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
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoovW6A%3D%2BxqpAeB5aGDZszvr60yLji6wn1tuxjdqZJoE%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
