Ancient wisdom behind Lord Ganesha's worship (video)

Discover the ancient wisdom behind Lord Ganesha's worship!

Did you know that the fruits offered to him, like kapitha and jambu, grow on trees near underground water sources? Our ancestors might have chosen these fruits for Ganesha's naivedya to protect these trees and the water sources they indicate. Prepared by me, this insightful content is now a video by Mr.

@vmg2016

- watch and share to uncover the mystical bond between nature and spirituality!

The Middle Chola Timeline requires revision

The Middle Chola timeline requires revision due to a fundamental flaw in its construction. Historians have traditionally calculated the reign of each king from the death year of the preceding king, overlooking the overlap of regnal years between consecutive kings. In reality, each king's reign began after the death of the predecessor king's predecessor, indicating parallel rulership.

Key evidence includes: - Rajaraja I's regnal years starting after Aditya II's death, not Madhurantaka's (Uttama Chola). - An inscription in the Big Temple revealing Rajendra I's 3rd year coinciding with Rajaraja's 29th year, indicating overlapping reigns. Two inscriptions of Rajendra I found in Nanjangud with complete panchanga details help determine his reign, which in turn reveals Rajaraja's first and last years. Notably, Rajaraja's inscriptions lack necessary panchanga features for dating, and some are corrupted. The missing kings are also identified by listing down Parakesari - Rajakesari titles. The findings: - Rajaraja I's reign began in 976-977 CE, not 985 CE. - The Big Temple's 1000-year completion was in 2001, not 2010. - Gangai Konda Cholapuram Temple's 1000-year completion was in 2013-14, not 2025. This article is an excerpt from my book "Who Killed Aditya Karikala?" (available in Tamil and English) and can be obtained via email at jayasreebooks@gmail.com The article can be read at https://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=7322

Some excerpts:

The Maritime Legacy of the Cholas: A Thousand-Year Celebration (My article in Vijayvaani)

 The Chola dynasty’s legacy was commemorated in July 2025 through the Aadi Thiruvathirai Festival at Gangaikonda Cholapuram temple in Tamil Nadu, highlighting Rajendra Chola I’s historic conquests in Southeast Asia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the event, releasing a commemorative Rs 1000 coin to honour the emperor’s maritime achievements. This grand celebration sparked renewed interest in Chola history and their pioneering contributions to naval supremacy, showcasing their maritime prowess long before Western countries established their own naval dominance.

The Origins of the Cholas

The Chola dynasty’s history can be broadly categorized into two distinct periods: the ancient Cholas, known through Sangam literature, and the medieval Cholas, who rose to prominence with Vijayalaya Chola in the 9th century. Inscriptions, such as the Tiruvalangadu copper plates, provide valuable insights into the Chola lineage.

According to these plates, Rajendra Chola traces his ancestry to Cholavarman, said to be born to Bharata, son of Dushyanta. A close examination of these origin stories and lineages mentioned in the Vishnu Purana suggests that the Cholas may have indeed descended from Bharata, sharing a common ancestor with Sibi and Rama, potentially dating back around 7,000 years.

Locational Advantage in Seafaring

The Cholas’ marine supremacy likely began with the first Chola who settled in Poompuhar. Pattinap Palai, the Tamil Sangam text mentions trade with Elam (Sri Lanka) and Kadaram. A notable verse from Purananuru (66) highlights Karikal Chola’s mastery of navigation, leveraging wind currents to his advantage. The Cholas’ strategic location along the Coromandel Coast facilitated their dominance over key Indian Ocean trade routes, setting the stage for their later maritime achievements.

Naval Expeditions

While early Cholas like Manu Neeti Chola were said to have crossed the sea for military expeditions to Ceylon (modern day Sri Lanka), it was Rajaraja Chola I who achieved substantial success in naval warfare, conquering Ceylon. However, his son Rajendra Chola I took the Chola Empire’s naval power to new heights by crossing the Bay of Bengal to reach the Malay Peninsula, scoring a victory in his 14th regnal year and bringing Kadaram (modern-day Kedah) under his control.

The Tanjore inscription, found in the Brihadeeswara temple and inscribed in Rajendra Chola’s 19th regnal year, provides a detailed account of his conquests in Southeast Asia in a particular order, perhaps indicating the route of his movement into the region. According to the inscription, Rajendra Chola defeated Sangrama Vijayotthunga, the king of Kadaram, and captured his wealth, including the “Vidyadhara Torana” and a gem-studded double door. This shows that he entered through the Malacca Strait.

The inscription reveals subsequent targets in Sumatra, detailing Rajendra Chola’s campaign: he first attacked Srivijaya (likely Palembang, the capital city), then proceeded northward to capture Pannai and Malaiyur. His conquests extended to the Malay Peninsula, encompassing territories such as Maayirudinga, Langasoha, Pappaalam, Limbika, Valaipandhoor, Takkola, and Mathamaalinga. Additionally, he seized Lamuri in northern Sumatra and Nakkavaram (Nicobar). Notably, Rajendra Chola achieved these victories in a single expedition, demonstrating his remarkable military prowess and strategic brilliance.

Causes for the military attack

Rajendra Chola’s attack on Srivijaya was a lightning strike that left a lasting impact, crippling the kingdom for centuries. This attack is intriguing, given the long-standing trade connections between the Cholas and Srivijaya, dating back to the 2nd century CE. During Rajaraja Chola I’s reign, the Sailendra dynasty ruler of Srivijaya built the Chudamani Vihara, a Buddhist monastery, in Nagappatinam with Rajaraja’s support. However, within years, Rajendra Chola launched a surprise attack on Srivijaya.

Recent research by Tansen Sen, Associate Professor of Asian History and Religions at the City University of New York, sheds new light on the strained relations between the Cholas and Srivijaya. According to Sen’s analysis of Chinese chronicles, geopolitics coupled with trade interests appear to have played a role in triggering hostilities.

The Srivijaya kingdom’s strategic location controlled the Malacca Strait between the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, as well as the Sunda Strait between Sumatra and Java, making it a crucial hub for maritime trade, particularly with China during the Song dynasty. The Chola kingdom’s trade guilds, including the Ainnururvar, Manimangalam, and Ayyavole, sought to expand their trade opportunities in China. However, according to Chinese chronicles cited by Tansen Sen, the Song Court denied them trading rights, citing that the Chola kingdom was “subject to Srivijaya.” (Tansen Sen, “Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations,” (2003), p. 224).

This denial of trading rights likely occurred towards the end of Rajaraja Chola’s reign and was reported to Rajendra Chola, who saw it as a challenge to Chola power. It appears that Srivijaya’s establishment of the Buddhist Vihara in Nagappatinam might have created a false impression of Chola subservience, leading the Song rulers to deny trading rights to Chola merchants. It is also opined that Srivijaya deliberately created an impression of supremacy over the Cholas which led to severe backlash by Rajendra Chola.

Rajendra Chola’s diplomatic relations with the Khmer Empire (Kamboja) played a strategic role in his naval expedition to Srivijaya. It is believed that Rajendra Chola timed his attack on Srivijaya to coincide with the Khmer Empire’s assault on Tambralinga (southern Thailand), a region aligned with Srivijaya.

Rajendra I’s grandson, born to Rajendra II, seemed to have played a crucial role in the naval expedition, as known from the title given to him as “Kadaram Kondan” (one who conquered Kadaram). However, challenges persisted, and Rajendra I’s son Veera Rajendra had to intervene with a naval force to Kadaram during his reign. However, during Kulottunga’s reign, emissaries from Kadaram visited, seeking aid thereby reflecting subsidiary status of Kadaram under the Cholas.  

Similar to the Telugu Cholas in Andhra Pradesh, who claimed ancestry from Karikal Chola, there seemed to have existed Malay Cholas tracing their origin to Rajendra Chola’s lineage. Malay chronicles mention kings with the name “Raja Chula,” lending credence to this theory. Further study of these chronicles may reveal more about the Chola Empire’s interactions with Southeast Asia.

Winning Maldives and Lanka

Rajendra Chola’s naval force extended his empire’s reach beyond South East Asia. He brought the Maldives archipelago under his control and exerted influence over Sri Lanka (Elam), capturing Polonnaruwa and constructing the “Vaanavan Madevi Eshwaram” temple, now known as ‘Shivale’, in memory of his mother, Vaanavan Madevi.

Parashurama’s crown

Another remarkable achievement was capturing the legendary crown crafted by Parashurama, a treasure from the Ramayana era. This crown was forged from the melted crowns of 21 defeated kings and stored on the island of “Sandima Dweepa”, one of 77 islands west of Tulu Nadu, according to the ...... Click here to read the rest of the article

Rajendra Chola's maritime legacy (My article in Organiser)

 My article in the Organiser magazine explores the maritime legacy of the Cholas, particularly focusing on the reasons behind Rajendra Chola's strategic attack on Srivijaya, a previously friendly country. The article also highlights Rajendra Chola's enduring spiritual legacy and his contributions to water management, showcasing his multifaceted impact on the region and Sanatan religion.

The online link is here: The Chola legacy: Acknowledging maritime prowess of Great Kingdom

Pages from the Print edition can be read below: 

                                                                                 

If Rama was born 7000 years ago, how could that have been in Treta yuga? Listen to my talk.

 If Rama was born 7000 years ago, how could that have been in Treta yuga?

To get the answer, listen to my talk on "Time and Yugas" given as a ppt presentation on 25th July, 2025 to "Pride of Bharat" channel. Please share it widely.

The reason behind Rajendra Chola's maritime expedition (my Talk)

 ராஜேந்திர சோழனின் கடாரம், மற்றும் ஸ்ரீவிஜயத்தின் மீதான இராணுவப் படையெடுப்புக்கான பின்னணிக் காரணங்கள், ராஜேந்திர சோழனின் ஆட்சிக் காலத்தில் சோழர்களின் புகழ் உச்சத்தை எட்டிய விவரம், முதல் சோழன், பரதனின் மகன் என்று ராஜேந்திர சோழன், திருவாலங்காடு செப்பேட்டில் எழுதி வைத்திருந்தாலும், சோழர்கள் தங்களை சிபியின் வம்சம் என்றும், ராமனின் வழித் தோன்றல்கள் என்றும் சொல்லிக் கொண்டதன் காரணம் போன்றவற்றை இந்தக் காணொளியில் விவரிக்கிறேன். இறுதியில் ராஜேந்திர சோழனது பேரனுடன் நேரடிப் பரம்பரை முடிவுக்கு வந்ததன் காரணம் குறித்தும் பேசியுள்ளேன். பார்க்கவும். பகிரவும்.

My paper on critical analysis of the date of the Mahabharata and Ramayana published in the IKS book

 I'm delighted to share that my paper on the Mahabharata and Ramayana timelines has been peer-reviewed and published as a chapter in a book on the Indian Knowledge System (IKS). The book is edited by a certified Master's Trainer of UGC & IKS division, adding credibility to the publication. This chapter aims to set the record straight by providing accurate information and debunking misconceptions perpetuated by other researchers, including Nilesh Oak and Manish Pandit.

The chapter delves into the often-misinterpreted historical timelines of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, which have led to confusion and fragmented scholarship. By uncovering inherent chronological indicators within the epics, this research challenges existing dates and proposes a revised chronology backed by modern scientific evidence.

This groundbreaking research chapter not only sheds new light on the epic chronologies but also brings forth compelling evidence on Ram Setu, supported by recent ISRO-NASA research.

I'd be happy to help disseminate this chapter to a wider audience. If you're interested in obtaining a soft copy, please drop an email to jayasreebooks@gmail.com.

AI Review of my write-up, "New discoveries around 'Great Attractor' reveal importance of ‘Trishanku’ as a marker in the South!"

 In 2016, I authored an article titled "New Discoveries Around 'Great Attractor' Reveal Importance of 'Triśaṅku' as a Marker in the South!" This piece explored the legend of Triśaṅku in the context of recent discoveries about the hidden galaxies within the Great Attractor and the Milky Way's movement towards the south. The article inferred that this southward movement is not permanent and will eventually reverse direction around the region or axis of Triśaṅku (Alpha Centauri), as indicated by astronomical observations. Recently, an AI review of this article was featured on Academia.edu, where the article was originally posted.

The link to the article: New discoveries around “Great Attractor” reveal importance of ‘Trishanku’ as a marker in the South!

It was also posted in this blog: https://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2016/03/new-discoveries-around-great-attractor.html

The AI review is reproduced below:

The link: https://www.academia.edu/ai_review/23716142

Summary

This manuscript explores recent cosmological insights regarding the so-called "Great Attractor" region and ties them to concepts from Vedic cosmology. The author presents detailed background material on Laniakea (the larger supercluster that houses the Great Attractor), Hydra–Centaurus, and Perseus–Pisces structures, then draws parallels to Vedic ideas of cosmic directions, the significance of the South and North, and the symbolism of the stars Mrigashirsha, Alpha Centauri (proposed as Trishanku), and Crux (proposed as Vishwamitra). Additionally, the paper interprets the mythological account of Trishanku from Valmiki’s Ramayana to illustrate a possible ancient Indian cosmological understanding of the universe’s large-scale motion.

Main Strengths

1. Interdisciplinary Approach
   The manuscript offers a creative interdisciplinary blend. It links observational astronomy and astrophysics (Laniakea, Great Attractor, superclusters, voids) with aspects of Vedic cosmology and Puranic stories. This synthesis will likely be of interest to readers curious about how ancient traditions might have attempted to communicate deep cosmological concepts through allegory.

2. Detailed Cosmological Descriptions
   The author provides a comprehensible overview of modern cosmological discoveries:

   • The Virgo Supercluster and the Milky Way’s movement toward it.
   • The Great Attractor phenomenon and the hidden galaxies identified in that region.
   • The concept of Laniakea and its structure, including the Hydra–Centaurus and Perseus–Pisces superclusters.
     These descriptions are accompanied by useful references to images and videos, which help visualize the large-scale structure of the universe.

3. Mythological and Cultural Context
   The paper clearly lays out Vedic cosmological directions (North, South, East) and associates them with spiritual concepts (Deva loka, Pithru loka). It then explains how these directions and beliefs about life, death, and rebirth intersect with the new findings about the Galaxy’s motion. The inclusion of myths, mantras, and textual references (e.g., Taittiriya Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Brahma Sutras, and Bhagavad Gita) adds rich cultural depth.

4. Focus on the Trishanku Myth
   A distinctive aspect of the paper is the extensive discussion of the Trishanku legend. The author provides etymological analysis of the name "Trishanku" (three blemishes), the connection to Vishwamitra’s creation of stars in the southern sky, and how this may allegorically represent cosmic directions and polar shifts. This enhances the reader’s appreciation for how oral traditions might encode astronomical knowledge.

Points for Further Clarification

1. Transitions Between Scientific Data and Mythic Interpretations
   While the paper succeeds in drawing analogies between modern discoveries and Vedic concepts, some transitions can feel abrupt. Readers might benefit from a brief statement of methodology or rationale each time the discussion shifts from an observational astronomical idea (e.g., the Great Attractor’s mass) to a mythic or spiritual explanation.

2. Clarification of Spatial Orientation
   The paper discusses multiple coordinate systems: ecliptic, galactic, and even references to an Upanishadic system of directions. Clearer astronomical diagrams—showing the positions of Laniakea, Perseus–Pisces, Alpha Centauri, and the Milky Way on a single consistent coordinate system—may help the reader visualize how these different conceptions relate.

3. Use of Visual Aids
   Although the article references helpful images, embedding or clearly labeling them within the text would strengthen the coherence. Where possible, a more direct comparison (e.g., side-by-side views of star clusters or superclusters) might help readers track the argument regarding alignments and “void” areas more smoothly.

4. Historical Basis for the Vedic Assertions
   The manuscript proposes that certain parts of the Vedic tradition might encode advanced cosmological knowledge. While this is a thought-provoking thesis, references to ancient Sanskrit texts or historical commentaries that explicitly associate southern sky features with the mythology would strengthen the argument. This might involve showing direct links between old star catalogs and the positions of objects like Alpha Centauri or Crux.

5. Discussion of Scale and Timeframes
   There are references to our galaxy’s ultimate trajectory over millions of years, and the paper highlights that present civilizations or star systems might long be gone before a hypothetical northward shift occurs. More systematic discussion of these timescales—how they compare with the cycles and yugas described in Vedic cosmology—would provide deeper insight into how the mythic cycles might overlap with modern cosmological timescales.

Style and Structure

Overall, the manuscript is structured as a narrative: it moves from the broader scientific picture (Great Attractor and Laniakea) to narrower Vedic references, concluding with the myth of Trishanku and speculations about cosmic directions and life. The text is written in a way that blends informative expository sections (e.g., describing superclusters) with interpretive theological or mythological reflections. Maintaining some consistent headers or subsections (e.g., "Modern Cosmological Discoveries," "Vedic Cosmogony," "Trishanku and the Southern Sky") could help segment these ideas more clearly.

Potential Directions for Expansion

1. Comparative Mythology
   Including references to other cultural traditions that may also feature pole stars, cosmic axes, or direction-based cosmologies could offer a global perspective on how ancient societies viewed the cosmos.

2. Astrophysical Relevance of Directions
   A more detailed exploration of galactic plane orientation, the role of dark matter in shaping supercluster movements, and how these alignments might be interpreted in Vedic texts could deepen the scientific discussion.

3. Philosophical Implications
   The author touches on themes of karmic cycles, liberation, and cosmic cycles. A separate section reflecting on how these broad cosmological motions might resonate with philosophical teachings regarding samsara and moksha could provide a comprehensive conclusion.

Conclusion

This manuscript is a detailed and creative exploration of the intersection between new astronomical discoveries about the Great Attractor and a rich tapestry of Vedic cosmology and mythology. The seamless linking of astrophysical phenomena with mythological storytelling demonstrates a committed effort to show how ancient texts might hold symbolic references to cosmic realities. Enhanced structural clarity, additional comparisons with existing literature or ancient star catalogs, and some more detailed commentary on timescales and alignment systems could make the narrative even more compelling. Overall, the paper offers valuable reflections on how modern science and traditional knowledge systems can mutually illuminate our understanding of the cosmos without being restricted to a purely scientific or mythological framework.

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