Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 05-30-2006, 07:00 AM   #1

Join Date
Oct 2005
Senior Member
Some Indian Scholars based on this reference computed the Year of this War using the fictitious "System of Yuga-Time Calculations" as found in Ancient Hindu Scriptures of the North India, concluded that this War actully took place more than 17 millions of years ago. So can we safely conclude those are false? Is there any proof for this so far for this million trillion theory?
Raj_Copi_Jin is offline

Old 08-22-2012, 02:49 AM   #2

Join Date
Mar 2008
Senior Member
Default A Brief Study on the Actual Age of the Sanskrit Raamaayana of Sage/Poet Vaalmiki

A Brief Study on the Actual Age of the Sanskrit Raamaayana of Sage/Poet Vaalmiki

The Sanskrit Hindu Scripture the "Vayupurana" belonging to the period of Gupta dynasty (A.D.320-550) of North india states the Raamaayana War came to an end in the 24th Treta Yuga. Some Indian Scholars based on this reference computed the Year of this War using the fictitious "System of Yuga-Time Calculations" as found in Ancient Hindu Scriptures of the North India, concluded that this War actully took place more than 17 millions of years ago.

Further from the Astronomical Informations found in the Sanskrit Raamaayana of Sage/Poet Vaalmiki, the Indian Research Scholar Dr P.V.Vartak has concluded that the Raamaayana War came to an end in the year B.C.7292.

Also the modern Historical Scholars of India and the West have given the following dates as the "Vedic Period of North India" based on their own Research Studies:

(1) Dr Romila Thappar - B.C.1500-500
(2) Dr Radha Kumud Mookerjee - Period between B.C.1500-600.
(3) A.L.Basham - period between B.C.1500-700
(4) N.Jayapalan - B.C.2000-600
(5) Burton Stein - Period between B.C.1500-500

The above years of "Vedic period of North India" arrived at by these Scholars could be averaged as from B.C.1500 to B.C.600.


However we will re-analyse the evidences available to us presently and arrive at the correct "Vedic Period of North India", and then determine the realistic period of the Sanskrit Epic Raamaayana of Sage/Poet Vaalmiki.

In the year B.C.1500 the Indo-Aryans migrated to the Sind region (the Punjab region of the present Pakistan and India) from the north-west through Kabul valley region, defeating the Dravidians of the Mohenjodaro & Harappa civilisations of the Sind valley along the river Sindu (Indus) which flourished between B.C.2500-1500, and settled along the river Saraswathi of this region running parallel to the river Sindu.

The fact the 'Rig Veda' was composed by them around B.C.1500 'from this region' is confirmed by the references to the river Sindu and many references to the river Saraswathi of this region - being the 'only two main rivers mentioned in the entire Rig Veda' (not the great rivers Gangai or Yamunai or even the Himalayan mountain range). The religious culture that was developed by the Indo-Aryans in this region after their migration was known as the "Vedic Culture". This Vedic Culture gradually spread to the other regions of North and North-East India over a period of time.

Around 900 year later there appeared two great Sages in North India namely Lord Mahavira (B.C.599-527) and Lord Buddha (B.C.623-567) spreading their respective religious doctrines namely the Jainism and Buddhism - in North India. The rise of the new waves of religious culture of these two faiths, lead to the gradual decline of Vedic Culture in the Sind region of North-West India around B.C.600.

During a little later period the emperor Darius - 1 (B.C.522-486) of the Achaemenid (Persia = present Iran) Empire conquered the Sind valley region of India and annexed it with his empire in the year B.C.520. Thus came the end of the 'cradle of the Vedic Culture' the Saraswathi and Sind valley region of Nort-West India. The Persians (Non-Islamic) of this period were referred to as "Yavanas" in the Sanskrit Ramaayana of Sage Vaalmiki.

This period of Vedic Culture from B.C.1500-600 was known as the "Vedic Period" of North India in history, and the Sanskrit language that was professed during this period as "Vedic Sanskrit". The literature that developed during this time was known as the "Vedic Literature".

No where in any Sanskrit Literature of the Vedic Period the Epic story of Raamaayana has been mentioned. However there are references to the Vedas in the Sanskrit Raamaayana of Sage Vaalmiki. Hence it is clear the Ramaayana episode took place after the end of the Vedic Period in B.C.600. The Sanskrit language that was in use as from B.C.600 was referred to as the "Classical Sanskrit".

Around B.C.600 the great Grammerian Panini wrote the first Sanskrit Grammer, followed by Kartiyaayana's commentry to this Grammer around the year B.C.400. The Kartiyaayana's commentry was the earliest Sanskrit literature which has made the first reference to the Sanskrit Epic Mahabhaaratha of Sage/Poet Viyaasa. Hence it is clear that Mahabhaaratha was earlier than the period of Kartiyaayana's commentry of around B.C.400. The Sanskrit Epic Mahabhaaratha of Sage/Poet Viyaasa 'inturn' mentions in one of it's Kaandas (chapter) briefly the story of Raamaayana.

Hence it is very clear that the period of the Sanskrit Epic Raamayana of Sage/Poet Vaalmiki could be tentatively fixed around B.C.500, (which was after the Persian invasion of Sind valley in North-West India in B.C.520)

Important Notes:

It appeas the term "Yavanas" was used by the Indians from the end of Vedic Period to mean "the white skinned Westerners who came to India through Kabul Valley". It seems this term was used first to indicate the Persians (Non-Islamic) who invaded North-West India under Darius - 1 around B.C.520. Thereafter it was used in Ramaayana around the period B.C.500 also to refer to the Persians who were present in the Sind Valley region. The Sanskrit "Manu Smiruthi" of the period around B.C.500 too refers to the Persians (Non-Islamic) as Yavanas. The Mahaabhaaratha of the period B.C.450 too makes reference to the term Yavanaas undoubtedly to the Persians, as after Darius - 1's invasion the Sind valley region were under the Persians for nearly 194 years until aroung B.C.326. It was in this year the Greek conquerer the 'Alexander the Great' invaded and occupied the Sind valley region. Since then the term "Yavanaas" were used by the Indians to indicate the Greeks - again being the "white skinned Westerners who came to India through Kabul valley". The Greek Settlements after Alexander's invasion of the Sind region of North-West India were also known as 'Yavanna Settlements' in Indian Literature and Inscriptions. The term "Yavanas" in Sanskrit language was referred to as "Yonakas" in Prakrit language and the Emperor Asoka's Edicts too refer to them both ways. With the Alexander's invasion, not only the Greeks but also the Romans too gradually came to India but not as conquerers but essentially as Explorers and Traders as far as the Muth-Tamil Nadu down extreme south of India of that period, namely to the regions of Chera, Chola and Pandiya countries.

The Tamil Literature of the Third Thamil Sangam period of Tamil Nadu too speaks very much about their trade and presence in the Tamil Countries from B.C.100 to around A.D.200. The Tamil Literature too refers to them as Yavanas - "the white skinned Westerners who came to India through Kabul valley". However with the discovery of the favourable wind of the Indian Ocean named "......" the Romans started coming to the southern region of India more by way of directly sailings from the port of Hormos to the ports of Western India including the Musiri in Chera Nadu.

Hence the refrence to "Yavanaas" in Raamaayana and Mahaabhaaratha doesnot indicate that they both belong to the period between B.C.100 - A.D.200 being the period of Greeks and Romans in the Southern countries of India namely the Chera, Chola and Paandiyar and referred to in the Third Tamil Sangam period Literature of Tamil Nadu (B.C.300-A.D.200).

Note: The foregoing will be reviewed frequently corrected where necessary, and added with additional informations with eviidence as and when they surface

Fegasderty is offline

Old 09-01-2012, 07:12 AM   #3

Join Date
Apr 2006
Senior Member
Ancient Indian History should not be studied without in depth analysis on the buried Indian language called "Prakrit" & Buried Indian religion called "Buddhism".

The Buddhism itself started against those elites who followed Vedic culture which is understood by,
1. Sanskrit language spoken by the elites (who followed Vedic culture) were not used to spread the Buddhism where as common people language "Prakrit" was used
2. Both Buddhism & Prakrit was destroyed during medieval period due to the raise of Vedic culture starting from 300 AD

Almost, all the Historians knowingly or unknowingly excluding the period of 500 BC ~ 300 AD which means we study one sided Indian history related to those elites who followed Vedic culture which is a biased History

How Ashoka captured and ruled the entire Greater India including modern days Afghan, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Why Ashoka did not capture the 3 south Indian kingdoms? - Some hidden untold stories/history is lying here

The fact is, we are in short of evidences for the Ancient Indian History, so people are trying to build-up biased stories from the medieval period Vedic culture dominated writings as evidences which looks like 6 blinds trying to find the shape of an elephant using their hands
Drugmachine is offline

Old 09-01-2012, 11:53 PM   #4
Big A

Join Date
Oct 2005
I wish to advice that the modern Scholars have no room 'whatsoever' to think that the Chera, Chola and Paandiya kings were Sanskrit speaking dynasties. If they do so then the fact remains that they are in-complete in their historical knowledge of India, and need to undergo further research studies on the the actual History of South India, and a critical study of the ancient Tamil literary documents we have today.

During the British Colonial Period there remained very less Historical Scholars in South India to highlight the history of their region, and as a result the Historical Scholars of North India wrote the Indian History portraying to the masses that the early Indian History means that it was the History of Mauriyas, Guptas and Sathavaahanas of North India with Vedic and Sanskrit background, and the medieval Indian History of India means that it was the history of the Muslim kingdoms also of North India with Islamic background. They hardly took any interest in the deep study of the other great dynasties of South India.

So what I suggest to the modern Scholars of India that they should not try to interpret the History of India, based purly on the writings of the old out-dated Historical Studies of the British Colonial period and post-Colonial period Scholars, but take much interest also in the study of the new findings of the Historians of the South India, and they themselves venture into the deep original research study of the History of these South Indian dynasties.

Also I am of the strong view that the History of India has to be completely re-written in the light of many new findings of the History of South Indian dynasties in the recent past, to make the modern Historical Scholars and new Historical Students be aware that - true History of India is not simply the History of North India as wrongly portrayed by the Colonial and Post-Colonial period Scholars, but is a combination of the Histories of "all dynasties" of North, Central & South India.

Also it is high time the Indian Historical Scholars of modern age India got rid of the false notions that prevailed in India up to the recent past, that all languages of India had its roots from Sanskrit and that all religions in India had their roots from Vedic religion, which can be disproved with evidence as a false bogey spread by irresponsible Scholars of the British Colonial period and post Colonial period of India.

Further it can be positively proved with evidences that the Tamil Language and Tamil Dynasties of South India are older than the two great Sanskrit Epics - namely the Raamaayana of sage Vaalmiki and the Mahaabharatha of sage Viyaasa.


Further Emperor Asoka never invaded entire Greater India including modern days Afghan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. He inherited the great empire through his father Bimbisaara from his grandfather the great Chadragupta Mauriya. He only conquered Kalinga country during his life time. The Afgan was never territorialy conquered by Mauriyas but only spiritually conquered by Emperor Asoka. The texts of the Asokan Edicts in many parts of India in the north beyond the southern border line of Karnataka state and in many parts of Northern & North-Western India only gives his Spiritual messages on Buddhism and not any Victory messages of lands conquered by him.

In this connection I request you to read my Thread titled "A Brief Study on the relations of Nandas & Mauriyas with Tamil Nadu in this same web site. Both this Thread and my Thread titled "The Singnificance of Kodungallur in the history of Kerala................" in this same Web Site. These two threads also gives an indication as to why Emperor Asoka or any other Mauriya king didnot invade Tamil Countries down south of India namely the Chola, Chera and Paandiyar.

Big A is offline

Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity