Krishna Jayanti Talk (Tamil)

 Sri Krishna Jayanti wishes to you all! 🙏🦚

Why did Krishna choose to be born in a prison, separated from His parents, endure a life of struggles, and finally leave the world under such extraordinary circumstances? What was the deeper purpose of the Krishna avatāra? In my latest Tamil interview, I explore some intriguing questions: • Rama and Krishna: Why were their lives so radically different? • Krishna and Radha: Was their separation really as we commonly understand it? • How many times did Krishna reveal the Viśvarūpa—and who actually saw it? • What did Krishna have to do with the changing of Time and the decline of the Yugas? • Why did Bhīṣma fail to recognise the arrival of Uttarāyaṇa? • Why did Krishna accept Gāndhārī's curse—and why did it materialise in the 36th year after the Mahabharata war? • What happened in the final moments of Krishna avatāra on Earth? These are not merely stories from Krishna's life. They open up a fascinating window into Avatāra, Time and the unfolding of Dharma. Watch the interview and share it widely. 🙏 Jai Sri Krishna!

Inscriptional evidence for Rāma Setu

 Is there any inscriptional evidence for the location of Rāma Setu across India and Sri Lanka?

Yes. An important piece of epigraphic evidence comes from the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu copper plates of Rājendra Chola I (11th century CE).

While describing the conquest of Laṅkā by his father, Rājarāja Chola I (Arulmoḻivarman), the inscription compares the Chola king's naval crossing with Rāma's legendary crossing of the sea. The inscription says that Rāma, Lord of the Raghus, constructed a bridge across the ocean with the help of the valiant Vānaras and, after crossing it, slew the king of Laṅkā (Rāvaṇa). Rājarāja, by contrast, crossed the ocean in ships and conquered Laṅkā.

What is significant here? The inscription explicitly connects Rāma with Rāma Setu, the ocean crossing and Laṅkā. An objection may be raised: “But this is only an 11th-century inscription. How can it be evidence for the Rāmāyaṇa geography?” The answer is simple: an inscription need not be contemporary with the event described to constitute evidence for the geographical tradition preserved about that event. Its value here is precisely as an independent epigraphic witness to the tradition. Moreover, the Cholas were not geographically unfamiliar with Laṅkā. They had actually conducted naval campaigns there. Thus, when a Chola inscription deliberately compares Rājarāja's voyage to Laṅkā on the same stretch of water crossed by Rāma by building the Setu, it provides significant epigraphic evidence for the identification of Rāmāyaṇa Laṅkā in Sri Lanka and for the remembered location of the Setu across the intervening sea. This is inscriptional corroboration of the geographical tradition. #Ramayana_5114BCE

Where was Ravana’s Lanka?

 Where was Ravana’s Lanka?

Was it Sri Lanka? Yes—going by the Sri Lankan literary sources, Lanka was in Sri Lanka. But the real question is: where in Sri Lanka was Ravana’s Lanka? The answer becomes clearer when we examine the changing names and internal geography of the island. Tambapanni was not the whole island: The Mahavamsa, the great Pali chronicle of Sri Lanka, begins its dynastic history with Vijaya, who landed in the north on the day Gautama Buddha passed away. Seeing the copper-coloured soil, Vijaya named the place Tambapanni (Tamravarni). The name was associated with the northern part of the island, around Jaffna, rather than with the entire island. It was corrupted into Taprobane in western chronicles. Was the whole of Srilanka known as Sinhala? No. The origin of Sinhala is also traced to Vijaya’s lineage. His father was Simhabahu/Sihabahu, associated with the legend of restraining a lion. His capital was Simhapura, and Vijaya was known as Vijayasimha. His followers therefore came to be known as Sinhalas, and the territory occupied by them became associated with Sinhala. Thus, Tambapanni and Sinhala were not simply names for the entire island from the beginning. Ceylon is much later—a Portuguese rendering, Ceilão/Seylon, which eventually became Ceylon.

Two cities in Lanka: Now comes the crucial geographical clue. At the time of Vijaya’s arrival, the Mahavamsa mentions two cities in Lanka: 1. Sirisavattu in the north 2. Lankapuri in the south Significantly, Lankapuri was in the hilly southern region inhabited by the Yakshas. This is where the search for Ravana’s Lanka becomes important.

The Hill of Lanka: The Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra describes Ravana as the king of Lanka and chief of the Yakshas. It says Gautama Buddha stayed on the Hill of Lanka—the abode of Ravana. This Hill of Lanka is identified with Adam’s Peak in southern Sri Lanka. The entire opening chapter of this text centres on Buddha’s presence there and Ravana arriving in his celestial chariot to pay homage and hear his teaching. This can be easily dismissed as imagination, but what cannot be ignored as imagination is the reference to the hill as Lanka, the city of Ravana. Trikuta—the mountain of Ravana: Now compare this with the Valmiki Ramayana. Ravana’s Lanka stood on Trikuta (V.R. 5.2.1)—literally suggesting three peaks or elevations. Adam’s Peak has no three separate summits, but its distinctive three-faceted profile fits the idea of Trikuta. Valmiki further says that Trikuta resembled Mount Kailash (VR: 5.2.23). Amazingly, the peaks of Kailash and Trikuta appear similar.

The mountain of Lanka was also known as Swarga/Swargarohana, which got modified to Rohana, and Malaya. Since Ravana was a devotee of Lord Shiva, the Trikuta mountain (Lanka) in which he lived came to be known as ‘Sivanolipaada Malai’ (Mountain of the Light of Shiva’s Feet). So, where was Ravana’s Lanka? The Sri Lankan literary tradition places Lanka in Sri Lanka. The more precise question is: “Where in Sri Lanka was Ravana’s Lanka?” The geographical trail preserved by the Mahavamsa and Lankavatara Sutra points towards Lankapuri in the mountainous south—in the region of Adam’s Peak. Check my book for more info. #Ramayana_5114BCE

What Does Lanka Mean?

Tamil dictionaries and thesauri provide an important clue. The Tamil Ilangai (இலங்கை) is associated with Lanka and can describe a raised tract of land around which water flows. When a portion of land remains above water while a river or other waterbody flows around it, the landmass may be called a Lanka—naturally resembling an island. The Senthan Divakara Nighantu groups three terms together: “Lanka, Turutthi and Arangam” for landforms created by the meandering of a river around a tract of land. The Bingala Nighantu similarly includes Lanka among terms describing raised land surrounded by water. This also offers an interesting geographical explanation for Srirangam. Situated between branches of the Kaveri, Arangam is one of the terms associated with Lanka. The name Lanka is not confined to Tamil. Related usage is also found in Mundari, with meanings associated with landforms surrounded by water. Across Bharat, numerous places called Lanka occur in river systems, lakes and other water-associated landscapes—even for isolated elevated landforms. What Lankas Have Researchers Proposed for Ravana’s Lanka? Several locations have nevertheless been proposed as Ravana’s Lanka: 1. Lankeswari, Sonpur, Odisha Sonpur has been called Paschima Lanka, or “Western Lanka.” Lankeswari is associated with a hill amid the Mahanadi's riverine landscape. But Ravana’s Lanka is consistently associated with the South, and the Āḻvārs refer to it as Thennilankai—Southern Lanka.

2. Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh The mountainous Amarkantak region is the source of the Narmada, Son and Johilla rivers. Its elevated, water-rich geography has attracted some researchers. Yet it does not satisfactorily match Valmiki’s detailed description of Lanka.

3. Indrana, Madhya Pradesh Situated in the Narmada region, Indrana has a small hill and surrounding water. But these features fall far short of the Trikūṭa mountain and magnificent Lanka described in the Rāmāyaṇa.

4. Bhagatrav, Gujarat An ancient coastal/estuarine Harappan settlement near the Kim River, Bhagatrav is now only about 100–150 metres across, with substantial erosion from the river and seawater. Can this small mound reasonably accommodate Trikūṭa Śikhara, rising amid the clouds, and the Lanka described by Valmiki?

5. The Siddhāntic Lanka at the Equator The astronomical Lanka of the Siddhāntas might have been associated with a water-surrounded landform, but it lacks the Trikūṭa mountain and the mountainous route described in the Rāmāyaṇa. Thus, the occurrence of the name Lanka or a mound near a waterway cannot identify a place as Ravana’s Lanka. It must be based on the complete geographical, topographical and directional evidence of the Rāmāyaṇa.

Read my book to get more details. #Ramayana_5114BCE

Jambudvīpa: Which place was known by this name—and why?

 Though several texts may be cited to discuss the location and extent of Jambudvīpa, its practical usage points to a striking conclusion: the Indian subcontinent was known as Jambudvīpa.

But why this name? The answer lies in the Jambū tree—the jamun (Syzygium cumini), which thrives abundantly in the Indian subcontinent. Its preferred conditions are roughly 20–35°C, annual rainfall of about 1,000–2,500 mm, a tropical or subtropical climate, good sunlight, and freedom from severe frost. It is particularly well adapted to the Indian monsoon climate and does not naturally thrive in cold regions. This has an interesting geographical implication: extending Jambudvīpa into Europe or the cold Himalayan regions would be difficult to reconcile with the ecology of the very tree from which the name is derived. The old Tamil tradition offers another fascinating clue. Tamil texts call Jambudvīpa Nāvalam Tīvu—the island/land of the Jambū (nāval) tree. Maṇimēkalai refers to Puhār (Pūmpuhār) as the abode of the guardian deity of Jambudvīpa. It narrates that a woman performed tapas beneath a Jambū tree at Puhār and attained the status of the guardian deity of Jambudvīpa. Thus, Puhār had an earlier name, Jambupati.

Why is this striking? The absence of this particular tradition from the Purāṇic accounts indicates a very ancient memory—from a period before the Holocene climatic conditions. Only the southern coastal regions were habitable then, with Pūmpuhār forming a major hub of the civilization of India. Even more intriguing is the tradition concerning the Upadvīpas of Jambudvīpa. The southern and southeastern islands were regarded as subsidiary islands of Jambudvīpa. The Sagara-putras are said to have dug through the earth, producing eight islands, including present-day Sri Lanka (refer Srimad Bhagavatam). This resonates intriguingly with geography. Morphological studies of the Bay of Bengal reveal ancient submarine channels and formations close to the eastern coast of peninsular India extending around Sri Lanka (see Chapter 60 of my Ramayana 5114 BCE).

Tamil literature preserves a remarkable memory of this landscape: Silappadhikāram calls the Bay of Bengal “Todu Kadal”—the “dug-out sea”; Sri Lanka is described as “கடல் அகழ் இலங்கை” (Kadal Agazh Ilangai)—Lanka encircled/formed by digging the sea. These references may preserve a memory of an older landscape in which several southern islands existed but were subsequently submerged—including Kāvāṭam, the second Pandyan capital mentioned in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Today Sri Lanka survives. The other Upadvīpas lie beneath the sea. Jambudvīpa, therefore, is not merely a name on a cosmological map—it preserves a memory of India, its ecology, and a much older geographical landscape.

#Ramayana_5114BCE

Manu Smṛti: The Law of the King, Not a Charter of Caste

 Manu Smṛti is often presented today as a text primarily concerned with varṇa and caste discrimination. Yet this modern image can obscure another important dimension of the Manu tradition: rule of law and the king’s duty to uphold justice. In the classical Indian understanding, Manu-dharma was closely associated with righteous governance, impartial justice and the king’s obligation to protect his subjects.

In the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, when Vāli questions Rama for attacking him from concealment, Rama explains that a king has the authority and duty to punish those who violate dharma. Rama invokes the precedent of Manu and the duty of kings to uphold the established law (VR 4.18.31–32). Manu here appears not as a symbol of social discrimination, but as an authority for royal justice and the rule of dharma.

The Cholas, as descendants of Vaivasvata Manu consciously embraced the same ideal. 1. The Tiruvalangadu copper plates of Rajendra Chola I describe Parāntaka Chola as one whom people regarded as Manu returned to earth to restore his law, which had become weakened in the Kali age. 2. The Karandai plates describe Rajaraja I as manuvaṃśa-ketu, “the banner of the race of Manu,” and Rajendra as manukulābharaṇa, “the ornament of the Manu lineage.” 3. A Tiruvallam inscription speaks of the king causing the Earth to proceed on the path of Manu, so that she might remain in righteousness. This evidence also cautions against the claim that Manu became relevant to Tamil kings only because a supposedly Gupta- or Śuṅga-period Manusmṛti was later imported into the South. The chronology of the extant Manusmṛti and the much older Manu tradition must be distinguished. More importantly, there is no demonstrated historical chain showing that the Cholas adopted Manu-nīti as a Gupta–Śuṅga-period import. The inscriptions themselves show Manu functioning as an established ideal of kingship and justice within Chola political thought. Manu Nīti Chola The famous tradition of Manu Nīti Chola, identified in Sri Lankan tradition with Elara/Ellalan, expresses the same principle. He is remembered for impartial justice—even when that justice required punishment of his own son after the prince's chariot killed a calf.

Statue of a chariot running over the prince (Tiruvārur temple)

Though Elara was an enemy of the Sinhalese king Dutthagāmaṇī and died fighting him, the Sinhalese kings respected him for his justice as per Mahavamsa. However, in modern times, the original emphasis of Manu-nīti on righteous rule and impartial justice was twisted into a predominantly caste-based interpretation. European colonial scholars treated Dharmaśāstra texts as if they constituted a single, codified “Hindu law,” thereby giving Manusmṛti a status and uniformity that did not correspond to India's plural legal traditions. In the 19th and 20th centuries, passages dealing with varṇa and social hierarchy increasingly became the focus of anti-caste criticism, and Manusmṛti became a symbol of social oppression. Viewed in its historical context, Manu Smṛti’s long association with righteous governance and impartial justice makes its reduction in modern times to a text of caste discrimination unwarranted. #ManuSmriti

Onam Festival: From Narasimha to Mahābali

 What did Onam originally signify, and how did its meaning evolve into what it represents today?

Onam is associated with Śravaṇa nakṣatra, called Tiruvōṇam (திருவோணம்) in Tamil, traditionally regarded as Vishnu’s birth star. Today, Onam is popularly associated with the annual return of Mahābali, whose story is linked to Vishnu’s Vāmana avatāra. Yet the earliest Tamil references suggest a different association. 1. Tiruvōṇam and Narasimha — Periyāḻvār Periyāḻvār, in the sixth verse of Tiruppallāṇḍu, says: திருவோணத் திருவிழவில் அந்தியம் போதில் அரியுருவாகி அரியை அழித்தவனை The verse explicitly refers to the Tiruvōṇam festival and to Vishnu assuming the form of Narasimha and destroying the enemy. It was not associated with Vāmana or Mahābali. Another Periyāḻvār verse contains the expression: அத்தத்தின் பத்தாம் நாள் தோன்றிய அச்சுதன் referring to Achyuta (Vishnu) appearing on the tenth day from Hasta (Attam), identified with Śravaṇa/Tiruvōṇam. The correspondence with the present Kerala practice is striking: Onam celebrations begin with Atham (Hasta) and culminate in Thiruvonam. While this alone cannot prove uninterrupted continuity, it is an intriguing parallel. 2. From victory over evil to Ayudha Pūjā A second Tamil reference occurs in Tirujñāna Sambandar’s Dēvāram, in connection with the Kapālīśvara temple at Mylapore, where an Aippasi Onam is mentioned. This falls around Mahā Navami, the traditional period of weapon worship (Ayudha Puja) and preparation for warfare. The Thiruvakkarai inscription of 897 CE similarly mentions “பிரட்டாதி ஓணமும்”(Purattasi Onam). These references suggest that Onam was not restricted to a Vishnu festival but had acquired a wider cultural significance involving war preparedness and weapon worship.

3. The emergence of Mahābali A third strand appears in the Sangam work Maturaikkāñci: கணம் கொள் அவுணர்க் கடந்த பொலந் தார் மாயோன் மேய ஓண நல் நாள். Onam is described as the auspicious day of Māyōn (Vishnu), the destroyer of the powerful Asuras. This may connect with the later Mahābali tradition. The Padma Purāṇa and Skanda Purāṇa describe kings of earlier times honouring Mahābali on his return by floral decorations and donations, seeking prosperity and land. The associated observance was Bali Pratipat in Aippasi. The Onam of Maturaikkāñci may preserve an early form of this tradition, although the text itself does not explicitly name Mahābali. Over time, the celebration appears to have shifted in calendar and geography, becoming associated in Kerala with Chingam (Siṃha māsa) and Tiruvōṇam. 4. The Kerala evidence By the early medieval period, Onam was firmly established in Kerala. The Thiruvalla copper plate of c. 861 CE provides early epigraphic evidence, while 11th–12th-century inscriptions at Thiruvalla and Thrikkakara show the festival becoming institutionalised through temple rituals and celebrations.

The evidence therefore points to a long and complex evolution: from Tiruvōṇam associated with Vishnu/Narasimha and victory over evil, through traditions involving weapon worship and royal observances, to the now prominent Mahābali tradition of his annual return. The modern characterization of Onam primarily as a harvest festival may be a recent addition.

#Onam

Lord Muruga: God, Ancestor or a Man who became a God? (My talk in Tamil)

Who was Murugan? Was he merely a deity of the Tamil hills? Was he the pan-Indian Skanda, Kārttikeya and Subrahmaṇya? Or, as some modern Tamil narratives claim, was he an ancient ancestor—a Muppāṭṭan?

In my recent discussion on Murugan to SwadeshiTamil Channel, I examined these questions by bringing together Tamil literary traditions, Sanskrit sources, Vedic references, geographical evidence, climatic records and even some intriguing genetic findings.

My conclusion is different from both the conventional extremes. Murugan is indeed a God—but he was born as a man and was elevated to divine status. He is not our ancestor or Muppāṭṭan. Yet he occupies a unique place in our tradition as the forerunner of those who perform Vedic Homa.

Murugan's birth in Then Madurai

An important source that is often overlooked in discussions about Murugan's origin is the Tiruvilaiyādal Purāṇam. It gives an account of Murugan's birth that is very different from the familiar Puranic narrative of his birth from Shiva's divine fire.

According to this Tamil tradition, Murugan was born as Ugra Kumāra, the son of Tadātakai Pirāṭṭi and Somasundara in Then Madurai — Southern Madurai.

The place is described as Kanni Desam. I specifically distinguish this from the modern concept of Kumari Kandam. The two should not simply be equated.

The question then naturally arises: Where was this Southern Madurai?

This is where geography becomes important. I have examined bathymetric studies of the region and identified what I consider to be the probable location of the ancient Southern Madurai. This is not merely a matter of taking the traditional name and placing it somewhere on a modern map. The geographical evidence has to be examined alongside the literary descriptions.

A land that disappeared

The Tamil literary tradition preserves memories of Southern Madurai being lost beneath the sea.

The accounts associated with Nakkīrar, Ilam Pūraṇar and Adiyārkkunallār speak of the submergence or loss of the ancient southern land. I therefore do not treat the disappearance of Southern Madurai as merely a poetic invention.

There are also indications of floods before and during the period associated with Murugan, together with references that can be interpreted in the context of volcanic activity.

When these literary traditions are examined alongside climatic and geological records, an intriguing chronology emerges.

My assessment is that Murugan belongs to a period before the Holocene, roughly around 12,000 years ago. This places the Murugan tradition in a very different chronological framework from the one usually assumed.

Murugan, Kārttikeya and the re-design of the zodiac

One of the most interesting aspects of Murugan's identity emerges when we look at his astronomical associations.

The name Kārttikeya, is connected with an important astronomical change attributed to Murugan: the re-designing of the zodiac of lunar mansions.

The Mahābhārata preserves an account in which sage Mārkaṇḍeya narrates matters concerning the nakṣatras to the Pāṇḍavas. In this narration we encounter the significance of the change from the earlier arrangement.

As per this, the star Abhijit was dropped from the nakṣatra scheme and Kṛttikā was included so that the zodiac could remain as a system of 27 nakṣatras.

This provides a possible astronomical dimension to the name Kārttikeya itself, connecting Murugan with Kṛttikā.

How did Murugan become Viśākha?

The astronomical story does not end with Kṛttikā.

I also examine the association of Murugan with Viśākha.

The significance becomes clearer when we consider the astronomical reorganisation of the nakṣatra system. In the process of re-designing the zodiac, Viśākha occupies a special position because the star-group extends across two zodiacal signs in the autumnal equinoctial position. 

Vivasvān, the present Sun, and Manu, who initiated the Ikṣvāku dynasty, came into being after this event. Viśākhā was subsequently adopted as the Kula Nakṣatra of the Ikṣvākus, as we learn from the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

Thus Murugan's different names and associations may preserve memories of astronomical events or changes that are far older than the later popular stories attached to him.

The connection among Kārttikeya, Kṛttikā, Viśākha and the nakṣatra system therefore deserves to be studied as an astronomical tradition in its own right.

This is particularly important because Indian traditions often preserve astronomical information through the names and stories of deities rather than presenting it as a modern scientific textbook.

Was Murugan only a Tamil deity?

Another question I examine is whether Murugan was originally a purely Tamil deity who was later transformed into Skanda or Kārttikeya.

I find this too simplistic.

The ancient Tamil tradition certainly preserves a very strong and distinctive Murugan tradition. At the same time, the Sanskrit tradition knows him by several names, including Kārttikeya and Skanda, and there are Vedic references connected with Subrahmaṇya.

I also compare these with the Mahābhārata's references to Murugan and his different names, as well as the Tamil Tirumurukāṟṟuppaṭai.

These sources have to be studied together rather than placing "Tamil Murugan" on one side and "Sanskrit Skanda" on the other and assuming that they necessarily represent unrelated traditions.

The red-headed Murugan

There is another unusual feature that I discuss: Murugan's red head or reddish appearance.

This becomes particularly interesting when we consider ancient populations outside India. Genetic studies of red-haired populations in Ireland and Scandinavia have been interpreted as pointing to a mutation that arose in an individual in India roughly 10,000 years ago.

This is an intriguing piece of evidence when considered alongside the ancient traditions.

The Scythians, too, are described as red-haired in historical sources, and I point out the association of objects and practices connected with Murugan among them. These parallels deserve investigation rather than being dismissed simply because they do not fit neatly into modern geographical categories.

Was Murugan a man who became God?

This brings me to the central question.

Was Murugan a God?

My answer is yes.

But I do not believe that this necessarily means that he was born as a supernatural being in the way later mythology presents him. My interpretation is that Murugan was born as a man and was subsequently elevated to the status of a God.

In other words, the categories "man" and "God" need not be mutually exclusive in the ancient Indian understanding of history and divinity.

A human being of extraordinary stature could become divinised and worshipped as a deity. Murugan, in my interpretation, represents such a case.

But was he our Muppāṭṭan?

Here I differ from another popular Tamil claim.

Some argue that Murugan was the ancient Tamil Muppāṭṭan—our forefather or ancestor.

I do not agree.

Murugan should not be reduced to the status of an ancestral figure merely because he was born as a man.

There is, however, another reason why I regard him as having an extraordinary place in our tradition.

The first Vedic Homa

Murugan is associated with the initiation of the first Vedic Homa.

Therefore, rather than calling him our Muppāṭṭan, I would describe him as a forerunner of everyone who performs Homa.

This gives an entirely different significance to his place in the religious tradition.

He is not merely a Tamil hill deity who was subsequently absorbed into a northern Sanskritic tradition. Nor is he simply a human ancestor elevated by later generations.

He stands at a much deeper point in the history of our religious tradition.

Please watch the video and share it widely. 

What is Sanatana Dharma? (My talk in Tamil)

சனாதனம் என்றால் என்ன? சனாதனம் ஒழிக்கப்பட வேண்டியதா? ஒழிக்க முடியுமா? ஜாதிச் சண்டைகள், ஏற்ற தாழ்வுகள் ஆகியவைதான் சனாதனமா? இந்தக் கேள்விகளுக்கு என் விடைகளை இந்தக் காணொளியில் பார்க்கவும். பகிரவும்.

The comet of the Mahabharata identified (Part 34 of the Mahabharata series)

In the 34th part of the Mahābhārata series, the comet whose fragments hit the Earth and the Moon is identified. According to recent research on Comet C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS), which disintegrated into pieces 91 million miles away from the Sun, it was found to have originated from a parent comet that broke into two approximately 5000 years ago while turning around the Sun. One of these pieces returned in 1844, and the other in 2019, disintegrating at the Sun's aphelion—an event deemed impossible in nature.

Scientists analysing this phenomenon discovered that the parent comet, visible from regions like India, broke up at that time. The evidence for this event, recorded by Vyāsa, is found in the Mahābhārata: some fragments of the breakup rushed towards the Earth and Moon, crashing onto both on a Pushya day.

The 'second moon' that recently came near the Earth, found to have been part of lunar ejecta, was very likely caused by this impact on the lunar surface 5000 years ago. Unfortunately, no Mahābhārata researcher has been able to grasp this connection beyond what they could discern from astronomy simulators.

Did the star Arundhati shift its position as claimed by Nilesh Oak? (Part 31 of the Mahabharata series)

In the 31st part of the Mahabharata series, Nilesh Oak's version that Arundhatī preceded Vasishtha (star) for 6000 years is analysed. After explaining Arundhati’s significance as an icon of Pativratātva in Vedic society, I provide a word-by-word meaning of the verse, highlighting an inherent contradiction. This is resolved using the Mīmāṃsā axiom on Guna and Pradhāna statements, establishing that Arundhatī momentarily appearing ahead of her husband was a temporary phenomenon, a nimitta as stated by Vyasa.

This appearance is attributed to a comet impact which is explained with a diagram. The astronomical explanation for calculating a star's location is given, demonstrating Oak's error in considering only the Right Ascension of the two stars, neglecting calculations involving Right Ascension, Proper Motion, and observer latitude. Oak's oversight has tarnished Arundhati's iconic status, invoked in Vedic marriages as a Pativratā symbol. As this nimitta is neither primary nor secondary evidence for dating the epic, viewers believing his version are cautioned about these mistakes.

The non-existent 13-day Twin eclipses (Part 30 of the Mahabharata series)

 In the 30th part of the Mahabharata series, I've explained why the claim of 13-day twin eclipses by researchers is irrelevant. Dr. S. Balakrishna's interpretation of Trayodashi tithi as the 13th Julian day led to this misconception. He misinterpreted Amavasya and Pournami in Trayodashi as twin eclipses separated by 13 Julian days.

Unfortunately, most researchers followed this view. I'm highlighting issues with the 13-day twin eclipse proposed by the 3162 BCE researcher and triple eclipses by the 3067 BCE researcher.

The latter's second eclipse, picked from Vana parvan, was assumed to be in Upapalavya in Udhyoga Parvan - a clear discrepancy. Other researchers, like the 5561 BCE and ‘Dwaraka- in-Dholavira’ researchers are not the only people giving you hearty laugh, here are others too, amusing you with funny interpretations. Watch the video and share widely.

Two consecutive Full-Moons in Krittika star (Part 29 of the Mahabharata series)

 In the 29th part of the Mahabharata series, the third anomalous event is discussed: two Full Moons occurring in the same star, Krittika. After the Amavasya in Trayodashi tithi, Vyasa observed the waxing moon phase and noticed the lunar disc appeared mark-less and dull, with decreasing tithis (Kshaya tithi). The phase ended in Krittika, unusual for Margashira month. This anomaly is linked to the comet event in Pushya nakshatra.

The first Full Moon in Krittika was eventless and it occurred soon after Krishna left for Hastinapura for the peace mission, but the second, following the comet, occurred in the same star. This caused a month to repeat, while the sun continued moving.

The moon's agni varna (fiery colour) is explained by comparing with the reddish moon seen in the USA in 2021 due to wildfire smoke. Bhishma missed noting the two Full Moons in Krittika, causing a time lag and Uttarayana shift.

This lag is evident in dates like Rama and Krishna's birthdates, which don't match their original - month- star-tithis. To know the details watch this video and share it widely.

Pournami in Trayodashi (Part 28 of the Mahabharata Series)

 In the 28th part of the Mahabharata series, the unusual Full Moon event of Pournami occurring on Trayodashi tithi is discussed. Vyasa refers to this happening in the same month, following the Trayodashi Amavasya. 

Unfortunately, Mahabharata researchers either treated these as twin eclipses or ignored the Full Moon in Trayodashi. 

The causes for these anomalous occurrences are deduced through Arthapatti, linking the Dhumaketu (comet) that 'stood' on Pushya day. It appears the comet broke apart and its fragments hit the Earth and Moon more vigorously, causing the Moon to jerk and move faster than normal. 

This led to Amavasya in Trayodashi. The faster pace continued, causing Pournami in Trayodashi. Thus, four tithis were lost. Bhishma deduced this and declared that Uttarayana would start on Shukla Ashtami the next year, instead of Shukla Trayodashi.

Amavasya in Trayodashi (Part 27 of the Mahabharata Series)

 The Trayodashi Amavasya phenomenon is indeed an intriguing aspect of the Mahabharata. According to Vyasa, this unusual occurrence happened when Amavasya didn't follow its normal course, instead appearing on the 13th lunar day (Trayodashi tithi). This anomaly was likely caused by a cosmic event on Pushya day in Karthika month, impacting the moon's movement, altering the sequence of tithis .

Key Points about Trayodashi Amavasya:

Unusual Occurrence: Amavasya typically doesn't occur on Trayodashi, making this event exceptional. The scientific reasons are given in the video.

Cause: Possibly a cosmic hit on the moon changed the lunar movement, affecting tithi sequences.

Bodhayana Amavasya: This type of Amavasya, occurring on a little earlier due to altered sequence, is named after Rishi Bodhayana, who framed rules for it.

Some researchers mistakenly interpreted Trayodashi tithi as the 13th solar day, leading to incorrect conclusions about solar eclipses. However, Vyasa's explicit statement and the word-by-word meaning of the verse clarify that there was no eclipse on that day. It also shows that Amavasya didn't occur on Jyeshtha nakshatra.

Did Rahu slip away from its position? (Part 26 of the Mahabharata Series)

In the 26th part of the Mahabharata series, the 5th nimitta of Karna is discussed. Karna mentioned Rahu moving towards the Sun, which some researchers interpret as evidence for an eclipse. However, this interpretation is disputed from a logical point of view.

At the beginning of Kaliyuga, when Krishna left (36th year after the war), Rahu was in Kanya rashi. Based on the Saros cycle, the Rahu-Ketu axis in Kanya-Meena rashi would have existed during the war. Rahu could've moved slightly around Kanya rashi but couldn't have reached Vrischika rashi (where Karthika Maasa occurs).

This contradicts claims by 3067 BCE researchers that twin or triple eclipses occurred in Karthika and Margashira, which seems impossible given Rahu's position.

The movement of Rahu towards the Sun is explained using a diagram, showing such movement would require Rahu to move clockwise (against nature), shifting the Moon's orbit and causing it to transgress its path, leading to Amavasya in Trayodashi.

Harappan was Post Mahabharata Culture

For decades, the story of the Indus Valley Civilization has been interpreted through borrowed frameworks and incomplete assumptions.

 

But what if the key to understanding it lies within our own Itihasa — the Mahabharata?

In this exclusive live podcast, we explore a bold and evidence-based perspective on ancient Indian history: “IVC: Post Mahabharata Culture.”

According to the Mahabharata chronology, in 3101 BCE, at the onset of Kali Yuga, the great city of Dwaraka submerged beneath the sea. Yet its people did not vanish. Mahabharata records describe how Arjuna led the survivors of Dwaraka inland, settling them across regions associated with the Early Harappan phase, contributing to cultural continuity rather than civilizational rupture.

This session examines:

• How post-Dwaraka migrations enriched the Early Harappan (3300–2600 BCE) phase

• The relocation of clans into the Saraswati, Sindhu, and Mehrgarh regions

• The continuity of culture reflected in Harappan seals, symbols, and emblems

• How Mahabharata timelines align with archaeology, astronomy, and geography

• Why these patterns suggest continuity, not mystery

Please watch and share 

The Mark on the Moon shifted its position (Part 25 of the Mahabharata series)

In Part 25 of the Mahabharata series, the 4th nimitta of Karṇa is discussed, focusing on the mark on the moon that had shifted its position. Most researchers interpret this as a lunar eclipse, linking it to "Triple eclipses". I highlight the absurdity of this claim by examining the versions of three researchers (3067 BCE and 3162 BCE).

Further analysis points to a probable region on the lunar surface where a mark was seen. This aligns with the recent discovery of the Second Moon (2024 PT5), a lunar ejecta matching Apollo 14 samples from the Moon's Highland region. This is likely the same location where Karṇa and Vyāsa noticed a sudden mark on Kārttika Pūṣya night.

Vyāsa's reported Dhūmaketu likely hit the Moon, visible as a mark on the plain region of the lunar disc

Karana -tithi jumped (Part 24 of the Mahabharata Series)

In the 24th part of the Mahabharata series, Karna tells Krishna the 3rd nimitta (omen). He mentions that Gara Karana, one of the five angas of Panchanga, is afflicting Chitra Nakshatra. This implies a shift in tithi (lunar day), suggesting Amavasya would occur on the 5th day from their conversation (which is in Uttara Phalguni nakshatra).

However, Krishna replies that Amavasya would occur on the 7th day from then, in Jyeshta nakshatra.

This anomaly is echoed by Vyasa, who notes the Moon "transgressed" Chitra. The word "transgressed" implies unusual lunar movement.

The explanation: Karna's prediction placed Amavasya earlier than expected, based on the Moon's phases.

Can Mars retrograde where the Sun is present? (Part 23 of the MB series)

In the 23rd part of the Mahabharata series, the 2nd planetary nimitta told by Karna to Krishna is discussed. Karna said that Mars made a vakri movement from Jyeshtha to Anuradha. This is an anomalous observation because, the month being Kartika, the Sun was also there in Scorpio, and Mars placed in Jyeshtha in Scorpio cannot make a vakri movement. 

After explaining astronomically why it cannot do so, I am pointing out the versions of four Mahabharata researchers (3067 BCE, 3162 BCE, and 5561 BCE) on the funny explanations given by them. But the fact remains Mars made a rightward swing at the time the comet 'stood' on Pushya, which will be explained later in the series.