Nilesh Oak's interpretation of Candelabra of Andes in Kishkindhakanda Verse

[Abhishek Mehta]

Nilesh Oak in his work Sugriva's Atlas claims that the following verse in the Kishkindhakanda must be interpreted as talking about the Candelabra of the Andes 

After having reached and read that particular section of the Kishkindhakanda independently I am beginning to see some merit to this claim because in the preceding verses Sugriva talks about a snake lying in the mountains 

If Nilesh Oak's interpretation of Verse 52 holds any merit then there must be some corresponding structure to Verses 50 and 51 in the Andes as well that should point to such a snake residing in the mountains. 

And I did a bit of searching and indeed this structure called the Band of holes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_of_Holes) in Mount Sierpe of Andes, which also happens to be very close to the Candalabra of Andes, is present and from air it does resembles the scale of a serpent or marks made by a giant resting serpent long ago. 

Once is coincidence, twice is pattern.

[Raja Roy]

Here is translation of the verse from IITK Ramayana site:

Here is picture of the Candelabra of the Andes:

Does it look like a flag?

No.

Is it on top of the mountain?

No.

So how does it match the description given in Ramayana?

Also, Sugriva is telling one quarter of his army to go in that direction, where they will encounter this. How is the army going to get there? If they could get there, why did they need to make a bridge to go to Lanka which is far far nearer.

Raja

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavAJyWJbC4dzTfm-eyhJ14VCZj_eH_BGxYvpZ4EEfnohxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

If you look at the dictionaries केतुः also means a 'sign'. Does it look like a sign? Yes.

The verse says पर्वतस्य अग्रे where अग्रे generally means 'front' as can be checked from dictionaries. Is it infront of the mountain? Yes.

I can also go into other words in the shlokas and confirm that it does match the description.

As far as your other questions are concerned. They are good questions and I will be able to answer them once I read the whole Ramayana. I think only three Kandas are left for me to finish. But based on what I have heard, Lanka was a heavily fortified city and sieging a fortification requires much different strategy than exploring sparsely inhabited lands.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5ukvPxjsqfhSh4wMybqaGR9uKz_6wMvvOeeCB7-gNdEyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

Band of Holes , from the Wiki link you shared:

In 2015, researchers determined that the structure was built during the time of the Inca Empire (1438–1533)

Ramayana must have been earlier than 1438 CE.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Raja Roy]

You can choose to believe what you want. The whole description of the world in this part of the Ramayana is based on the understanding of the world geography of that time. It is a mix of known and unknowns. They are accurate to the part Indians had explored at that time and fancy for the part beyond based on myths. In this case the description of Ananta is based on the mythology of the earth resting on Sheshanaga.

Raja

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavB%3DxvpG1SR_bRsifdOjpSVs18Vk5TQmeBXgXsKB%3DdSa3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

I think instead of resorting to rhetoric you must stick to methodology. You cannot resort to rhetoric when methodology doesn't support you.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5tfCmuW6VvOos2c%3D5N7mGtNe6aKCPhBFQnhLcmu5uThZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

It is also important to underline that these dating methods employ contextualization. If you hypothesise that this structure is man-made you will look for remnants that support that hypothesis. But it is also very much possible that this structure is purely geological and was later discovered and maintained via later human activity, namely the Incas, maybe for sentimental reasons which can give such a structure a man-made look in archaeological surveys. 

We already have biological examples of this from Japan where a crab that has its shell resemble the face of a legendary samurai. That doesn't mean the Japanese created crabs in the 16th century, its just that a crab that already existed in nature happen to have a shell resembling a samurai's face and thus allowed to be preserved and persist for sentimental reasons.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoDd4CdJXR40OVRvoWwuDdogSmMdSNydG5A9X%3Du%2Bk%3DGnjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

I believe, in this case, Nilesh Oak's acorns do not fall far from PN Oak's acorns :-)

Jokes apart, I think it would serve us all to do some careful research and offer finely sifted information rather than speculative projections based on one or two pieces of data.

The dating of the Inca work should make one pause in extrapolating it to the Ramayana. It would be fascinating indeed if research points to any kind of exchange of ideas and cultures across the world, from India to South America.

Right now, it all seems grandiose and imaginary.

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavDK1Q-p39mp0Q%3DPfcN2s1JW9h4eF0GGZJc2cKaDkz1XUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

I think it is worth pointing out Purushottama Nagesh Oak was truly a Purushottama worthy of His name who challenged western historical notions via Paninian-based reconstruction when these same westerners challenge our historical notions through PIE-based reconstructions which Panini-intolerant Naradhamas of all kinds find very palatable. 

Rhetoric aside, people should first understand the nuances of methodologies involved in dating methods and archaeological principles and take a pause before accepting anything that not only contradict shastras but also attempt to devalue it.

I as a science professional understand this better than anyone that all established fact started out as unrefined intuitions. And this is not different.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2QhEtjwaSfekO4yELauCcDBgFK7XZ6pGFWH9vauo_YxxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Can Sanskrit experts from the group shed some light on the meaning of this verse?

Raja

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavB%3DxvpG1SR_bRsifdOjpSVs18Vk5TQmeBXgXsKB%3DdSa3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

त्रिशिराः काञ्चनः केतुस् तालस् तस्य महात्मनः।

स्थापितः पर्वतस्याग्रे विराजति सवेदिकः॥

अन्वयः - त्रिशिराः काञ्चनः तालः सवेदिकः [इति] केतुः तस्य महात्मनः स्थापितः पर्वतस्य अग्रे विराजति।

त्रिशिराः - तीन चोटीयों वाला

काञ्चनः - स्वर्ण मिट्टी वाला 

तालः - ताल वृक्ष

सवेदिकः - मञ्च के साथ

इति - इस प्रकार

केतुः - चिन्ह

तस्य महात्मनः - उस महात्मा का

स्थापितः - स्थापित हुआ

पर्वतस्य अग्रे - पर्वत के आगे

विराजति - विराजमान होता है 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5tP0PqG3Ucejjvyq0LxA5GgNppCfa2kCj6-H64uyJHrCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RGovindM]

Dear Abhishek, 

Dear Abhishek,

Claiming a resemblance between two geographical features is easy; providing rigorous proof is the challenge. As the saying goes, 'Once is a coincidence, twice is a pattern.' However, calling it a 'pattern' is too strong, even when we lack the data to establish a causal link. That is the hurdle we face here. Identifying two similar 'dots' supports a claim, but proving that Sugriva’s descriptions specifically refer to South American landmarks requires overwhelming corroborating evidence.

As Dr Rajaram Ji pointed out, several critical inconsistencies remain:

1. The Logistical Paradox: Sugriva dispatched a quarter of his army toward this specific direction. If the Vānara army possessed the capability to reach South America—thousands of miles across the Pacific—it raises a massive logical question: Why was a bridge to Lanka necessary? Lanka, located just off the coast of the mainland, would be a trivial distance for an army capable of trans-oceanic exploration.

Your previous answer on it regarding Lanka being a 'fortified city' does not fully resolve this. Even if Lanka required a siege strategy, the primary mission of the search parties was reconnaissance (finding Mata Sita), not an immediate siege. 

2. The Paradox of the Southern Troop: If the Vānara troops were so highly capable that they could reach the far side of the Earth (Peru) easily or without documented struggle, why did the troop sent directly southward face such a monumental challenge just to reach the shoreline near Lanka?

The Rāmāyaṇa in Kishkindhakand describes the Southern party's journey as one of great effort, doubt, and physical barriers. It is logically inconsistent to suggest that while one group was effortlessly crossing the Pacific Ocean to the Andes, the other group—led by Hanumān and Angada—was standing at the edge of the Indian Ocean, wondering how they would ever cross a mere 100 yojanas to reach Lanka. If they had the 'Global Reach' required for the "Andes and band of holes" Peru theory, the Setu Bandhanam (building of the bridge) would have been an unnecessary waste of time and resources."

If they could 'scout' the Andes, they certainly could have scouted or reached Lanka without the monumental effort of Hanuman by leaping to Lanka and building the Setu.

3. Geographical and Navigational Barriers The distance from Kishkindha (modern-day Hampi) to the Paracas Candelabra in Peru is staggering. Even today, there is no land route. You must address how an ancient army crossed the Pacific.

• Aviation/Maritime Technology: Modern flights take 22–30 hours with multiple refuelling stops. Cargo ships take weeks. To claim this was done in antiquity, you must provide evidence of the specific technologies that allowed for such advanced navigation.

• The Pacific Gap: Current global travel largely bypasses the deep "middle" of the Pacific for safety and logistics. If you are proposing a direct eastern route, the burden of proof lies in explaining the maritime capability of that era.

4. The Temporal and Geological Problem

• Archaeological Correlation: You must establish a synchronised timeline between the Ramayana era and the physical creation of the Candelabra and the 'band of holes'.

• The Pangea Misconception: Even if we consider a Pangea-like configuration, the continents began drifting apart over 180 million years ago—millions of years before the appearance of modern humans, let alone organised civilisations. Furthermore, in Gondwana, India and South America were separated by the massive African landmass. Travelling 'east' from India to reach Peru would have still required crossing a vast ocean, not a land bridge.

This is not the end of the questions, but the beginning. Until these technological and temporal gaps are bridged with data, the connection and correlation remain a fascinating theory rather than a historical fact."

As Carl Sagan famously said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 

We aren't necessarily denying that the connection and correlation are impossible, but we are refusing to accept it as fact until the evidence meets the weight of the claim. "Finally, we must approach this from the perspective of modern scientific scepticism. While the visual similarities between the Ramayana's descriptions and the artefacts in Peru are intriguing, sitting in the 'modern scientific chair' requires us to remain sceptical until a mechanical and chronological bridge is built. To claim a definitive connection without solving the logistical paradox of the Pacific or the massive temporal gap in the geological record is to jump to a conclusion before the data is ready.

By matching two dots, we have a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not a proof. Until we can explain how a troop that struggled to reach Lanka could effortlessly scout the Andes—and how they did so in a single month—we must treat these resemblances as fascinating coincidences rather than historical certainties.

"Let us remain open to the possibility but rigorous in our demand for evidence."

असतो मा सद्गमय । Asato mā sadgamaya

• From Unreality (Asat), let us move towards Reality (Sat).

• चरैवेति चरैवेति

• "Keep moving forward."

• Thanks

• Dr Govind Maurya

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavCknPdJyi9Fms%2B3BX_O1QBoOh6zboq0gBi%3DyYJvxxKa1A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks and regards

Dr. RGovindM

Project Research Scientist

CISTS IIT Bombay

[Abhishek Mehta]

This is a perfect demonstration of how in our attempt to reductionism to linearize things we forget reality is actually complicated and nonlinear. I was going to wait to study the whole of Ramayana to answer these questions but I guess I will leave with some food for thought for you guys to consider.

1. Logistic paradox: You say that just because the vanara search party could go all the way to the southern tip of the Americas without supposedly making bridges. Going to lanka should have been a much trivial task compared to that. Why need a bridge? First of all the vanaras went to lanka to make war which requires additional logistics like weapons, food, medicine and military formation. To reach Lanka in a proper military formation following a chain of command a bridge is necessary. Exploratory missions don't require a stringent formation lead by a chain of command as you are free to do as you will because the mission is simple - search and report. Seiging a fortified city is not a simple mission. Also, a bridge serves as a means of retreat and as well as summoning reinforcement. 

The Romans too used to build roads and level forests to the areas they wanted to seige. But Romans used to rule such a huge area without 100% road connectivity? Then why need roads for something so trivial? Warfare requires a much controlled and precise conditions than search and report.

2. Geographical and Navigational Barriers: It is very clear that you haven't read the Kishkindhakanda yourself. Even Sugriva mentions these barriers Himself and yet orders His troop to cross them and search and report. The Vanaras are described as having power of flight and shape-shifting and I am sure they would have figured something out. Now you may ask why not seige lanka with this air superiority? In the balakanda the walls surrounding the city of Ayodhya was described as शतघ्नीशतसङ्कुलम् as in being covered with missiles in batches of hundered. If these missiles defences have surface-to-air capabilities to seige such a fortification even from air without a proper strategy and planning is suicide. I have not read how Lanka was defended but I have a feeling it is similar. You cannot let the Vanaras figure this out themselves. Even with air superiority this would require proper planning and strategy.

Even US with all its firepower and air superiority couldn't seige Vietnam with success. Your argument is like if Columbus can cross the Atlantic and subdue the entire Americas why can't the Americans subdue the small country of Vietnamese with much superior technology and firepower by crossing the Pacific who are essentially descendants of Columbus? 

Things are not always linear and non-interacting like we are made to believe. Things are always much more nuanced, complicated and context-dependent. It is necessary to keep this in mind when asking such questions.

[RGovindM]

 It is fascinating that you accuse me of not studying the Bālakāṇḍa and Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa. According to the lessons of the Nyāya Sūtras, you have bypassed a fact-based Vāda and gone straight into Jalpa (just intending to win, rather than thinking or discussing what is argued). Along with it, you are using Sāmānya-chhala (taking a specific statement and applying it to an entire class unfairly) and Jāti (to give a false analogy). I answered for a thoughtful discussion, not a demolition derby of Vitaṇḍā (rather than establishing your own position, you are focused entirely on refuting my points). If you’d like to debate online in a meeting about the actual text of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, I’m ready when you are."

Bests

Govind

[Abhishek Mehta]

न हि न्यायसूत्राणि रक्षन्ति कुर्तककाले।

I think you should save this rhetoric once you have actually read the texts and learnt to take into account all pieces of history before framing what is mythical and what isn't. It is very easy to absurdly oversimply anything to make them seem absurd which I have already caught you doing.

If I have given false analogies you have to explain how they are false. And let me know time place and venue for the discussion once you have decided upon it.

[Ramesh Rao]

Abhishek ji,

Please follow the rules of debate/vaada, and avoid using provocative and accusatory language.

Dr.Govind's approach is the lead you have to follow if you claim, as you periodically do, that you are a scientist.

With regards,

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavConT7eyV05Mq_YySsyF6JNtxy4OEw3tc39KY%2B6Pu9OyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

Dear Abhishek,

Slow down, pause. You keep alleging linear thinking, but that is just an assertion! If you were to be good in both rigorous research and clear thinking, you would have simply looked at Dr. Govind's qualifications, affiliations, and work, and followed his careful rebuttal of your assertions.

I will give you one link, which you may want to peruse, before responding instinctively and impulsively to Dr. Govind. I am neither a Sanskritist nor learned in Indian texts. I have merely been teaching in the US for 40 years, and I believe I have trained enough students to think carefully that I know where one of them rushes to assert and proclaim and use justification as argument. 

Here is the link I would like you to look at:

https://www.hss.iitb.ac.in/research/lab/cists-lab

Again, please don't rush to places where angels fear to go!

With best wishes,

Ramesh Rao

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 8:54 AM Abhishek Mehta <docabh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Accusatory and provocative language are subjective terms. I personally think Dr. Govind's initial response was pretty condescending and full of red herring because I did not talk about pangea or other supercontinents. I already explained why the archaeological consensus cannot be taken at face value and I already answered the query regarding the logistic paradox when raised by Dr. Raja initially. And you really have no place to demand rules of debate to be followed when you yourself started with a boomer joke about acorns and what not.

शठे शाठ्यं समाचरेत् is what is required when that happens.

Despite all of that I have given point by point clarification to his questions but he replies by throwing jargon around without even pointing out where and how these jargons even apply. People should argue based on principle and not jargon and rhetoric. I have simply pointed out how the Candelabra of the Andes and the Band of Holes falls with the correct grammatical meaning of the verses and given that there is a sufficient room to reinterpret and revise the current archaeological consensus these interpretation can be given a some benefit of doubt. Unless they have some means to object these interpretation there is no meaningful debate.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2SXNWR2b0QjxntVLYYwn7iWmA%3D3BJjDurt-%2B1WNXG4geQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Abhishek Mehta - INSPIRE https://share.google/MD29cArwu8mC7xB5c

Here is a list of my qualification and publications. And you may refer to me as Dr. Abhishek as you do Dr. Govind.

न हि अयाचितो गुरुर् भवितुं यतेत कस्यचन।

[Abhishek Mehta]

Accusatory and provocative language are subjective terms. I personally think Dr. Govind's initial response was pretty condescending and full of red herring because I did not talk about pangea or other supercontinents. I already explained why the archaeological consensus cannot be taken at face value and I already answered the query regarding the logistic paradox when raised by Dr. Raja initially. And you really have no place to demand rules of debate to be followed when you yourself started with a boomer joke about acorns and what not.

शठे शाठ्यं समाचरेत् is what is required when that happens.

Despite all of that I have given point by point clarification to his questions but he replies by throwing jargon around without even pointing out where and how these jargons even apply. People should argue based on principle and not jargon and rhetoric. I have simply pointed out how the Candelabra of the Andes and the Band of Holes falls with the correct grammatical meaning of the verses and given that there is a sufficient room to reinterpret and revise the current archaeological consensus these interpretation can be given a some benefit of doubt. Unless they have some means to object these interpretation there is no meaningful debate.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 7:08 PM Ramesh Rao <ramesh...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2SXNWR2b0QjxntVLYYwn7iWmA%3D3BJjDurt-%2B1WNXG4geQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Here is a map of the world. 

Note the bottom right of the map, where it says Peru. That is where the flag/sign is located. It is the east going party that is supposed to find this location. It is not the west going party that will perhaps have an easier time going through land masses. Look at the vast ocean that the 100,000 monkey army is supposed to cross. Is it plausible considering how difficult it was going to nearby Lanka?

Now coming to the word "Agre", which IITK site says means mountain top in this context. This specifies the location, on top. If the  word "Agre" means front of the mountain, it is ambiguous. Which side is to be considered front?

According to Wikipedia:

"The Paracas Candelabra, also called the Candelabra of the Andes, or El Candelabro (the Trident), is a well-known prehistoric geoglyph found on the northern face of the Paracas Peninsula at Pisco Bay in Peru."

The geoglyph is on the northern face. Can it be called front for an army going in the eastern direction?

Raja

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 9:00 AM Abhishek Mehta <docabh...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavB%3DxvpG1SR_bRsifdOjpSVs18Vk5TQmeBXgXsKB%3DdSa3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Here I have plotted the prominent geographical locations cited with the shlokas from the Ramayana based on their physical descriptions.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1BeXwzCV-oRY7Nsiegd-CUfNLSAbXWu4&usp=sharing

Obviously, I have taken some linguistic concessions in the above because the names are in Sanskrit, so the closest apabhramsha to that was taken as the location. For instance, Hu-mahuaca -> हयमुखः but since it is mentioned just before the verses that are supposedly located in the South Americas, it seemed a reasonable concession.

The fact that there is a vast ocean between Kishkindha and Peru is not something that was unknown to Sugriva Himself. If you read the verses in the particular sarga you will find so many times Sugrvia mentions that you have to cross the oceans. Whether such a feat is possible to achieve for 10000 Vanaras or not you should ask that to Sugriva Himself. He thought it was possible and He relayed His orders accordingly and the Vanaras obeyed.

 And the meaning of the word 'front' itself is context dependent. What does the front of the house or the front of the building mean anyway? To us it is obvious now but to the people of a different time it may not be. Whatever was considered the 'front' of the mountain was known and obvious to the Sugriva and the Vanaras and it wasn't ambiguous to them. And from the text we can only surmise that wherever the Candelabras of the Andes is marked that is supposedly the 'front'. And obviously the Vanaras are going to be asking the locals about these landmarks and go accordingly. Surely, someone would have explained what the 'front' here means. These places were populated by Gandharvas, Apsaras, Charanas, Sidddhas, Rakshasas. They would ask these people eventually.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5uc42mQD4LVyo3T7vNta0HfjzP1_95Q06HhJoZxfKmQgA%40mail.gmail.com.