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.This blog aims at bringing out the past glory and history of India, Hinduism and its forgotten values and wisdom. This is not copyrighted so as to reach genuine seekers of these information. Its my prayer that only genuine seekers - and not vandals & plagiarists - come to this site.
Sunday, July 27, 2025
Saturday, July 26, 2025
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
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
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.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.
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.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
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.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.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.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.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
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.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.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.
Sunday, April 6, 2025
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 23rd 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.
Saturday, April 5, 2025
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.
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
Thursday, December 5, 2024
இதிஹாசப் பார்வையில் ஆரியப் படையெடுப்பும், ஹரப்பன் நாகரிகமும் (My talk in VoC)
I am delighted to share the news about the A3 Conclave organized by Voice of Covai in Coimbatore. The conclave, which took place on November 30 and December 1, 2024, at Codissia, brought together 27 speakers, including myself, to discuss the significance of Bharatiya culture in shaping India's identity and future.
The A3 Conclave,
which stands for "Awake, Arise, Assert," aimed to promote and
celebrate Bharatiya values and Sanatana Dharma. I am glad to be part of this
inaugural event, which was conceived to inspire and empower individuals to
assert their cultural heritage.
As one of the
speakers, I had a fantastic opportunity to share my insights and engage with
like-minded individuals. The conclave was indeed a thought-provoking platform
for discussion, debate, and assertion of the timeless wisdom and principles
that have sustained our nation.
The event
coincided with the return of Sri Annamalai, President of TN BJP, from his
3-month research stint at Oxford University. He graced the occasion as the
chief guest and delivered his first public address after his return.
The conclave faced
unexpected challenges due to heavy rainfall along the east coast of India,
resulting in delayed and cancelled flights. Unfortunately, Union Minister Sri
L. Murugan was unable to attend and inaugurate the event as scheduled.
On November 30, I presented a talk titled "இதிஹாசப் பார்வையில் ஆரியப் படையெடுப்பும், ஹரப்பன் நாகரிகமும்" (Aryan Invasion Theory and Harappan Civilization in the light of Itihasa). My presentation delved into genetic studies on the Yamnaya culture, analyzing the movement of people from Europe preceded by an earlier movement of people from Bharat to Europe through the lens of Ramayana events. Additionally, I explored the Harappan culture from the perspective of Mahabharata, shedding new light on the ancient civilization. I also made a case for re-naming the Harappan culture as “Mahabharata Culture”.
My talk can be watched in this video:
Flood at the end of a Yuga and the flood faced by Manu (Part 8 of Yuga series)
Yuga Series in Dheivam Channel :8 (Last Part)
In this, I talk about whether there is a connection between climatic changes and the Yuga. Earlier in a movie, it was shown that people saved the essentials to escape on a ship, expecting that the world would be destroyed due to change of Time. This is how Vaivaswata Manu escaped a flood. I explained how Manu had known in advance the coming of a flood by observing the behavior of a fish.
I also explained many details about Time, the changes that occurred with Time, the first flood that brought Manu to the River Saraswati, the place where he reached after being swept away by the flood and the first rains in the Indian sub-continent.
I concluded this series by saying that these details have no connection with Yuga. Yuga is a different genre which I explained in the previous parts of this series.
The last part can be viewed here:
Yukteshwar Giri's yuga concept differs from the Vedic concept (Part 7 of Yuga series)
Yuga Series in Dheivam Channel: Part 7.
In this, I have talked about the 24,000-year Yuga calculation given by Yukteshwar Giri. He says that Yuga is based on the precession cycle. This concept is based on the idea that the earth's axis keeps moving backwards; it takes 24,000 years to complete one circle. This is called precession; this cycle of 24,000 years is considered to be divided into four yugas, according to Yukteshwar Giri.
This concept is not mentioned in our scriptures. Based on the astrological texts like Surya Siddhanta, there is no precession; but the sun moves forwards and backwards. That is, the sun does not move in a straight line in the universe. It moves in a winding path like a snake. Everything in the universe moves in a spiral.
To us who travel with the sun, this curved path looks as though the sun is moving forwards and backwards.
Also, the earth's axis does not move. If it is true that it moves, then on the days of equinox (equal day and equal night), the sun will not be visible in the middle of our temple towers. I have explained such details in this part to establish that Yukteshwar Giri's version is not correct and that the Yuga concept is not based on precession.
The talk can be watched here:
Monday, November 18, 2024
The difference between the beginning time of Kali Maha Yuga and Kali Dharma Yuga (Part 6 of Yuga series)
Yuga Series Part 6.
In this, I explain how the calculation of the beginning of Kali Maha Yuga is different from the calculation of the beginning of Kali Dharma Yuga. The source for this is Srimad Bhagavatam.
The differences are mentioned in 12th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam. Kali Maha Yuga began when Krishna left this world. That was 3101 B.C. We are now following that as our calendric years.
Kali Dharma Yuga began when the Sapta Rishis entered Magha Nakshatra. At that time, the Nandas were ruling. That was 575 B.C. I explained the cycle of the Sapta Rishis and also why it is said that Kali Dharma began during the time of the Nandas. I also explained how its time was discovered.
Following this, a question was asked whether Sadhguru's version of Yuga cycle is true. He says that currently we are in the Dwapara Yuga. My answer can be watched in this video.
Why Nilesh Oak's date of Ramayana is different from mine? (Part 5 of the Yuga series)
Yuga Series: Part 5.
My replies to the following questions can be seen in this video.
# Were people very tall in Krita Yuga and short in Kali Yuga?
# It is said that man lived for 4000 years in Krita Yuga? Is this true?
# Nilesh Oak says that the Ramayana period is 12,209 BC. Is that true?
# He too claims to have based his derivation of the date from Valmiki Ramayana. It is different from the date I have derived. How could the same source (Valmiki Ramayana) give rise to two different dates?
My answers to these questions can be watched here
Watch. Share and subscribe to the channel.
Friday, September 13, 2024
இராமர் வாழ்ந்த யுகம் எது என்று தெரியுமா?
அறிவு என்பது இரண்டு வகைப்பட்டது. சாஸ்த்திரங்களிலிருந்து பெறுவது ஒரு வகை. அவ்வாறு பெற்றதை உள்வாங்கி ஆராய்ந்து புரிந்து கொள்வது இன்னொரு வகை. இவ்வாறு புரிந்து கொண்ட அறிவின் மூலம்தான் சூரியன் இருளை நீக்குவதைப் போல அறியாமையை நீக்கிக் கொள்ள முடியும் என்று விஷ்ணு புராணம் (6-5) கூறுகிறது.