Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} My chapter on dates of the epics in IKS publication

[V Subrahmanian]

Read the full post here:  https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/YCcgNZyeFVw/m/gPVfllNMAAAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jayasree Saranathan <jayasree....@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 1:38 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} My chapter on dates of the epics in IKS publication
To: bhAratIya-vidvat-pariShad भारतीय-विद्वत्परिषद् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Namaste all,

I'm compelled to share my chapter on the Mahabharata and Ramayana timelines, published in a book on Ancient Indian Knowledge System, to set the record straight. In light of the egregious errors and false claims being peddled by Nilesh Oak and Manish Pandit, it's essential to share accurate information and debunk their misguided assertions

About the chapter:

The historical timelines of the Mahabharata and Ramayana have been subject to varied interpretations, leading to confusion, fragmented scholarship, and misrepresentations. A closer look at the epics reveals inherent chronological indicators that have been overlooked. This chapter highlights these clues, challenges existing dates, and proposes a revised chronology supported by modern scientific evidence. 

Request you to share this chapter with as many people as possible.

Regards,

Jayasree Saranathan

--
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/CAJp7CVS-KHg%3D8gt%3D6OvOYvXmi9oFn11a3Uv0vda_NqV7SVbi7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

This is another one of those traditional vs modern date-controversies as she points out. I don't know what those mentioned people argued but I remember Sri Rangarajan Narasimhan of TN raged against both Smt Jayasree Saranathan and Dushyanth Sridhar that they are distorting the traditional knowledge. 

Sri Narasimhan has written his own "refutational commentary":

https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Fake-Research-Shri-Ramayanam-ebook/dp/B0DCTYNVJ4

thollmelukaalkizhu

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2a8bH%3D_O6AnjjiPih-LRCW_HSFZesjO%2BeAt%3DoPUKsbvg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Sri Narasimhan has written his own "refutational commentary":

https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Fake-Research-Shri-Ramayanam-ebook/dp/B0DCTYNVJ4

There is a Read Sample: https://read.amazon.com/sample/B0DCTYNVJ4?clientId=share

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

Sri Narasimhan has taken this too far.  He brought to the table many Vaishnava scholars and pontiffs, even Madhwas, to strongly refute the 'controversial' statements of the two stated persons.  During those YouTube debates, in some of them, I placed this comment:

The Ramayana says 'Rama lived for 11,000 years', which Dushyanth Sridhar explained in such a way that the fantastic time span is not taken literally.  I pointed out: In the story Rama was exiled for 14 years.  This would be an extremely insignificant period as against a 11K year life span of Rama. If a 'punishment' is instituted to mean some deprivation and suffering to Rama, Kaikeyi's specifying that period is simply nothing by all standards. Also, from Dasharatha's life span of 60 K years, these 14 years of separation from Rama are also totally insignificant. There was no need for him to be so upset to the extent of dying due to the sorrow.  Further, the separation of Rama from Sita is also just a few months in the story. Also the penanance of Bharata which is so glorified in the story is also out of place as the 14 years in their lifetime is only next to nothing.

Compared to this, the Dvapara yuga incident of the Pandavas exiled for 12 plus one year is quite reasonable, given their official life span of some 120 odd years.  

Dushyanth Sridhar had also made a video explaining that the Vedic allotment of a human lifespan is 100 years; he cited a few vedic and other passages in support.  I recalled a purely srivaishnavaite song in Tamil conveying the same:

வேதநூல் பிராயம் நூறு மனிசர்தாம் புகுவ ரேலும்

பாதியு முறங்கிப் போகும் நின்றதில் பதினை யாண்டு

பேதைபா லகன தாகும் பிணிபசி மூப்புத் துன்பம்

ஆதலால் பிறவி வேண்டேன் அரங்கமா நகரு ளானே.

English Translation

O lord of Arangama-nagar! Even if one were to attain the lifespan of one hundred years granted by the Vedas, half of that was spent in sleeping. The remaining fifty years are frittered away in childhood, disease, hunger and old age, and so I do not desire another birth.   

warm regards

subbu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r8fbH4sEoQThfPBhezTNJQ5n8U4D%3DE2nW9krmGOownrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

This is similar to the Markandeya-mahapralaya discussion and more so, the dating of Vedas or when Adi Shankara was. There is the traditional "itihasa" (Thus it happened) knowledge that one takes from shabda pramana and tradition, regarding actual history in Ishvara's manifestation; and there is the modern, likely western-academia influenced analyses of scriptures and history. There is the question of whether and how tarka, nyaya, mimamsa can be used to decode shabda pramana; and whether modern interpreters are following those rules correctly or crossing over in a free-lancing manner similar to western academics. 

Sri Narasimhan always goes too far in the cordiality department. But it is not the case that the others are looking for a debate with the traditionalists of his kind. That is the real problem with those who talk as scholars of Hinduism, who deviate from tradition but don't want to own up to it properly because their objective is to normalize their deviations for the traditionalists. I guarantee that if DS and JS would be willing to engage in a public forum with RN, the latter would be more than willing to do so. RN sees them as wolves in sheep clothing.

This is very analogous to how western academicians decide what Hinduism is and when and how it arose etc.; but don't consider it important to engage with our side openly and equally. The fact that Sri Narasimhan brought Vaishnava and Madhwa scholars and pontiffs who supported his viewpoint says a whole lot on their sampradaya knowledge and tradition. Dushyanth is an upanyasakar representing that sampradaya but also "modern" and independent in thinking, has controversial views and interpretations. No doubt that has a wide appeal and willing audience but the difference and deviation must be made clear: there will be several in the orthodox community who simply wouldn't want to engage with such scholars if they knew better. So, it is a good thing that someone calls them out, if indeed they are going against the sampradaya knowledge.

As for the actual tarka and possibility of samanvaya, that is a separate discussion. Personally, we can understand that the "story-parts" in shabda are revealing the knowledge of Ishvara's potential manifestations (where the "same" can be projected in different ways in different kalpas) and the same (higher) tattvas on dharma and jnana remain the underlying message inspite of the outer variations in manifestation. So it is not necessary to insist or negate certain views on "when or how long Rama lived"; we understand that such a presentation is also possible for Maya (if not in our cycle, in another one), and focus on the tattva.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3cuZ2Gc%2BQF-5bPAB9q83PEsGL3OqmwWPmQ8baBaMDqOQ%40mail.gmail.com.