SEVENTH MAHAYUGA PART 1 3 6 26
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
The Seventh Mahāyuga (7322 BCE) and
the Rāmāyaṇa Age (5677–5577 BCE)
Vedveer Arya [KR This is an angle May not be considered as evidentiary. Ved Veer id Arya samaj.
The cyclical Vedic Yuga calendar—structured in nested cycles of 5 years, 20 years, and 1000 years—rationally reckoned its commencement around 13322 BCE. By 7322 BCE, six such millennial cycles (Mahāyugas) had been completed, marking a significant chronological and astronomical translons. With the beginning of the seventh Mahayugas in 7322 BCE, Vedic astronomers are understood to have observed a shiſt in the position of the winter solstice to the Aśvinī nakṣatra. In response, the zodiacal sequence of the 27 nakṣatras was realigned to begin from Aśvinī.
This translon also appears to have introduced a new convention: the naming of each Mahāyuga. The seventh Mahāyuga (commenced in 7322 BCE) was designated aſter Vaivasvata Manu, not as a contemporaneous marker, but as a symbolic attribution. Notably, the practice of assigning specific names to Mahāyugas appears to have been entirely absent in the Vedic and early post-Vedic texts, indicating that such nomenclature was a later development in the chronological tradition. Chronologically, Vaivasvata Manu is placed much earlier, around 11260–11200 BCE, based on archaeo astronomical evidence derived from the Mṛgaśīrṣādi sequence of nakṣatras, the dating of the Dakṣa Yajña, {if precession were calculate apprxtly as 26000 years per star transfer, then from transfer of Orion -Mrigaseersha to aswini 100000 years BCE}} and the traditional chronology of Agastya preserved in ancient Tamil literature. However, later Purāṇic redactors seem to have conflated this symbolic naming with historical chronology, assuming Vaivasvata Manu to belong to the epoch beginning in 7322 BCE. This interpretive shiſt likely influenced the restructuring of royal genealogies, particularly those of the Ikṣvāku dynasty.
As a consequence, the political history of the intervening period (10900–7322 BCE) appears very fragmented or absent in the extant Purāṇic tradition. The genealogies preserved in the Purāṇas largely begin from this later chronological anchor, creating a discontinuity with earlier traditions. Nevertheless, the Ikṣvāku rulers of Ayodhyā emerge prominently in the post-Vedic period as one of the most powerful and celebrated kings of India. Given this context, it becomes necessary to reconstruct, as far as possible, the chronological history of the Ayodhya kings who reigned prior to 7322 BCE, in order to bridge the gap between Vedic and later Purāṇic historical traditions. The Early Kings of Ayodhyā Prior to Vaivasvata Manu The Indian historical tradition preserved in the Itihāsa–Purāṇa corpus records that Ayodhyā was founded by Manu during the age of the 33 Devas around 14000 BCE. Relative chronology further suggests that Triśaṅku— a contemporary of Viśvāmitra I (13350 BCE)—was among the earliest historically identifiable kings of Ayodhyā, and is described as the son of Tryāruṇa.
2
Textual evidence from the Rigveda supports this lineage. The 27th Sūkta of the third Maṇḍala is atiributed to three Rājarṣis—Traivṛṣṇa Tryāruṇa, Trasadasyu Paurukutsya, and Bhārata Aśvamedha—indicating that Tryāruṇa was the son of Trivṛṣṇa. On this basis, an early dynastic sequence of Ayodhyā may be tentatively reconstructed as follows: Trivṛṣṇa (13400 BCE), Tryāruṇa (13375 BCE), and Triśaṅku (13350 BCE). [kr thus Vishwamitra period is estimated}
Rig Veda 3.27.9
धिया चक्रे वरेण्यो भूतानां गर्भमा दधे । दक्षस्य पितरं तना ॥
dhiyā cakre vareṇyo bhūtānāṃ garbham ā dadhe | dakṣasya pitaraṃ tanā ||
“He who has been made by the sacred rite, the choice (of the worshipper), who comprehends (within himself) the germ of all creatures, and whom the daughter of Dakṣa (receives) as the parent of the world.”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
Dakṣasya pitaram tanā = dakṣasya prajāpater tanayā, the daughter of the Prajāpati Dakṣa; i,e, the earth, here identified with the altar, vedirūpa; she sustains, dhārayati, understood, him, Agni, the protector or father of the world, sarvasya jagataḥ pālakam dhāraya
Rig Veda 3.27.10
नि त्वा दधे वरेण्यं दक्षस्येळा सहस्कृत । अग्ने सुदीतिमुशिजम् ॥
ni tvā dadhe vareṇyaṃ dakṣasyeḻā sahaskṛta | agne sudītim uśijam ||
“Agni, strength-engendered, Iḷā (the daughter) of Dakṣa has sustained you, the desirable, the resplendent, and longing (for the oblation).”
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya
Iḷā = earth or the altar
Ṛṣi (sage/seer): viśvāmitraḥ [viśvāmitra];
Devatā (deity/subject-matter): agniḥ ;
---------------------------------------------
The Vedic Kings of Ayodhyā During the Time of Vaivasvata Manu During the era of Vaivasvata Manu (11260–11200 BCE), Ayodhyā was ruled by King Hariścandra, son of Vedhas. His son was Rohita. The well-known episode of Śunaḥśepa and King Hariścandra, preserved in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, belongs to this period.
According to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, Rohita, unwilling to submit to the sacrificial obligation, withdrew into the forest. Eventually, he thereby forfeited his claim to succession. In the ensuing transition, Kalmāṣapāda (Saudāsa) appears to have ascended the throne around 11220 BCE. His reign is marked by conflict with the Vasiṣṭha family; he is said to have slain Śakti, son of Vasiṣṭha, while Śakti’s son Parāśara (father of Veda Vyasa) was still in the womb. (THESE RISHIS AROUND 11220 BCE)
Anaraṇya, idenTIfied as the son (or successor) of Kalmāṣapāda, is later menTI oned in the Mahābhārata and Puranas as having been killed by Rāvaṇa I. In this framework, Rāvaṇa I— described as a grandson of Pulastya—is placed contemporaneously with Arjuna Kārtavīrya and Paraśurāma of the Vedic period.
Date
1 Vedhas 11270-11250 BCE
2 Harishchandra 11250-11220 BCE
3 Rohita 11220 BCE
4 Kalmashapada 11220-11190 BCE
5 Anaranya 11190-11160 BCE
The Early Kings of the Ikshvaku Dynasty (11250-10900 BCE)
Vaivasvata Manu (11260–11200 BCE) is traditionally associated with authority over regions corresponding to Saurāṣṭra and Madhyadeśa. Following him, his son Śaryāti appears to have ruled from Kuśasthalī (in Saurāṣṭra), while another son, Ikṣvāku, established his line in Madhyadeśa. Parallel traditions preserved in the Rāmāyaṇa (Utiarakāṇḍa) describe Daṇḍa, the youngest son of Ikṣvāku, whose name is associated with the regions of Daṇḍakāraṇya in Madhyadesha and Tondaimandalam in Tamilnadu. These accounts suggest an early expansion of Ikṣvāku influence beyond Madhyadeśa.
Ikṣvāku is said to have had three sons—Kukṣi (or Vikukṣi), Nimi, and Daṇḍa. The principal royal lineage continued through Vikukṣi. His descendants, extending down to Māndhātā and Sagara, are associated with the early rulers of Madhyadeśa. Purāṇic accounts refer to Śaśāda, oſten identified with Vikukṣi; however, this identification appears problematic. It is plausible that Śaśāda was a later descendant of Ikṣvāku, and that the conflation of these figures reflects later genealogical compression.
3
Kukṣi’s son Purañjaya is portrayed as a contemporary of Indra and a participant in conflicts against the Asuras. His son Kuvalāśva is credited with slaying Dhundhu, while Kuvalāśva’s son Yuvanāśva and grandson Māndhātā mark an important phase of dynastic consolidation. Māndhātā is linked through marriage to the Lunar (Candravaṁśa) lineage via the daughter of King Śaśabindu. Rishi Saubhari married the daughters of Māndhātā. Māndhātā is portrayed as one of the most eminent rulers of Madhyadeśa. Among his descendants was Ambarīṣa, whose grandson Hārīta is said to have renounced kingship and become a ṛṣi. Māndhātā’s son Susandhi and grandson Dhruvasandhi succeeded him.
Dhruvasandhi’s son Bharata is also described as having embraced the life of a sage. Bharata’s son Asita faced political decline. Opposed by powerful lineages such as the Haihayas, Tāla-jaṅghas, and the descendants of Śaśabindu, he was driven out of Madhyadeśa and lost his ancestral kingdom. His posthumous son Sagara subsequently re-established royal authority, founding his rule in Ayodhyā (Kosala). Sagara and his successors, including Bhagīratha, are linked with major cultural and hydrological tradtitions, such as the bringing of the Gaṅgā. Sagara and his sons are described as contemporaries of the sage Kapila. Sagara is described as having many sons. According to tradition, the sage Kapila reduced most of them to ashes, sparing only a few—Barhiketu, Suketu, Dharmaratha, and Pañcajana. Uddālaka Āruṇi—associated with the court of King Janaka—was the father of Kahoda, and Aṣṭāvakra, the son of Kahoda, was a mentor of Bhagīratha.
The Rigveda preserves the memory of several Sūryavaṁśī kings, including Ikṣvāku, Yuvanāśva, Māndhātā, Purukutsa, Trasadasyu, and Bhajeratha. The name “Bhajeratha” in Vedic usage appears to correspond to the later classical form “Bhagīratha” in Laukika Sanskrit. On the basis of these interconnected historical legends, a tentave reconstrucon of the early Ikṣvāku genealogy and chronology may be proposed as follows:
Date
1 Ikśvāku 11250 BCE
2 Vikukśi 11230 BCE
3 Purañjaya 11210 BCE
4 Kuvalayāśva 11190 BCE
5 Yuvanaśva 11170 BCE
6 Māndhātā 11150 BCE
7 Susandhi 11120 BCE
8 Dhruvasandhi 11100 BCE
9 Bharata 11070 BCE
10 Asita 11030 BCE
11 Sagara 10980 BCE
12 Barhiketu, Suketu,
Dharmaratha, and
Pañchajana 10960 BCE
13 Bhagiratha 10940 BCE
4
King Hiraṇyanābha Kauśalya (11000 BCE)
King Hiraṇyanābha Kauśalya, son of Vidhṛ, is described as a king of Kosala and a significant figure in the transmission of Vedic knowledge. He is said to have been a pupil of Jaimini II (also known as Sukarman), the grandson of Jaimini I (11100 BCE), to whom Vyasa is tradionally credited with teaching the Sāmaveda.
The Praśnopaniṣad refers to Hiraṇyanābha Kauśalya as a contemporary of Ṛṣi Pippalāda (11000 BCE). He was a teacher of Yoga and Ātmavidyā. He imparted the knowledge of Ātmavidyā to Yājñavalkya. He was also the preceptor of Kṛta, who is credited with organizing twenty-four branches of the Sāmaveda. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa mentions Para Ātnāra (11000 BCE) as his son. On the relave chronological grounds, Hiraṇyanābha may be placed within the lineage of the Ayodhyā king Hariścandra.
Ikṣvāku Kings of the Post-Vedic Period (10900–7322 BCE)
The transition into the post-Vedic period was marked by major climatic disruptions, including the Younger Dryas (10700–9700 BCE) and the subsequent Meltwater Pulse 1B (9700–9300 CE), which would have significantly affected patierns of settlement and continuity of tradition. In contrast, the period from 9322 to 7322 BCE appears to represent a phase of renewed intellectual and ritual activity, during which Vedic learning and textual traditions were revitalized.
However, the later introduction of named Mahāyugas—particularly the designation of the seventh Mahāyuga aſter Vaivasvata Manu—seems to have led to chronological misinterpretations among Purāṇic redactors, who placed Vaivasvata Manu around 7322 BCE.
This mistaken shiſt likely contributed to the loss of the genealogical records of the post-Vedic period. However, some isolated references survive. The Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad (astronomically dated around 8322 BCE) refers to an Ikṣvāku king Bṛhadratha, who may have ruled in Ayodhyā or possibly in the Videha region. Similarly, the Mahābhārata mentions an Ikṣvāku king Parīkṣit,
whose name is absent from the Purāṇic genealogical lists. These references suggest that additional rulers of the Ikṣvāku line flourished during the post-Vedic period but were later omitted or lost in the extant tradition. The Ikṣvāku Kings of Ayodhyā (7322–5577 BCE): From Śaśāda to Śrī Rāma Following the commencement of the seventh Mahāyuga (7322 BCE), the genealogical record becomes relatively clearer in the Purāṇic tradition. From Śaśāda onward, the lineage of the Ikṣvāku kings of Ayodhyā can be traced with greater continuity, culminating in the era of Śrī Rāma.
3 2 25 PART 1