekādaśī), following a ceremonial procession (Rāghava-yātrā) in honour of Rāma. The inscription recounts the departure of Bhagavān Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa, and Sītā, and mentions the presence of an āśrama at the site, where a maṭha was later constructed.[1] The discovery of this inscription at Garwah Fort reveals the route taken by Rāma towards Citrakūta, providing valuable insights.

From Ayodhyā, Rāma journeyed to the Tamasā River, where he spent the first night of his exile on its banks. The following day, he arrived at Guha’s abode in Śṛṅgaberapura where he matted his hair. He rested under an Ingudi tree on the second night. The next morning, he crossed the Gaṅgā by boat and landed on the southern bank. From there, he began walking eastward towards the confluence of the Yamunā with the Gaṅgā. Along the way, he spent the third night under a tree near the Gaṅgā River. By the next evening, he reached Bharadvāja’s Āśrama, situated near the confluence of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā. He spent the night (his fourth night in exile) at the āśrama.

The route up to this point is illustrated below.

Rāma’s travel from Śṛṅgaberapura to Bharadvāja-Āśrama

Sage Bharadvāja described to Rāma the path to Citrakūta, which was ten krośa[2] from his āśrama (VR: 2-54-28). He instructed Rāma to reach the confluence of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā, then proceed along the Yamunā (Kālindī) River. This indicates that the confluence was at a short distance from his āśrama. From the confluence, the Yamunā River flowed westward. The sage advised Rāma to follow the Yamunā until he reached an ancient, sacred spot (tasyāstīrtham pracaritam purāṇam) frequented by many, and to cross the river at that spot (VR: 2-55-5).

After crossing the river by raft, an ancient Banyan tree named Śyāma, visited by the Siddha-s, could be spotted on the southern bank of the Yamunā. Rāma followed the path as instructed by Bharadvāja and reached the Banyan tree, where Sītā offered her prayers for a safe journey and return from exile (VR: 2-55-25). After walking a krośa from the tree, they arrived at a forest, where they collected twigs and flowers. Then they reached a level ground and spent the night. The Rāghava-Yātrā inscription appears to have been found at this location, as their next stop was Citrakūta only.

The Yamunā riverbank is now dotted with numerous bathing ghats, but identifying the exact location where Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa, and Sītā crossed the river requires careful consideration. According to Bharadvāja’s description, they had to walk a short distance along the Yamunā’s western bank to find an ancient tīrtha, a bustling bathing ghat (VR: 2-55-5). The Yamunā’s rapid flow, driven by its descent towards the Gangā, suggests that this crossing point was likely closer to their confluence.

A notable landmark on the opposite bank was a banyan tree. In search of the probable crossing site, an ancient and sacred ghat on the Yamuna’s northern bank, known as Akshayavata Ghat, draws attention. This ghat is named after a banyan tree (Akshayavata). Interestingly, in olden days, pilgrims thronged the banyan tree on the northern shore, which became the Akshayavata shrine. When the Allahabad Fort was built, this banyan tree was encompassed within the fort complex, prompting pilgrims to demand entry into the fort to worship the tree. “The underground shrine to the Akshayavata - an ‘immortal’ banyan tree - was and is a fundamental part of the Prayāga pilgrimage process.”[3]

Alexander Cunningham hypothesized that the Akshayavata tree was the same tree mentioned by Xuanzang in the seventh century, where Hindu pilgrims would “throw away their lives.” The sacredness and antiquity associated with this banyan tree are connected to the banyan tree of the Rāmāyaṇa period, although its location was mistakenly noted on the northern bank. It is believed that the tree was maintained over time by replanting branches from the original tree. Taking these details into account, it can be inferred that the Akṣayavaṭa Ghāṭ, located a little west of the confluence, was likely the site where Rāma crossed the river on a raft.

The probable crossing location in the Yamunā river

The probable location of the river crossing is indicated by an arrow mark on the Google satellite map. Upon crossing the river, the trio arrived at the ancient banyan tree. The satellite image reveals a lush landscape, corroborating the Rāmāyana’s account of Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa gathering flowers and twigs in this very stretch. This scenic route ultimately led them to a level ground, which likely served as their resting place.

Interestingly, this site is now occupied by Garhwa Fort, where several inscriptions, including the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription, have been discovered. The banyan tree, known as Syāma in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana, and the resting place of the three on a level land must have been retained in memory. It is likely that the branches of the original banyan tree were preserved, specifically at the northern ghaṭ where Rāma crossed the river. The resting place must have been preserved for ages, as evidenced by the numerous inscriptions found in the region, which was dotted with many temples. The entire route from Śṛṅgaberapura to Citrakūta via Garhwa Fort is meticulously mapped on Google Maps, providing a precise visual representation of the journey undertaken by Rāma, Sītā, and Lakṣmaṇa.

Google map showing the route to Garhwa Fort and Citrakūta

From the resting ground in Garhwa Fort, a straight westward route had taken them to Citrakūta.

The date given in the inscription can be simulated:

It was Yuva Varsha, Caitra Shuka Ekādaśī. The corresponding Gregorian date was March 25, 1095. Magha nakshatra started by that morning which was a Monday. The date shows that Sri Rāma Navamī was celebrated a day before on 23^rd March when Śukla Navamī coincided with Puṣya nakshatra.

Date of the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription

The procession of Śrī Rāma must have commenced on the Navamī day and culminated on Ekādaśī. It is impossible to confirm whether this combination was identical to the one during Rāma’s return to Ayodhyā from exile. Sage Vālmīki provides only two hints: Caitra Śukla Pañcamī, when Rāma arrived at Bharadvāja’s āśrama, and Puṣya nakṣatra, when he landed in Ayodhyā. The tithi of that day can only be ascertained using a simulator, after establishing Rāma’s birth date and other planetary and pañcāṅga features mentioned by Vālmīki.

However, it can be stated with certainty that the coronation could not have occurred the next day, considering verse 6-128-50, which states that the Paṭṭābhiṣeka water was brought at dawn (pratyūṣasamaye), as the next day was Āśleṣā, an inauspicious day for coronation. Since Bharata had already requested Rāma to perform the Paṭṭābhiṣeka on the same day (VR: 6-128-9), it is concluded that the Paṭṭābhiṣeka was performed on the day Rāma landed in Ayodhyā.

Moreover, his sandals, which had been ruling the country in his absence, were ceremoniously returned to him the moment he landed in Nandigrāma. The Puṣya day was preferred by Daśaratha; hence, Rāma chose that day for his coronation. The water pots arriving at dawn could have actually been on the day of his arrival, as Sugrīva had sufficient time to procure them since Rāma’s landing at Bharadvāja’s āśrama.

The systematic decipherment of the dates indicates that the day had Puṣya and Navamī together. Those raising objections about Navamī must understand that the tithi-s associated with the deities were chosen for their consecration. Moreover, the stigma against Navamī and Aṣṭamī arose after the birth of these avatāra-s, for the purpose of assigning those tithi-s for spiritual progress, not for material works.

Date of coronation of Sri Rāma

---

[1] Avatans Kumar. (2025). “A Thousand-Year-Old “Prashasti” Inscription Sheds Light On The Ramayana”. https://indiacurrents.com/a-thousand-year-old-prashasti-inscription-sheds-light-on-the-ramayana/

[2] Krośā means “the range of the voice in calling or hallooing”, a measure of distance, given as Kos= 1000 daṇḍa-s. It means a calling distance.

[3] Kama Maclean. (2008). “Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954” OUP USA. P. 65.

How Long Did Sītā Live?

There are numerous references in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa that help decipher Sītā's age. One of the earliest references is her age at the time of exile. In the Araṇya Kāṇḍa, Sītā recounts to Rāvaṇa that she was eighteen years old, and her husband was twenty-five when they were exiled.

mama bhartā mahātejā vayasā paṃca viṃśakaḥ || (VR: 3-47-10)

aṣṭā daśa hi varṣāṇi mama janmani gaṇyate |

Meaning: “My husband who was very bold was twenty-five years and I had completed eighteen years since my birth.”

Additionally, her age at the time of marriage can be inferred from her conversation with Hanumān in the Aśoka Vana, where she mentions spending twelve years in Rāma's household, enjoying a pleasant life.

samā dvādaśa tatra aham rāghavasya niveśane || (VR: 5-33-17)

bhunjānā mānuṣān bhogān sarva kāma samṛddhinī |

Meaning: “I enjoyed worldly pleasures in abundance for twelve years at Rama's abode.”

By subtracting twelve from eighteen, it can be deduced that she was married at the age of six.

After spending fourteen years in exile, Sītā returned to Ayodhya at the age of 32, where she became queen. However, within two years, she was sent to the forest by Rāma, at which time she was pregnant. It was during this period that she gave birth to her twin sons.

Śatrughna happened to be visiting Vālmīki's āśrama on the very night of their birth. At that time, Śatrughna was en route to Madhuvana (Mathura) to vanquish Lavanāsura, and Rāma's children were born during his brief stay at the āśrama.

Subsequently, Śatrughna returned to Ayodhyā after twelve-years. During his journey back, he spent a night at Vālmīki's āśrama, where he overheard Rāma's sons rehearsing the Rāmāyaṇa, which had been taught to them by Vālmīki. Based on Śatrughna's return timeline, it is inferred that Rāma's sons were twelve years old by then. Consequently, Sītā's age at this point would have been 32 + 2 + 12 = 46 years.

In the same year, Rāma initiated the Aśvamedha yajña, during which his sons recited the Rāmāyaṇa, which they had learned from Vālmīki. Recognizing them as his children, Rāma desired Sītā's presence. Upon her arrival, Rāma asked her to take an oath (śapatha), which she did, invoking Mother Earth. As a result, she was swallowed by the Earth, marking the end of her mortal life on earth.

The sequence of Sītā's age at different events

·       Marriage – 6 years

·       Started exile – 18 years

·       Exile – 14 years

·       Return from exile – at 32 years

·       Lived as a queen – 2 years (approximately)

·       Sent to forest – at 34 years

·       As a mother – 12 years = age (34+12 = 46 years)

·       Left the world = at 46 years (approximately)

Thus, Sītā's lifespan as a human being was approximately 46 years. Within this period, she spent time with Rāma from age 6 to 34. Excluding one year of her stay in Aśoka Vana, this translates to 28 minus 1, resulting in a maximum of 27 years spent with Rāma.

Building upon my previous article , the 27-year duration of Sītā's life with Rāma was equated to 10,000 years by ancient commentators. This equivalence matches with the Vedic principle "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ", which states that one day and night is equal to one year.

In the Vedic calendar, one year consists of 360 days, with the Sun moving at a rate of one degree per day, covering 360 degrees in a year. Applying the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle, we can convert 10,000 years to 10,000 days.

Dividing 10,000 days by 360 (days per year), i.e., 10000 ÷ 360, we arrive at approximately 27.77 years, which closely matches the 27 years that Sītā lived with Rāma.

This calculation suggests that ancient commentators employed the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle to justify the attribution of 10,000 years to Sītā and Rāma's time together, despite Vālmīki not explicitly stating this.

This rationale provides insight into the interpretation of verses such as "daśa varṣa sahasrāṇi daśa varṣa śatāni ca" (VR: 1-1-97 and 1-15-29), where 10,000 and 1000 years are separately mentioned. By applying the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle, the commentators equated 10,000 years with approximately 27.77 years, that was the duration of time spent by Sītā and Rāma together. 

According to the Upanyāsaka-s, the remaining 1000 years are said to represent the time Rāma spent without Sītā. Applying the same calculation, 1000 years is equivalent to 1000 days.

Converting these 1000 days to years, we get 1000 ÷ 360 = 2.77 years. This suggests that Rāma lived for approximately 2 years and 6-7 months after Sītā's departure from mortal life.

This information also provides a basis for calculating Rāma's age, which I leave for readers to explore. In my forthcoming book, I will present various calculations proposed by ancient scholars, offering a deeper understanding of the epic's chronology.

 

Related article: Rāma's 11,000-Year Rule According to Vālmīki

Rāma's 11,000-Year Rule According to Vālmīki

Upanyāsaka-s have traditionally glossed over the notion that Rāma ruled for 11,000 years, a detail mentioned by Vālmīki in three instances within the first six kāṇḍa-s. While some scholars have offered rationales to justify the 11,000-year timeframe, this aspect has rarely been a focal point in discourses. The literal interpretation is, of course, impossible, given Rāma's human birth and mortality. As a human avatāra, his purpose was to exploit the vulnerability of Rāvaṇa, who had inadvertently left humans out of his boon of invincibility from Brahmā. This loophole allowed Bhagavān Viṣṇu to take on human form as Rāma and vanquish Rāvaṇa.

Lately, a section of Upanyāsaka-s has been propagating the idea that Rāma lived for 11,000 years, citing the notes of the commentators of their sects. They interpret the statement of Rāma, as Viṣṇu, that he would protect the world for 10,000 and 1,000 years, in the literal sense. However, this assertion raises several questions. If Rāma, as a divine incarnation, could live for 11,000 years, how did his brothers, their wives, and other associates, such as Sugrīva and Vibhīṣaṇa, manage to live for an equally long period? What about their children who were present when Rāma left his mortal coil? The issue is that devotees attending these discourses often fail to pose these questions to the Upanyāsaka-s themselves, and ask me instead in the social media, which prompted me to write about this anomaly.

The 11,000-year duration of Rāma's rule is mentioned in three distinct contexts within the first six kāṇḍa-s. Firstly, Nārada recounts Rāma's life history to Vālmīki, mentioning this timeframe (VR 1-1-97).  Secondly, in Brahmā's realm, Viṣṇu informs the Devas that he will protect the world for 11,000 years (VR 1-15-29). Thirdly, following Rāma's coronation, Vālmīki offers a nuanced explanation of this duration. The number 11,000 is often split into 10,000 and 1,000 years, a distinction elaborated upon by Vālmīki in the Pattābhiṣeka Kāṇḍa.

According to Vālmīki, Rāma performed hundreds of Aśvamedha yajña-s for a period of 10,000 years.

rājyan daśasahasrāṇi prāpya varṣāṇi rāghavaḥ |

śatāśvamedhānājahre sadaśvānbhūridakṣiṇān || (VR: 6-128-96)

Meaning: “Raghava, in the ten thousand years of his rule performed hundred horse sacrifices with excellent horses and gave donations liberally.”

This was followed by a 1,000-year reign, during which he ruled the kingdom alongside his brothers.

sarve lakṣaṇasampannāḥ sarve dharmaparāyaṇāḥ || (VR: 6-128-106)

daśavarṣasahasrāṇi rāmo rājyamakārayat |

Meaning: “All were endowed with signs of good culture, given to righteous behaviour. Rama ruled the kingdom for ten thousand years with brothers.”

The same account is reiterated in the seventh kāṇḍa, the Uttara Kāṇḍa, which specifies that Rāma conducted Vājimedha and Vājapeya yajñas, as well as Agniṣṭoma, Atiraatra, and Goṣava yajñas, for the same 10,000-year duration. (VR: 7-99-9 and 10)

Thus, the 10,000-year timeframe is explicitly mentioned twice in connection with Rāma's performance of yajña-s. However, some Upanyāsaka-s offer a different interpretation, claiming that the 10,000 years refer to the duration of Rāma and Sītā's life together, while the additional 1,000 years represent Rāma's reign without Sītā.

But where does Vālmīki mention this? Why don't listeners ask these Upanyāsaka-s for the source and rationale behind their claim? The fact is that Vālmīki provides clear references to Rāma and Sītā's ages at various events, allowing us to reconstruct Sītā's lifetime.

The 10,000-year duration, as mentioned earlier, is associated with Rāma's performance of yajña-s. It's worth noting that some yajña-s are mentioned for 1,000 years, which is humanly impossible. Scholars like Jaimini have discussed the rationale behind such large timeframes. In my upcoming book, "Ramayana 5114 BCE", I will explore these justifications by Jaimini rishi and explanations proposed by scholars in the past.

However, the literal interpretation of Sītā living with Rāma for 10,000 years and Rāma ruling for 1,000 years is unsupported by Vālmīki's text. Instead, we should approach the mention of 11,000 years with a nuanced understanding, using the wisdom imparted by the rishis to decipher its true meaning.

Considering the claim that Sītā lived with Rāma for 10,000 years, I will present, in my next article, the specific details of Sītā's age as described by Vālmīki. This will provide a clearer understanding of her lifetime.

Next article: How Long Did Sītā Live?

Related article: Did Rama rule for 11,000 years

Review of 'Ramanuja Itihasam' (Tamil) in Thuglak magazine

 My book, "Ramanuja Itihasam" (Tamil version) was published by Swasam publications. The book review appeared in Thuglak Magazine, dated 10th March, 2025. 

Please check this link to get a copy: Ramanuja Itihasam

To get the English version of this book, check this Link

My talk in Thandhi TV about the discovery of idols as sea receded in Tiruchendur

The sea receded on the shores of Tiruchendur by which old idols got exposed. I was invited to give my opinion about this. Please watch the video to know more.

As a panelist in an Event of the Hindu University of America (HUA)

I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion on December 14, 2024, for a fundraising project supporting the Hindu University of America (HUA). HUA is dedicated to exploring and promoting

ancient Indian knowledge systems. During the discussion, I shared my perspectives on the scope and significance of HUA's endeavors.

I highlighted the stark reality that academic environments for Hindu theological studies are scarce, not only in India but also globally. Currently, only a handful of institutions in India, located in Pune, Nagaland, Kottayam, and Dehradun, offer academic programs in theology, but these courses focus primarily on Christian studies. Internationally, numerous institutions offer programs in theology for various religions, but Hinduism remains a glaring exception.

Furthermore, I emphasized the lack of opportunities for publishing research papers on Hinduism, as there are no reputable universities to encourage and support such publications. Despite India ranking fourth in research output globally, none of these efforts focus on Hindu studies. This is where the Hindu University of America can play a vital role by inviting papers, exploring Hinduism-related topics, and providing a platform for publishing and disseminating knowledge.

In light of the negative publicity surrounding caste issues in Western circles, I stressed the importance of creating a digital repository of Hindu thought on caste and other relevant topics. This repository would serve as a valuable resource for promoting awareness and understanding.

Finally, I noted that the Government of India's proposal to fund subscriptions for various research papers presents an opportune moment for HUA to seek support for its publishing efforts and digital library creation. By collaborating with HUA, we can work towards bridging the knowledge gap and promoting a deeper understanding of Hinduism and its rich cultural heritage.

My talk on the "Bharathiar song I like most" in Bharathi Muththamizh Sangam, Texas

 On 14th December 2024, I gave a speech in connection with the celebration of Bharathiyar Week conducted by "Bharathi Mutthamizh Sangam' (பாரதி முத்தமிழ்ச் சங்கம்) of San Antanio, Texas. 

The topic was about the song of Bharathiyar I like most. That song contains basic features for how to shape one's thought, word and action. The recording is given in this video.