Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG: May 2024

................................................................................................

THE CHRONOLOGY OF INDIA: From Manu to Mahabharata

By VEDVEER ARYA.

................................................................................................

At the very outset, what bothers is the extremely small print, making it difficult to read. Then there's the combination of facts and arguments that's more accessible to those with knowledge and expertise, rather than a generally well read reader who's non professional in this field, albeit deeply interested.

Throughout, author proceeds to interpret every legend, by cutting it down from its traditional grandeur and form to something more acceptable to West. He presents various Gods as kings, for one. This shows not only an ardent attempt to fit within western prejudices, but also a blindness regarding perception of reality.

“Having fixed a pole, on a level piece of ground (which is to be measured) and having described a circle by a cord attached to the pole, one should mark the points with pegs, where the shadow of the top of the pole touches (due to the rising sun) the circle, the line joining these pegs is the West to East line."

"This would have been true if the sun would have travelled from DueEast to Due-West. But this is not so. The sun would have travelled from the North from 21st December to 21st June called Udagayana. During this period, the sun will be closer to Chitrā. The sun is inclined to South or Svāti from 21st June to 21st December. This period is called Dakśiṇāyana.”

First, the dates author gives fit western calculations for this era; India holds Uttarāyana to begin with Makara Sankrānti, usually on 14th or 15th of January, not only now, but - according to Nilesh Nilkanth Oak - during Mahābhārata era, as well, so perhaps for ever.

Moreover, India has travelled Northwards to join Asia and this has resulted in rising of Himaalaya, vanishing of the ocean between India and Asia and the river Sindhu flowing out of Himaalaya in roughly the place that the vanished ocean used to be (hence the very name, Sindhu, of the not so large a river, the word literally meaning ocean; if it were size, Brahmaputra would have been and should have been termed Sindhu). So perhaps the description fits a time when India ws more equatorial?

" ... Evidently, it indicates that summer solstice was close to Chitrā Nakśatra during the lifetime of Kātyāyana. Summer solstice was at Chitra Nakśatra around 6500 BCE. Thus, we can fix the date of Kātyāyana around 6500 BCE. Kātyāyana was a contemporary of Śaunaka and Āśvalāyana."

"Nidāna Sūtra of Patañjali (7500-7000 BCE)

"Patañjali was the author of Nidānasūtra. It refers to Maśaka’s Ārṣeyakalpa. Nidānasūtra mentions many scholars of Cḥandas, like Dhānañjayya, Gautama, Śānḍilyāyana, Śānḍilya and Vārṣagaṇya. Nidānasūtra refers to only twenty-seven Nakśatras, which means Abhijit Nakśatra was dropped from the list of Nakśatras during the time of Patañjali.110 Abhijit was at celestial North Pole around 12000 BCE but its declination gradually reduced from 85-degree (12000 BCE) to 65-degree (9000 BCE) causing it to drop down to horizon after 9000 BCE. Seemingly, Abhijit had gone below the horizon around 9000-8000 BCE. Thus, Abhijit was excluded from the scheme of twenty-eight Nakśatras as well as the scheme of twenty-seven Nakśatras. Taittirīya Saṁhitā (8800 BCE) gives the list of twenty-seven Nakśatras but follows the traditional list of twenty-eight Nakśatras. It seems Abhijit Nakśatra was dropped from the list of Nakśatras around 8000 BCE. Interestingly, Nidānasūtra indicates that Udagayana (from winter solstice to summer solstice) had six months and nine days."

"Dharmasūtras of Vedas (7000-5000 BCE)

"Dharmasūtras are also part of Kalpasūtras. Dharma was also a deity in Vedic times. Probably, an ancient rishi or king had the name of Dharma. According to Medhātithi, five Dharmas – Varṇadharma, Aśramadharma, Varṇāśramadharma, Naimittikadharma and Guṇadharma – are the main subject of Dharmasūtras. Mānava Dharmasūtra (7000 BCE) was one of the earliest Dharmasūtras but it was rewritten as Manu Dharmaśāstra, also known as Manusmriti, around 6000 BCE. The original Mānava Dharmasūtra is not available today. Yājñavalkyasmriti indicates that Atri, Yama, Hārīta, Dakśa, Yājñavalkya, Uśanas, Aṅgiras, Saṁvarta, Śatapatha, Kātyāyana and Brihaspati wrote Dharmasūtras. Only Dharmasūtras of Vaikhānasa (7000 BCE), Gautama (6700 BCE), Hiraṇyakeśi (6600 BCE), Āpastamba (6600 BCE) Baudhāyana (6500 BCE), Vishnu (6500 BCE) and Vasiṣṭha (5650 BCE) are available today."

Here the author's biases, prejudices, et al, are as fearlessly exposed as it can get, all because he's talking about a religion and culture not respected in West and in societies that respect only winners, killers, attackers of every sort, while holding victims in scant or no regard whatsoever, despite claims of and supposedly teachings of church et al to the contrary.

Would he dare to hold such attitude towards another, dominant culture and religion? It's doubtful. Some people did, in Germany and UK, US and France. That notably includes George Eliot and the author of such a work she translated, apart from authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', and it's derivative, 'The Da Vinci Code'.

Ever since, the 'me too' brigade of India has attempted to copy that, as if it would need courage or be a novelty after a millennium and half of attempts by outsiders to subjugate and wipe out India, as they did to everyone between Persia to Morocco and everything across the pond.

Ridiculously enough, jealousy of someone as beautiful as Aishwarya Rai has given rise to a phalanx of the 'me too' brigade calling India racist!

In reality, if that were true, some films - including Sangam and Mughal-e-Azam - would have had shoes hurled at screen at first day, first show, and laughed out of theaters without a second show, instead of the status they achieved, whether blockbuster or popular acclaim.

"Vālmiki wrote Ādikāvya, i.e., the Rāmāyaṇa in Laukika Anuṣṭup meter and Bhāṣā Sanskrit. He also used thirteen different meters (including Laukika Anuṣṭup) for writing ślokas. The meters of Jagatī, Triṣṭup, Vipula and so on used in the Rāmāyaṇa are relatively well developed in comparison to the same meters of the Vedic and post-Vedic period. Therefore, the Rāmāyaṇa must be dated after the post-Vedic period. Moreover, none of the treatises written in the Vedic or post-Vedic Sanskrit refers to the Rāmāyaṇa. Thus, the absolute linguistic evidence clearly indicates that the date of the Rāmāyaṇa cannot be established before 7000 BCE. Let us now discuss the traditional and internal astronomical evidence."

First and foremost, this author uses astronomical data from ancient texts to date the various epochs; but thus data is unique only in a limited time frame, and in particular, dates based on precession of equinox repeat in a 26,000 year cycle. So his own dating of Vedic era is far from an absolute fact, but is instead merely the guess he prefers. This is equally so about the date preferred by Oak.

The latter discusses a specific verse in the epic to the effect that Himaalaya and Vindhya looked eye to eye, which he concedes date Raamaayana to close to a million years back. This he rejects, but without thought given seriously to the internal evidence of the epic, regarding ease of communication - as described in the epic - between various species including humans. Such communication might have existed at an earlier stage of evolution.

Author argues that planetary exaltation of horoscope of Rāma was never in original epic by Vālmīki, but inserted later.

This seems more in interest of placating West than any serious reason otherwise. After all, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and if he hasn't found evidence of India's knowledge astronomy and astrology during or before Vālmiki, that is far from sufficient to assume that such knowledge had not existed.

This is so especially in face of plenty of evidence that tens of thousands of scholarly manuscripts were destroyed at several dozens of universities and temples and libraries of India, along with massacres of all scholars therein, by Islamic invaders. This has been not only known in India for well over a millennium and half but attested by Chinese visitors as well, those that survived miraculously.

"A Comet in Mūla Nakśatra:

"The Sheet Anchor for Dating of the Events of the Rāmāyaṇa Era In Yuddha Kānda of the Rāmāyaṇa, Lakśmaṇa describes the position of a comet in Mūla Nakśatra when the Vānara army was ready to march towards Lanka.5"

“The Mūla Nakśatra is badly aspected, in that it is touched by a comet risen with a tail of light and tormented by it. It has arrived for the destruction of Rākśasas, for, the star seized by death is oppressed by a planet in its last hour.”

"This amazing astronomical observation recorded in Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa is indeed verifiable, and establishes a sheet anchor date for arriving at the complete chronology of the events of the Rāmāyaṇa era. Maharishi Vālmiki clearly describes that a comet touched the root of Mūla Nakśatra (prathama pada) when the star was oppressed by a planet almost at the same time. Mūla Nakśatra’s Devatā is Nirriti, which is well known as the Goddess of destruction. Therefore, the appearance of a comet in Mūla Nakśatra is traditionally considered to be a bad omen. As I have already explained based on the traditional evidence, the date of Rāmāyaṇa can be roughly around 5677-5577 BCE. Venus was in Mūla constellation around 22nd Aug - 3rd Sep 5635 BCE [as simulated by means of Stellarium 0.18.2 with algorithm of Delta T (JPL Horizons)]. Interestingly, the Halley’s Comet (1P/Halley) had also entered Mūla Nakśatra on 23rd Aug 5635 BCE. The apparent magnitude of 1P/Halley was 2.14 on 23 Aug 5635 BCE, 1800 hrs. It was visible to the naked eye after sunset between 23rd Aug (magnitude 2.14) and 29 Aug (magnitude 3.05). Thereafter, it gradually faded away."

While this is interesting, Oak takes into account every such astronomical description, and possibly has found another such comet and planet in Mūla to match the dates he prefers. Which isn't to say he is correct and his dates are final.

"Seemingly, Ayodhyā-Mithilā region followed Pūrṇimānta Vedic calendar during the Rāmāyaṇa era. It appears that when Vaiśākhādi Amānta calendar (Tihuta Pañchāṅg or Maithili calendar) was introduced, the date of Vivāha Pañchamī had been erroneously fixed in Śukla Pakśa instead of Krishna Pakśa. Due to precession, the date of Vivāha Pañchamī shifted from Chaitra month to Mārgaśīrṣa month in modern times. In all probability, the wedding of Rāma and Sītā took place on Chaitra Krishna Pañchamī in Pūrṇimānta calendar and Phālguna Krishna Pañchamī in Amānta calendar, i.e., 2nd Jan 5654 BCE. Thus, Rāma was 19 years and 11 months old and Sītā was 12 years 10 months old on the day of their marriage. Probably, Daśaratha stated “ ... ” instead of “ ... ” in Bālakānda."

North of Vindhya, calendars still follow Pūrṇimānta, unlike Maharashtra and South India where it's Amānta.

As to age, Oak insists not only that the couple was of age but also that they consummated their relationship post wedding and through 13 years of togetherness out of 14 during dwelling in forests. But this, and this author's assertion about age of Sītā, contradict the uncontested history, namely, that the couple conceived immediately post return from Sri Lanka, but never before. Even if it's assumed that this was intentional and achieved through yogic power, waiting - that too deliberately - for a young bride to be so much older before motherhood, in that era, seems bizarre.

What's far more likely is that Sītā was far younger than assumed, and hence not only the delayed procreation, but - in all likelihood - also any consummation until the return of the trio to back home.

Wedding rituals in India, even today, assert that the bride is eight years old, and this is from ancient mantras, so perhaps that was the age of Sītā at her wedding, and a delay until return home when she'd be 24 or 25 wasn't unthinkable.

" ... Since Rāma, Lakśmaṇa and Vānara Sena were marching towards Lanka from Kishkindha (from West to East), Venus was above the western horizon and it appeared to be hanging behind Rāma. Venus was exactly in the West on 6th Sep 5635 BCE."

Venus visible in West is in evening, and any Indian event normally would commence at dawn, not evening. Why assume they began marching from Kishkindha? Why not assume they gathered closer to coast across from Lanka, and thence marched Southwest? Say, from Pondicherry (site of Ashrama of Agastya), to Rāmeshwaram? The Vānara army would, in any case, have rather flown across treetops than marched, for distances any greater.

"The Date of Rāvaṇa Vadha There is a divergence of opinion about the duration of the war between Rāma and Rāvaṇa. According to some researchers, it spanned for thirteen days. The traditional evidence indicates that Rāma killed Rāvaṇa on Śukla Daśamī. In modern times, we celebrate Vijaya Daśamī festival on Āśvayuja Śukla Daśamī. Padma Purāṇa informs us that the duration of the war was eighty-seven days. Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa does not indicate any specific duration of the war, directly or indirectly. Therefore, I would rely on the traditional evidence of Padma Purāṇa but it simply mentions that the war spanned for eighty-seven days.

"I would imagine that Padma Purāṇa counted the total duration of the war from the day Rāma, Lakśmaṇa and Vānara Sena left Kishkindha, to the day Rāma killed Rāvaṇa. ... "

Neither marching from Kishkindha nor counting duration of the war therefrom is reasonable, much less necessary, as a supposition.

" ... Rāma reached Ayodhyā on Puṣpaka Vimāna on 18th Dec 5635 BCE, and he was coronated as the King of Ayodhyā Kingdom on 19th Dec 5635 BCE, Māgha Pūrṇimā (in Pūrṇimānta and Amānta calendars). It may be noted that Pūrṇimā tithi of coronation has been shifted to Amāvāsyā tithi due to the introduction of Amānta calendar. This is the reason why we celebrate Deepāvali on Amāvāsyā."

As a matter of fact this interpretation of Vijaya Dashami and Deepāvali is limited to Hindu speaking regions, strictly North of Vindhya, while the festivals are a month long or more throughout rest of India and understood very differently.

Bengal retains the most ancient interpretation and form along with various other parts of India, celebrating the first ten days of the Amānta Ashvin as Navarātri preceding Durgā Poujā. Navarātri is how it's celebrated in most of India too. Garbage of Gujarat for those ten days is, again, worship of Mother Goddess.

As for Deepāvali, while most of the country does a Laxmie Poujā, Bengal has always worshipped it as Kali Poujā, and seems more true. Maharashtra has six days of celebration of Deepāvali, each day with a different celebration and interpretation, and none is related to Rāma in any way.

"Brahmarāśi and Abhijit

"Sh. Nilesh Oak has quoted the following verse and claimed that Brahmarāśi was another name of Abhijit and Abhijit was the North Pole star during the Rāmāyaṇa era."

"Since all ancient Indian texts are written in Sanskrit, the in-depth knowledge of Sanskrit language and its grammar is the essential for valid translations. All alternative translations must comply with the Sanskrit language and grammar but, unfortunately, the translation suggested by Sh. Nilesh Oak completely violates the basic grammar of Sanskrit language. Since Sanskrit ślokas follow context-free grammar, we have to arrange the words in the context, which is called “Anvaya”. Before presenting Anvaya."

" ... the translation of the śloka would be: “The stars of Brahmarāśi and Saptarṣi constellations illuminate revolving round the North celestial pole.”

"According to Sanskrit grammar, ... the translation, “Seven rishis are making Parikramā around Brahmarāśi (Abhijit), the Dhruva, i.e., the pole star” does not follow the basic rules of Sanskrit grammar. Moreover, Rāśi means ‘a group’ in Sanskrit. Therefore, Brahmarāśi may refer to a group of stars (a constellation) and not one star (Abhijit)."

" ... Rāmāyaṇa has no internal evidence to establish that Brahmarāśi and Abhijit are identical."

" ... It is also argued that since Brahma is the deity of Abhijit, Brahmarāśi and Abhijit are the same. Abhijit is well known as Brāhma Nakśatra but Parāśaratantra unambiguously mentions Brāhma Nakśatra and Brahmarāśi as two separate entities in the context of the comet Chalaketu."

"This śloka of the Mahabharata mentions that Mars executed a retrograde motion and entered into Śravaṇa Nakśatra and positioned in Brahmarāśi. Evidently, the Mahābhārata indicates the position of constellation Śravaṇa and constellation Brahmarāśi on the same ecliptic longitude. Therefore, Brahmarāśi must be identified with constellation Cygnus."

"Traditionally, Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa and ancient Paitāmaha Siddhānta considered Dhaniṣṭhā as the first Nakśatra of Saṁvatsara. The Mahabharata also mentions that Brahma introduced the calendar starting from Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra (Dhaniṣṭhādis tadā kālo Brahmaṇā parinirmitaḥ…). The summer solstice was at Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra around 14500 BCE when Brahma I had introduced the Dhaniṣṭhādi (Māgha Śukla Pratipadā in Dhaniṣṭhā) calendar. The constellation Cygnus was at North Pole around 14500 BCE. Seemingly, the station of Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra had been fixed considering the position of constellation Cygnus. Thus, Cygnus came to be known as Brahmarāśi. Later, star Abhijit of constellation Lyra became the North Pole star around 12000-10000 BCE. The list of Nakśatras was revised starting from Mrigaśirā (Orion), around 11300-11200 BCE, during the time of Vaivasvata Manu, and Brahma became the deity of Abhijit considering its position at North Pole. Thus, Abhijit has been generally referred to as Brāhma Nakśatra.

Historically, star Deneb of Brahmarāśi (Cygnus) was the pole star during the early Rigvedic era (14500-13500 BCE) and Abhijit was the pole star around 13000-11000 BCE. Various stars of the Śiśumāra (Draco) constellation were pole stars around 11000-1500 BCE. There was no pole star during the period 1500 BCE-500 CE. The available Parāśaratantra can be roughly dated around 1350-1130 BCE because it refers to Śiśira season from the beginning of Śraviṣṭhā to the middle of Revatī, and Vasanta season from the middle of Revatī to the end of Rohiṇī. Seemingly, Indian astronomers of the period 1500-1000 BCE have identified Brahmarāśi (Cygnus) as Dhruva. Therefore, Parāśaratantra refers to Brahmarāśi as Dhruva but clearly distinguishes it from Brāhma Nakśatra (Abhijit). Star Iota Draco of Śiśumara constellation was the pole star during the Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE). Therefore, Vālmiki describes the stars of Brahmarāśi and Saptarṣis as northern circumpolar stars that illuminate, revolving around Dhruva (North Pole star).

"7. Rāmāyaṇa indicates that Daśaratha lived for many thousands of years. Dilīpa thrived for 30000 years. Jatāyu lived for 60000 years. Rāma reigned for 11000 years. In Uttara Kānda, Vālmiki himself says that he was the tenth son of Prachetas and did penance for 10000 years. ... "

" ... According to Zoroastrian history, the Kayanian King Kai Khusrow also travelled in an aerial vehicle (hot air balloon) from Iran to China (Xinxiang)."

"Many scholars have attempted to arrive at the date of the Mahābhārata War as starting from 5561 BCE to 1100 BCE, based on internal astronomical evidence. But they have ignored the epigraphic, literary and traditional evidence in the last 100 years of Indological research. Modern historians have either viewed the Mahābhārata as a fiction, or roughly fixed the date of the Mahābhārata War around 1000-800 BCE, ignoring internal, epigraphic, literary and traditional evidence. Thus, a divergence of opinion still exists today. The real problem is that the historians and Indologists have neither verified nor falsified the traditional date of the Mahābhārata recorded in epigraphic and literary sources."

"The Date of 3138 BCE During the second half of the 19th century, some scholars have propounded that the Mahābhārata War occurred in 3138 BCE, which became very popular though it is not supported by any epigraphic or literary evidence. The Mahābhārata records that Sri Krishna died in the 36th year and Bhāgavata, Vishnu and Brahma Purāṇas mention that the epoch of Kaliyuga commenced from the death of Sri Krishna. Considering the epoch of Kaliyuga in 3102 BCE, the date of the Mahābhārata War has been fixed around 3138 BCE. Evidently, the date of 3138 BCE is based on the Kaliyuga epoch of 3102 BCE."

" ... Indians started following Sūrya Siddhānta from the 5th century BCE onwards. Gradually, the epoch of 3102 BCE became popular as the epoch of Kaliyuga. Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta clearly mentions that the Kaliyuga epoch of 3102 BCE commenced on the Chaitra Śukla Pratipadā and a great conjunction of planets, Sun and Moon took place in Mīna Rāśi on the same date. Therefore, the epoch of 3102 BCE has nothing to do with the death of Sri Krishna."

Validity of that last conclusion is far from clear, since it does not follow, or even seem connected, to what author discusses until then.

"Prior to the 2nd century BCE, Indians commonly used the epoch of the Yudhiṣṭhira era, which was identical to the epoch of the Mahābhārata War. Udyoga Parva of the Mahābhārata clearly indicates that the epoch of Kaliyuga had commenced before the Mahābhārata War ... Thus, the epochs of the Yudhiṣṭhira era and the Mahābhārata War have been identical in ancient times and the epoch of Kaliyuga commenced before the Mahābhārata War. Later, the epoch of Kaliyuga was assumed to be identical to the epoch of the Mahābhārata War and the epoch of the Yudhiṣṭhira era. Interestingly, an inscription of medieval era refers to the epoch of 3102 BCE as the epoch of the Yudhiṣṭhira era.5"

"Āryabhaṭa also tells us that the fourth Yugapāda (Kaliyuga) commenced before the Mahābhārata War.6 Thus, there were four different views about the beginning of Kaliyuga.

"1. According to Āryabhaṭa, the fourth Yugapāda or Kaliyuga began in 3173-3172 BCE before the Mahābhārata War.

"2. Mahabharata indicates that the epoch of Kaliyuga had already commenced before the year of the Mahābhārata War.

"2. Bhāgavata Purāṇa mentions that the epoch of Kaliyuga commenced from the date of Sri Krishna’s death.

"3. According to Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta, the epoch of Kaliyuga commenced from the conjunction of Sun, Moon and Planets in Revatī Nakśatra, Mīna Rāśi in 3102 BCE.

"Kālidāsa was the first who referred to the epoch of 3102 BCE in his Jyotirvidābharaṇam. 7 He also indicated that the epoch of the Yudhiṣṭhira era was abandoned in the 3044th year.8 Evidently, the date of 3138 BCE has been arrived at based on the epoch of 3102 BCE, which came into popular use only around the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Therefore, the date of 3138 BCE cannot qualify to be the traditional date of the Mahābhārata War."

Again, his conclusion isn't justified, based as it is on lateness of date; one may equally conclude that all writing past an arbitrary date is invalid, including anything in this book.

"Sh. PV Vartak and Sh. Nilesh Oak assumed Arundhati-Vasiṣṭha observation to be the current astronomical event of the Mahābhārata era and fixed a date around 5561 BCE. In fact, Vyāsa refers to a past astronomical observation of Arundhati-Vasiṣṭha."

"Kārttika, the Last Month of Śarad Ritu, During the Mahābhārata Era Udyoga Parva unambiguously indicates Kārttika month to be the last month of Śarad Ritu ( ... ).28 In Sanskrit literature, Kārttika Māsa is well known as Kaumuda Māsa. In Simhalese language, Kārttika month is also known as Kaumuda month.29 Sh. Nilesh Oak argues that Mārgaśīrṣa month was the first month of Śarad Ritu during the Mahābhārata era. He quotes “ ... ” from the Bhagavad Gitā but it simply indicates that Mārgaśīrṣa has been traditionally considered to be a sacred month since the post-Vedic era. There is no credible evidence to establish that Mārgaśīrṣa was the first month of Śarad season during the Mahābhārata era."

Author gives justifications for his thesis that there were several of famous characters known as Krishna, chiefly one known as a son of Devaki, another one a cousin of Pāndavas of Mahābhārata.

Chief basis of his thesis seems to be to deny everything unacceptable to West and to church as far as India's epics, legends and ancient literature go, and assume that everyone was only human, nothing else.

"16. Megasthanese refers to Śūrasena, the land of two cities, namely Methora (Mathura) and Kleisobora (Kalpapura or Kalpipura). He considers Indian Krishna and Greek Heracles to be identical. He mentions that Indian Heracles lived 6042 years before Alexander. ... "

"The Date of the Submergence of Dvāravatī (Dwarka)

"Modern historians have concluded that the references of the lost city of Dvāravatī or Dwarka in Indian literature and the references of the lost city of Atlantis in Greek literature are mythical. But the new researches in Indian and world chronology clearly indicate that the civilizational history of the ancient nations of the world arguably commenced at the beginning of Holocene."

Also, India has known about Dwārakā being submerged several times over several Yugās; and this is confirmed in oceanographic studies as much as the building of a bridge to Lanka from India is, too.

"According to oceanographic studies, sea level suddenly rose 28m in 500 years, about 12000-11500 years ago. This accelerated sea level of 10000-9400 BCE has been named Meltwater Pulse 1B. Many Yādava families had to migrate eastwards and southwards. It appears that Indian astronomers observed the event of “Rohiṇī Śakaṭa Bheda” (when either Mars or Saturn pass through Rohiṇī Śakaṭa, i.e. the triangle formation of stars in Taurus constellation) several times around 9400-9300 BCE. Probably, Dvāravatī city was submerged by the sea around 9400-9300 BCE. This may be the reason why Rishi Gārga’s astrology had correlated Rohiṇī Śakaṭa Bheda with a deadly disaster. Lāṭadeva (3160-3080 BCE) also refers to Rohiṇī Śakata Bheda in his Sūrya Siddhānta because Saturn occulted e-Tauri during the Mahābhārata era.

"The Sunken City of Atlantis

"Greek philosopher Plato narrates the story of the city of Atlantis. According to him, the residents of Atlantis Island were seafaring people. Most probably, these seafaring people were the Paṇi Asuras who migrated from India (Gāndhāra) after 11000 BCE, due to weakening of monsoons. These Paṇis dominated in the region of the Mediterranean Sea. Plato says that the Atlantis people had conquered parts of Libya, Egypt among others and enslaved the people. The people of Athens fought against the invaders of Atlantis and conquered back parts of Libya and Egypt. He states that the Island city of Atlantis was located beyond the Pillars of Hercules at the strait of Gibraltar.

"Interestingly, Plato states that the city of Atlantis was also submerged by the sea 9000 years before his lifetime. Modern historians date Plato around 428-348 BCE but considering the error of 660 years in the chronology of world history, Plato lived around 1088-1008 BCE.9 Thus, the city of Atlantis might have been submerged by the sea around 10000 BCE. Evidently, the cities of Dvāravatī and Atlantis were submerged by the sea during the beginning of the accelerated rise of sea level, i.e. Meltwater Pulse 1B, around 10000 BCE.

"Most probably, the descendants of Danu (Dānavas) migrated to Anatolia and Greece around 12000-11000 BCE and settled at Athens. Asuras migrated to Syria and came to be known as Assyrians. The Paṇis migrated to Lebanon, Cyprus and suchlike, and came to be known as Phoenicians. Druhyu’s sons migrated to Syria and became known as Druze. The Asuras of Airyāna region (ancient Iran) came to be known as Airans. Modern linguists have misinterpreted Airans as Aryans.

"1. There was an ancient city which was built on the two islands in the Gulf of Khambat. The fortress found is situated 131 ft (40m) below the current sea level.

"2. The Southern Metropolis (the first Dwārakā) was dated at the end of the Second Ice Age, around 11000 BCE.

"3. Sh. Badrinarayan of NIOT found that a couple of palaeochannels of old rivers were discovered in the middle of the Cambay area, under 20-40m underwater, at a distance of about 20 km from the present day coast: One over a length of 9.2 km and the other 9 km. Evidently, the southern palaeochannel was indeed Mahānadī, as recorded in Harivaṁśa, flowing through the city of Dvāravatī.

"4. To the south of this township, in the Gulf of Cambay, side scan sonar picked up a drowned dead coral colony 400m long, about 200m wide, and at 40m deep under water, substantiated later by sampling. It is a well-known fact that these corals live in hardly 2 to 3m water depth, very near coastal areas. They require a clean environment and good sunlight. Obviously, the southern metropolis appears to have been near a sea coast at a particular point of time, when the metropolis itself stood on dry land with a good free-flowing river, and was a major bustling city. 5. It is seen that these features are 5m x 4m size on the eastern side, whereas the westernmost part had dimensions of 16m x 15m. The habitation sites are all seen to be laid in a tight grid-like pattern indicating a good sense of town planning by Viśvakarmā.

"6. There is a rectangular (41m x 25m) shaped depression wherein one can see steps gradually going down to reach a depth of about 7m. Surrounding this depression there is a wall-like projection on all sides. This looks like a tank or bathing facility under 40m of sea water.

"7. A black alluvium that somewhat semi-consolidated and collected above the river conglomerate gave an age of 19000 BP. Obviously the river has been flowing at least between 19000 years BP, prior to Glacial Maxima, and up to 3000 BP. This shows that the palaeochannel in the north was active and a riverine regime existed at least from about 19000 BP.

"8. In the southern township or palaeochannel area, six samples suitable for dating were identified. Of these three are carbonized wooden samples; one was a sediment sample, one a fired pottery piece and one hearth material. Sample from the same carbonized wood was sent to National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India and Geowissenschaftlicte Gemeinschaftsaulguben, Hannover, Germany for carbon dating. This was the first sample (Location 21o 03.08’ N; 72 o30.83 E) from near the southern palaeochannel. This first gave a clue to the age and environment of the civilization. The calibrated age as per NGRI was 9580-9190 BP and as per Hannover Institute it was 9545-9490 BP. It means the age is about 9500 BP, or 7500 BCE."

"12. The hearth material from the southern township (Location 21o 03.04 N 72o 30.70 E) by TL dating from PRL, Ahmedabad gave an age of 10000 ± 1500 BP, whereas the hearth material near the top in the northern township gave an age of 3530 ± 330 BP by OSL method, Oxford University. One of the charcoal pieces obtained on the northern side was tested by 14C dating in BSIP, Lucknow. It gave a calibrated age of 3000 BP. It tallies very well with the age of upper most alluvium in northern palaeochannel.

"13. The ancients were making potteries and were initially drying them in the sun. It is clear that the ancients have been firing clay to produce pottery for about 20000 years. That means they knew how to make, maintain and manage fire. They appear to have succeeded in making fired pottery from about 16800 BP.

"14. The strong evidence, i.e. the carbon dating of potteries, supports the presence of humans in the Gulf of Khambat from at least 31000 BP."

"The research on the two sunken townships in the Gulf of Khambat reveals that the southern township was gradually submerged around 9400- 7500 BCE and the northern township was submerged around 1500-1000 BCE. Evidently, the southern township was the ancient city of Kuśasthalī and Dvāravatī. This area had the presence of humans since 30000 BCE. Raivata Manu built the city of Kuśashthalī around 12500 BCE, which was submerged around 12000 BCE. Most probably, the area of Kuśasthalī and the area of Śūrpāraka (near Sopara, a town in Thana district) resurfaced in a massive earthquake around 11200 BCE. The Puranic legends relate that Paraśurāma (11220-11120 BCE) reclaimed the area of Śūrpāraka and Devakīputra Krishna (11150-11050 BCE) reclaimed the area of Kuśasthalī from the sea. The same earthquake might have opened up the Baramulla Pass, which resulted in a heavy outflow of water from the glacial lake of Kashmir valley. This also led to a massive flood in Sindh and Gujarat, which is nothing but the legend of the great flood during the time of Vaivasvata Manu. Seemingly, this massive earthquake caused tsunamis that were mythologized as Samudra Manthana."

And there's the typical mess that is this author, unless it's deliberately fudged for cheating India back into colonialist slavery mindset.

Why assume, or label, Samudra Manthana as myth or mythological, in the first place? Why not research what it could have been?

Graham Hancock provides separate explanations for several phenomena, two of which seem to be far more reasonable interpretations of Samudra Manthana, although not satisfactory. But this wasn't his aim anyway.

"5. Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata clearly tells us that Arjuna of the Mahābhārata era went northwards and conquered up to Uttara Kuru, during the Rājasūya Yajña of Yudhiṣṭhira. He never went to South India. Moreover, almost all kings and armies of entire India participated in the Mahābhārata War. Yudhiṣṭhira became the emperor of a vast kingdom after the Mahābhārata War. It is unimaginable that Yudhiṣṭhira had performed Aśvamedha and sent Sri Krishna and Arjuna to conquer entire India after the Mahābhārata War. There was absolutely no need to perform Aśvamedha because he was already ruling over a vast kingdom and no other king had resources and energy to challenge Yudhiṣṭhira after the Mahābhārata War. It took more than sixteen years to overcome the pain of the Mahābhārata War for Dhritarāṣṭra, Gāndhārī, and Kunti. No sensible king would even think of waging another war after the gruesome battle of the Mahābhārata. My research reveals that Yudhiṣṭhira of the Mahābhārata era did not perform Aśvamedha. In fact, Dharmarāja of the Rigvedic era performed Aśvamedha. Later Puranic updaters added Aśvamedha Parva (14th), Svargārohaṇa Parva (18th) and more to Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata because they have erroneously mixed up the stories of Jaiminīya Aśvamedha and Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata."

Author assumes that any Aśvamedha performed by Yudhiṣṭhira had to be not only after, but immediately after, the Mahābhārata War, which is an unwarranted assumption. It could have been before the earlier coronation and subsequent celebration including a palace buil by Mayasura, for example, or much later after the Mahābhārata War.

"7. Rishi Uttaṅka was the contemporary of three generations of Ikśvāku kings Kuvalayāśva, Yuvanāśva and Yauvanāśva (Māndhātā). Rishi Uttaṅka also met Devakīputra Krishna. I have already explained that Devakīputra Krishna lived in the Rigvedic era and Krishna of the Mahābhārata era lived around 3211-3126 BCE."

Author has certainly not justified this conclusion of his. Nor is his conclusion regarding timing of Mahābhārata War quite justified. Any arguments either this author or Oak have are valid only modulo a cycle of, at most, 26,000 years.

8. Ghaṭotkacha was the son of Bhima and Hiḍimbi. He married Ahilawati, also known as Maurvi, daughter of King Muru of the Yadu dynasty, and had three sons, Barbarīka, Añjanaparvan and Meghavarṇa. Irāvān was the son of Arjuna and Nāga princess Ulūpi. In all probability, Hiḍimba, Hidimbī and Ghaṭotkacha belonged to subspecies of Homo sapiens called “Cro-Magnon Man” that became extinct around 10000 BCE. Meghavarṇa, son of Ghaṭotkacha, lived around 11100 BCE when Dharmarāja of Hastinapura performed Aśvamedha Yajña."

No, Mahābhārata does describe role of Ghaṭotkacha during the Mahābhārata War, when he wrought havoc against the Kaurava forces, and an important one-time-only weapon had to be spent against him, having until then been reserved for use against Arjuna.

This exposes shoddiness of this author's work.

"Vriddhāryabhaṭa’s Mahārya Siddhānta

"Vriddhāryabhaṭa Siddhānta and Pārāśara Siddhānta had been established in the beginning of Kaliyuga as recorded in the text of Mahāryabhaṭa Siddhānta (Īṣadyāte Kalau yuge). Vriddhāryabhaṭa (Mahārya Siddhānta) had proposed a correction in calculation of Saptarṣi cycles and stated that there are 1599998 cycles of the Saptarṣis in a Kalpa. Evidently, a school of Paitāmaha Siddhānta propounded 1600000 cycles in a Kalpa. According to Paitāmaha Siddhānta, Yugas (Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara or Kali) must commence from the seventy-seventh year of .It is well known that ancient Indians followed the cycle of Saptarshi Yuga (2700 years). Vriddharyabhata Siddhanta mentioned that there are 1599998 cycles of Saptarshi in a Kalpa and reduced 2 cycles. Evidently, ancient siddhanta had 1600000 cycles in a Kalpa. Aryabhata says that Dwapara Yuga ended on 5th Mar 3173 BCE and thereafter, Mahabharata war occurred. The date given in the Aihole Insr. seems to be the most ancient recorded date of Mahabharata. It appears that Indian astronomers refixed the epoch of Kaliyuga in 3101 BCE considering the conjunction because astronomical calendar cannot have an arbitrary epoch. It must start from a conjunction of Sun, Moon and planets Initially, a Yuga of 1200 years was introduced around 6777 BCE. Later, the concept of differential duration of Yugas came into existence, as the Dvāpara Yuga was equal to 2400 years and the Kaliyuga will have the duration of 1200 years. During the period of Dvāpara Yuga, these Yuga lengths had been increased in multiples of 432000 years. But it was clearly stated in the Mahābhārata that the Dvāpara Yuga had 2400 years and the Tretā Yuga ended with the death of Rāma. Thus, we have clear indications of the end of Dvāpara Yuga and the beginning of Tretā Yuga. Since the Dvāpara Yuga had the duration of 2400 years, most probably, the Tretā Yuga ended around 5577 BCE. Thus, Tretā Yuga had only 1200 years. There was a divergence of opinion regarding the beginning of Kaliyuga but all indicate the beginning of Kaliyuga in the 32nd century BCE (from 3176 BCE to 3101 BCE). When the Yudhiṣṭhira era or the epoch of the Mahābhārata War (3162 BCE) was discontinued around 118 BCE (3044th year), as indicated by Kālidāsa in his Jyotirvidābharaṇam, the epoch of Kaliyuga (3101 BCE) of Sūrya Siddhānta became popular among Indian astronomers."

"There is another text called “Brihat Pārāśara Horāśāstra” on astrology. It refers to Rāma, Krishna and Buddha incarnations of Vishnu. Interestingly, this Horāśāstra predicts that a great king named Śālivāhana (7th century BCE) will be born.19 Varāhamihira (146-72 BCE) quotes Pārāśara’s astrological statements in his Brihat Saṁhitā. It is possible that Pārāśara III of the Mahābhārata era was the original author of Brihat Pārāśara Horāśāstra but it was recompiled and enlarged by a descendant of Pārāśara gotra, after the reign of King Śālivāhana, and before the lifetime of Varāhamihira, around 600-300 BCE.

Seemingly, the Pārāśara Siddhānta became popular after the Mahābhārata era. Gradually, Indian astronomers understood the accuracy of Sūrya Siddhānta and started following the Sūrya Siddhānta around the 2nd century BCE. This may be the reason why the epoch of Yudhiṣṭhira was abandoned in the 3044th year, as mentioned in Jyotirvidābharaṇam of Kālidāsa. Evidently, the epoch of Yudhiṣṭhira era (3162 BCE) was replaced by the epoch of the Kaliyuga era (3101 BCE) in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Kalidāsa gives the date of Jyotirvidābharaṇam in the epoch of Kaliyuga era. Indian astronomers of the first century introduced the epoch of Śakānta (78 CE), considering the perfect conjunction of Sun, Moon and Jupiter on 1st Apr 78 CE, Chaitra Śukla Pratipadā."

" ... The astronomical evidence of the position of summer solstice in the middle of Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra (the beginning of the early Vedic New Year) also clearly indicates the lower limit of 14500 BCE. ... "

Modulo, author forgets, the 26,000 years cycle of precession of equinoxes.

"The marine archaeological research in the Gulf of Khambat finds strong evidence that supports the presence of human settlements in ancient India from at least 30000 BCE. The ancient Indians of the Gulf of Khambat region were making potteries and drying them in the sun around 30000-18000 BCE. From about 18000 BCE onwards, they appear to have succeeded in making fired pottery. According to scientific studies, Indian subcontinent had experienced semi-arid climate between 22000-16500 BCE. Monsoons became normal around 16500 BCE. The carbonised rice grains found in Sant Kabir Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh clearly indicate that rice was eaten on the eastern Ganga plains at least from 11000 BCE and the history of agriculture in India dates back to 16000 BCE.1 The domestication of cattle also started almost at the same time. Interestingly, there was a strong connection between domestication of cattle, cultivation of crops and the evolution of a basic seasonal calendar. Thus, the ancient Indians had already learnt the basics of agriculture, cattle-rearing and the seasonal calendar by 16000 BCE, which laid strong foundations for the relatively advanced civilisation of Proto-Vedic Period."

Why assume that research and discoveries are at an end, that 30,000 years was the earliest inhabitants possible in India, that Vedic period couldn't have been long before the time of pottery or rice discovered? Again, it's shoddy logic.

" ... Since Brahma I came to be known as the creator, Puranic historians imagined Prajāpatis and Saptarṣis as Mānasaputras of Brahma I and Śatarūpā as his daughter. In reality, Brahma I was a great Rajarshi of the early Vedic period and not the creator. Therefore, he was not the father of Śatarūpā. He did not create man (Manu I) and woman (Śatarūpā). Many Rishis and Prajāpatis of the Proto-Vedic period existed during the lifetime of Brahma I and Manu I."

Again, shoddy logic there.

Gods of India are, by this author, labeled as nothing but human, instead of the usual abrahmic position whereby West labels them as imaginary. Neither approach is logical, but instead each is based in faith, that Gods of India could not have, cannot, exist. Neither faith is logical, nor is the assumption of their non-existence or being not Gods at all.

"Eight Vasus (14025 BCE) Āpa, Dhruva, Soma, Dhara, Anila, Anala, Prathyūṣa, and Prabhāsa were known as the eight Vasus. The Rāmāyaṇa mentions that eight Vasus were the sons of Rishi Kaśyapa and Aditi, whereas the Mahābhārata describes them as the sons of Brahma or Manu. According to Padma Purāṇa, the eight Vasus were the sons of Dharma and his wife Vasu. The Mahābhārata indicates that eight Vasus were contemporaries of King Prithu."

Again, shoddy work there. Most famous fact known about Vasus was that they were beings resident of heavens, cursed to be born on earth due to a prank they played, and seven were given a relief of a short life; eighth, the leader in the prank, had to suffer a long life, with only a power to decide when he'd die and return to his origin, heaven. He was the eighth son of Shantanu and Ganga, and she left Shantanu when he questioned her proceeding to drown the eighth child as she'd done seven before. This son was Devavrata, subsequently known as Bhishma due to his swearing off any consortium with a woman on intimate terms, in order to procure Shantanu the second woman he fell in love with, Matsyagandha (one who stinks of fish).

This author distorts every known legend of India just to seem reasonable to West.

" ... The Rigvedic era ends with the disappearance of Vedic Sarasvati River in Thar Desert around 10950 BCE. ... "

It's unclear if there's any real basis thereof, other than author's preference of dates.

"The Origin of Sindhu-Sauvira Kingdom

"Sindh and Baluchistan regions of modern Pakistan were known as SindhuSauvira Kingdom in ancient times. Suvira (13500 BCE), the founder of Sauvira Kingdom was the son of King Śibi (13550 BCE) of the early Vedic era. The kings of Sauvira Kingdom came to be known as Śaibyas or Śibis. These Shibi kings (near Quetta) still existed during the time of Alexander’s invasion. Even today, the same region is known as Śibi. The Śibis were a branch of the Anu dynasty.

"According to legends, Vichitra was the King of Sauvira in the beginning of Vaivasvata Manvantara (11200 BCE). He had two sons, Hingol and Sundar, who used to torment the people of Sauvira and Sindhudeśa. Ganesha, son of Śiva, killed Sundar and Devi killed Hingol who was hiding in a cave. Thus, the same cave came to be known as Hinglaj Devi Temple. After the death of Hingol and Sundar, King Ratnasena became the King of Sindh. Rishi Dadhīchi II provided shelter to the sons of Ratnasena when Paraśurāma killed him. The sons of Ratnasena came to be known as Brahmakśatriyas because they were disguised as Brāhmaṇas to avoid the wrath of Paraśurama. Jayasena, son of Ratnasena, succeeded him around 11150 BCE. Most probably, the earliest Sindh kingdom was located close to Rohri Hills.

"Around 11150-11050 BCE, Saindhava (Jayadratha), son of Vriddhakśatra, was the King of Sindhudeśa. He married Duśśalā, daughter of Nāga King Dhritarāṣṭra. Since Arjuna had killed Saindhava, Durbuddhi, son of Dhritarāṣṭra and brother of Duśśalā, went to Manipura to kill Arjuna during the time of Dharmarāja’s Aśvamedha. Later, Devakīputra Krishna revived Suratha, son of Duśśalā, who was probably in coma. We have no information of Sindh history after Suratha because Vedic Sarasvati River had dried up around 10950 BCE and the entire Sapta-Sindhu region might have witnessed large scale migrations."

Author insists on bending over backwards to pleade West. Why insist that Mahābhārata was much later, when most of names and legends known thereof seem dated, by author himself, " ... Around 11150-11050 BCE ... "?

"Western historians have come up with a concocted theory of an Aryan invasion, and propagated that the archaeological sites found in the region of Sapta-Sindhu (from Sarasvati River to Sindhu River) belong to the socalled Indus Valley Civilization. Many scholars have presented numerous irrefutable evidences to prove the fallacy of the Aryan Invasion Theory. Recent genome studies and the DNA analysis of Rakhigarhi remains have also debunked this baseless theory. In reality, the so-called Indus Valley Civilization was not an alien civilization but it was indeed the Post-Vedic civilization. Therefore, the so-called Indus Valley Civilization must be named Post-Vedic Civilization. The seals found in these archaeological sites must be named as Post-Vedic seals. The enigmatic script of Indus seals has posed a great challenge to Indologists since the discovery of the first Indus seal in 1875. In my opinion, it is pertinent to understand the chronological evolution of Indian languages and scripts before debating on the probable language and script of the Indus seals."

So far, ok; but then author goes majorly presenting his own thoughts as if it's evident, proven, rather than the biased thinking only slightly different from that of West.

"Chronologically, the early Vedic civilization began around 14500 BCE, during the time of Brahma and his son Svāyambhuva Manu, when the summer solstice was in Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra. Seemingly, Proto-Sanskrit was the popular language of the early Vedic society. Early Vedic rishis of the period 14500-14000 BCE had envisaged the development of a structured language to facilitate the writing of sacred hymns for Vedic rituals. Probably, a proto script (a corpus of symbols) had already been developed by ancient Indians around 14500 BCE. Gradually, Rigvedic rishis evolved the basic rules of context-free grammar, including conjunctions (Sandhis) and the rules of Cḥandas (meters). Thus, Vedic Sanskrit was an artificially structured language, like computer programming languages, and it evolved out of the Proto-Sanskrit language. Undoubtedly, a basic phonetic script (Proto Brahmi) had also been developed concurrently because the concept of conjunctions cannot be evolved without a phonetic script.

"Early Vedic rishis of the period 14000-10500 BCE wrote mantras and sūktas in Vedic Sanskrit. During the period 11500-10500 BCE, Vedic Sanskrit, also known as Cḥāndasa Sanskrit, was evolved to an advanced stage. Rishi Gālava, a classmate of King Brahmadatta II (11130 BCE), was the first who introduced Padapātha and Kramapātha of Vedic hymns and formally founded the science of Vedic grammar. A basic science of Cḥandaśāstra had also been developed at the same time. Seemingly, all hymns of Vedas have undergone editing – with an objective to correct the language grammatically – around 11500-10500 BCE. Thus, Vedic Sanskrit attained a status of a sacred language for rituals. It was insisted that all pupils must learn Vedas by listening to their teachers to avoid mispronunciation of Vedic mantras. This was the reason why Vedas were referred to as “Śruti”. Colonial historians have speculated the absence of a script during Vedic period because of their gross ignorance of the evolution of Vedic Sanskrit."

The only undeniable part in paragraph above is about emphasis in Sanskrit in particular (and India in general) on correct pronunciation, and consequently, on a very strictly phonetic script.

On the other hand, the worst is the by now familiar misuse of 'thus' where the word is not only unjustified but bordering fraud in logic.

"Historians propounded a false theory that the Vedic people did not have the knowledge of writing because the Vedas are known as “Śruti”, meaning the texts learnt by listening. This theory can easily be rejected by the study of the Vedic Sanskrit language in which the Vedas were written. Vedic Sanskrit follows the rules of Sanskrit grammar substantially. This means the majority of the rules of Sanskrit grammar evolved, and were well established, during the later Rigvedic period. It is grossly incorrect to say that the entire grammar of Sanskrit evolved after Vedic literature came into existence. Some provisions of Sanskrit grammar, like Sandhi (conjunctions) and context-free grammar for instance, were artificially introduced into the Vedic Sanskrit language to ensure the continuity of the musical rhythm of the human voice, and the freedom of using words anywhere in the sentences, because Vedic hymns were written in verses. No language in the world except Sanskrit or other Indian languages derived from Sanskrit has the provision of Sandhi (conjunctions) and contextfree grammar because these are artificial provisions. It is a scientific fact that the perfect rules of conjunctions and context-free grammar cannot naturally evolve."

The last conclusion is as absurd and false as any prejudice in West against India. Sanskrit is completely, perfectly scientific, and it's rules are no more and no less than laws of sound, observable merely by understanding basics.

Author proceeds to argue that Sanskrit must have had a script because it's unique grammar needs to be written. Fact is opposite, and argument for existence of a script is far more obvious. It's merely that if everything were memorized by every learned person, growth of knowledge and literature thereof would be strained very soon; but abundance of profound literature in Sanskrit, from beginning, is undeniable, and this is so even after the horrendous destruction wrought by Islamic barbarian invaders who pillaged, burned and destroyed universities of India and other banks of knowledge such as libraries and temples, while tens of thousands of scholarly students and monks were simply massacred by them.

"The evolution of the structured and programmed Vedic Sanskrit also clearly indicates that the Vedic society of Sapta-Sindhu region had at least two languages: Proto-Sanskrit (natural language) and Vedic Sanskrit (artificially evolved language). Common people of Vedic era spoke in their natural language, i.e., Proto-Sanskrit whereas the rishis and their pupils used to learn Vedic Sanskrit for the practice of Vedic rituals and the education of Vedic sciences. It seems Proto-Sanskrit had a Proto-Indus script of hieroglyphs whereas Vedic Sanskrit had a Proto-Brahmi script."

Again, a fallacious argument, presuming that there were always separate classes, and a perfect language must be artificial. One might as well argue that Mathematics is exclusively a property of the highly intelligent, and anyone lesser must be quite befuddled about 2+2 being 3.9999999 or 4.000000001. Reality is, of course, the very opposite. Even animals know if they have a prey or none, if they are missing a baby or not, and thus, rudiments of numbers and arithmetic, while complexity of imperfections is understood only at levels higher than primary school.

"There was a long break in the continuity of writing mantras and sūktas in Vedic Sanskrit. This was the reason that none of the post-Vedic rishis had attempted to write Vedic Mantras. In modern times, though we may learn and understand the old Hindi language of Tulasi’s Ramacharit Manas and Jayasi’s Padmāvat, we cannot create new literature in the archaic Hindi language because nobody speaks or understands archaic Hindi today. Similarly, Vedic Sanskrit took a backseat when Post-Vedic Sanskrit had evolved out of it. Thus, Post-Vedic Sanskrit became the medium of education due to the advancement of Sanskrit grammar and Vedic Sanskrit remained limited to Vedic hymns only."

Not a convincing argument, because he's assuming much. Authors and poets leap to a current idiom lingo sometimes for shock, but most often that usage is by few; while they just as often retain use of a language no longer in current use, or even one never used that way by a character they portray, and far more often are influenced by various other streams of consciousness than language in use at the time. Colonialists of past or present are a case of this sort, as are leftists and other conversionists.

Also, notice use of the word "writing" when he means 'creating', while in Indian languages, the default epithet is 'rachanā', creation. That speaks of writing being only equivalent to recording the said creation, not to creating.

"Gradually, Post-Vedic Sanskrit evolved into Laukika Sanskrit, around 8000-7500 BCE, due to further advancement of Sanskrit grammar. During the 28th Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE), Bharata’s Nātyaśāstra, Dattilam, Nandikeśvara’s Abhinaya Darpaṇa and Bharatārṇava and Mātaṅga Muni’s Brihaddeśī brought a revolution in the entertainment for all sections of society. Vālmiki, the Ādikavi, wrote the Rāmāyaṇa around 5625 BCE. Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa had inspired many scholars to write Driśya (Nātya) and Śrāvya Kāvyas in Laukika Sanskrit. Public performances of the Rāmāyaṇa and Purāṇas became the main source of the entertainment of society. The demand for innovations in performances led to the evolution of various Rāmāyaṇas like Adbhuta Rāmāyaṇa, Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa and more. During the post- Rāmāyaṇa era, the performance of Adbhuta Rasa became immensely popular, which led to mythologisation of historical legends of the Rāmāyaṇa and Purāṇas – for instance, Śukāchārya was depicted as parrot-faced, Gajānana as elephant-faced, Narasimha as lionfaced, Vāmana as a midget, Kapi as monkey, King Mastya as fish, Varāha as boar, Rikśa as bear, Nāga as serpent, Garuḍa as vulture and so on."

One may, and in fact must, question the various unproven assertions in the first part in that paragraph, as to dates. But the next part until end is abominable stupid in the author bootlicking colonisers and their prejudices. Why insist that the descriptions, held true by India, must be false? Why not attempt instead to see, to think? Because India's history ccan only be pushed back a tad, not to its real timeline where Rāmāyaṇa describes Vindhya and Himālaya look eye to eye at one another, which is closer to a million years ago, at an earlier stage of evolution, and species might have not only communicated across but also had not separated quite as much?

Of course, the major problem of the author is that he imposes his own faith in that he cannot allow Gods and Goddesses of India to exist. He imposes his creed in insisting that they were all only, merely, human.

In this he's wrong. He could have consulted someone higher, better, with knowledge and perception. It's a disgusting level of ego to do otherwise, as he does.

"F.E. Pargiter, a British civil servant of India, was the author of “Ancient Indian Historical Tradition”, published in 1922. In his book, he has concluded that Brahmanic tales (Indian historical legends) are untrustworthy for traditional history because of the lack of historical sense. He also alleged that Kśatriya stories were often tampered with to subserve Brahmanical interests and it is mainly Brahmanical mistakes and absurdities that have discredited the Purāṇas. According to him, the legend of Uttaṅka is a farrago of absurdities and chronological errors, plainly Brahmanical. He has chronologically analyzed numerous Indian historical legends narrated in various sources to justify his conclusions. Unfortunately, none of the Indian historians have ever attempted to write a rejoinder to counter the arguments of Pargiter since 1922. I have decided to take upon this task, and write a rejoinder to Pargiter’s misunderstandings and mischievous assumptions, based on my chronological studies.

"At the outset, the so-called distinction between Brahmanic tales and Kśatriya stories is nothing but a figment of imagination of the divisive and casteist mind-set of colonial historians. These Christian and Eurocentric historians had a dubious agenda to defame Sanskrit literature by declaring it as Brahmanic. They also projected Hinduism as Brahmanism and attempted to provoke other varnas against Brāhmaṇas (indirectly against Hinduism) so that the Christian missionaries in India could flourish. Therefore, the idea of Brahmanism is nothing but an intellectual fraud committed by colonial historians. Unfortunately, this fraudulent theories evolved into an academic theory to discredit India’s glorious past. Even today, Archaeological Survey of India unfortunately refers to ancient Hindu temples as Brahmanical structures. Most of the ancient Indian sculptors were neither Brāhmaṇas nor Kśatriyas. Moreover, the authors of Purāṇas were Sūtas and Māgadhas, not Brāhmaṇas. The wealth creators of ancient Indian society were also neither Brāhmaṇas nor Kśatriyas. It is an undeniable fact of social behaviour that every influential and powerful section of a society has exploited relatively weaker sections to some extant in every country of the world. The same has also been witnessed in ancient India. It is also a historical fact that many social reformers of ancient India fought against social discrimination, starting from the Vedic era to the time of Basavanna. Therefore, “Brahmanic” is a misleading term in historical studies."

What's more, caste systems of every other society, every society other than that of India, that is, is based on a pyramid structure of concentration of wealth and power at the top, always male, always royalty, and based on not only titles and wealth and power, but on gender, race and religion as well, unlike in India where brahmins at top are poor since they aren't allowed to charge for services rendered, as are Kshatriya who also must defend weak without discrimination, and not charge. Rich have always been the third caste down the rung, business community. They however were not allowed to take up weapons or conduct wars, but only support kings, and those only of their own land. Women, besides, were equal, and not only within humanity, as testified by the various Goddesses that have been worshipped and always so, throughout India, including now.

"First of all, we have to understand how the historical account had been written and updated periodically in ancient India. Indian tradition of writing history begins with the multigenerational record-keeping of genealogical lists, eulogies and legends of great kings and rishis since the early Vedic period. Sūta and Magadha, the sons of King Prithu (14050 BCE), and their descendants have been traditionally entrusted to maintain the historical account. Sūta Romaharṣaṇa (11100 BCE), the disciple of Veda Vyāsa, was the first who wrote a Saṁhitā to document the available history of Vedic period. Many disciples of Romaharṣaṇa also wrote Saṁhitās to document historical information. Unfortunately, none of these Saṁhitās is available today but the earliest Purāṇas were written in Laukika Sanskrit based on these Itihasa Saṁhitās. The earliest Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa was written in prose as quoted in Āpastamba Śrautasūtra. Vyāsa of the Mahābhārata era (3250-3124 BCE) updated available historical and Puranic account of ancient India into eighteen Purāṇas. These eighteen Purāṇas were periodically updated from the Mahābhārata era to the Post Gupta period. Some chapters of Bhaviṣya Purāṇa have been written during the Mughal period."

" ... India’s continuous civilization has a chronological history of more than 16500 years. Though Indian history (Itihasa and Purāṇas) became an important subject of study since 11100 BCE, it was not humanly possible to maintain the history of several thousands of years without any gaps and inaccuracies in genealogical account and mythological exaggerations in historical legends. Moreover, the five-year Yuga of Vedic era had gradually evolved into the Yuga of 1200 years and 432000 years in Indian calendrical astronomy. The twenty-year Chaturyuga of the post-Vedic era had also evolved into the Chaturyuga of 12000 years and 4320000 years. The concept of large Yugas has led to the evolution of the concept of Kalpa, fourteen Manvantaras and seventy-two Chaturyugas in each Manvantara."

What if he's wrong, after all, and Yuga were always 432000 years in Indian calendrical astronomy, since beginning? Seeing the reference to "Himālaya and Vindhya looked eye to eye" in Rāmāyana, quoted by Oak, this is far more likely, after all.

................................................................................................

Contents

................................................................................................

Transliteration vi

Preface ix

Introduction, Chapter 1: 1

Chapter 2: 17

The Age of Manu Dynasty: From Svāyambhuva Manu to Vaivasvata Manu (14500-11200 BCE)

Chapter 3: 41

The Age of the Compilation of Vedas (11500-10500 BCE)

Chapter 4: 107

The Age of the Compilation of Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads (10500-6777 BCE)

Chapter 5: 205

Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE) and the Age of Rāmāyana (5677-5577 BCE)

Chapter 6: 243

Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3176 BCE) and the Epoch of Mahābhārata War (3162 BCE)

Chapter 7: 263

Devakīputra Vāsudeva Krishna of the Rigvedic Era and Krishna of the Mahābhārata Era

Chapter 8: 287

The Date of Āryabhaṭa, Lāṭadeva, Vriddhāryabhaṭa and Parāśara

Chapter 9: 307

The Chronology of Ancient Indian Dynasties and Kingdoms (14500-3162 BCE)

Chapter 10: 405

The Chronological History of Indic Languages and Scripts

Chapter 11: 429

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition: A Rejoinder to Frederick Eden Pargiter

References 443

Select Bibliography 477

................................................................................................

REVIEW

................................................................................................

Transliteration vi

................................................................................................

Almost perfect, except - the usual

_ ṛ _` ṝ

are provided, but the other two, to do with l replacing r, aren't, although they are just as much integral a part of Devanaagarie script. Similarly, a consonant which is used extensively in South India and Maharashtra, but forgotten throughout North where Persian and other non-Indian languages replaced Sanskrit, is missing here at the end, and unlike the last two which can be written as joint and thus need not, cannot so written.

................................................................................................

................................................

September 12, 2022 - September 12, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Preface ix

................................................................................................

"Indian historical tradition reckons the chronology from Svāyambhuva Manu to the Mahābhārata era in terms of the elapsed number of Manvantaras and Mahāyugas (Chaturyugas). It is recorded that six Manvantaras and the Dvāpara Yuga of the 28th Mahāyuga of the seventh Manvantara had elapsed during the Mahābhārata era.

"Though the 5-year Yuga calendar continued to be in vogue starting from the early Vedic era to the Mahābhārata era, the duration of a Yuga and a Chaturyuga were increased from 5 years to 1200 years and from 20 years to 4800 years respectively at the end of the 28th Krita Yuga. Later, the duration of a Chaturyuga was again increased from 4800 years to 12000 years considering the differential duration of four Yugas in a ratio of 4:3:2:1.

"During the pre-Mahābhārata era, ancient Indian astronomers further extended the duration of a Yuga from 1200 years to 432000 years (1200 times 360) and the duration of a Chaturyuga from 12000 years to 4320000 years (12000 times 360) with the objective of achieving accurate calandrical calculations. Unfortunately, those scholars who later updated the Purāṇas had erroneously deemed the increased calandrical duration of Chaturyugas as a given fact, and on that basis, narrated the chronological history of ancient India, resulting in, since antiquity, the loss of the true chronology from Manu to Mahabharata. The chronology of the period before the Mahabharata era remains unresolved by historians till date.

"My research found that the epoch of the end of the 28th Krita Yuga of the Vaivasvata Manvantara would be the strongest basis, if it is accurately established, to retrieve that lost chronology. Lāṭadeva, a disciple of Āryabhaṭa provides verifiable astronomical details of the epoch of the Kritayugānta in his Sūrya Siddhānta. According to him, Mayāsura wrote Sūrya Siddhānta at the end of the 28th Krita Yuga when all five planets, the sun and the moon were in a perfect conjunction in Meṣa Rāśi (Aries) on Chaitra Śukla Pratipadā. I was subsequently able to determine that this rarest of conjunctions occurred on 2 Feb 6778 BCE, leading to the conclusive and accurate fixing of the epoch of the beginning of the 28th Tretā Yuga as 6777 BCE.

"Arguably, the duration of the Tretā Yuga was only 1200 years because the duration of a Yuga was extended from 5 years to 1200 years in 6777 BCE. After the end of the 28th Tretā Yuga, the differential duration of four Yugas was introduced; therefore, the duration of the 28th Dvāpara Yuga was 2400 years. As the duration of a Yuga, before 6777 BCE, was only five years, I was able to establish the epoch of the early Vedic Yuga calendar as being around 15962 BCE. In this manner, I reconstructed and reconciled the chronology, in this book, from the time of Svāyambhuva Manu to the Mahābhārata era based on the verifiable archaeo-astronomical references found in Vedic literature, Post-Vedic literature, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas. I hope Indologists and historians of the world may review and evaluate my research work on the chronology without bias or prejudice."

................................................................................................

................................................

April 29, 2024 - April 29, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Introduction

Chapter 1: 1

................................................................................................

"Ancient Indian history begins with Brahma, the founder of Vedic sciences, and his son Svāyambhuva Manu, the first king of the Brahmāvarta kingdom."

Since the very name Brahmaa is understood commonly throughout India as, not an ancient king, but the God that is Creator of Universe, this comes as a surprise. This is all the more so because on one hand, India does not deify kings, however powerful, as a norm; and on the other hand the word Brahma, with a short a, is understood to mean Divine that permeates the Universe.

So perhaps the king he mentions is merely one named after, rather the quintessential, Brahma? It'd have been clearer if he said so.

"It seems that the tradition of historical recordkeeping declined after the reign of the Ikśvāku King Agnivarṇa, the 25th descendant of Sri Rāma. Kālidāsa abruptly ended his Raghuvaṁśa Mahākāvya after the reign of Agnivarṇa, probably due to a long interregnum in genealogical continuity of the Raghu dynasty. Evidently, the Ikśvāku dynasty had declined after the reign of Agnivarṇa. Vyāsa, of the Mahābhārata era, revived the tradition of the study of Purāṇas and recompiled them into eighteen Purāṇas. Some Upapurāṇas were also compiled after the Mahābhārata era. The Purāṇas available to us, it seems, were finally recompiled and updated around 500- 100 BCE. This revived Puranic tradition survived till the Gupta period. Only Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa continued to be periodically updated after the Gupta period."

" ... All Indian traditional and literary sources unanimously indicate the date of the Mahābhārata war to be in the 32nd century BCE and epigraphic evidence of the Aihole inscription1 conclusively establishes the date of the Mahābhārata war in 3162 BCE."

" ... One of the biggest mistakes committed by the Puranic updaters is the misidentification of Veda Vyāsa of Rigvedic era as Vyāsa of the Mahābhārata era that led to the concocted concept of twenty eight Vyāsas and the impossible theory of eight chirajīvins. The later timeline of millions of years also misled the Puranic updaters to assign 60000 years to King Sagara and 11000 years to King Rāma and suchlike. The popularity of Adbhuta Rasa in Sanskrit poetry and drama, and the poetic exaggeration of narratives, had gradually transformed the historical legends into historico-mythological legends."

It's unclear by now whether it's the author who is incorrect in a zeal to normalise India to align with West. He is, after all, using the label "historico-mythological legends", albeit not outright calling it all myth.

"Though the mischievous subtitle “Historical Traditions of Early North India” is based on the colonialist divisive agenda to propagate the false theory that the history of early North India is somewhat different from that of early South India, and also to gain ideological dividends for Romila Thapar’s political patrons, I am glad that the eminent historian has finally understood the deep and sophisticated historical consciousness embedded in ancient Indian literature."

Or she's attempting a compromise, having realised that India will no longer kowtow to colonialism?

" ... The internal archaeo-astronomical data of ancient Indian literature is the most credible evidence to unravel the sheet anchors of the chronology of ancient India. "

" ... According to the Mahābhārata, the epoch of Kaliyuga commenced before the Mahābhārata war (3162 BCE). Most probably, the Mahābhārata indicates the commencement of Kaliyuga on 9th Jan 3176 BCE and Māgha Śukla Pratipadā, when the Saptarṣis were at Maghā Nakśatra. Āryabhaṭa indicates the commencement of the Kaliyuga at midnight on 5th Mar 3173 BCE, Chaitra Śukla Pratipadā in the 1st year of the 60-year cycle, i.e., Prabhava Saṁvatsara, when Jupiter was in Aries. The Bhāgavata tradition mentions that the Kaliyuga commenced after the death of Sri Krishna in the 36th year from the date of the Mahābhārata war whereas Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta indicates the commencement of Kaliyuga from 17th Feb 3101 BCE when all five planets, sun and moon were in close conjunction in Mīna Rāśi (Pisces). Thus, the epoch of Kaliyuga can only be conclusively established in the 32nd century BCE, between 9th Jan 3176 BCE and 17th Feb 3101 BCE.

"Interestingly, Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta says that Maya the great Asura wrote Sūrya Siddhānta at the end of the Krita Yuga of the 28th Chaturyuga of Vaivasvata Manvantara, when all five planets, sun and moon were in close conjunction in Meṣa Rāśi (Aries).4 This great conjunction took place on 22nd Feb 6778 BCE and Chaitra Śukla Pratipadā."

"It may be difficult to say when humans settled down for the first time in the Indian peninsula but the catastrophic eruption of Toba Volcano of Sumatra, Indonesia had completely wiped out the humanity, flora and fauna of India 75000 years ago. Toba’s erupted mass deposited an ash layer of about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) thick over the whole of India. Archaeological site of Jwalapuram in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh has evidence of human habitation before and after the event of Toba eruption. This Toba super-eruption was the largest explosive volcanic event of the past two million years."

Why stop short of assuming that India always was inhabited? No Indian records, legends, tales, or any sign of psychological nature, after all, indicates a migration into India of its mainstream society!

" ... The Mahābhārata states that Brahma introduced a calendar that commenced from Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra (Dhaniṣṭhādistadā kālo Brahmāṇā Parikīrtitaḥ).5 This indicates that Brahma might have introduced the 5-year Yuga calendar when summer solstice was in Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra around 15000-14000 BCE. Therefore, I have roughly fixed the date of Brahma I and his son Svāyambhuva Manu around 14500 BCE. The Mahābhārata mentions that Rishi Viśvāmitra I had reset the list of Nakśatras starting from Śravaṇa Nakśatra. Evidently, the summer solstice had shifted from Dhaniṣṭhā to Śravaṇa during the lifetime of Viśvāmitra I (13500 BCE) who might have thrived 1000 years after Svāyambhuva Manu as indirectly indicated in Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Rishi Vasiṣṭha, a contemporary of Viśvāmitra I, indicates the position of the autumnal equinox at Aśvinī Nakśatra in his hymns of Rigveda. The autumnal equinox was at Aśvinī Nakśatra around 13500 BCE. So it seems Vasiṣṭha introduced the beginning of Saṁvatsara from the Śarad season, i.e. the autumnal equinox instead of the summer solstice."

"Mārkandeya Purāṇa’s references to Revatī Nakśatra during the time of Raivata Manu probably indicate the position of the autumnal equinox at Revatī Nakśatra around 12500 BCE. Taittirīya Brāhmāna indicates that Devas and Asuras were in conflict for many generations and Devas won over Asuras when Abhijit Nakśatra was above Uttarāṣāḍhā Nakśatra. Taittirīya Brāhmāna also mentions that Abhijit was named so because Devas decisively achieved victory over Asuras in Abhijit Nakśatra. Most probably, Devas and Asuras were in this multigenerational conflict when Abhijit was the northern pole star around 13500-11000 BCE. Around 10000 BCE, the star “Kaśyapa” of Śiśumāra constellation (Draco) replaced Abhijit as the northern pole star. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka gives the complete description of Śiśumāra constellation which clearly indicates the star “Kaśyapa” to be Gamma Draconis. Gamma Draconis was the northern pole star around 10500-8500 BCE. Bhīṣma Parva of the Mahābhārata refers to an ancient astronomical observation that Arundhatī (star Alcor) walked ahead of her husband Vasiṣṭha (star Mizar). This Arundhatī- Vasiṣṭha observation clearly indicates that ancient Indians might have observed this event around 11000-10000 BCE because Arundhatī used to walk behind Vasiṣṭha before 11000 BCE.

"Numerous references of post-Vedic literature mention the shifting of winter solstice from Mṛgaśirā Nakśatra to Rohiṇī. The Vedic legend of Prajāpati Dakśa and his 27 daughters clearly indicates the Mṛgaśirādi list of 28 Nakśatras, in turn indicating the beginning of Vaivasvata Manvantara around 11200 BCE. The winter solstice was at Mṛgaśirā Nakśatra around 11200-10200 BCE and at Rohiṇī Nakśatra around 10200- 9200 BCE. The same was at Kṛttikā Nakśatra around 9200-8200 BCE. The Nakśatra Sūkta of Atharvaveda was recompiled around 9200-9000 BCE and the list of Nakśatras had been reset starting from Kṛttikā Nakśatra. Most of the Saṁhitās, Brāhmānas and Āraṇyakas were finally compiled when the winter solstice was at Kṛttikā Nakśatra. Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa and Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad were written around 8500-8000 BCE when the vernal equinox was at Āśleṣā Nakśatra and the autumnal equinox was at Śraviṣṭhā Nakśatra. The list of Nakśatras was again reset starting from Aśvinī Nakśatra when winter solstice had shifted to Aśvinī Nakśatra around 7200 BCE. Purāṇas mention that the northern pole star was located in the tail of the Śiśumāra constellation. The star Thuban or Alpha Draconis of Śiśumāra constellation was the northern pole star around 3900-1800 BCE. Based on scientific analysis of the archaeo-astronomical data, I have arrived at the following chronology of ancient India from the time of Svāyambhuva Manu to the Mahābhārata era:

"• Toba Supervolcanic Eruption (~72000 BCE)

"• Early Agriculture in India (~16000 BCE)

"• Proto-Vedic Period (16000-14500 BCE)

"• Vedic Period (14500-10500 BCE)

"• Ādiyuga: The era of early Manu dynasty (14500-14000 BCE)

"• Devayuga: The Vedic Period (14000-11000 BCE)

"• The Great Flood in Vaivasvata Manu’s Kingdom (11200 BCE)

"• Vedic Sarasvati River lost in Thar Desert (10950 BCE)

"• Later Rigvedic Period (11500-10500 BCE)

"• Post-Vedic Sarasvati River started flowing westwards (10950- 10000 BCE)

"• The Post-Vedic Period (10500-6777 BCE)

"•The submergence of the city of Dvāravatī (9400-9300 BCE)

"•The recompilation of Avestā, i.e., Asuraveda (7000 BCE)

"•The epoch of the end of the 28th Krita Yuga (6778-6777 BCE)

"• The 28th Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE)

"•The Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE)

"•The birth date of Sri Rāma (3rd Feb 5674 BCE)

"• The 28th Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3176 BCE)

"•The epoch of Yudhiṣṭhira’s Rājasūya and his coronation in Indraprastha (3188 BCE)

"•The epoch of the Mahābhārata war and Yudhiṣṭhira era (3162 BCE)

"• The Epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3176 BCE) [The Mahābhārata]

"•The epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3173-3172 BCE) [Āryabhaṭa]

"•The epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3101 BCE) [Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta]

"•The submergence of Dwārakā city of the Mahābhārata era in a tsunami (3126 BCE)

"•The disappearance of Post-Vedic Sarasvati and Dṛṣadvati Rivers (3000 BCE)"

"The timelines of ancient Indian history as explained above may appear to be unbelievable or mythical to the current generation of historians because they have only learnt the Christian chronology of the world. The western ‘secularist’ historians (faithful Christians) of the 18th and 19th centuries CE blindly believed that the history after Christ is more factual and the history before Christ is more mythical. Isaac Newton was the first secular Christian historian who distorted the traditional chronology of various ancient nations in his book “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms” published in 1728 CE. Western historians have since religiously followed the same distorted chronology. They have not only believed the historicity of the epoch of the Christian era but also successfully distorted the chronology of world history considering the epoch of Christian era as the sheet anchor. Therefore, these historians have repeatedly and miserably failed to solve numerous chronological inconsistencies in world history and been forced to adopt the false methodology of selective acceptance and selective rejection of the factual data. They have also deliberately demonized the traditional chronological data so that they can easily get rid of the inconvenient factual data. Consequently, there is hardly any history of the world beyond 2000 BCE in modern textbooks though the traditional historical traditions give the genealogical and the chronological history for several thousand years before 2000 BCE.

"According to ancient Greece sources, Evenor was the original inhabitant of Atlantis, the island that was located about fifty stadia from sea in front of the Pillars of Hercules (close to the Strait of Gibraltar). Cleito was the daughter of Evenor. She had a son named Atlas from the Greek god Poseidon. Atlas became the first king of Atlantis. Poseidon was the contemporary of Athena, the goddess of the city of Athens. Athena defeated Poseidon. The city of Atlantis was submerged in sea around 10200 BCE as recorded by Plato – this indicates that Evenor, Poseidon, Athena and Atlas flourished many centuries before 10200 BCE. The traditional sources of Egypt put the date of the first king Menes around 5867 BCE as calculated by Jeans Francois Champollion. Prior to 5867 BCE, a different class of demigods reigned for 5813 years: Demigods from Horos to Zeus reigned for 5212 years (or 856 years) and seven gods reigned for 13900 years (or 11985 years). If we ignore the overestimation of the reign of gods and demigods, the chronology of Egypt might have commenced around 13000-11000 BCE. The Sumerian kings list indicates that eight or eleven kings of the Antediluvian Era and more than 135 kings of the Postdiluvian Era reigned before the reign of the first dynasty of Babylon (2720-2421 BCE). Assyrian sources also record the history of many Antediluvian and Postdiluvian kings. According to ancient Greek and Persian sources, Zoroaster I flourished around 7200 BCE and Zoroaster II lived around 1310-1230 BCE. Zoroastrian and Persian sources relate that Ahur Mazda’s son Gayomart and his dynasty reigned for 3070 years and many kings reigned before the time of Zoroaster I (7200 BCE). Thus, Zoroastrian sources also give the history beyond 11000 BCE."

Hence the author's efforts to limit yugas to suit the timeline he fits with all others, that of 16,500 years or so, rather than a million or longer, for India's tradition of historical records.

"Interestingly, ancient Tamil Sangam sources refer to the date of Rishi Agastya and the first Sangam around 11226 BCE, which perfectly reconciles with the archaeo-astronomical dating of Vedic and post-Vedic literature. The ancient history of Indonesia (Java and Bali) is clearly linked with the chronology of ancient India, too. According to Javanese sources, Śiva, Brahma and Vishnu made the island of Java habitable for human beings. Dānavas were the earliest rulers of Java. Prince Aji Śaka came from Jambūdvīpa (India) and defeated the Dānava King Dewatacengkar. He became the first king of Java. Aji Śaka’s son Jaka Linglung was a Nāga. Seemingly, Aji Śaka, a prince of Naga lineage, migrated to Java from east Bengal (Bangladesh) or the Manipur-Nagaland region of India during the post-Vedic period."

Why he isn't mentioning the geological discovery of a continent, sunken under ocean beneath Seychelles, that extended from Africa to Southern tip of India, is a good question. Tamil literature apparently does mention it as ("Kumari"?) Kanda. That ought to be Khanda, of course.

"The strong evidence from the sunken city of Kuśasthalī and Dvāravatī in the Gulf of Khambat supports the presence of human settlements from at least 29000 BCE. The ancient Indians of the Gujarat coastline were making pottery and initially drying it in the sun but succeeded in making fired pottery from about 18000 BCE. This sunken ancient city was built before 11000 BCE and probably submerged into sea around 9400-9300 BCE – at the end of Meltwater Pulse 1B (10200-9400 BCE). A piece of carbonized wooden sample has been dated around 7500 BCE. The archaeological site of Bhirrana in Hisar, Haryana has also been dated around 7500 BCE. A submerged structure of the ancient Poompuhar city found close to Kaveripattinam, Tamil Nadu has been dated around 9500 BCE."

"Human settlements have continuously existed at Tell es-Sultan, near Jericho, north of Dead Sea since 12500 BCE. Recently, evidence of bread being baked around 12500 BCE in a stone fireplace close to the same archaeological site has been found. Interestingly, this site also has the evidence of seismic shaking event around 11000 BCE. The archaeological findings at Gobekle Tepe and Nevali Cori in South-eastern Turkey have been dated around 12000-8000 BCE. Dr. BG Siddhartha, the Director of the BM Birla Science Centre, Hyderabad has studied these archaeological sites of Turkey and pointed out that the early Vedic civilization extended up to Anatolia.6 Among the many artefacts that were unearthed in Gobekle Tepe, there is, amazingly, the head of a Vedic priest, complete with the Śikhā. There are also several pillars and structures embellished with all the astronomical motifs that clearly indicate the early settlement of Asuras who had migrated from India during the Vedic period."

"All this archaeological evidence indicates that agriculture-based human societies were thriving across the world at least from 8000-7000 BCE. The regions of South Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece and the lost island of Atlantis were comparably more advanced and had the cities and the kingdoms since Holocene. The sunken city of Kuśasthalī and Dvāravatī found in the Gulf of Khambat is irrefutable evidence that cities and kingdoms existed in ancient India at least from 11000 BCE. The archaeological data collected from the sunken city of Dvāravatī and excavated sites of Bhirrana, Mehargarh, Kālibangā, Rākhigarhi, Dholavira, Harappa and Mohenjo Daro of the SindhuSarasvati region, and the remains of chariots found at Sanauli village in Uttar Pradesh, unambiguously indicate a flourishing and continuous ancient Indian urban civilisation since several thousand years before 2000 BCE. ... "

................................................................................................

................................................

April 29, 2024 - April 30, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 2: 17

The Age of Manu Dynasty: From Svāyambhuva Manu to Vaivasvata Manu (14500-11200 BCE)

................................................................................................

" ... Atharvaveda states: “We express 100 years or 10000 years in the cycle of Yugas like two Yugas, three Yugas and four Yugas etc.”1"

Author here inserts an original Sanskrit quote from Atharvaveda, which is impossible to include here, because when copied it retains or reverts to the computer code.

"While Vedic Indians kept a record of the elapsed Yugas, it became popular to use a calendric cycle of 20 years (four Yugas) during the period of Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads due to a modified intercalation method. These four Yugas (20-year cycles) were named as Krita, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali as recorded in Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Each 20-year cycle had 7309 or 7308 days. The intercalation of Ardhamāsa (half month) instead of a full month was introduced at the end of the 20-year cycle. So, the first cycle of 20 years had the Amānta scheme and commenced on Māgha Śukla Pratipadā but the last intercalary month of the 20th year consisted of only 15 days and ended on Adhika Pauṣa Pūrṇimā. The second cycle of 20 years had the Pūrṇimānta scheme and commenced on Māgha Krishna Pratipadā but the last intercalary month of the 20th year consisted of only 15 days and ended on Adhika Pauṣa Amāvāsyā. Thus, the 40-year cycle had 14 intercalary months and two Ardhamāsa intercalations. However, this 40-year cycle used to accumulate an extra 7.5 days and hence a concept of Kśayamāsa (dropping of one intercalary month) might have been introduced over a cycle of 160 years (eight cycles of 20 years). This 160-year cycle had a total number of 58,441 days and the average length of the Vedic sidereal year was 365.25625 days."

This explains the discrepancy between calendars as followed North of Vindhya commencing a month day after full moon, while those of Maharashtra and south commence a month with new moon, day after the moon has crossed from waning and the day it changes to waxing.

"In the period between 7500 and 6800 BCE, Indian astronomers might have reviewed and corrected traditional astronomical data based on fresh astronomical observations. They had realised the importance of the Jovian cycle of 12 years and enlarged the Yuga cycle from 5 years to 1200 years (in multiples of 12) around 6800 BCE. Sūrya Siddhānta introduced the 60-year cycle in 6778 BCE (when Jupiter was in Aries) whereas a new school of Paitāmaha (Brahma) Siddhānta had also started following the Jovian cycle of 12 years and the 60-year cycle at the same time, as indicated by Āryabhaṭa. However, the traditional Paitāmaha Siddhānta continued to follow the Vedic calendar of 5-year Yugas and the intercalation method of 95 years but it realised the requirement of additional intercalary month at the end of a cycle of 2700 years to reconcile the sidereal year. Thus, the Saptarṣi cycle of 2700 years was introduced around 6777 BCE considering the hypothetical position of Saptarṣis in Aśvinī Nakśatra. The Romaka Siddhānta differed from the Paitāmaha Siddhānta and introduced the cycle of 2850 years for corrections in the method of intercalation. Thus, the Paitāmaha Siddhānta considered the average length of sidereal year as 365.258148, whereas the Romaka Siddhānta considered it as 365.257544."

"The Siddhantic Indian astronomy was formally founded around 6777 BCE. Seemingly, ancient Indian astronomers had also revised the time span of Chaturyugas from 20 years to 4800 years and established a Yuga cycle of 1200 years (one hundred Jovian years), as also the concept of Manvantara around 6777 BCE. Later, the Yuga cycle of 1200 years was enlarged from 1200 years to 12000 years around 5500-5000 BCE. This Mahāyuga cycle of 12000 years was divided into four Yuga cycles (Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali) in a ratio of 4:3:2:1. Gradually, around 4000 BCE, the time span of a Yuga increased from 1200 years to 432000 years (1200 x 360) and that of a Mahāyuga cycle increased from 12000 years to 4320000 years (12000 x 360), with an objective to facilitate the calendric and astronomical calculations in whole numbers.

"Ancient Indian astronomers had considered the year 6777 BCE as the epoch of Kritayugānta (the end of Kṛta Yuga) and the beginning of Tretā Yuga of the 28th Chaturyuga of Vaivasvata Manvantara. Both ancient astronomers and historians seem to have had the traditional information that total 1837 Yugas of 5 years had elapsed from the epoch of Ādiyuga to 6777 BCE. ... "

"Thus, ancient Indian astronomers and historians assumed that the Kṛta Yuga of the 28th Chaturyuga of Vaivasvata Manvantara ended, and the 28th Tretā Yuga commenced in 6777 BCE. It appears that there was a divergence of opinion on the ratio of the time span of Yugas in a Chaturyuga during the period 6777-3177 BCE. For instance, Āryabhaṭa had argued for an equal length of four Yugas in a Chaturyuga of 4320000 years whereas the traditional Siddhāntas of the period 5000-3200 BCE propounded the differential duration of four Yuga cycles (Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali) in a ratio of 4:3:2:1. However, all Siddhāntas and traditions unanimously agreed that the present Manvantara is the Vaivasvata and the present Chaturyuga is the 28th. Another significance of the epoch of 6777 BCE is that the Saptarṣi calendar (a cycle of 2700 years) and a Yuga cycle of 1200 years were also introduced from this epoch for keeping the chronological record of the elapsed years. Moreover, Lātadeva informs us that Maya the great Asura wrote Sūrya Siddhānta at the end of the 28th Kṛta Yuga and there was a conjunction of Sun, Moon and all planets in Meṣa Rāśi (Aries).3 This conjunction took place on 22nd Feb 6778 BCE. The ecliptic longitudes of the planets on 22nd Feb 6778 BCE are: Budha (Mercury) - 265’ 49, Maṅgala (Mars) - 268’ 43, Guru (Jupiter) - 277’ 33, Sūrya (Sun) - 280’ 22, Chandra (Moon) - 281’ 32, Śani (Saturn) - 289’ 51, Śukra (Venus) - 292’ 53. The planets’ mean position should be within 13 degrees, considering Sun’s position in Meṣa Rāśi. Sun was at ecliptic longitude of 280 degrees. Venus was approximately 13 degrees away from Sun (around 266 degrees) whereas Mercury was also 13 degrees away from Sun (around 293 degrees). Rest of the planets were within 13 degrees. Thus, Mayāsura considered this rare conjunction as an astronomical epoch and authored Sūrya Siddhānta in 6778 BCE, at the end of the 28th Kṛta Yuga."

"So the astronomers of the post-Rāmāyaṇa era had introduced a Yuga of 432000 years (multiplying 1200 by 360), a Chaturyuga of 4320000 years (multiplying 12000 by 360) and a Kalpa of 4320000000 years (multiplying 4320000 by 1000) because the concepts of longer Yuga, Chaturyuga and Kalpa cycles facilitated the accurate astronomical calculations in whole numbers. These Yugas and Chaturyugas of millions of years gradually became popular and people started believing these timelines of millions of years as historical."

" ... traditional chronology of Yugas indicates that the epoch of “Ādiyuga”, or the first cycle of five years, might have commenced around 15962 BCE. The internal astronomical evidence also validates the epoch of 15962 BCE. Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa of post-Vedic period mentions that the Ādiyuga commenced when Sun, Moon and Vāsava were in conjunction at the beginning of Śraviṣṭhā Nakśatra. 5"

"The Date of Brahma I, the Founder of Vedic Sciences (14500-14460 BCE) Brahma I was the first rishi and the founder of the knowledge-based Vedic society. He was the earliest known Vedic astronomer who might have introduced the concept of 28 Nakśatras and seven Rāśis. Each Rāśi had four Nakśatras. He also established the Paitāmaha Siddhānta and propounded that the Saṁvatsara must commence from Māgha Śukla Pratipadā in Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra. Summer solstice used to occur in Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra around 15000-14000 BCE. Since Brahma I introduced the Dhaniṣṭhādi list of Nakśatras, the first Rāśi of four Nakśatras might have consisted of Dhaniṣṭhā, Śravaṇa, Abhijit and Uttarāṣāḍhā Nakśatra."

Hereon, its all geneologies.

................................................................................................

................................................

May 02, 2024 - May 02, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 3: 41

The Age of the Compilation of Vedas (11500-10500 BCE)

................................................................................................

Third chapter continues geneologies from where at the end of second chapter they had been left off.

" ... Arjuna Kārtavīrya defeated Karkoṭa Nāga and occupied the city of Māhiṣmatī. Arjuna Kārtavīrya had many sons. Once Kārtavīrya and his sons visited the hermitage of Jamadagni (a descendant of Jamadagni I) and killed Jamadagni in a conflict over Kāmadhenu. Paraśurāma, son of Jamadagni came to know about the incident from his mother. He killed all the sons of Kārtavīrya except five – namely Jayadhvaja, Śūrasena, Vriṣabha, Madhu and Urjita .... Later, Paraśurāma went to South India and settled at Paraśurāma-Kśetra (Konkan and Malabar Coast). Arjuna Kārtavīrya was also known as Sahasrabāhu. Rigveda refers to King Sahasrabāhu.5

"Datta Ātreya (11270 BCE)

"Rishi Atri and Anasūyā had three sons: Datta Ātreya, Durvāsa II and Chandra. Rishi Datta Ātreya was the contemporary of Haihaya King Arjuna Kārtavīrya. The authorship of Avadhūta Gītā is attributed to Datta Ātreya.

"Prajāpati Dakśa II Prachetas (11310 BCE)

"Dakśa II was the son of Prachetas. He belonged to the lineage of Ādityas. Dakśa had many daughters and one son, Nārada. Rishi Kaśyapa III, a later descendant of Kaśyapa I, married thirteen daughters of Dakśa (Aditi II, Diti, Kadru, Danu, Ariṣṭhā, Surasā, Surabhi, Vinatā, Tāmrā, Krodhavaśā, Irā, Viśvā, and Muni). It appears that Dakśa married off his daughters to the descendants of Kaśyapa, Marīchi, Atri, Aṅgirasa, Vasiṣṭha, Kratu, Bhrigu, Pulastya, Pulaha, and more. He also married off his daughter Satī to Śiva."

"Rishi Agastya married Lopāmudrā, the daughter of the king of Vidarbha. Lopāmudrā was the contemporary of Kāshi King Alarka (11250-11200 BCE), who was imparted spiritual knowledge by Datta Ātreya and Madālasā. Lopāmudrā composed two mantras of the 179th hymn of the first Mandala of Rigveda. The mantras of Lopāmudrā indicate the beginning of New Year (Saṁvatsara) from the autumnal equinox (Śarad Ritu).

"Prajāpati Rudra or Mahādeva Śiva (11280-11200 BCE)

"Mahādeva Śiva belonged to the lineage of Rudras. He was the contemporary of Agastya. He was a great Rajarshi and the founder of the schools of Yoga, Nātya, Saṅgīta, Śilpa, Vyākaraṇa, and so on. His legendary status led the Rudras to be known as the Śivas in the later Rigvedic period. Most probably, the area of Śivalik hills from Jammu to Kailash, and the Pir Panjal area of Kashmir, was under the control of Mahādeva Śiva."

The following paragraph begins with one detail incorrect.

"Śiva married Satī Dākśāyaṇī also known as Aparṇā. Prajāpati Dakśa, the father of Sati, organised a Yajña and invited all Devas except Śiva and Satī. Satī was deeply upset for not being invited by her father but decided to meet her father. When she complained about it, Prajāpati Dakśa not only insulted her but also Śiva. Furious, Sati immolated herself. Śiva, angered by the death of Satī, destroyed the palace of Dakśa but spared his life. The astronomical data indicates that Prajāpati Dakśa performed the Yajña when the winter solstice shifted from Ārdrā Nakśatra to Mrigaśirā Nakśatra around 11250 BCE. The death of Satī during the Yajña led to the assumption of Śiva and Prajāpati Dakśa to be the deities of Ārdrā and Mrigaśirā Nakśatras respectively. When the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras was reset starting from Mrigaśirā, Prajāpati Dakśa had been identified with Mrigaśirā, and the twenty-seven Nakśatras starting from Rohiṅī were assumed to be the twenty-seven daughters of Prajāpati. Gradually, Prajāpati became synonymous with Saṁvatsara in astronomical terms."

The incorrect detail being in author's statement at the beginning

" ... Satī Dākśāyaṇī also known as Aparṇā."

It wasn't Satī Dākśāyaṇī who has ever been known as Aparṇā, but her successor Paarvatie the daughter of Himaalaya, with good reason; at one point in her tapasya, she had stopped eating even leaves, was the reason thereof.

"Vaivasvata Manu (11275-11175 BCE)

"Vaivasvata Manu was the son of Vivasvān. A great flood during his reign became an epoch in the chronology of ancient India. Most probably, incessant heavy rains and melting glacial water caused a great flood in the southern region of Sapta-Sindhu around 11200 BCE. Most probably, a part of Kashmir valley was a glacial lake known as Satīsar during the Rigvedic period. This glacial lake was formed in Kashmir Valley during the period of Meltwater Pulse 1A around 12700-11500 BCE. The closed Varāhamūla (Baramulla) pass was holding the melted waters of glaciers. Around 11200 BCE, a massive earthquake might have opened up Baramulla pass and the water of Satīsar had flown out of Kashmir Valley which caused a great flood in Madra, Śālva, Sindh and Gujarat areas.

"Manu Vaivasvata composed five hymns of Rigveda.7 He had nine sons: Ikśvāku, Nābhāga, Dhriṣṭa, Śaryāti, Nāriṣyanta, Pramashu, Rishta, Karūṣa and Priśadhra. His only daughter Ilā was married to Budha, the son of Chandra and the grandson of Atri. His brother Yama composed the 14th hymn of the tenth Mandala of Rigveda."

" ... Interestingly, Cḥāndogyopaniṣad states that Ghora Āṅgiras was the guru of Krishna Devakīputra.15 Rishi Ghora Āṅgiras was the author of a mantra of Rigveda.16 Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa also refers to Rishi Ghora Āṅgiras as a purohita of Prajāpati Vivasvān.17

"Evidently, Devakīputra Krishna had flourished in the later Rigvedic era. Turvaśa’s descendants (Yavanas) of Bactria migrated to Anatolia and Greece during the Rigvedic era and worshipped Vāsudeva as Heracles. It appears that the editors of Itihāsa texts and Purāṇas inadvertently mixed up the legends of Devakīputra Vāsudeva Krishna and Sri Krishna of the Mahābhārata era. It may be noted that Devakīputra Krishna was the disciple of Ghora Āṅgirasa whereas Sri Krishna of the Mahābhārata era was the disciple of Guru Sāndīpani. We will discuss the date of Devakīputra Krishna at length in Chapter 7."

Through this chapter, author proceeds to interpret every legend, by cutting it down from its traditional grandeur and form to something more acceptable to West. He presents various Gods as kings, for one.

"Brahma I (14500 BCE) was the earliest Rishi who laid the foundation for research in Vedic sciences. His son, Svāyambhuva Manu, founded the Manu dynasty. Most probably, Saptarṣis were either the disciples or the followers of Brahma. Therefore, Saptarṣis were called Brāhmaṇas, i.e., Mānasaputras of Brahma. There were many Brahmas. One Brahma was the father of Sanaka, Sanatkumāra, Sanātana and Sanandana. Another Brahma (11260-11180 BCE) was a junior contemporary of Śiva (11280- 11200 BCE) and Vishnu II (11250-11180 BCE). Parameṣṭhi and Prajāpati were the disciples of Brahma. Cḥāndogya Upaniṣad informs us that Prajāpati was the teacher of Indra and Virochana, the son of Prahlāda and the grandson of Hiraṇyakaśipu."

"Marichi III was the father of Rishi Kaśyapa III (11300 BCE). He married Aditi II (mother of Ādityas or Devas), Diti (mother of Daityas like Hiraṅyakaśipu), Kadru, Danu (mother of Dānavas), Ariṣtā, Surasā, Surabhi, Vinatā (mother of Vainateyas or Garudas), Tāmrā, Krodhavaśā, Irā (mother of Airas), Viśvā and Muni, and the thirteen daughters of Dakśa Prajāpati (11300 BCE). He was the father of Vivasvān and the grandfather of Vaivasvata Manu. Kaśyapa II was also the teacher of Rāma Jāmadagnya or Paraśurāma. Most probably, Vibhānḍaka was the grandson of Kaśyapa II. Riṣyaśriṅga was the son of Vibhānḍaka and Urvaśī. Riṣyaśriṅga was the contemporary of King Lomapāda of Aṅga Kingdom. Śānḍilyas were the successors of Kaśyapa lineage in the later Rigvedic period."

"Vasiṣṭha I was also the Mānasaputra of Brahma I and contemporary of Svāyambhuva Manu. The descendants of Vasiṣṭha were the traditional priests of the kings of Ayodhyā. Vasiṣṭha II (also known as Devarāja) was the contemporary of Ayodhyā King Tryāruna and his son Satyavrata Triśaṅku. He married Arundhatī, daughter of Kardama Rishi. During the reign of King Triśaṅku, Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra became bitter rivals. It appears that Vasiṣṭha was following Brahma, or Paitāmaha Siddhanta, considering Dhaniṣṭhā as the first Nakśatra. Viśvāmitra proved it wrong and propounded that Śravaṇa must be the first Nakśatra. The summer solstice was at Śravaṇa around 13500 BCE. King Triśaṅku appointed Viśvāmitra as his priest in place of Vasiṣṭha. Vasiṣṭha was deeply hurt and determined to do more research on the subject. Finally, Vasiṣṭha discovered the importance of the beginning of New Year from the equinox instead of the solstice. He founded his Siddhānta of beginning of New Year from Śarad Ritu or autumnal equinox. During his times, the autumnal equinox was at Aśvinī Nakśatra. Vasiṣṭha resumed his priesthood during the reign of King Hariśchandra, the son of Triśaṅku."

" ... Viśvāmitra III named him Devarāta and made him the head of Ashrama but the elder sons of Viśvāmitra III did not accept this decision. As a result, Viśvāmitra III cursed them. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra mention that these cursed sons of Viśvāmitra III became the progenitors of Andhras, Pulindas and Śabaras.55 Madhuccḥandas and other younger sons of Viśvāmitra III accepted Devarāta as their head."

" ... According to Matsya Purāṇa, Agastya, Karambha, Kauśalyas, Śakatas, Gāndhārakāyanas, Paulastyas, Paulahas and the descendants of Kratu belonged to the clan of Agastya.56 Interestingly, Gāndhārakāyanas or Gāndhāras (Śaka, Pahlava and Kāmboja and others), also followed Agastya. Mastya Purāṇa also mentions that Mahendra, Mayobhuva, Paurṇamāsa and Pāraṇa were the descendants of Agastya. Mahendragiri in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu is named after Mahendra, a descendant of Agastya."

"Pulastya

"Pulastya was also a contemporary of Svāyambhuva Manu but some of his descendants came to be known as Rākśasas. Pulastya II (11280 BCE) was a junior contemporary of Dakśa Prajāpati and the disciple of Agastya. He married Ilavilā, daughter of King Triṇabindu. His son was Viśravas Ailavila. Viśravas married Devavarṇinī, daughter of Brihaspati III. They had a son, Vaiśravaṇa, also known as Kubera, who became the king or the progenitor of Yakśas. Viśravas had three more wives. Rāvaṇa I was the son of Viśravas and a junior contemporary of Kārtavīrya Arjuna. Matsya Purāṇa says that Pulastya adopted a son of Agastya."

"22. Lopāmudrā (Rishikā) [She was the wife of Agastya. Her sūkta indicates the beginning of New Year."

"1. Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇi [He refers to King Sudāsa Paijavana and Dāśarājña War (7.18, 7.33 & 7.83). He refers to Rishi Agastya. He claims himself to be the son of Urvaśī and blessed by Mitra and Varuṇa (RV 7.33 10-11).] Purāṇas give the list of seven Vasiṣṭhas: 1-100, 103- 104 11150 BCE."

"4. Vasiṣṭha (Maitrāvaruṇi?) [Most probably, these two Parjanya Sūktas were written by Vasiṣṭha, a contemporary of Viśvāmitra I. These Sūktas indicate the beginning of New Year from the rainy season and summer solstice.] 103-104 13500 BCE."

"22. Krishna Āṅgirasa 42-44 11100 BCE."

"79. Hiraṇyagarbha Prājāpatya [Son of Prajāpati.]

"121 11100 BCE 80. Chitramahā Vāsiṣṭha

"122 10900 BCE 81. Vena Bhārgava

"123 11175 BCE 82. Agni, Varuṇa and Soma

"124 11250 BCE 83. Vāk Āṁbhriṇī (Rishikā) 125 10900 BCE."

"96. Bharadwāja, Kaśyapa, Gotama, Atri, Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni and Vasiṣṭha 137 11200- 10800 BCE

"97. Aṅga Aurava 138 11000 BCE

"98. Viśvāvasu Devagandharva (Elder brother of Paraśurāma) 139 11200 BCE

"99. Agni Pāvaka 140 11200 BCE

"100. Agni Tāpasa 141 11200 BCE."

"107. Prithu Vainya [Son of Vena Bhārgava, and a contemporary of Paraśurāma.] 148 11220 BCE."

"115. Ketu Āgneya 156 10900 BCE."

"124. Kapota Nairrita 165 10900 BCE."

"132. Dhruva Āṅgirasa 173 11000 BCE."

"143. Vishnu Prājāpatya [He was the son of Prajāpati. Prajāpati was the guru of Virochana, son of Prahlāda. Most probably, Vishnu Prājāpatya was Vāmana, the contemporary of King Bali, son of Virochana.] 184 11100 BCE."

"148. Sārparājñī (Rishikā) [She belonged to the Nāga family.] 189 11200 BCE."

"The Anukramaṇī of Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā gives following list of Rishis:

"4. Agnihotra 3.9 - 3.10 Prajāpati 11225 BCE."

"12. Rājasūya 9.35- 10.30 Varuṇa 11200 BCE."

"16. Aśvamedha 22-25 & 29 Prajāpati 11225 BCE."

" ... there are a total of 1603 (1875-272 = 1603) mantras in Sāmaveda. Out of 1603 mantras of Sāmaveda, 1504 mantras have been taken from Rigveda. Only ninety-nine mantras are new in Sāmaveda. All Rishis of Sāmaveda were Rigvedic Rishis. In fact, Sāmavedic hymns are the Rigvedic hymns that can be sung. Therefore, we can also fix the date of Sāmavedic hymns around 14000-10500 BCE. Śaunaka’s Charaṇa Vyūha gives the list of twelve branches of Sāmaveda but only three recensions of Sāmaveda (Kauthuma, Rāṇāyanīya and Jaiminīya) are now extant. Interestingly, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions that there were only Rik and Sāma in the beginning of Rigvedic era (Rik cha vā idamagre Sāma chāstām).63 Seemingly, Rigveda and Sāmaveda were little older than Yajurveda. Sh. Satvalekar listed the following Sāmagānas of Sāmaveda:"

"Paippalāda Saṁhitā was the oldest branch of Atharvaveda. It is also known as Āṅgirasaveda because the hymns of Atharva Saṁhitā were written by the Rishis of Āṅgirasa gotra. Yāska’s Nirukta refers to two mantras of Paippalāda Saṁhitā. Maharshi Pippalāda (around 10800 BCE) was the son of Dadhīchi II and the grandson of Atharva Āṅgirasa. The tradition of Atharvaveda begins from Atharva Āṅgirasa (13550 BCE). The manuscripts of Paippalāda Saṁhitā were found in Kashmir and Orissa. Interestingly, Patanjali mentions the following mantra as the first mantra of Paippalāda Saṁhitā but it is the 26th mantra in Śaunaka Saṁhitā."

"Rishis of Atharvaveda in CE

"1. Agastya [He was also the author of many Rigvedic hymns.] 11290- 11200 BCE 2. Aṅgirasa 11300 BCE."

12. Bādarāyaṇi [Bādarāyaṇi was the son of Bādarāyaṇa Vyāsa who was the founder of Vedānta philosophy.] 10850 BCE."

"15. Bharadwāja 11100 BCE."

"19. Bhrigu [See No. 20.] 11100 BCE."

"22. Brahma [Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa says that Indra was himself a Brahma (Indra eva Brahmā āsīt. 3.374). He was the teacher of Prajāpati Parameṣṭhin.] 11250 BCE."

"26. Brihaspati [Father of Bharadwāja and grandfather of Vidatha.] 10900 BCE

"27. Brihat Śukra 10700 BCE

"28. Budha [He was the son of Soma.] 11270 BCE."

"39. Gotama Rāhūgaṇa [He was the son of Rāhūgaṇa. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa indicates that he was the contemporary of King Janaka Vaideha and Rishi Yājñavalkya.] 10950 BCE."

"44. Jamadagni 11200 BCE."

"49. Kāṇva 11100 BCE."

"51. Kaśyapa 11290 BCE."

"53. Kauśika [Gāthi Kauśika] 11200 BCE

"54. Krishna 11100 BCE."

"83. Rebha [He was the son of Rishi Kaśyapa.] 11260 BCE

"84. Ribhu 11000 BCE

"85. Sārparājñī (Rishikā) 11000 BCE."

"88. Savitā [Prajāpati?] 11200 BCE."

"99. Śukra [He was not the famous Śukrāchārya. Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa (2.7.7) mentions that one Śukra was the descendant of Jābāla Rishi. Satyakāma Jābāla was the disciple of Rishi Pippalāda.] 11000 BCE."

"105. Suryā Sāvitrī [Sāvitrī was the daughter of Sūrya. Her sister Tāptī married King Saṁvarṇa (11520 BCE). King Kuru, the founder of Kuru dynasty was born to Tāptī.] 11500 BCE."

"114. Varuṇa [Varuṇa married Charṣaṇī. They had two sons, Brigu and Satyadhriti. Bhāgavata Purāṇa names Satyadhriti as Vālmiki. Most probably, Varuṇa was the 9th successor of Prachetas. Brigu Vāruṇi and Satyadhriti Vāruṇi authored the Rigvedic hymns 9.65 and 10.185 respectively. There was another Varuṇa (14000 BCE), son of Aditi.] 11150 BCE

"115. Vasiṣṭha 11200 BCE."

"122. Viśvāmitra 11200 BCE."

"125. Yama 11250 BCE

126. Yayāti 11180 BCE."

"Some of the hymns or mantras of Atharvaveda are dedicated to Devatas, which are not found in Rigveda like Agnāvishnu (7.30), Ekāṣtakā [Māgha Krishna Aṣṭamī] (3.10.5), Kāma Deva (3.29.7), Amāvāsyā (7.84), Tisro Devyaḥ [Idā, Bhāratī and Sarasvati] (5.27.9), Dhanvantari (2.3), Parāśara (6.65), Sapta-Sindhu (4.6.2), Arbudi (11.11) and more."

"Ekāṣṭakā Sūkta of Atharvaveda Rishi Atharva (most probably, Pippalāda) was the author of the hymn of Atharvaveda.64 He dedicated the mantras of this Sūkta to Ekāṣṭakā, Saṁvatsara and Ritus (seasons). Ekāṣṭakā is a Vedic ritual performed on Māgha Krishna Aṣṭamī. Rishi Atharva indirectly indicated the occurrence of autumnal equinox at Māgha Krishna Saptamī. Māgha Krishna Aṣṭamī used to be the first tithi of Śarad Ritu. Evidently, Ekāṣṭakā was the first tithi after the occurrence of autumnal equinox. Rishi Pippalāda Atharva lived around 10850 BCE. The Saṁvatsara or the New Year used to begin immediately after the occurrence of autumnal equinox. During the period 11000-10500 BCE, autumnal equinox used to occur on Māgha Krishna Saptamī. This may be the reason why Rishi Atharva calls Ekāṣṭakā the wife of Saṁvatsara."

"The winter solstice was shifted from Rohiṇī to Krittikā around 9250 BCE. Rishi Gārgya, a later descendant of Gārgyas, observed this shifting of winter solstice around 9200-9000 BCE. He founded the astronomical siddhānta known as Gārgya Siddhānta and re-arranged the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras starting from Krittikā. He gives the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras starting from Krittikā in his Nakśatra Sūktas and mentions the occurrence of Ayana (autumnal equinox) in the month of Māgha (ayanam Maghāsu cha). We can conclude that the final composition of the hymns of Rigveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda was completed by 10500 BCE, whereas the final editing of the hymns of Atharvaveda was completed by 9000 BCE."

"The Beginning of Saṁvatsara from Śarad Season in the Rigvedic Period Traditionally, Vedic New Year commenced from Māgha Śukla Pratipadā at Śraviṣṭhā/Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra since early Rigvedic period. The summer solstice used to occur in Māgha month around 14500 BCE. Thus, the New Year of early Rigvedic period commenced from the summer solstice and Śraviṣṭhā/Dhaniṣṭhā was the first in the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras. During the era of Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha (13500 BCE), Viśvāmitra proposed the list of Nakśatras starting from Śravaṇa. Vasiṣṭha had discovered the occurrence of autumnal equinox at Aśvinī Nakśatra and proposed the beginning of the calendrical year from Śarad season.

"Gradually, Śarad Ritu became synonymous with the beginning of New Year. Many hymns of Vedas written after 11800 BCE refer to Śarad Ritu as the beginning of New Year. Dīrghatamas Auchathya mentions Viṣuvat (autumnal equinox) in his hymn and indicates the beginning of Saṁvatsara from Viṣuvat.74 The Rigvedic hymn of Rishi Yakśmanāśana Prājāpatya refers to 100 years as 100 Śarad seasons.75

"The lunisolar calendar of the traditional Paitāmaha Siddhānta also gradually shifted from Varṣā season (summer solstice) to Śarad season (autumnal equinox) around 12500-11500 BCE. Rigvedic astronomers might have revised the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras starting from Mrigaśirā because winter solstice used to occur at Mrigaśirā in the beignning of Vaivasvata Manvantara (11200 BCE.

The Shifting of Winter Solstice from Mrigaśirā to Rohiṇī (10200 BCE), Rohiṇī to Krittikā (9200 BCE), Krittikā to Bharaṇī (8200 BCE) and Bharaṇī to Aśvinī (7200 BCE)

"Rigvedic astronomers introduced the Mrigaśirādi list of twenty-eight Nakśatras around 11200 BCE. They identified the occurrence of winter solstice in Mrigaśirā as Prajāpati and twenty-seven Nakśatras as his daughters. They also witnessed the heliacal rising of Rohiṇī Nakśatra. Therefore, Rohiṇī was also known as Uṣas. After 1000 years, winter solstice shifted from Mrigaśirā to Rohiṇī around 10200 BCE. Rigvedic astronomers were utterly perplexed about why Prajāpati went on top of his own daughter Uṣas (Rohiṇī). This astronomical event has been referred to in Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa (8.2.10), Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (6.5.27), Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (1.7.4.1-3), Brihdāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Ādi Śaṅkara’s commentary (1.4.3) and Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā (4.214, 35.11-15).

"Evidently, the Sun rising in Mrigaśirā at winter solstice had been personified as Prajāpati [;ks áso lfork l çtkifr% (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 12.3.5.1), çtkifroSZ lfork (Tāndya Brāhmaṇa 8.2.10)]. When winter solstice shifted from Mrigaśirā to Uṣas (Rohiṇī) around 10200 BCE, it was assumed that Prajāpati desired his own daughter and had intercourse with her. It was also mythologically narrated that Rudra, the devatā of Ārdra Nakśatra, killed Prajāpati because of the sin he had committed. The arrow formation of stars in Mrigaśirā constellation has been metaphorically represented by the slaying of Prajāpati by Rudra.

"The shifting of winter solstice from Mrigaśirā to Rohiṇī led to revision of the list of Nakśatras and the Rohiṇyādi list of twenty-eight Nakśatras was introduced. Later, the winter solstice had again shifted from Rohiṇī to Krittikā around 9250 BCE and the Krittikādi list of Nakśatras was introduced. The winter solstice shifted from Bharaṇī to Aśvinī around 7200 BCE and the Aśvinyādi list of Nakśatras came into existence. Vedic astronomers also excluded Abhijit from the list of Nakśatras and introduced the list of twenty-seven Nakśatras around 9000-8000 BCE."

"As explained by Sh. PK Phadnis, Abhijit was at celestial North Pole around 12000 BCE but its declination gradually reduced from 85-degree (12000 BCE) to 65-degree (9000 BCE), causing it to drop down to horizon after 9000 BCE. Seemingly, Abhijit had gone below the horizon around 9000-8000 BCE. Thus, Abhijit was excluded from the scheme of twenty-eight Nakśatras and the scheme of twenty-seven Nakśatras came into existence. Taittirīya Saṁhitā (8800 BCE) gives the list of twentyseven Nakśatras but follows the traditional list of twenty-eight Nakśatras. Seemingly, Abhijit Nakśatra was dropped around 9000-8000 BCE."

" ... Mahābhārata mentions these historical calendrical revisions in the context of how Krittikās attained imperishable heaven. Six Krittikās were forsaken by their husbands. They went to their son Skanda Kumāra and asked him to give svarga. Thus, Krittikās attained svarga by the efforts of their son Skanda. It appears that the Mahābhārata linked Krittikā’s mythological attainment of svarga with the first position of Krittikās in the list of Nakśatras around 9200 BCE. Thus, the Mahābhārata’s Vana Parva refers to the introduction of Dhaniṣṭhādi and Māgha Śukladi calendar and Rohiṇyādi list of Nakśatras around 10200 BCE, Krittikādi list of Nakśatras around 9200 BCE and the exclusion of Abhijit from Nakśatras around 9000-8000 BCE."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 02, 2024 - May 04, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 4: 107

The Age of the Compilation of Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads (10500-6777 BCE)

................................................................................................

"Pārāśarya Vyāsa or Veda Vyāsa (11180-11050 BCE) Veda Vyāsa was the son of Parāśara. Bhāgavata Purāṇa refers to two Vyāsas. One Vyāsa was born to a dancing girl and another Vyāsa was born to a Matsya-kanyā (Satyavati). Purāṇas (Vishnu, Vāyu, Kūrma and Brahmānḍa) refer to twenty-eight Vyāsas. Brahmānḍa and Kūrma Purāṇas give the list of twenty-eight Vyāsas born in every Dvāpara Yuga of Vaivasvata Manvantara.2"

" ... Seemingly, the idea of twenty-eight or thirty-two Vyāsas evolved during the Gupta period. But all one can say with certainty is that there were at least three Vyāsas. Vyāsa I was the son of Parāśara and the grandson of Śakti. He was probably the disciple of Devarāta, Jātūkarṇya and Viśvaksena. He was the son of a dancing girl. He was probably born on a Dvīpa (island in the middle of Yamuna River), as he was also known as Krishna Dvaipāyana. He lived around 11180-11050 BCE. Vyāsa II was Bādarāyaṇa Vyāsa (10900 BCE) who authored the earliest Brahma Sūtras of Vedānta Darśana. Vyāsa III was the son of Matsya-kanyā Satyavati and Rishi Parāśara II. He was the famous author of the Mahābhārata and eighteen Purāṇas and lived during the Mahābhārata era."

"The Traditions of Rigveda After Veda Vyāsa and His Disciple Paila Śaunaka’s Charaṇa Vyūha Sūtra tells us that Rigveda has eight branches, namely, Śākala, Bāṣkala, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, Śāṅkhāyana (also known as Sāṅkhya), Mānḍūka, Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa and Kauṣītakī Āraṇyaka. Rigveda’s Pārāyaṇa tradition has eight pāṭhas: Jatā, Mālā, Śikhā, Rekhā, Dhvaja, Danḍa, Ratha and Ghana. These Pārāyaṇas also have five branches: Āśvalāyanī, Śāṅkhāyanī, Śākalā, Bāṣkalā and Mānḍūkāyana."

" ... Aitareya Brāhmaṇa speaks of the transition of winter solstice from Mrigaśirā Nakśatra to Rohiṇī Nakśatra.4 This astronomical event occurred around 10200 BCE."

" ... Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions that the Bharatas, the Kuru-Pāñchālas with the Vachas and the Uśīnaras are the inhabitants of the middle country.5 The Sātvatas were living in the southern direction (probably, close to Matsya janapada) under the rule of BCE."

"It seems, Śāṅkhāyanas, the disciples of Śāṅkhāyana lineage of the Bāṣkala branch, had recompiled Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka and Upaniṣad around 9000 BCE. Śāṅkhāyana or Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa indicates the occurrence of autumnal equinox on Māgha Amāvāsyā. 10 This internal astronomical evidence suggests that Śāṅkhāyana or Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa was written around 9000 BCE. The autumnal equinox occurred on Māgha Amāvāsyā during the period 9000-8500 BCE.

"Vaiśampāyana (11100-11050 BCE)

"Vaiśampāyana was the disciple of Veda Vyāsa, or Vyāsa I. He studied Yajurveda from Veda Vyāsa. According to the Mahābhārata, Vaiśampāyana was the maternal uncle of Yājñavalkya, the author of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (...). Yājñavalkya had a dispute with his guru Vaiśampāyana. Thus, Yājñavalkya became the founder of Śukla Yajurveda or Vājasaneya Saṁhitā. Tittiri or Tittiris, the disciples of Vaiśampāyana, were the authors of Taittirīya Saṁhitā (Krishna Yajurveda). Thus, Krishna Yajurveda and Śukla Yajurveda came into existence around 11050-11000 BCE. Vaiśampayana’s disciples were also known as Charakas."

"The Traditions of Yajurveda After Vaiśampāyana

"The ancient Yajurveda had only one tradition but it had 100 recensions. This ancient Yajurveda tradition had been divided into two separate traditions known as Brahma Sāmpradāya, i.e., Krishna Yajurveda (founded by Tittiris, the disciples of Vaiśampāyana) and Āditya Sampradāya, i.e., Śukla Yajurveda (founded by Vājasaneya Yājñavalkya) around 11050- 11000 BCE. Thereafter, Krishna Yajurveda had eighty-six recensions, whereas Śukla Yajurveda had fifteen."

"Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is the last chapter of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Yājñavalkya III (10930-10830 BCE), the husband of Maitreyi and Kātyāyani, was the contemporary of King Janaka of Videha Kingdom. Nemi (11225 BCE), the son of Ikśvāku, was the progenitor of Videha or Mithilā Kings. Gārgī Vāchaknavī debated with Yājñavalkya in the court of King Janaka. Aśvala, the progenitor of Āśvalāyana gotra, was the priest of King Janaka. Arthabhāga, Bhujyu, Uṣastā and Uddālaka Āruṇi had also participated in the debate. Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad narrates this historical story of Yājñavalkya III (10930-10830 BCE). Therefore, Yājñavalkya IV, the descendant of Yājñavalkya III, compiled Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad around 8800-8700 BCE. ... "

"Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa refers to the following verifiable astronomical events:

"1. Krittikās do not deviate from the East whereas all other Nakśatras do move from the East.13

"Yājñavalkya observed that Krittikās do not deviate from the East whereas all other Nakśatras do move from the East. Seemingly, Vedic Rishis started observing the right ascension of all Nakśatras when the winter solstice had shifted to Krittikā around 9200 BCE. The Rishis of the period 9200-8700 BCE had carefully observed the right ascension and declination (RA/ Dec) of all twenty-eight Nakśatras and found that Krittikās do not deviate from the right ascension, whereas all other Nakśatras do move from their right ascension. The same fact is recorded in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Most probably, the rishis measured the right ascension from the Sun at the autumnal equinox. The right ascension and declination of star eta Tauri of Kriitikā constellation was at 17h 45m 10.93s/ -20o 52’45.8’’ on 25th Nov 9200 BCE, at 17h 59m 42.44s/ -20o 55’46.7’’ on 24th Nov 8950 BCE and at 18h 14m 13.79s/ -20o 53’22.1’’ on 22nd Nov 8700 BCE. Evidently, the right ascension of Krittikā was constant and did not deviate much around 9200- 8700 BCE whereas that of all other Nakśatras had deviated. Though the right ascension and declination of star delta Sco of Anurādhā constellation was also comparably constant at 5h 52m 59.48s/ +23o 19’50.8’’on 25th Nov 9200 BCE, at 6h 10m 45.61s/ +23o 18’45.5’’ on 24th Nov 8950 BCE and at 6h 25m 32.84s/ +23o 11’46.6’’ on 22nd Nov 8700 BCE, it deviated more than that of Krittikā. This may be the reason why the rishis of the period 9200-8700 BCE had observed that Krittikās do not deviate from the East. Sh. SB Dikshit argued that Krittikās were at celestial equator during the period of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa; therefore, Śatapatha must be dated around 3000 BCE. However, the astronomical reference of Śatapatha (Krittikās do not deviate from the East whereas all other Nakśatras do move from the East) is a multigenerational observation and not an observation made in the lifetime of one person. Moreover, some other Nakśatras were also on celestial equator around 3000-2900 BCE. Many Nakśatras, including Krittikās, were periodically at celestial equator. Therefore, the astronomical statement of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa does not indicate the position of Krittikās at celestial equator.

"2. The Saptarṣis rise in the North since ancient times.14

"The statement of “Purā ethāḥ” clearly indicates that Vedic Rishis traditionally observed Saptarṣis as the northern circumpolar constellation since the beginning of early Rigvedic period, around 14000 BCE. Therefore, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa records that Saptarṣis rise in the North since ancient times.

"3. The occurrence of Vaiśākha Amāvāsyā at Rohiṇī Nakśatra.15

"Vaiśākha Amāvāsyā occurred at Rohiṇī Nakśatra during the time of Yājñavalkya. This event can be explained around 9100-8500 BCE.

"4. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa indicate the beginning of Saṁvatsara or New Year from the full moon day of Phālguna month.16

"The Amānta Saṁvatsara began on Māgha Śukla Pratipadā and the Pūrṇimānta Saṁvatsara began on Phālguna Paurṇamāsī. Though the month was Māgha but the full moon day was at Phālguni Nakśatra due to intercalation of second Puṣya month in the fifth year of five-year Yuga cycle."

"5. The construction of Yajñavedi based on astronomy.

"The eighth Kānda of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa describes the construction of a Yajñavedi in five layers with twenty-nine bricks on the outer rim as representation of the solar orbit. Dr. Subhash Kak has established that the arrangement of the bricks suggests a division of the year into two halves of 189 days and 176 days. In his words, “If one assumes that the two halves of the year are directly in proportion to the brick counts of fourteen and fifteen in the two halves of the ring of the Sun, this corresponds to day counts of 176 and 189. This division appears to have been for the two halves of the year with respect to the equinoxes if we note that the solstices divide the year into counts of 181 and 184.”17 He also says that “Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa describes the total number of Yājuṣmatī bricks to be 395.18 This was to be taken as 360 days of the year and thirty-six additional (including one being the fillings between the bricks) as the days of the intercalary month. By layers, the first has ninety-eight, the second has forty-one, the third has seventy-one, the fourth has forty-seven and the fifth has 138. The sum of the bricks in the fourth and the fifth layers refer to the 186 (together with the one space filling) tithis in the half year."

"Evidently, the cycle of 2850 years and the Saptarṣi cycle of 2700 years were introduced before the evolution of the concept of Mahāyuga of 4320000 years. Though the cycle of 2850 years is older than the Saptarṣi cycle of 2700 years, the Saptarṣi cycle became more popular because it can also be reconciled with the later concept of Mahāyuga of 4320000 years in integers. A Mahāyuga can be divided into 1600 cycles of 2700 years. Moreover, the cycle of 2850 years was based on the Yājñavalkya cycle (ninety-five years) whereas the Saptarṣi cycle was based on the Jovian cycle (twelve years) and the cycle of sixty years of Paitāmaha Siddhānta. The list of Nakśatras starting from Aśvinī was reset at the end of Krita Yuga (6777 BCE) because winter solstice had shifted to Aśvinī around 7200 BCE. Seemingly, the Saptarṣi cycle, the Jovian cycle and the cycle of sixty years were introduced for the first time in 6777 BCE, considering the hypothetical position of Saptarṣis at Aśvinī Nakśatra around 6777-6677 BCE. This is the reason why Saptarṣis have been assumed to be in Māgha Nakśatra during the time of the Mahābhārata War (3162 BCE."

"According to Varāhamihira, Romaka Siddhānta is a lunisolar Siddhānta based on the Chaitra Śuklādi calendar. Ancient Romaka Siddhānta followed Māgha Śuklādi calendar but later it switched to Chaitra Śuklādi calendar. According to Varāhamihira’s Romaka Siddhānta, a Yuga of 2850 years comprised of 1050 adhimāsas and 16547 tithipralayas, i.e., omitted lunar days [(2850 x 12) +1050 = (35250 x 30)-16547 = 1040953] but the different kśepa quantities to be met within the rules for finding Ahargaṇa is not explained. Western Indologists speculated that Romaka Siddhānta gives 1040953 days in a Yuga of 2850 years, which implies a year of 365 days, five hours, fifty-five minutes, twenty-two seconds – agreeing with Hipparchus and Ptolemy. They also concocted a false theory that the Romaka Siddhānta is based on the tropical system based on the astronomical learning of Greece and Byzantine Rome. First of all, Romaka Siddhānta was founded in India thousands of years before the birth of Hellenistic astronomy and the foundation of Rome. Moreover, this is originally based on Vedic Yuga cycle of five years, the Yājñavalkya cycle of ninety-five years and the lunisolar calendar as explained above. Therefore, the speculation of the foreign origin of Romaka Siddhānta is totally baseless and absurd. Moreover, the so-called Metonic cycle of nineteen years is undoubtedly derived from the Yājñavalkya cycle of ninety-five years."

"Astronomical References in the Works of Taittirīyas (8800-8700 BCE)

"1. Taittirīya Saṁhitā gives the list of twenty-seven Nakśatras (excluding Abhijit) starting from Krittikā.23

"2. It gives the names of six Ritus and twelve solar months as Vasanta (Madhu and Mādhava), Grīṣma (Śukra and Śuchi), Varṣā (Nabha and Nabhasya), Śarad (Iṣa and Urja), Hemanta (Sahas and Sahasya) and Śiśira (Tapas and Tapasya).

"3. The first mantra of Yajurveda refers to the solar months of Śarad Ritu (Iṣe tvorje tvā vāyava…). Many mantras of Yajurveda (Jīvema Śaradaḥ Śatam…) indicate the beginning of New Year from Śarad Ritu, or autumnal equinox.

"4. Taittirīya Saṁhitā refers to Amānta and Pūrṇimānta schemes.25

"5. Taittirīya Saṁhitā refers to the special status of Krittikā Nakśatra and states that all the Gods went to Krittikās. This indirectly indicates the occurrence of winter solstice at Krittikā Nakśatra.26

"6. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa gives the list of twenty-eight Nakśatras starting from Krittikā and classifies the Nakśatras into two groups namely Devanakśatras and Yamanakśatras.27 The Nakśatras from Krittikā to Viśākhā (fourteen Nakśatras) were situated in the northern hemisphere (Deva) and the remaining Nakśatras, from Anurādhā to Bharaṇī (fourteen Nakśatras), were in the southern hemisphere (Yama). Evidently, winter solstice occurred at Krittikā Nakśatra and summer solstice occurred in the beginning of Anurādhā Nakśatra, during the lifetime of Tittiris. Therefore, we can roughly fix the date of Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa around 8800-8700 BCE."

"8. Interestingly, Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa informs us that Devas and Asuras were in a major conflict when Abhijit Nakśatra was above Āṣāḍha Nakśatras (Upariṣṭhāt āshāḍhānām) and Śronā (Śravaṇa) Nakśatra was below on the other side (avastāt Śroṇāyai).29 This event occurred around 12000 BCE when Abhijit (Vega) was a pole star. Purāṇas indicate that the perennial battle between Devas and Asuras began in Chākśuṣa Manvantara and ended in the beginning of Vaivasvata Manvantara. I have already explained the timelines of Chākśuṣa Manvantara (12000-11200 BCE). Abhijit was above Uttara Āṣāḍhā around 12000 BCE. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa also mentions that Abhijit was named so because Devas conquered the territories of Asuras and achieved a great victory over Asuras when Abhijit Nakśatra was still a pole star. Abhijit moved away from North Pole after 11000 BCE."

"9. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa indicates that during the conflict between the Devas and the Asuras, the Devas offered oblation to Sarpas, or Āśleṣā Nakśatra, and successfully subdued the perpetual hatred of their cousin brothers (Dviṣantam Bhrātrivyamupanayati).30 Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa refers to Asuras as Sarpas and Dandaśūkas. Vritrāsura was well known as Ahi in the Rigvedic era. Sarpa (Ahi) is the deity of Āśleṣā Nakśatra. Seemingly, the Devas followed a calendar that commenced from the summer solstice at Dhaniṣṭhā Nakśatra whereas the Asuras followed a calendar that commenced from the winter solstice at Aśleṣā Nakśatra during the early Vedic period around 14500-14000 BCE. This may be the reason why Sarpa – or Ahi or Vritrāsura – became the deity of Aśleṣā Nakśatra. Gradually, the reckoning of the calendar of Devas had shifted to the Śarad Ritu, or autumnal equinox, and the reckoning of the calendar of Asuras had shifted to the Vasant Ritu, i.e. vernal equinox. "

" ... During the period 11200-10200 BCE, the heliacal rising of Rohiṇī was witnessed. Therefore, Rohiṇī was also known as Uṣas. This is the reason why Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa refers to Rohiṇī as wife of Prajāpati."

" ... “Chitram Nakśatramudagāt Purastāt” clearly indicates the observation of heliacal rising of Chitrā Nakśatra in the past. Heliacal rising of Chitrā was observed around 13900-13000 BCE when vernal equinox was at Svāti Nakśatra. Vernal equinox was at Chitrā around 13000- 12100 BCE."

" ... “Aja Ekapādudagāt Purastāt” indicates the observation of heliacal rising of Pūrva Bhādrapada Nakśatra in the past. The Autumnal equinox was at Uttara Bhādrapada around 11300-10350 BCE and at Pūrva Bhādrapada around 10350-9400 BCE. "

"11. Taittirīya Kāthakam mentions that Śarad Ritu is the Uttara Pakśa and Grīṣma Ritu is the Dakśiṇa Pakśa. It also refers to King Vaideha Janaka (10950 BCE) and Rishi Gautama.31"

"The Star “Kaśyapa” of Śiśumāra or Śiśukumāra (Draco) Constellation Taittirīya Āraṇyaka mentions that the star “Kaśyapa” (the eighth rishi) of Śiśumāra constellation (Draco) does not depart from Mahāmeru."

"Evidently, the celestial pole is referred to as Mahāmeru. Thus, the star ‘Kaśyapa’ of the Śiśumāra constellation was the pole star during the time of Tittiris, the disciples of Vaiśampāyana. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka gives the detailed description of the Śiśumāra constellation and the star Kaśyapa.32"

"The star Kaśyapa of the Śiśumāra constellation was at celestial pole starting from 11000 BCE. It was still a pole star around 8800-8700 BCE. The head of Śiśumāra was at celestial pole during this period."

"Taittirīya Āraṇyaka describes that the head of Śiśumāra is like Chaturmukha Brahma. The Northern Star of the head is Yajña and the Southern Star of the head is Vishnu. Saṁvatsara is the genital organ. Rishi Atri is the middle portion of body. Two Aśvins are its front feet whereas Mitra-Varuṇas are its back feet. Agni, Indra, Prajāpati and Abhaya are located in the tail of Śiśumāra. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka clearly refers to the Śiśumāra constellation as Dhruva and also states that the Kaśyapa star of this constellation does not depart from the celestial pole. This description unambiguously indicates the position of the head of Śiśumāra was in the North Pole direction. Kaśyapa was the brightest star of Śiśumāra (Draco) constellation: Therefore, the star ‘Kaśyapa’ was undoubtedly Gamma Draconis."

"Interestingly, Kapiṣṭhala Saṁhitā indicates the beginning of Vasanta Ritu from the full moon of Phālguna month.40 It also mentions that Abhijit Nakśatra was named so because Devas achieved victory over Asuras in Abhijit Nakśatra.41 Evidently, it indicates the position of Abhijit Nakśatra at the celestial North Pole when Devas defeated Asuras. Kapiṣṭhala Saṁhitā also refers to Ardhamāsa (half month).42"

"Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad also indicates that the pole star (Dhruva) deviates from the celestial North Pole.45 Deneb was the pole star around 16500-13500 BCE and Abhijit was the pole star around 13500 10200 BCE. Gamma Draconis was the pole star around 10200-7500 BCE."

" ... Most probably, Ikśvāku King Brihadratha lived after Bhagīratha around 10800 BCE."

"Today, only three recensions of Sāmaveda (Kauthuma, Rānāyanīya and Jaiminīya) are available. Kauthumi was popular in Gurjarat, Rāṇāyanī in Maharashtra and Jaiminīya in Karnataka."

" ... Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa mention the Tānḍya branch of Sāmaveda.46 Therefore, Tānḍya Brāhmaṇa must be dated before 9000 BCE and, most probably, it was written before Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (9200 BCE). Maśaka Gārgya was the author of Ārṣeyakalpa or Maśakakalpasūtra who was one of the earliest Āchārya of Tānḍya branch. Seemingly, Tānḍya Brāhmaṇa followed the tradition of Ārṣeyakalpa of Maśaka. Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa refers to Kauśītakas of Śāṅkhāyana tradition."

"There is a passage in Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa that indicates that Svarga is about 1000 earth diameters from the Earth. Dr. Subhash Kak quotes this passage in his article titled “Early Theories on the Distance to the Sun” and concludes, “The Sun was also taken to be halfway to the heavens, so this suggests a distance of the Sun about 500 earth diameters from earth.” Ptolemy, using a method developed by Hipparchus, came to the conclusion that the Sun is about 600 Earth diameters distant from the Earth.47"

"Sarasvati River Lost at Vinaśana

"Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa mentions that Sarasvati River lost at a place called Vinaśana.53 Sāyaṇa says that since Sarasvati had lost or gone underground at Vinaśana, the rites were performed on the south bank of the river. Evidently, Sarasvati was flowing westwards during the time of Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa. Thus, Sarasvati had only north and south banks."

"The Date of the Disappearance of Rigvedic Sarasvati River and PostVedic Sarasvati River

"Numerous scientific studies have been undertaken for mapping and dating of the palaeochannels of Sarasvati River. Recent studies of the Great Ran of Kachch and Nd & Sr isotopic measurements suggest that a distinct source of water (Sarasvati River) may have been present before 10000 years. Later in Holocene, under a drying climate, sediments from the Thar Desert probably chocked the signature of an independent Sarasvati-like river. The new research undertaken by IIT Kanpur (IITK) and Imperial College, London, has also concluded that Sarasvati River might have been dried up around 8000-12000 years ago. Based on these scientific findings, IITK’s Prof Rajiv Sinha and his team claimed: “Our paper clearly demolishes the age-old river-culture hypothesis that assumed that the disappearance of the river triggered the demise of the Harappan Civilization. This has clearly been demonstrated by the large difference in age data between the demise of the river (8000-12000 years ago) and the peak of mature civilization 3000-4000 years ago.”

"The study of IITK also suggests that between 15000 and 8000 years ago, the Sutlej River changed to its present day course to the northwest. The abandonment of the former course left a topographic low formed by the former channel in the landscape. The dating of the sediments in the palaeochannels was done by IITK using a technique known as Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL). It may be noted that the OSL method is not an accurate method and, therefore, the date arrived by the OSL method may be an underestimate (-10%)."

"Vedic Sarasvati and Post-Vedic Sarasvati

"First of all, it is pertinent to understand the difference between the course of Vedic Sarasvati River and that of Post-Vedic Sarasvati River. Vedic Sarasvati River originated at a place called Plakśa Prasravaṇa (near Badrinath) and flowed up to Prithūdaka (Pehova), close to Kurukshetra. Vedic Sarasvati took a south-western course from the Kurukshetra region and flowed from Hisar, Sambhar Lake, Pushkar and Jodhpur to Great Rann of Kachch and Gulf of Kachch. Post Vedic Sarasvati River changed the course at Kurukshetra region and started flowing westwards. The map of Sarasvati Palaeochannel course given below clearly indicates the Channel II to be the course of Vedic Sarasvati River and the palaeochannels shown as “Sarasvati course” belonged to Post-Vedic Sarasvati River.

" ... Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa also indicates that the East and the West banks of Sarasvati no longer existed in the region of Kurukshetra because Sarasvati started flowing from East to West. Therefore, Pañchaviṁśa says that the Dīkśā for Sarasvati Satra must be undertaken on the southern bank of Sarasvati at Vinaśana (the area where Sarasvati had disappeared in the Thar Desert or changed the course.)

"Sarasvati had many tributaries. Rigveda indicates that Sarasvati had seven main tributaries.55 This may be the reason why Sarasvati was referred to as Saptasvasā (having seven sisters). Śutudrī, Yamuna and Driṣadvatī were the main tributaries of Sarasvati. Śutudrī (Sutlej) changed the course during the early Vedic period around 14500-13000 BCE. IITK has dated the palaeochannel of Sutlej River around 13000 BCE (15000 years ago) based on the OSL method. Considering the error margin of 10%, Sutlej might have changed the course around 14500-13000 BCE. "

"Most probably, Sutlej changed the course and started flowing westwards in the early Vedic period. This may be the reason why Śutudri (Sutlej) had no importance in Sarasvati Satra Vedic ritual. Yamuna and Driṣadvatī continued to be the tributaries of Sarasvati River. In all probability, Yamuna had two channels in the Vedic period. One Yamuna channel flowed westwards and merged with Sarasvati in Kārapachava region of Himachal Pradesh (close to Paonta Sahib); whereas another channel flowed eastwards and merged with Ganga River at Prayāga."

" ... some scientists have also dated this change of course around 50000 years ago. Interestingly, the Avabhṛtha ritual was performed in Yamuna River in the janapada of Kārapachava at the end of the Sārasvatīya Satra as mentioned in Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa and Lātyāyana Śrautasūtra.56 Seemingly, Yamuna, a tributary of Sarasvati (Y1 palaeochannel) had changed the course in later Vedic period. Probably, this change of course occurred at the same time when Sarasvati lost in the sands of desert. It appears that the Avabhṛtha ritual might have been introduced to commemorate the past confluence of Sarasvati and Yamuna. Most probably, the confluence of Sarasvati and Yamuna was located in Kārapachava janapada in the Rigvedic era and this janapada was located in between Nahan and Paonta Sahib and before Jagadhari, Yamunanagar in Haryana.

"IITK has dated the end of Sarasvati River around 12000 years ago (10000 BCE). Considering the error margin of 10%, Sarasvati might have been lost at Vinaśana around 11100-10900 BCE. Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa and Lātyāyana Śrautasūtra indicate that Driṣadvatī was still a tributary of Sarasvati River. Manusmriti mentions that Driṣadvatī flowed to the south of Kurukshetra.

"Though Yamuna changed the course around 11200 BCE, Driṣadvatī continued to be the tributary of Post-Vedic Sarasvati River. Driṣadvatī and Post-Vedic Sarasvati Rivers survived for many thousands of years after the Rigvedic era and finally dried up after the Mahābhārata War (3162 BCE), around 3000-2600 BCE."

"According to Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Vinaśana, the place of disappearance of Sarasvati was located close to Kurukshetra. Pañchaviṁśa mentions that Sarasvati originates from Plakśa Prasravaṇa and the distance between Plakśa Prasravaṇa and Vinaśana was 44 Aśvīnas.60 Sarasvati originated from the hills of Badrinath. The Mahābhārata also indicates that Plakśa Prasravaṇa was located in the Shivalik Hills."

Anyone visiting Badrinath is still shown the tremendous flow leaping out of Himaalaya under Bhimpul, identified by guides as Sarasvati, only to vanish before one can see it down the other side of the very narrow bridge, and of course, it's common tradition of India that Sarasvati forms the third, underground River meeting Gangā and Yamunaā at Prayāga. At Prayāga, they offer to let you see and taste the waters of Sarasvati supposedly available in a well in a temple on banks of the confluence.

"During the later Rigvedic era (11200-10200 BCE), the south-west monsoon weakened after 11000 BCE. Yamuna also changed the course at the same time. Thus, the south-western channel of Vedic Sarasvati River dried up around 10950 BCE. Sarasvati River also changed the course and started flowing westwards from Kurukshetra, Sirsa to Kalibanga and Anupgarh. Driṣadvatī River also joined the course of Post-Vedic Sarasvati River."

" ... The Sarasvatīya Satra ritual was introduced after the disappearance of original course of Sarasvati. ... "

"Sarasvati River was flowing westwards during the Mahābhārata era (3162 BCE). Balarāma went for a pilgrimage and also travelled in a boat on Sarasvati River. There are references of Vinaśana in Vana Parva of Mahābhārata."

"• The first Vinaśana was probably Sambhar Lake around 10950 BCE but Uchana or Parīṇa Sthalī in Kurukshetra was the Vinaśana point after 10000 BCE.

"• Post-Vedic Sarasvati and Driṣadvatī Rivers survived up to the Mahābhārata era (3162 BCE) and dried up around 3000-2600 BCE."

"Cḥāndogya Brāhmaṇa and Upaniṣad (8600 BCE)

"Cḥāndogya Brāhmaṇa consists of ten chapters. Mantra Brāhmaṇa of Sāmaveda (first and second chapters) and Cḥāndogya Upaniṣad (third to tenth chapters) are collectively called as Cḥāndogya Brāhmaṇa. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to Cḥandogas.65 It seems Cḥandoga may just be another name of the Sāmaveda tradition. Cḥāndogya Upaniṣad records that Mahīdāsa Aitareya lived for 116 years. ... "

Cḥāndogya refers to Sanatkumāra67 and indicates that Sanatkumāra was also called as Skanda.68 Cḥāndogya also refers to Itihasa-Purāṇa as the fifth Veda.69 Romaharṣaṇa Sūta (11100 BCE), the fifth disciple of Veda Vyāsa (11180-11050 BCE), was the earliest known author of the Saṁhitas of Itihasa and Purāṇa. Thus, Cḥāndogya Upaniṣad must be dated after Romaharṣaṇa Sūta (11100 BCE). According to Cḥāndogya, Rigveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvaveda, Itihāsa-Purāṇa, Pitrya (knowledge of ancestors), Rāśi (Mathematics), Daiva, Nidhi, Vākovākya (logic), Ekāyana (ethics), Devavidyā, Brahmavidyā (Philosophy), Bhūtavidyā (Āyurveda), Kśatravidyā (Dhanurveda), Nakśatravidyā (astronomy) and Sarpadevajanavidyā were the important subjects of study."

"Gopatha Brāhmaṇa (8000-7500 BCE)

"Gopatha is the only Brāhmaṇa of Atharvaveda. It unambiguously indicates the commencement of Saṁvatsara (New Year) from Viṣuvat, i.e., the autumnal equinox.79 Interestingly, Gopatha Brāhmaṇa indicates that the equinox shifts back by one Nakśatra (13.20 degrees) in 1000 years. While referring to the questions related to precession [“Why Darśa (new moon) shifts back? Why Paurṇamāsī (full moon) shifts back? Why the Agrāyaṇa (equinox) shifts back? Why Chāturmāsya shifts back?], Gopatha Brāhmaṇa states that Devas used to perform rituals for 1000 years, which clearly indicates the precession of equinox by one Nakśatra in 1000 years.80"

"Gopatha Brāhmaṇa mentions that Viśvāmitra was the first to discover Sampātas. Evidently, Sampāta means precession of equinox.81

"According to the Mahābhārata, Viśvamitra revised the list of Nakśatras, starting from Śravaṇa. Viśvāmitra I flourished around 13500 BCE and observed the precession of summer solstice from Dhaniṣṭhā to Śravaṇa. According to Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, Saṁvatsara or New Year commenced from the full moon at Uttara Phālguni Nakśatra and ended when moon was in Pūrva Phālgunī Nakśatra.82 Thus, Uttara Phālgunī was the face of Saṁvatsara and Pūrva Phālgunī was the tail end of Saṁvatsara. The fifth year of five-year Yuga cycle had thirteen months, including one intercalary month of Pauṣa. Therefore, the first full moon of Saṁvatsara (the first year of five-year Yuga cycle) occurred in Uttara Phālgunī."

"Interestingly, Gopatha Brāhmaṇa refers to gold, silver, iron, lead and alloys.94"

"Lagadha’s Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa (8400 BCE)

"It is generally misinterpreted by many scholars that Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa fixes winter solstice at the beginning of Śraviṣṭhā Nakśatra and summer solstice at the middle of Āśleṣā Nakśatra. This misinterpretation leads to a date around 1400 BCE. In fact, there is enough evidence to establish that Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa calendar has been traditionally followed starting from the post-Vedic period to the Mahābhārata era (3162 BCE). Moreover, Sūrya, Parāśara and Vriddha Āryabhaṭa Siddhāntas were well established before 3101 BCE. The Mahābhārata clearly indicates the knowledge of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. Therefore, it would be chronologically a blunder to date Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa around 1400 BCE.

"Vedas and Brāhmaṇas unambiguously indicate the beginning of Saṁvatsara in Śarad season. Therefore, the reference of Viṣuvat or Udagayana must be interpreted as autumnal equinox and not as winter solstice. Gopatha Brāhmaṇa mentions the beginning of Saṁvatsara from Viṣuvat (equinox).99 It also states that the period from vernal equinox to autumnal equinox is the Dakśiṇa Pakśa and the period from autumnal equinox to vernal equinox is the Uttara Pakśa. Therefore, the statement “ayanam hyudak” of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa100 must be interpreted as the autumnal equinox. There are two versions of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, Rigveda Jyotiṣa (thirty-six verses) and Yajurveda Jyotiṣa (forty-four verses). The second verse of Rigveda Jyotiṣa indicates that Śuchi had compiled the jyotiṣa of Lagadha Muni. Evidently, Lagadha was not the real author of the available text of Rigveda Jyotiṣa. The available Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa might have been recompiled around 4000-3000 BCE because it refers to Tapas month of Śiśira season as the beginning of New Year."

But then, Dakśiṇa Pakśa is different from Dakśiṇaayana, latter being from roughly summer solstice to its counterpart, or more precisely the half year ending in 14th or 15th of January.

"Yāska assigns 1000 Yugas to the day of Brahma. The concept of Mahāyuga and Manvantara evolved after 6777 BCE. Śaunaka’s Brihaddevatā and Rikprātiśākhya quotes Yāska and Yāska refers to Śaunaka’s Rikprātiśākhya (6500 BCE) in his Taittirīya Anukramaṇī. The Mahābhārata also refers to Yāska.102 Seemingly, Yāska and Śaunaka were contemporaries. Therefore, Yāska must be dated around 6500 BCE."

"While referring to the procedural importance in performance of Vedic rituals, Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra mentions a battle in which the Kurus were driven out of Kurukshetra.103 Western historians have speculated this battle to be the Mahābhārata War. It is totally absurd to imagine that the Kurus were driven out of Kurukshetra after the Mahābhārata War because Pāndavas were also the Kurus. In fact, Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra refers to an ancient battle that occurred between the Kurus and the Pāñchālas in which the Kurus were driven out of Kurukshetra. Most probably, the early Kurus were driven out of Kurukshetra around 10500 BCE. The Kurus might have migrated westwards to North-central Pakistan. Mahabharata’s Adiparva relates that a Pāñchāla king invaded the Kuru kingdom with an army that consisted of ten Akśauhiṇīs. King Saṁvaraṇa had no other option to leave his kingdom and settled on the banks of Indus River."

"The Bāhlīka, Kuru, Pāñchāla, Kosala, Ayodhya (Ikśvāku) and Videha were the major kingdoms (from west to east) in North India during the period 9000-4500 BCE. The later Kurus had emerged as powerful rulers in North India around 4200 BCE. Thus, the later Kurus belonged to the Mahābhārata era (3250-3100 BCE). Therefore, there is no reference of the Mahābhārata War in Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra.

"Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra refers to ten different Vedas and links them to ten historical personalities."

"Dharmasūtras of Vedas (7000-5000 BCE)

Ridiculously enough, jealousy of someone as beautiful as Aishwarya Rai has given rise to a phalanx of the 'me too' brigade calling India racist!

"Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra (6500 BCE)

"Baudhāyana refers to Aupajaṅghani, Gautama Prajāpati, Kaśyapa, Manu and Maudgalya. Śabara Swāmi Bhāṣya on Pūrva Mīmāṅsā (1.3.3) refers to Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra.

"Vishnu Dharmasūtra (6200 BCE)

"Vishnu Dharmasūtra belongs to the Katha branch of Krishna Yajurveda. It contains 100 chapters and is written in mixed prose and verse. It also contains few verses of Manusmriti, Yājñavalkyasmriti and Bhagavadgītā. Seemingly, someone from Bhāgavatas added these verses in Vishnu Dharmasūtra during the Gupta period.

"Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (5650 BCE)

"Most probably, Vasiṣṭha of the Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE) was the author of Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra. He refers to Manu, Gautama, Yama and Prajāpati. He also refers to the Dharmasūtra written by Bhāllavin. Śatapatha, Taittirīya, Maitrāyaṇīya Brāhmaṇas are referred to in Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra. While giving the geographical information of the land of Brahmavarchasa (India), Vasiṣṭha and Bhallavi Dharmasūtras state that starting from Sindhu River in the West, as far as Krishna Mriga (blackbuck) grazes, the land is called Brahmavarchasa (Yāvad krishnamrigo vicharati tad Brahmavarchasam). Ancient Indians knew that blackbuck is only found in India, Nepal and Pakistan. It indicates that ancient Indians also had rough knowledge of fauna found in foreign lands."

"Upavedas

"Śaunaka’s Charaṇa Vyūha (6500 BCE) mentions that according to Veda Vyāsa or Skanda, Āyurveda of Rigveda, Dhanurveda of Yajurveda, Gāndharva Veda of Sāmaveda and Arthaśāstra of Atharvaveda were known as Upavedas. Cḥāndogyopaniṣad refers to Āyurveda as Bhūtavidyā, Dhanurveda as Kśatravidyā and Arthaśāstra as Nidhi. Sāmagāna (singing of Sāmaveda verses) was an integral part of Vedic rituals since the early Vedic period. Probably, Gāndharvas had better skills and knowledge of music. Therefore, the music theory of Vedic times came to be known as Gāndharvaveda.

Atri, Dhanvantari, Kaśyapa and Atharvan were the founders of Ayurvedic science in India. The work of Rishi Atharvan and his disciples is limited to Atharvaveda. Atri was the first teacher of Ātreya or Charaka Saṁhitā, Kaśyapa was the first teacher of Kāśyapa Saṁhitā and Dhanvantari was the first teacher of Dhanvantari or Suśruta Saṁhitā. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact authorship and the time of these Saṁhitās because they were periodically updated.

Āyurveda: Ātreya Saṁhitā or Charaka Saṁhitā

According to Charaka Saṁhitā, Brahma passed on the knowledge of Āyurveda through Dakśa Prajāpati, Aśvinī Kumāras and Indra to Rishi Atri. Rishi Punarvasu Ātreya, known as Krishna Ātreya, a descendant of Atri, had six disciples: Agniveśa, Bhela, Jatūkarṇa, Parāśara, Hārīta and Kśārapāṇi. We can roughly fix the date of Agniveśa around 11180 BCE. As stated in the Mahābhārata, Krishna Ātreya was the founder of Āyurveda.

"Dhanvantari (10950 BCE) and Suśruta Saṁhitā

"It is well known that Kāshi King Divodāsa Dhanvantari was the founder of a branch of Āyurveda. The genealogy of Dhanvantari is given in Purāṇas:"

"Seemingly, Dhanvantari, Ātreya, Kaśyapa and Bharadwāja – the founders of Āyurveda branches – were all contemporaries. Dhanvantari had many disciples, like Suśruta, Aupadhenava, Vaitaraṇa, Aurabhra, Pauṣkalāvata, Karavirya, Gopurarakśita, Bhoja and more. Suśruta (10900 BCE) was the first who wrote a treatise on Dhanvantari’s Āyurveda. Most probably, Suśruta’s descendants had compiled Suśruta Saṁhitā around 9000 BCE. Some glimpses of Suśruta Saṁhitā could be found in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (8800 BCE). The Mahābhārata tells us that Suśruta was the son of Rishi Viśvāmitra. Kātyāyana (1670-1580 BCE), the author of Vārtikas on Pāṇini Sūtras, mentions Suśruta Saṁhitā. In all probability, Suśruta Saṁhitā of 9000 BCE was recompiled and updated during the period of Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE). This updated Suśruta Saṁhitā had five books (Sūtrasthāna, Nidānasthāna, Śarīrasthāna, Kalpasthāna and Chikitsāsthāna) and 120 Chapters.

"Dalhaṇa

"Dalhaṇa (5th century CE), a commentator on Suśruta Saṁhitā mentions that Nāgārjuna redacted and updated Suśruta Saṁhitā. Nāgārjuna added Uttaratantra that contains Śālākya, Kaumārabhritya, Kāyachikitsā and Bhūtavidyā. Thus, the available Suśruta Saṁhitā has 186 chapters. Most probably, Nāgārjuna of Kashmir might have updated Suśruta Saṁhitā but we have no details of his lifetime."

Kāśyapa Saṁhitā (~6700-6500 BCE)

"Kāśyapa Saṁhitā is also known as Vriddha Jīvaka Tantra. Vātsya was the author of the extant text. The main subject of this Saṁhitā is Kaumārabritya (Pediatrics). Kaśyapa, the disciple of Indra, was the founder of Kaśyapa branch of Āyurveda. Bharata Nātyaśāstra indicates that Vātsya was a son of Bharata Muni.

"It is extremely difficult to fix a date of the available Kāśyapa Saṁhitā. It refers to Sarasvati River as Pratīchigā (flowing towards West), which clearly indicates that Vātsya wrote this Saṁhitā much before the Mahābhārata era. Sarasvati River had dried up around 3000 BCE. Interestingly, there is a lot of geographical information in the chapter ‘Bhojana-Kalpa’ of Kalpasthāna. According to Kāshyapa Saṁhitā, Madhyadeśa was bound by the River Sarasvati in Kurukshetra, Vindhya and Antarveda (GangaYamuna doab). Pāñchāla, Kuru, Matsya, Yaudheya, Pātacchara, Kunti and Śūrasena were the janapadas of Madhyadeśa. The janapadas of Pūrva Deśa were Kumāravartini, Kativarṣa, Magadha, Tāmralipta, Riṣabha Dvīpa, Paunḍravardhanaka, Mrittkavardhamānaka, Karvata, Mātaṅga, Chīra, Priyaṅgu, Kosala, Kaliṅga and Priṣṭhapuraka. The janapadas of Dakśiṇa Deśa were Kāñchīpada, Navadhvana, Kavira, Kumuda Rājya, Chiripali, Chīra Rajya, Pulinda, Vānavāsi, Karaghāta, Videha, Kāntāra, Varāha and Ābhīra. It refers to Sārasvata, Sindhu, Sauviraka, Kāshi, Daśārṇa, Dāseraka, Rāmana, Kashmira, Śatasāra and Bāhlīka regions. It also mentions China and Apara China countries. The geographical information also indicates a date before the Mahābhārata War."

"Vasiṣṭha’s Dhanurveda Saṁhitā (5600 BCE)

"Dhanurveda, also known as Kśatravidyā, has been an important subject of study since Vedic period. Vasiṣṭha’s Dhanurveda Saṁhitā and Śukranīti are the oldest known texts of Dhanurveda. Vasiṣṭha associated Dhanurveda with both Yajurveda and Atharvaveda. Agni Purāṇa and Sāmrājya Lakshmī Pīthikā, a Śaiva tantra text, also contain some chapters on Dhanurveda.

"Most probably, Vasiṣṭha of Tretā Yuga must have compiled Dhanurveda Saṁhitā around 6700 BCE. Some verses of the available Vasiṣṭha’s Dhanurveda Saṁhitā appear to be reconstructed by someone based on fragments of original Dhanurveda, around 1000-1400 BCE because one śloka uses the word “Gadh” for fort. The word “Cḥatrapati” is also found in this text. However, Dhaurveda has a very ancient tradition. Dhanurveda existed during the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata eras. Nārada asks Yudhiṣṭhira if Dhanurveda Sūtra was studied in his house.112 Evidently, a sūtra text of Dhanurveda was extant during the Mahābhārata era. The Mahābhārata narrates ten aṅgas of Dhanurveda: Ādāna, Sandhāna, Mokśaṇa, Vinivartana, Sthāna, Muṣṭi, Prayoga, Prāyaśchitta, Mandala and Rahasya.113 According to Agni Purāṇa, Yantramukta, Pāṇimukta, Muktasandhārita, Amukta and Bāhuyuddha are the aṅgas of Dhanurveda.114

"Seemingly, there were many āchāryas of Dhanurveda. Vasiṣṭha’s Dhanurveda Saṁhitā refers to Viśvāmitra, Paraśurāma, Kaśyapa, Parāśara, Śārṅgadhara, Bhārata and Garga. Agastya also taught Dhanurveda to Agniveśa. According to Ādi Parva of the Mahābhārata, Rishi Śaradvān was an exponent of Dhanurveda. He taught it to Kripa. There is also a treatise named Śiva Dhanurveda that refers to Vyāsa (Bhagavato Vyāsasya)."

"Gāndharva Veda

"Classical music and dance is the subject of Gāndharva Veda. Brahma and Nārada were the founders of the science of Gāndharva Veda. According to tradition, Śiva was also the originator of Nāṭya (Dance), Gīta (Music) and Vāditra (musical instruments), as also stated in the Mahābhārata’s Śānti Parva (Gītavāditratattvajño Gītavādanakapriyaḥ).115 Gāndharva Veda is associated with Sāmaveda. Seemingly, Gāndharvas were the first who mastered the art of music and established it as an important subject of study. Therefore, the science of music and dance came to be known as Gāndharva Veda. Naṭasūtras of Śilālin and Kriṣāśva were the earliest texts of Gāndharva Veda as referred to by Pāṇini. Nārada, Bharata, Dattila, Nandikeśvara and Mātaṅga were the early āchāryas of Gāndharva Veda.

"Nārada (6600-6000 BCE)

"Nārada was the founder of Gāndharva Śāstra as indicated by Dattila. A descendant of Nārada might have written “Sangīta Makaranda” in Tretā Yuga. Sangita Makaranda refers to Bharata (Ya sa prakrti-vijñena Bharatena cha charchitā । vikruti cha niṣādādi ṣadjāntara-svara pūritaḥ॥). It also refers to ancient Gāndharvagrāma.

"Bharata’s Nāṭyaveda or Nāṭyaśāstra (6700-6000 BCE)

"Bharata Muni wrote Nāṭyaveda or Nāṭyaśāstra at the onset of Tretā Yuga of Vaivasvata Manu and taught it to his sons. I have already established that the Tretā Yuga commenced around 6777 BCE. Therefore, we can fix the date of Bharata Muni around 6700-6500 BCE. Nāṭyaśāstra also indicates that Devas, Dānavas, Gāndharvas, Yakśas, Rākśasas and Nāgas had their kingdoms in Jambūdvīpa during his lifetime. The kingdoms of Rākśasas and Dānavas declined after the Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE.)"

"Brihaddeśī of Mātaṅga Muni (5650 BCE)

"According to Rāmāyaṇa, Śabarī was the pupil of Mātaṅga Muni who was residing at the foot of Riṣyamūka (Sringeri) Hill. The Rāmāyaṇa also indicates that the Ashrama of Mātaṅga Muni was located on the banks of Pampā Lake.119 The Mahābhārata also refers to Mātaṅga Muni.120 Kalidāsa’s Raghuvaṁśa also indicates that Mātaṅga Muni was the contemporary of the kings of Raghu Dynasty.121

"Most probably, Mātaṅga Muni of the Rāmāyaṇa era was the author of Brihaddeśī. Mātaṅga refers to Nārada, Bharata, Kohala, Dattila and Nandikeśvara. He mentions “Deśabhāṣā”, a local language of South India."

" ... In all probability, all āchāryas of Arthaśāstra mentioned in the Mahābhārata lived before the Rāmāyaṇa era. Vidura of the Mahābhārata era also wrote a Nītiśāstra. Later, Chāṇakya or Kautilya wrote a treatise on Arthaśāstra and a Nītiśāstra.

"Kāmandaka Nītiśāstra and Kāmandaka Nītisāra

"Rishi Kāmandaka was the author of a Nītiśāstra that is not available today. The Mahābhārata refers to Rishi Kāmandaka and his dialogue with King Aṅgāriṣṭha.124 Evidently, Kāmandaka and Aṅgāriṣṭha lived before the Mahābhārata era; Kāmandaka lived even before the Rāmāyaṇa era. King Aṅgāra was the king of Gāndhāra and a contemporary of King Yuvanāśva, father of Māndhātā. Most probably, Aṅgāriṣṭha was also a later king of Gāndhāra of pre-Rāmāyaṇa era.

"An unknown scholar wrote “Kāmandaka Nītisāra” during the reign of King Chandragupta. He wrote Kāmandaka Nītisāra based on ancient text Kāmandakīya Nītiśāstra and Kautilya Arthaśāstra. He mentioned the name of Vishnugupta (Chāṇakya). Evidently, he lived after the Maurya period. A Sanskrit text called “Kāmandakīya Nīti” was available in Bali of Indonesia in ancient times but it is not known whether it was the original Kāmandakīya Nītiśāstra or Kāmandaka Nītisāra. In all probability, the King Chandragupta referred to in Kāmandaka Nītisāra belonged to the Nāga dynasty who conquered up to Bāhlīka (beyond Takśaśilā) and erected the Iron Pillar at Delhi. He was well known as Sandrokottus in Greek sources and a contemporary of Alexander. I have critiqued the chronology of western kingdoms in my book titled “The Origin of the Christian Era: Fact or Fiction” and conclusively established that there is a chronological error of 660 years in the world history. In fact, Jesus was born on 10th Jan 660 BCE and not in 1 CE. Accordingly, I have fixed the date of Alexander around 990-982 BCE.

"Interestingly, Greek legends relate the story of an Indian philosopher who lived in the woods of Takśaśilā. Aristotle told Alexander about the fame of this Indian philosopher known as Dandamis. Firdausi’s Shahnama refers to the same legend but names the Indian philosopher as Mandanes. When Alexander occupied Takśaśilā, he sent Onescratus to bring Dandamis to his court but Dandamis refused to meet Alexander. Finally, Alexander went to the woods of Takśaśilā to meet Dandamis, the Indian philosopher. Since he was the author of Kāmandaka Nītisāra, therefore, Persian sources probably referred to him as Mandanes. In all probability, Dandamis or Mandanes was the author of Kāmandaka Nītisāra. Seemingly, his name was Danḍiswāmi, which was referred to as Dandamis in Greek sources. Thus, we can fix the date of the author of Kāmandaka Nītisara around 1050-960 BCE."

"Manusmriti (5000-4500 BCE)

"Manusmriti originated from Mānava Dharmasūtra. The extant Manusmriti refers to the Chaturyuga of 12000 Years.125 I have not found the concept of Chaturyuga of 12000 years in Dharmasūtras. Seemingly, the concept of a Yuga cycle of 1200 years evolved after 6777 BCE and the concept of divine Yuga of 12000 years evolved after the Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE). Manusmriti refers to the Liccḥavis. The progenitor of the Liccḥavi was the eighth descendant of Sri Rāma. Evidently, the extant Manusmriti was finally recompiled after the Rāmāyaṇa era around 5000-4500 BCE."

"All Pravara gotras had been originated before the Rāmāyaṇa era or at least before the Mahābhārata era. There is not a single Pravara gotra which originated after the Mahābhārata era. Evidently, there were two Pāṇinis."

" ... Varṣa, Upavarṣa, Pāṇini, Piṅgala, Vyādi, Vararuchi and Patañjali became renowned scholars in Pātaliputra as stated in Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṁsā (Śruyate cha Pātaliputre Śāstrakāra-parīkśā – atropavarṣa-Varṣāviha Pāṇini-Piṅgalāviha Vyādiḥ, Vararuchi-Patañjali iha Parīkśitāḥ khyātimupajagmuḥ….). Though Vararuchi Kātyāyana was the pupil of Varṣa, he later became the follower of Pāṇini II."

" ... Pāṇini II had succeeded in presenting entire Sanskrit grammar in 3996 sūtras with minimum words possible. Thus, Pāṇinian grammar gradually became more popular than Aindra Vyākaraṇa. The reference of Pūrvasūtras in Mahābhāṣya, and the manuscript of twenty-four Pāṇinīya sūtras found in Gujarat, indicates that Pāṇini II might have edited and recomposed the sūtras of Pūrva-Pāṇinīya Śāstra and presented them in his magnam opus “Aṣṭādhyāyī”. Pāṇini II was also the author of Dhātupātha, Ganapātha, Uṇādipātha and Lingānuśāsana. He also wrote a Kāvya named Jāmbavatī Vijaya also known as Pātāla Vijaya. Undoubtedly, Pāṇini I (7000 BCE) was the original author of Pāṇinīya-Śikśā in verses. Tolkāppiyam, an ancient text of Tamil Vyākaraṇa, contains the translation of some sūtras of Pāṇinīya Śikśā. ... "

"Piṅgala II was the younger brother of Pāṇini II as mentioned by Ṣaḍguruśiṣya (tathā cha sūtryate Bhagavatā Piṅgalena Pāṇinyānujena…). Mahābhāṣya says that Pāṇini’s brother Piṅgala also wrote a treatise on Pāṇinīya Śikśā (Jyeṣṭhabhrātribhirvihite vyākaraṇe anujastatra Bhagavān Piṅgalāchāryastanmatamanubhāvya Śikśām vaktum pratijānīte…). Seemingly, Piṅgala II (1665-1580 BCE) edited and recompiled the Cḥandasūtras of Rishi Piṅgalanāga tradition in eight chapters."

"Vasiṣṭha, the Founder of Brahmavidyā and Yoga

"Vasiṣṭha Saṁhitā (Yoga Kānda) also relates the philosophy of Aṣṭāṅga Yoga. Vasiṣṭha’s Aṣṭāṅga Yoga is a little different from that of Patañjali. Most probably, Aṣṭāṅgas of Yoga evolved before the lifetime of Patañjali. The available Vasiṣṭha Saṁhitā might have been written around Rāmāyaṇa era. Śānḍilya Saṁhitā and Sūta Saṁhitā claim that Śānḍilya and Sūta were the pupils of Vyāsa, the great grandson of Vasiṣṭha. Śānḍilya Saṁhitā indicates that Brahmarāta and Madhu were also the pupils of Vyāsa. Yājñavalkya was the son of Brahmarāta. Thus, the treatise of Yogayājñavalkya also related to the tradition of Vasiṣṭha. The Mahābhārata’s Śāntiparva mentions that Vasiṣṭha (11200 BCE) learnt Yoga from Rishi Hiraṇyagarbha. Ādi Śaṅkara also mentions Vasiṣṭha as the founder of the Vedanta philosophy."

"Vaiśeṣika Sūtras (~4500-4000 BCE)

"Kaṇāda, the founder of Vaiśeṣika philosophy, was the descendant of Kaśyapa gotra. Vaiśeṣika Darśana was also known as Aulūkya Tantra. Seemingly, Rishi Ulūka (11150 BCE) of Viśvāmitra gotra taught it to Kaṇāda. The Mahābhārata indicates that Ulūka was the son of Rishi Viśvāmitra.149 The descendants of Rishi Ulūka were also known as Ulūkas. Vāyu Purāṇa indicates that Soma Sharma’s sons Akśapāda, Kaṇāda and Ulūka lived in the twenty-eighth Dvāpara Yuga, i.e., after the Rāmāyaṇa era.150 Thus, we can roughly fix the date of Vaiśeṣika sūtras around 4500- 4000 BCE.

"Śilpa or Sthāpatya Śāstras

"According to the Mahābhārata’s Śānti Parva, Śiva was the founder of Śilpa Śāstra ( ... ).151 Viśvakarmā Vāstuśāstra, Kaśyapa Śilpaśāstra, Nārada Śilpaśāstra and Mayamata were the ancient texts of Śilpaśāstra. Viśvakarmā Vāstuśāstra refers to Krittikādi twentyeight Nakśatras.152 Abhijit was excluded from the list of Nakśatras around 9000-8000 BCE. Evidently, the earliest version of Viśvakarmā Vāstuśāstra was written around 9200-8200 BCE."

"The Date of Mayasura’s Sūrya Siddhānta (6778 BCE)

"After the great flood (11200 BCE), the descendants of Pulastya Rishi (known as Rakśasas or Asuras) living in the Saurashtra region probably migrated to South India and Sri Lanka. These Asuras were the ancestors of Rāvaṇa of the Rāmāyaṇa era. Mayāsura wrote Sūrya Siddhānta at the end of Krita Yuga in 6778 BCE. There was a conjunction of Sun, Moon and all planets in Meṣa Rāśi (Aries) during the lifetime of Mayāsura. This conjunction took place on 22nd Feb 6778 BCE, Sunday. Evidently, Maya considered this rare astronomical event as an epoch and authored his Sūrya Siddhānta in 6778 BCE.

"Sh. Anil Narayanan has used computer simulation of Nakśatra latitudinal data by varying ecliptic-obliquity, ecliptic-node-location and ecliptic-sink together with proper motion, and concluded that Sūrya Siddhānta obtained latitudinal data in the timeframe of 7300-7800 BCE.154 Seemingly, Indian astronomers of the period 7500-7300 BCE acquired the fresh latitudinal data and updated the Paitāmaha and Vasiṣṭha Siddhāntas. Maya, the great Asura obtained the same latitudinal data and invented the concept of epicycle that revolutionized Indian astronomy. Maya was the first to introduce the epicycle method in astronomical calculations.

"Mayāsura was the founder of the sixty-year cycle consisting of five twelve-year cycles of Jupiter. All cycles of sixty years or twelve years in the world follow the epoch of Tretā Yuga, i.e., 6777-6776 BCE. Abul Fazal mentions that an ancient Turkish era calendar, also known as Aighuri, was based on a twelve-year cycle. Although the commencement of this era is not known, yet the year of the cycle can be easily found if we add seven years to the imperfect years of the Maliki era and divide it by twelve. Abu Rayhan says that the Turks add nine to the incomplete Syro-Macedonean years and divide it by twelve. According to Jesuit records, the first sixtyyear cycle began in February 3058 BC. Ancient China and Tibet also used the cycle of sixty years. The first year of current Chinese cycle was 1984 CE; whereas the first year of current Tibetan cycle was 1987 CE.

"Seemingly, Ancient Brahma Siddhānta introduced the cycle of twelve years and sixty years in 6773 BCE. The tradition of Simhastha Kumbha (Jupiter in Leo) of Ujjain and Nasik is the oldest because the first twelve-year cycle commenced when Jupiter entered Kanyā Rāśi (Virgo) and ended when Jupiter was in Simha Rāśi (Leo). Thus, 6773 BCE was the Prabhava Saṁvatsara in Brahma Siddhānta, whereas 6778 BCE was the Prabhava Saṁvatsara in Mayāsura’s Sūrya Siddhānta. Āryabhaṭa refers to the epoch of 6773 BCE and says that sixty cycles of sixty years elapsed in 3173 BCE. Though Lāṭadeva, a disciple of Āryabhaṭa introduced the concept of expunging of one year in every cycle in his version of Sūrya Siddhānta written in 3101 BCE, common people generally followed the tradition of Brahma Siddhānta. This is the reason why 1987 CE was the Prabhava Saṁvatsara in the current sixty-year cycle in India. Evidently, Tibetans also followed the cycle of Brahma Siddhānta.

"Seemingly, the Turkish and Chinese traditions followed the epoch of 6777-6776 BCE. If we add nine years to the epoch of Syro-Macedonian era (972 BCE), the first year of the twelve-year cycle was 981 BCE, as indicated by Abu Rayhan. If we add seven years to the epoch of the Maliki era (417 CE), the first year of the sixty-year cycle was 424 CE. The first year of the current Chinese cycle was 1984 CE. Evidently, the Turkish twelve-year cycle, the sixty-year cycle of the Maliki era, and the ancient Chinese cycle of sixty-years are based on the epoch of 6777-6776 BCE. Therefore, Māyasura was the founder of the cycle of twelve years and the cycle of sixty years."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 04, 2024 - May 08, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 5: 205

Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE) and the Age of Rāmāyana (5677-5577 BCE)

................................................................................................

" ... The Mahābhārata’s Droṇa Parva refers to a Vālmiki of Bhrigu gotra. Udyoga Parva also refers to Vālmiki, a descendant of Garuda, son of Kaśyapa’s wife Vinatā and a devotee of Vishnu. Thus, there were two lineages of Vālmiki: Bhrigu and Kaśyapa. Skanda Purāṇa and Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa relate that Vālmiki was born to Brahmana parents and was brought up by Kirātas. He was a robber by profession in his youth but became a rishi later. Seemingly, Vālmiki II, the author of the Rāmāyaṇa originally belonged to the Kaśyapa gotra but was brought up by Kirātas.

"The Astronomical Dating of Rāmāyaṇa

"Sh. Pushkar Bhatnagar, Sh. PV Vartak and Sh. Nilesh Oak had attempted to calculate the birth date of Rāma based on internal astronomical evidence. The proposed dates of the birth date of Rāma are as under:

"1. Sh. Pushkar Bhatnagar – 10th Jan 5114 BCE

"2. Sh. PV Vartak – 4th Dec 7323 BCE

"3. Sh. Nilesh Oak – 29th Nov 12240 BCE."

"The Traditional Date of the Rāmāyaṇa (5677-5577 BCE)

"It is traditionally recorded that Rāma was born in the Tretā Yuga. The Mahābhārata mentions that the Rāmāyaṇa occurred at the end of Tretā Yuga. As stated in Ādi Parva, Sri Rāma flourished during the last centuries of Tretā Yuga ... The epoch of Tretā Yuga commenced around 6777 BCE, considering the epoch of Kritayugānta in 6778-6777 BCE as indicated in Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta. The sixty-year cycle and the Yuga of 1200 years were introduced in 6777 BCE. Thus, we can roughly fix the period of Tretā Yuga around 6777-5577 BCE and the date of the Rāmāyaṇa around 5677-5577 BCE, i.e., in the last century of Tretā Yuga. Seemingly, the concept of differential duration of Yugas had been introduced in the Dvāpara Yuga. The Mahabharata, the epic written in the beginning of Kaliyuga, refers to 2400 years of Dvāpara Yuga. Therefore, we have to consider the Dvāpara Yuga of 2400 years and fix its period around 5577-3177 BCE. Thus, traditional evidence indicates the date of the Rāmāyaṇa to be around 5677-5577 BCE – at the end of Tretā Yuga.

Purāṇas speculate Vālmiki to be the 24th Vyāsa who lived in the 24th Dvāpara Yuga, and mention that Sri Rāma flourished at the end of the 24th Tretā Yuga. Historically, there were many Vyāsas but the imaginary concept of twenty-eight Vyāsas was introduced only in the Gupta period. It is illogical to believe that Parāśara, the father of Vyāsa, lived in the 26th Dvāpara Yuga; Jātūkarṇya, the teacher of Vyāsa, lived in the 27th Dvāpara Yuga; and Vyāsa himself lived in the 28th Dvāpara Yuga. Ironically, Purānas did not explain how Vālmiki, a contemporary of Sri Rāma of the 24th Tretā Yuga lived in the 24th Dvāpara Yuga. Thus, there is no traditional or literary evidence to support the date of Vālmiki in the 24th Dvāpara Yuga. Therefore, we can ignore the speculative concept of twenty-eight Vyāsas.

The Birth Date of Rāma and the Exaltation of Planets Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa gives the details of the birth dates of Rāma, Bharata, Lakśmaṇa and Śatrughna.1 Rāma was born on the ninth tithi of the twelfth month, i.e., Chaitra month, Punarvasu Nakśatra, Karkaṭa lagna. All five planets were exalted on the birth date of Rāma. Bharata was born in Puṣya Nakśatra and Mīna lagna. Lakśmaṇa and Śatrughna were born in Aśleṣa Nakśatra and Kulīra (Karkaṭa) lagna."

"It would be pertinent to establish the chronological history of Indian astrology before discussing the exaltation of planets. The available text of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa was written in Laukika Anuṣṭup meter by Śuchi. Though Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa refers to Lagna and Rāśi, it is mostly devoted to Muhūrta Nirṇaya for fixing the precise timings of Vedic rituals. Evidently, early Vedic astrology was limited to Muhūrta Nirṇaya. Though the planets were known to the Vedic rishis at least since later Rigvedic era, they were not part of Vedic astrology. The Arundhati-Vasiṣṭha observation (~10000 BCE) and the Rohiṇī Śakaṭa Bheda observation (9800-9300 BCE) as bad omens clearly indicate the beginning of Indian astrology around 9000 BCE.

"Maya’s Sūrya Siddhānta (6778 BCE) was the beginning of the evolution of Siddhantic Indian astronomy. A branch of Paitāmaha Siddhānta had also introduced the sixty-year cycle based on the Jovian cycle of twelve years and the Chaitrādi calendar, and followed the same epoch of 6778-6777 BCE when Jupiter was in Aśvinī Nakśatra. This new branch of Paitāmaha Siddhānta came to be known as Brahma Siddhānta later. The traditional Paitāmaha Siddhānta had introduced the Saptarṣi cycle of 2700 years in 6777 BCE, assuming the hypothetical position of Saptarṣis in Aśvinī Nakśatra around 6777-6677 BCE, and continued the use of traditional five-year Yuga cycle, the Māgha Śuklādi calendar and the scheme of Pauṣa-Āṣāḍha intercalation. Nārada Siddhānta followed the Chaitrādi calendar whereas Bhāradwāja Siddhānta followed Māgha Śuklādi calendar as indicated in Sumatītantra and Adhimāsa Prakaraṇa of Dharmanirṇaya-tithi-sārasaṅgraha.2 Instead of the periodic intercalation (after every two and a half years) as explained in Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, the Paitāmaha, Nārada and Bhāradwāja Siddhāntas of Tretā Yuga had introduced a new scheme of intercalation in which any months without a saṅkrānti in Uttarāyaṇa period would give the Pauṣa intercalation, and in Dakśiṇāyana the Āṣāḍha intercalation. Interestingly, the Liccḥavi inscriptions of the 1st millennium BCE followed the intercalation scheme of Paitāmaha and Nārada Siddhāntas as explained by Sh. Shankaraman Rajavamsi.3 Seemingly, the Vasiṣṭha Siddhānta was introduced around 5977 BCE – 800 years after 6777 BCE. According to tradition, the Vasiṣṭha Siddhānta commenced around 1299101 BCE, 432000 years before the beginning of Dvāpara Yuga. It indicates that the epoch of Vasiṣṭha Siddhānta commenced when two-thirds of the Tretā Yuga of 1200 years (6777-5577 BCE) had elapsed. Thus, the Vasiṣṭha Siddhānta was introduced around 5977 BCE. The Romaka Siddhānta was also introduced in Tretā Yuga, after 6777 BCE. The Pauliṣa Siddhānta might have been established during the Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3177 BCE), around 4300-4000 BCE. Thus, we can conclusively fix the date of the beginning of Indian Siddhantic astronomy around 6778 BCE."

Author argues that planetary exaltation of horoscope of Rāma was never in original epic by Vālmīki, but inserted later.

"A Comet in Mūla Nakśatra:

" ... Sh. Nilesh Oak mistakenly assumes that the Chaitra month of the Rāmāyaṇa era appeared during the peak of Śarad season but Vālmiki clearly indicates the performance of “Agrāyaṇa” ritual just before the beginning of the Hemanta season. The entire Vedic tradition indicates that the Agrāyaṇa ritual can be performed only in accordance with the Māghādi calendar (Amānta or Pūrṇimānta) of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa calendar.

"The Date of Birth of Sri Rāma

"According to the Rāmāyaṇa, Sri Rāma was 25 years old and Sītā was 18 years old when they left Ayodhyā for Vanavāsa of fourteen years ( ... ).14 The later updaters of Rāmāyaṇa have created some confusion about the age of Sri Rāma and Sītā. According to my research, Sītā was at least in her 13th year when she married Rāma. There was no tradition of child marriage in ancient India. Ayodhyā Kānda clearly indicates that Sītā had already attained the age of menstruation before her marriage ( ... ).15 Anasūyā, the wife of Rishi Atri, gives her instructions to Sītā on the responsibilities of a devoted wife, which also indicates that Sītā was a teenager who can understand her responsibilities. Considering a gap of seven years between the age of Rāma and Sītā, it can be concluded that Rāma was 25 years old when he left Ayodhyā for Vanavāsa and he killed Rāvaṇa when he was 39 years old. As already explained, Rāma-Rāvaṇa Yuddha took place in 5635 BCE. Therefore, Sri Rāma was born on Chaitra Śukla Navamī, i.e., 3rd Feb 5674 BCE. Interestingly, Saturn was in deep exaltation (Libra 26o 52’) on 3rd Feb 5674 BCE."

North of Vindhya, calendars still follow Pūrṇimānta, unlike Maharashtra and South India where it's Amānta.

"Interestingly, the astronomical observation of a comet and a planet in Mūla Nakśatra in the year of Rāma-Rāvaṇa War, and the astrological conjunction of Sun, Mars and Rāhu in the year when Rāma left Ayodhyā for Vanavāsa, lead to the most accurate dating of the events of the Rāmāyaṇa era. The astrological conjunction of Sun, Mars and Rāhu is not only very rare but also to be observed at least a few months before the commencement of Rāma’s Vanavāsa. As explained above, Halley’s Comet along with Venus was visible to naked eye in Mūla Nakśatra around 21st/23rd Aug - 3rd Sep 5635 BCE in the fourteenth year of Rāma’s Vanavāsa, and the disastrous conjunction of Sun, Mars and Rahu took place in Chitrā Nakśatra around 18th Aug - 21 Aug 5649 BCE, before Rāma left Ayodhyā for Vanavāsa on 25th Nov 5649 BCE. There is also a speculation that Rāma left for Vanavāsa on his birthday (Chaitra Śukla Navamī), based on one additional line of a śloka (lagne Karkaṭake prāpte, Janma Rāmasya cha sthite). It is certainly an interpolation or a note written by the later updaters because there was no tradition of writing verses in half or one and a half meter.

"Though the scheme of the exaltation of planets during the Rāmāyaṇa era is not known, Saturn was in Libra (26o 52’) when Rāma was born, on 3rd Feb 5674 BCE, and Jupiter was in Cancer (12o 04’) when Rāma’s coronation was planned, on 24th/ 25th Nov 5649 BCE."

That amounts to Jupiter in cancer 24 years prior to the date fixed for coronation, and this matches the horoscope of Rāma held true by India traditionally.

"Vālmiki mentioned that Triśaṅku (Acrux), Lohintāṅga (Mars), Brihaspati (Jupiter), as also Budha (Mercury) and all other planets assumed a menacing aspect and got stayed with the Moon, and stars ceased to twinkle. Planets were deprived of their splendour. The stars of Viśākhā constellation appeared in Heaven, veiled in a mist when Rāma left Ayodhyā ( ... ).23 Vālmiki was describing the sky of the night on the day Rāma left Ayodhyā. He clearly indicated that Triśaṅku, all planets, Moon and Viśākhā constellation were visible in the sky. Since Rāma left Ayodhyā on 24th/25th Nov 5649 BCE, Vālmiki was describing the night sky of 25th /26th Nov 5649 BCE. Triśaṅku, all planets, Moon and Viśākhā constellation were visible on 25th /26th Nov 5649 BCE before the dawn. Sh. Nilesh Oak could not establish this simple astronomical observation on the date proposed by him therefore he has assumed it to be extremely generic, but the Rāmāyaṇa unambiguously tells us that Triśaṅku, all planets, Moon and Viśākhā constellation were visible in the night sky. As far as the menacing aspect of this observation is concerned, this requires study by an expert astrologer."

No, as to the last bit : an elementary student thereof can establish rectitude, or opposite, of this.

As to menacing aspect and '... Viśākhā constellation appeared in Heaven, veiled in a mist ...', that could be effect of a comet.

"“The princes Rāma and Lakśmaṇa were seen by Sumantra and Guha, as in the sky, the Sun and the Moon are seen in conjunction with Venus and Jupiter.”

"Though it can be explained to be on 14th Feb 5648 BCE, within three months from the day Rāma left Ayodhyā on 25th Nov 5649 BCE, I would strictly refrain from speculating astronomical observations based on metaphorical comparisons. Vālmiki as a poet had the freedom to metaphorically compare the events of the Rāmāyaṇa with the past or current astronomical events. It would be difficult to establish all metaphorical comparisons as current astronomical events. Therefore, we should not consider the statements with “Yathaa” or “Iva” as current astronomical observations."

"I would imagine that Padma Purāṇa counted the total duration of the war from the day Rāma, Lakśmaṇa and Vānara Sena left Kishkindha, to the day Rāma killed Rāvaṇa. ... "

Neither marching from Kishkindha nor counting duration of the war therefrom is reasonable, much less necessary, as a supposition.

"Brahmarāśi and Abhijit

"Sh. Nilesh Oak has quoted the following verse and claimed that Brahmarāśi was another name of Abhijit and Abhijit was the North Pole star during the Rāmāyaṇa era."

" ... the translation of the śloka would be: “The stars of Brahmarāśi and Saptarṣi constellations illuminate revolving round the North celestial pole.”

" ... Rāmāyaṇa has no internal evidence to establish that Brahmarāśi and Abhijit are identical."

" ... According to Zoroastrian history, the Kayanian King Kai Khusrow also travelled in an aerial vehicle (hot air balloon) from Iran to China (Xinxiang)."

" ... Vālmiki had witnessed the philosophical discussions between Vasiṣṭha and Rāma. He authored Vasiṣṭha Rāmāyaṇa or Yoga Vāsiṣṭha and gave it to his disciple Bhāradwāja. Many scholars have attempted to date Yoga Vāsiṣṭha based on the internal evidence. Some scholars claim that Yoga Vāsiṣṭha influenced from the Vijñanavāda and Mādhyamaka schools of Buddhism. Taittirīya Upaniṣad mentions Vijñāna as Brahma (Vijñānam Brahma). Upaniṣads refer to Parā (transcendental consciousness), Paśyantī (intellectual consciousness), Madhyamā (mental consciousness) and Vaikharī (physical consciousness). The ideas of Vijñāna and Madhymā were integral part of Upanishadic philosophy. The schools of Buddhist philosophy have also evolved under the influence of Upanishadic philosophy.

"Some scholars pointed out that a śloka of Yoga Vāsiṣṭha is also identical with a verse in Kālidāsa’s Kumārasambhavam. 51 Therefore, Yoga Vāsiṣṭha was written after Kālidāsa. But it is also possible that Kālidāsa borrowed it from Yoga Vāsiṣṭha. Seemingly, Yoga Vāsiṣṭha was enlarged and recompiled in later times but its antiquity cannot be denied based on some verses added or interpolated in the later period. Therefore, the earliest version of Yoga Vāsiṣṭha was written by Vālmiki around 5600 BCE. The concise versions of Yoga Vāsiṣṭha, like Mokśopāya and Laghu Yogavāsiṣṭha, were written by Kashmiri scholars. Mokśopāya refers to Kashmir King Yaśaskara and his minister Narasimha. Laghu Yogavāsiṣṭha was written by Abhinanda."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 08, 2024 - May 09, 2024.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 6: 243

Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3176 BCE) and the Epoch of Mahābhārata War (3162 BCE)