As one having validated the date of the Mahabharata war and now Rama’s life events, I noticed some similarities and some glaring differences as well between the Mahabharata and the Ramayana in the way the dating features are expressed. To date the events, we need to have the planetary as well as Panchanga features. The Panchanga features are the decisive factors for precise dating. The Panchanga features are present in the Itihasa-s to a reasonable extent that it is possible to connect the dots. However, the planetary features are very much limited in the Ramayana.
Difference between Ramayana and
Mahabharata
There is a glaring difference between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata in
the case of planetary features. In the Ramayana period, they seemed to have relied
more on Tara bala – the efficacy of the stars in deciding or predicting
events. In the Mahabharata, the focus has shifted to planetary effects that we
hardly come across reference to star related predictions. Perhaps horoscopy was
well developed by the Mahabharata time. Sage Parasara whose magnum opus continues
to be used till date belonged to the Mahabharata period.
In the Mahabharata, there are many tough references about certain unnatural
events experienced at that time, that made Vyasa to demand Lord Ganesha to
write only after understanding them. To make sure what he meant by those
difficult verses, he had written them twice in the Itihasa.
Almost all the incomprehensible information were stated at two different places
enabling us to cross-check. The most incomprehensible information is the
occurrence of Amavasya in
Trayodasi tithi!
Without Mahabharata, Ramayana dating not
possible.
An amazing connection with the Ramayana comes up in such a way that without
comprehending that change of tithi, one cannot date the Ramayana! Our present
Time-features are the continuation of the change of tithi that happened before
the Mahabharata war. All our extrapolations on Time to remote past contain that
changed alignment. This makes Rama’s date of birth a tithi less. So,
unless we understand the change of tithi, highlighted in my book ‘Mahabharata 3136 BCE’, Rama’s date cannot be produced
correctly.
Thus, both the date of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are linked in such a
way that without getting the date of the Mahabharata right, one cannot get the
correct date of the Ramayana.
Same verse in Ramayana and
Mahabharata
A glaring similarity is seen in the expression of the same kind of verse in
both the Itihasa-s. That appears in the way moon is mentioned. When moon is
afflicted, both Valmiki and Vyasa were reminded of the suffering to mankind.
This brings to their mind the Vedic Lord Prajapati who happens to be the lord
of the star Rohini. And Rohini’s planetary lord is moon. So, both the poets recognise
moon as the lord of the Prajapati’s star.
In the Mahabharata, when the fateful comet fell and caused misery, Vyasa
wrote,
“Prajaapayam hi nakshatram graha” (MB: 5-141-7)
Valmiki also uses the same kind of expression when Rama was terribly
assaulted by Ravana in the war by saying,
“Prajaapatyam ca nakshatran rohiniim shashina priyaam” (VR: 6-102-33)
Valmiki expresses openly that he was referring to the moon, whose beloved is
Rohini, the star of Prajapati.
I was astounded to read this explicit reference to moon by Valmiki because
the similar verse in the Mahabharata where it is just said the ‘graha’ of
Prajapati’s star, everyone except me deciphered it as Rohini only. I only was
able to understand that Vyasa was referring to the graha, i.e., moon,
the lord of Prajapati’s star. Similarly, in another verse, the sun was
expressed as the graha of Krittika (MB: 6-3-26) which everyone except me
treated it just as Krittika.
So, it calls for astrological
acumen and knowledge to date the Itihasa-s. Even the planetary and star
related references are not straight out of the simulator-kind but requires
decipherment astrologically.
Moon analogies
Moon related analogies are several in the Ramayana, compared to the Mahabharata.
Considering the way such analogies were mis-interpreted by Oak as astronomy
references, let me have a separate chapter in my upcoming book on analogies in
the Ramayana to help readers not to get fooled into thinking that they are astronomy
references.
Two travels to the seashore in two
different routes
The dating also helped in revealing some unknown factors. For example, the Vanaras
headed by Hanuman and Angada had taken two months to reach the seashore
after meeting Sampati. That is a clear indication of Hanuman crossing
the sea at southern most part of India and not at Mahendragiri of Orissa. The
description of the Vanaras seeing the image of the land on the water as they
moved, shows that they had walked through the east coast of peninsular
India.
In contrast, Rama moved to western ghats from Kishkindha and turned eastward
to the sea. This also confirms my derivation of the location of Kishkindha in
my Mahabharata book that Kishkindha / Sugreeva’s cave (Rama stayed near that
region) was in Belagavi (originally known as Vaali Guhe) and not in Hampi. Situated on the foothills of Sahayadri, the easier
route for Rama was to climb the Sahaya range from Belagavi. He continued to
move through Malaya Mountain in Kerala and entered somewhere south of Madurai
to reach Rameswaram. He has taken nearly 25 days to reach the seashore.
The Ramar-paadam in Kodiyakarai is out of way
in this route that Rama had taken through Sahayadri and Malaya Mountain to
Rameswaram. Kodiyakarai was on the route of the Vanaras coming through the
coastal stretch. Their first stop would have been at Kodiyakarai to look for feasibility
to go over to Sri Lanka from there. Then they further walked through the shores
and crossed Rameswaram and then reached Kavaatam (now submerged; 2000-year-old
map will be produced in my book to show that islands existed in this stretch of
Gulf of Mannar south of Kanyakumari. The now submerged Kavaatam and Mahendra
Hill to its east were likely to be located south of Kanyakumari and opposite to
Kelaniya / Kalani (Vibheeshana’s place) from where Lanka was nearby. Hanuman
jumped the sea in this section.
On their way to the now submerged Mahendra hill, the Vanaras might have earmarked
Rameswaram as a feasible location for Rama’s army to cross the sea. That is why
Rama’s army reached Rameswaram without any deviation. The travel of Rama to Rameswaram
given by Valmiki appears as a pre-planned route which was possible if it was
inspected and decided during the first trip of Hanuman and Angada with other
Vanaras.
Pushpaka Vimana.
The return trip to Ayodhya by Pushpaka Vimana was not a swift one. The dates
revealed by the Panchanga tithi-s show that it took nearly a month to
reach Ayodhya. If the Pushpaka Vimana was really an aircraft, why had it taken
so much time? This, in spite of Rama rushing out of Lanka with an excuse that he
was running out of time to reach Bharata. Midway, they dropped in Kishkindha to
pick up the Vanara women.
The Pushpaka Vimana appeared to be a complex carrier that moved on land as
well as on air, but it was not completely an aircraft like vehicle. I will
write more about it in my upcoming book, by incorporating its description when
Ravana used it.
Agni Pravesha
While systematically dating the events, I was at a loss to locate the date
of Sita’s agni Pravesha. When did it happen? Why were there no hints on the
time she was brought from Ashoka Vana? In normal course, we would expect her to
be relieved from Ashoka Vana soon after Ravana was killed. But no, she was not
relieved immediately. Sugreeva’s coronation took precedence and only after
that she was brought out of Ashoka Vana. Such delay and laxity do not match
with the severity of the situation that was palpable in searching for Sita and
in waging a terrible war.
The Agni Pravesha scene had less to do with Sita but more to project Rama as
a Supreme God. It appears to me that it was added by Valmiki to give a divine
tinge to Rama and Sita. The exile of pregnant Sita later in Uttara Kanda must
be true. Perhaps in view of the gossip about her confinement in Lanka, Valmiki
as an after-thought created the Agni Pravesha event when he decided to end up
the story of Rama with Pattabhisheka.
He initially named it after Sita only, thinking of the entire story
(including Uttara Kanda). But at some point, he might have decided to stop it
with the coronation of Rama and added Agni Pravesha. It served twin purpose of
absolving Sita of a blame and projecting the couple with extraordinary
divinity. I never thought that I will
derive this kind of inference until I deciphered the dates.
This kind of derivation is feasible considering the fact that Valmiki has not
said certain things openly. For example, the appearance of Samudra Bhagavan when
Rama was waiting to cross the ocean was in a dream, according to the
Mahabharata version of the Ramayana.
Similarly, Sita’s agni
pravesha is not mentioned in the narration of Ramayana by sage
Markandeya found in the Mahabharata.
She only swore by the Five elements of Nature such as Agni, Vayu, water,
space and earth that if she had erred let her be punished. The lords of these
elements and Brahma emphasized that she was faultless. It was accepted. There was
no trial by fire in real terms.
This was checked by me in the Mahabharata after I grew doubtful on agni pravesha
and was happy to know that I guessed it right. More about it in my book.
For now, I am giving the Timeline of the Ramayana and the Dasa Bhukti lords
for important events in Rama’s life.
I will conclude with another article to remove the confusion on the Treta
yuga when Rama was born.
