Sea Levels: What do they have to do with the timings of Ramayana & Mahabharata

Distinct breaks between the A. Palmata reef-framework demonstrate that there were three (3) distinct sea level rise events during the last deglaciaion.

(1) Catastrophic Rise Event-1 (CRE-1) started at ~12200 BCE (+/- 100) and had a magnitude of 13.5 (+/- 2.5) meters.

(2) CRE-2 started at ~9500 BCE (+/- 100) and had a magnitude of 7.5 (+/- 2.5) meters.

(3) CRE-3 started at ~5600 BCE (+/-100) years and had a magnitude of 6.5 (+/-2.5) meters.

The exact duration of CRE is unknown but based on minimum rate of sea-level rise (>45 mm/yr), the duration of CRE-1 must have been <290 (+/-50) years, the duration of CRE-2 must have been <160(+/-50) years and CRE-3 must have been <140 (+/-50) years.

Note down the timing of CRE-1 (my proposed timing for the Rama-Ravana War – 12209 BCE) and the timing of CRE-3 (my proposed timing for the flooding of Krishna’s Dwarka – 5525 BCE).

While CRE-3 provides very strong and independent corroboration (independent of astronomy and literal evidence, i.e. of Mahabharata text)……..CRE-1 only deepens the mystery of 'Nala-setu' that was built by Vanara-Nala for Rama/Vanara army to cross the ocean from India to Lanka.

Stay tuned…

Reference: "Reef drowning during the last deglaciaion: Evidence for catastrophic sea-level rise and ice-sheet collapse", Paul Blanchon & John Shaw (from the world famous, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), Geology, January 1995, vol 23, #1, Pages 4-8.


11 thoughts on “Sea Levels: What do they have to do with the timings of Ramayana & Mahabharata

  1. To Nilesh sir,
    Firstly, my deep apologies for asking an irrelevant question.
    I am a UG physics student ; like many, I feel that this subject is in “deep crisis”, which made me interested in Ancient Indian Physics.I found,with my very limited resources and research, that there was–and is–very little research into this topic, unfortunately.
    In the process, I came across a paper–this is an old paper from Indian Journal Of History Of Science,
    ( )
    The source of this paper,as it mentions, is a 780 AD commentary by Bodhananda(and Sarikanatha, who, by “modern standards” can be called as,Scientists),which in turn is based on an Ancient text of Maharishi Bahradwaja called Amsubodhini (why didn’t IISc review this text too?); and Maharishi Bharadwaja belongs to Ramayana era,as is well known.
    [ I personally feel that this is just the tip of iceberg, with respect to Ancient Indian Science; however, I am ready to sacrifice my beliefs for truth, and only truth.]
    And also,surprisingly, Wikipedia mentions this Fact ( ) !!
    My question is; since as a student who has read your works and respect your opinion: how do we, in an honest manner, understand this in the development of Science?Why is this subject(of Science in Ancient India) neglected to such an extent–which, as I understand, if dealt genuinely, can radically change History(and Future too) of Science?
    And, you mention about inductive process as “non-scientific”; but, all our Rishis developed theories on ontology,logic,dialectic, sophisticated Grammar and Inner Sciences by using what we today can call as “inductive”.How can we understand this phenomenon?Can there be a process by which, inductive reasoning can be understood as a Scientific method?
    Sorry, if I am disturbing you.Again, apologies, if I am wrong in my question altogether.
    Thank You

    • Sree Charan R,

      Thank you for your comments.

      Before I respond, and so as I understand your question clearly, would you please clarify what exactly is your question when you write..

      “My question is; since as a student who has read your works and respect your opinion: how do we, in an honest manner, understand this in the development of Science?”

      I truly can not answer why this subject is neglected. I am confident you are familiar with some of the obvious answers, as much as I am. However, one should be glad that someone like you are taking interest and feel passionate about it and someone like N G Dongre thought of researching and writing about it.

      I think (think!) understand your question about inductive method. However you have added too many things to it…e.g. ontology, logic, dialectic, grammer and inner sciences. May I ask you to go slow and also go with one question at a time? If I try to answer (admittely, based on my limited knowledge), I am afraid it will create more confusion than it would enlighten.

      Let me know what you think of my suggestions.


      Nilesh Oak

      (Have you read my books? If you have, then great, as they do answer some of the questions you are asking, especially inductive vs. deductive logic.).

      • My mistake, apologies.Though I have started reading it; I am yet to complete the book.I will do it.Regarding my query about inductive vs. deductive logic, I will go through the book again.
        So, let me put my question clearly:
        We often,with an open mind, observe, for example, the “almost accurate” value of speed of light in few Indian Mathematical texts,as Dr. Subhash Kak sir has shown it–if this,and many things like this, is true,can it be with the modern techniques and logic? So,how did they achieve it, at least interpreting in a way that we modernists can be satisfied? Is there a framework, that we can understand them?
        Regarding my question,”how do we, in an honest manner, understand this in the development of Science?”, I meant—
        So, would studying Ancient Indian Science—I learnt, though an article by K.V.Sarma sir–that only 7% of the total Sanskrit manuscripts of Science have been researched—help to solve many of the modern scientific problems?
        (I think, I have asked it correctly now—too much of dissatisfaction regarding the current journey of science, is distracting the mind !!)
        Thank You

  2. In Mahabharata is there any reference to sea-levels rising? If you are refering to sinking of Dwaraka, the rise of sea level being a slow process, the catastrophic event cannot be attributed to it.

  3. Sree Charan R,

    No apologies required.

    Again, it would help to talk of specific examples rather than talking in generalities.

    (1) Take speed of light

    Now while some verse of Bhaskaracharya can be interpreted in a way that amounts to a value that matches with current accepted value for speed of light.

    But then also remember, ( at least I remember seeing it somewhere) a verse of Hanuman Chalisa, that also purports to (its specific interpreation anyway) provide speed of lights.

    Now above two instances may or may not be true/valid, however, this goes at the credibility of what we call evidence.

    If someone wants to make a case for above to be true (speed of light), one needs to do lot more work than write a snippet. (bhaskar verse or Hanuman chalisa shlok).

    Your second question about Science..

    When I refer to ‘science’, I have ‘reductionist modern science’ in mind that demands subject independent evidence (testing/repeat experiments/independent evidence preferably from unrelated fields.. e.g. Astronomy, geology, genetics, linguistics, archeology, literary evidence, etc.).

    The approch of modern science is necessarily reductionist in nature. It leads to more (not absolute) objectivity, however it comes at a cost.

    Now contrast that with knowledge…

    Knowledge is not limited to outcome of science.. that can come from experience, past generation passing on their wisdom, trial and error, intuition, accidents and such.. That is all knowledge. Thus knowledge is much more than what is gleaned from science.

    Hope this helps,

    • In the previous link(of IJHS, by N.G.Dongre), it is clear that Ancient Indians had technological capabilities to measure the properties of light and so on.We can make an educative guess, that they did have technologies(whatever crude form it may be) to measure the speed of light.And many of the queries that you raise,quite rightly, have already been addressed by Prof.Subhash Kak [1], in his papers–at least partially.
      (I think, Rajiv Malhotra has given a beautiful talk about this very same issue, in IITK, a video which is available online.)
      The reason that I am reluctant to stop thinking about this is–
      1)Scientists have,to this day, ignored Ancient Indian Science(largely for ideological reasons, “Western Universalism” ?); and time has truly come today to rediscover it.
      2)I believe that many things that our Ancients have written, they did it for a purpose,reason and meaning.
      3)As a physics student, I feel that studying Ancient Indian Physics with a more open mind would radically change the current course of the subject.(do not know, if I am right here !)
      Hope I am not disturbing you, Sir.
      Learned a lot, from your works(and reply too !!) .
      Thank You

      • Sree Charan R,

        I see we both are in broad agreement.

        Open mind is a basic requirement and is opposite of dogma. And this is not limited to Ancient Indian Physics (whatever you mean by that). The principle applies to all subjects.

  4. By “Ancient Indian Physics”, I meant—“the development in Physics(I understand Physics, as natural understanding of nature, in a natural manner)–albeit, in a different approach than that of today– that took place in a period (pre-modern, only in a time sense) that is called as Ancient, in a geographical region that today we call as India.”
    Thank You, Sir.

  5. Since the water gushed in suddenly and from sea, tsunami could be a reason. However, there’s another twist to the story.
    Three ancient sources – Harivansha, Matsyapurana & Bhagvat Gita concur that it took people 7 days to vacate Dwarka after which the city sunk into Sea.
    If it was a sudden incident like Tsunami, how is it that water came in suddenly yet the sinking took 7 days?
    We know of cases in Bay of Bengal and Arabian sea from recent Tsunamis where existing islands have vanished and new ones have come up. All those are single shot events, not a gradual week long process.
    Having said that, we can’t still discount the Tsunami possibility completely, because we don’t yet understand these calamities and powers behind completely. We also don’t have sufficient data on Tsunamis of past thousands of years to say with surety that a slow sink is impossible against a tsunami.

    The reference cited at the post says “catastrophic sea-level rise and ice-sheet collapse” which also suggests that an interesting alternate theory might be put on the table soon.

  6. Pardon my wild guess but could it be possible that an ice-sheet collapse would send sea waves into Dwarka.
    And then while the sheet(s) slowly melts, it raises the sea level for Dwarka?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s