What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historic Rama: Indian Civilization at the End of Pleistocene
From the author of 'When did the Mahabharata War happen? The Mystery of Arundhati'. Employing tools of Archeo-astronomy and the logic of scientific discovery, coupled with fantastic intuition, Nilesh Oak tests, with scientific precision, observations from the oldest epic of humanity - Valmiki Ramayana. He takes us on an exciting tour from the present, into remote antiquity of human civilization. Here is the book for everyone who is interested in antiquity of civilizations, Ramayana, ancient Indian history and Archeo-astronomy Praise for 'The Historic Rama' It was a fascinating ride. The pictures helped enormously. It is funny, logical, unapologetic, interesting, thought-provoking and most importantly, it requires a higher amount of reader participation. This is not a book for reading before bed or in a leisurely mood. This book is best read with a pen and a paper nearby. --- Congratulations for an amazing, meticulous and painstaking work. I salute your devotion and hard work. I have no knowledge or appreciation of arguments connected with astronomy. I had read Pushkar Bhatnagar’s book and also heard his lecture. Your book has prompted me to read books by Vartak, Yardi and others. I had found Bhatnagar’s dates very attractive because they tally with the anthropological history of India. A date of 12000 BCE will need pushing back the history of agriculture in India to almost 5000 years earlier than its documented evidence. However, who knows, some new discoveries are waiting to be made as has happened in case of the use of iron. --- As I was reading, I got transported to Rama’s time and went through the journey. I liked your set of questions that the dating of Ramayana does to the world history. Overall I am impressed and this will do a lot to revive interest in Ramayana and lend credence to the epic just as the discovery of Troy did to Homer’s Iliad. --- The book is excellent. I also enjoyed the last appendix on the ‘origins of weekday names and division’. It seemed like a relief when I reached the appendix, but ended up re-reading it in order to fully comprehend the gist of it. --- Thank you so much for the work you have done to unearth the timelines of Ramayana. Reading the book gives me Goosebumps. I never had such an experience before. Hindus were blamed for not keeping track of time. Your research disproves it totally, clearly showing how the use of motion of celestial bodies serves as the ultimate timekeeper. --- I love the quotations you give at the beginning of every chapter which sets the tone of that chapter. --- It is a great piece of work! Some parts I enjoyed more than others, particularly, the re-appearance of Brahma-Rashi. If it truly refers to star Abhijit (Vega), then description of it ‘shining brightly’ is clearly explained. An excellent observation indeed! --- It was an incredible experience to read your wonderful book. I did not realize that our tradition and history went so far back! Thanks again for this wonderful book. I am looking forward to reading your next book. --- I had a wonderful evening today explaining to my family how the 24 hour day, the 7 day week, the names of the weekdays, the sequence of weekday names, are all based on a system founded on logic of astronomy observations. And the week had an Out-of-India migration just like the Zero! So next time some AIT-Nazi talks you down, ask him what weekday it is! Nilesh ji, a big thank you to you, Sudarshan Bharadwaj and Shri Suhas Gurjar. --- BHARAT is REBORN, as its most famous son, Lord Rama, has finally found a throne on world's timeline! And it is an open challenge from Nilesh Nilkanth Oak to the world to try and dethrone Lord Rama from that throne if they think they are intellectually up to the task. --- The book is gripping, fascinating and hard to put it down.
- GenresHistory
284 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 2014
124 people are currently reading
263 people want to read
About the author
Nilesh Nilkanth Oak
12 books78 followersNilesh Nilkanth Oak is an author, original researcher, TEDx speaker, UAA-ICT Distinguished Alumnus, and sought after keynote speaker. He holds BS and MS in Chemical Engineering and Executive MBA.
He has published 3 revolutionary books: 1. When did the Mahabharata War Happen, 2. The Historic Rama, 3. Bhishma Nirvana. His books have been and are being translated into various other languages. He travels extensively around the world speaking to university and college students and to mainstream audiences. His work has inspired novels, novelettes, documentaries and movies.
Nilesh helps individuals become aware of the deep wisdom and antiquity of Indian civilization so that they truly comprehend, present, or defend the grand narrative of this civilization unlike most other Indic researchers because he builds it through scientific acumen and logical reasoning.
He is a researcher and adjunct faculty at Institute of Advanced Sciences, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA.
He has published 3 revolutionary books: 1. When did the Mahabharata War Happen, 2. The Historic Rama, 3. Bhishma Nirvana. His books have been and are being translated into various other languages. He travels extensively around the world speaking to university and college students and to mainstream audiences. His work has inspired novels, novelettes, documentaries and movies.
Nilesh helps individuals become aware of the deep wisdom and antiquity of Indian civilization so that they truly comprehend, present, or defend the grand narrative of this civilization unlike most other Indic researchers because he builds it through scientific acumen and logical reasoning.
He is a researcher and adjunct faculty at Institute of Advanced Sciences, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 12, 2021
Another fantastic book by Nilesh Oak. Ever since reading his book on Mahabharata war I have been listening to his YouTube videos, etc. and his astronomical-based research is always scientific and verifiable!
This is another great book by him that proves the antiquity of Hindu or Vedic civilization and India being the cradle of world civilization.
This is another great book by him that proves the antiquity of Hindu or Vedic civilization and India being the cradle of world civilization.
June 8, 2018
Most plausible dating of the antiquity of Ramayana
It shows that we are far from correctly interpreting our ancient writings on many subjects. The book opens up many areas of further research, which will enable us to reclaim our ownership of the vast knowledge.
It shows that we are far from correctly interpreting our ancient writings on many subjects. The book opens up many areas of further research, which will enable us to reclaim our ownership of the vast knowledge.
May 15, 2019
New way of looking at antiquity of Ramayan
Astonishingly trustworthy argument. I don't think any one having taken this route to prove that Ramayan is a history. Need to read book.
Astonishingly trustworthy argument. I don't think any one having taken this route to prove that Ramayan is a history. Need to read book.
Read
May 18, 2022"All explanations of astronomy observations from Ramayana are derived from a simple hypothesis of visual observations of the sky. No astrological ‘Drishthi’ and no astrological definitions of ‘exalted’ grahas! ... "
That is convenient attitude due to his hypothesis of a birth date of Rama not matching the horoscope, but Oak is wrong here. It's pretty silly to assume the first statement above, and then try to interpret anybody saying that five planets were exalted at noon when Rama was born, as "they were all above horizon ", when in reality they could not be visible unless it was an eclipse, and that's impossible since it was a waxing 9th date!
No matter how much Oak despises astrology, no matter how inconvenient it is to his thesis, the very basic, factual, fundamental contradiction in the two statements by him there is unbridgable and makes his whole effort suspect, despite having found a comet, a plausible timeline and some eclipses.
"I must make it clear that while not a final word on this subject, I do claim my work to be the best, and my theory/proposal to be the better theory/proposal, among five proposals (SRS, Vartak, Bhatnagar-Bala, Yardi and Oak) put forward to determine the timing of Ramayana."
While that may be correct, is it good enough? Not if the horoscope data, as given by Valmiki, doesn't match.
Basic thesis of Oak, that he's found a plausible timeline which fits much of astronomical observations, is already working at the first major fitting thereof - the Pole star being brilliant can only work with Vega being the Pole star, and so his timeline is the first plausible such possibility.
But he's hiding here the fact obvious to anybody looking at skies, or a sky map, or Wikipedia, that Vega isn't the only such possibility. There's at least one more star, Deneb, which is bright enough and close to the circle traced by axis of Earth in its precession over 26,000 year cycles.
Another surprise sprung here is that while he's explained Pole shift and consequences on seasons, he hadn't explained that it meant a shift of the lunar month corresponding to the solar year; the diatribe so far seemed to fit a shift of seasons along the solar year, as in spring coming earlier until its in September.
This assumption of his is based on an assumption that earth's Pole shift did not affect the seasons and Nordic seasons adhered to the dates we know, while lunar months of India shifted.
Reality could very well be, in fact is, the very opposite. Wikipedia in fact assumes, and states it, as such, and presumably that's based on conventional interpretation in West, agreed on by astronomers, physicists and generally scientists.
So unlike Oak’s presentation throughout this work, where he's glued Gregorian calendar to seasons as we know for all past millennia, Wikipedia even gives diagrams to illustrate the shift through a cycle of 26,000 years, with each quarter thereof shifting seasons a quarter forward along the year as one looks back in past.
This is consistent either astrology and calendar of west, where zodiac signs and seasons are not welded to visible constellations, while most Indian calendars and astrology ignore the precession, and is true to the constellations observable.
According to which, then, 13,000 years ago, summer was in December-January-February, winter in June-July-August, and spring similarly switched with autumn along Western calendar. But since that calendar ignores constellations and Indian ones don't, Indian months stayed true to seasons, Chaitra remained Vasanta, Ashwin the beginning of sharad, and so on.
***
Author does a good job of explaining astronomical facts related to calendar, especially Indian Calendar, and also about scientific methods of theory, experiments and logic.
But he presents it badly by asserting that he's ruled out Chaitra being Vasanta, not having given reasons thereof, and thereafter by two other lapses in reasoning.
First, he hasn't explored other possibilities of timelines, which might have better fitting, and occurred every time 26,000 years cycle was completed, going backwards. This could even fit better around the million year ago timeline.
Two, he's unclear about astronomical observations versus astrological rules and interpretations thereof; He misinterpreted "exalted planets" as to mean "above the horizon", which is incorrect and in fact meaningless.
He also does the opposite, and misinterprets a poetic description of Rama meeting Bharata to mean that Sun, Moon, Venus and Jupiter were all together; he explicitly states that it therefore must be a no Moon day, Amawasya, with further interpretation that Jupiter and Venus also were in conjunction with Sun.
But Valmiki was a poet, not astrologer. His observations must be visual, of beauty seen in heavens. Therefore it had to be of greatest possible elongations of each, of Moon and of the planets, from Sun. This can only be with a full Moon and Jupiter rising on an Eastern horizon, opposite Sun just setting but visible on Western horizon, with a bright Venus visible high above in Western horizon.
This is perhaps a minor one in the sense of just one date which is less important than the whole timeline, but it's major in context of lapse in thinking, and even more in that of an attitude - he hasn't bothered to consult asttology in context of the astronomical observations, nor thought about or realised just when it's a poet's observation versus when it's an astrological one.
Perhaps there's another timeline, modulo some numbers of cycles of 26,000 years in past before one he picks (which is the first possible timeline), which fits better. Perhaps his mistaken observations are modifiable on his timeline as well.
Either way, it's a good thesis but leaves much in terms of gaps in reasoning and observations, assumptions and interpretations.
Oak mentions, and later reminds of his mentioning, as per his own timeline, that Venus and Jupiter were visible and not mentioned by Valmiki, and wondering why.
He's unable to come to terms with this discrepancy nixing his timeline, and need to go back in past modulo 26,000 years cycles, until everything fits as per diverse descriptions of Valmiki; also, perhaps need to reconsider Chaitra being Vasanta as traditionally held, rather than the proposed sharad he's held on fast to, seemingly not so much for its logic than for its being rather shocking to traditional India and other readers of the text.
***
" ... While the first day of the year in Gregorian calendar is arbitrary, in the sense that it does not coincide with any specific cardinal point, the Gregorian calendar has rules so that it closely approximates the solar year and will continue to do so for next 8000 years without introducing much inaccuracy."
As a matter of fact, it's when Sun is closer to Earth, and perhaps it was in not too distant history that it was the day the two were closest.
Around turn of this millennium, as per a scientist at planetarium, when questioned about the date about when the Earth and Sun were closest and whether that was the significance of the first, it was stated that that was 3rd or 4th of January, at this time.
At some point in past, that point in time, of Earth being closest to Sun, might have been the beginning of the year, just as winter solstice might have been 25th December at some time in past until two millennia ago, and hence celebrated for centuries as Saturnalia, until it had to be given a false new name, because a new creed couldn't stop the celebrations.
Oak spends a great deal of space in initial chapters on logic, reasoning, rigorous examination of theory and evidence, and scientific methods of examination.
His subsequent treatment of the subject however jumps over logic, evidence and reasoning, and simply uses sleight of reasoning repeatedly to create an illusion of evidence having supported his contentions and assertions.
It's unclear if he's aware of the huge gaps.
***
Chapter six where he claims he's ruled out Vasant as season of coronation of Rama, and fixes the timeline of Ramayana circa 12,000 BCE to 17,5000 BCE, isn't convincing.
There's no reason to not go back to 24,000 to 26,000 years in the first place, and the argument about pole star being bright, therefore Vega, ought to have preceded that about month of coronation being season of flowers, besides Vega beingnot the only option.
Even so, that only fixes it at the period he picks, modulo a number of cycles of 26,000 years, since Vega being Pole star is the fixed conclusion.
There's still no reason to not question if it wasn't a suitable number of cycles of 26,000 years, taking it closest possible to a million years ago, since that's the timeline of Himalaya and Vindhya being of comparable heights and "looking at one another", (across an ocean that vanished as Himalayan ranges rose out of the ocean?), as he refers before beginning part I.
He discards the million year BCE timeline and its unclear if that's in order to pick a unique one for himself instead, but gives the reason of glow of Yamuna having shifted East only 50,000 years ago. This shift, however, may have occurred several times in past.
But this rigorous objection or reasoning isn't applied to his own choice of season and time, except in observation that Vega is the only star that can be seen as a bright pole star.
And even if his choice of Chaitra as Sharad be correct, which isn't proved by him but merely asserted, he hasn't presented it with logic enough, but merely stated it as proved. He's made choices further that are arbitrary, too, while traditional choices - Chaitra as Vasant - fit several other points better, such as Ashwin and Sharad being the traditional month for campaigns, and more.
***
"Bala Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana described the Graha-sthithi (planetary positions), at the time of Rama’s birth as follows:
"ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतू नाम षट समत्ययु:
"तत: च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ
"नक्षत्रे अदिती दैवत्ये स्व उच्च्छ संस्थेषु पंचसु
"ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह"
"Translation:
"After completion of Yajna and when six seasons had elapsed, then in the 12th month, i.e. during the lunar month of Chaitra, on the 9th day, on nakshatra Punarvasu (Nakshatra Devata-Aditi) and when five grahas were in exalted state, Rama was born. Jupiter and the moon were in some specific combination with nakshatra Pushya (or area of zodiac Cancer). Karka was ascendant.
"The observation makes it clear that the lunar day (Tithi) was Chaitra Shuddha 9 and nakshatra Punarvasu. Jupiter was together with the moon, and since nakshatra was Punarvasu, it is reasonable to expect the moon near Gemini/Cancer. The five grahas were described as exalted, however, neither the details of specific five grahas mentioned nor the definition of their being exalted."
Valmiki wasn't about to write a treatise on elementary astrology! Those meanings and much more can be easily found in such a book. And it is easy in this case, even if most astrologers of India didn't know thus particular horoscope as an elementary lesson in astrology. The five exalted planets are Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn; Venus could be exalted but it contradicts life of Rama, who was single a year after returning to Ayodhya, for ever.
Moon isn't exactly exalted in Cancer, but is very strong in every way, being home and with Jupiter. The elementary lesson of this horoscope however is about five exalted planets bringing not ease as a result but strife, and eventually, lone existence on earth.
"I have proposed day of 29 November 12240 BCE for the day of Rama-Janma. On this day, the sun was in Pisces, Mars was at the border of Pisces and Aquarius, Jupiter was in Sagittarius, Venus was in Capricorn and Saturn was in Sagittarius.
"The planetary positions for the day of Rama-Janma, proposed by me, do not corroborate with this Ramayana observation."
Oak does face saving by calling astrological tenets "of our times" and claims to neither accept nor reject them. This however won't do, and his proposed date is in need of correction to fit the necessary condition. It shouldn't be too difficult to feed the horoscope into the program and ask for matching dates for a million years.
In short, Oak needs to rethink his concern regarding West, or forces assaulting everything Indian of Indian origin, by whatever label.
***
Next, he uses a comet observed by Laxman to search for the timeline. Again, he's fixing the game; this only says, might be. But to say there's no other possibility, one has to eliminate all possibilities up to a million years ago, going approximately by 26,000 year cycles in past with two possibilities in mind, of Vasanta in Chaitra and Sharad in chaitra. What Oak fixes so far is only the latest possible date that Ramayana could have occurred.
Now Oak springs a surprise -
"Comet Laxman was seen near nakshatra Moola as Rama and his Vanara army traveled towards Lanka. This year was 12209 BCE. The comet was in apparition during the month of September and was brightest around 9-10 September 12209 BCE. The corresponding lunar month was that of Margashirsha/Pausha and the time of summer solstice.
"Since Ramayana text stated that Rama did return to Ayodhya at the end of the 14th year6 of his ‘forest stay’ and since he had left for the forest on his birthday – Chaitra Shuddha Navami, we can calculate the timing for the month of Chaitra occurring after 9-10 September 12209 BCE. Chaitra Shuddha Navami occurred on 17 December 12209 BCE and we can mark it as the approximate (and tentative) time of Rama’s return to Ayodhya from Lanka. Thus Rama-Ravana Yuddha took place in the year 12209 BCE."
"We can define, albeit tentatively, 13th Millennium BCE as the Ramayana Millennium."
Oak is still ignoring the 26,000 years cycles with two options in each cycle, corresponding to Chaitra being either Vasanta, spring or opposite, Sharad. This gives us several possibilities still to eliminate, twice every 26,000 years cycle for a million years past.
***
"‘Situation similar to the time of Rama’s birth’ could mean simply the timing of Chaitra Shuddha 9. On the other hand, if this reference also means positions of grahas, we will have to explore planetary situations separated by 17 years and evaluate their positions and compare for similarities between two instances, i.e. Rama Janma and scheduled coronation of Rama, 17 years after his birth."
Rahu position repeats every 18 years, but the transit through a sign lasts a year and half; rest of similarities could be exactly identical for inner planets, and impossible for outer ones as identical. They might, however, be similar in some aspects. A planet aspect in some regions or other planets well, for example, can recur without exact repetition of positions of either.
Oak would have done well having an astrologer, or at least a student thereof, to collaborate with him to interpret the verses related to astronomical observations and astrological interpretations thereof.
***
"The astronomy observations at the time of Rama Janma are certainly confusing with the exception of the nakshatra of the day – Punarvasu. The exact text of Ramayana, at the time of Rama Janma states18,
"ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतू नाम षट समत्ययु:
"तत: च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ
"नक्षत्रे अदिती दैवत्ये स्व उच्च्छ संस्थेषु पंचसु
"ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह
"प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथम सर्व लोक नमस्कृतम
"कौसल्या अजनयत रामं सर्व लक्षण संयुतम
"विष्णो अर्धं महाभागम पुत्रं ऐक्ष्वाकु नन्दनम
"लोहिताक्षम महाबाहुं रक्त ओष्तम दुंदुभी स्वनम"
"When six seasons (one year) had passed, during the 12th month, on the 9th day of Chaitra, when the Nakshatra was presided by its Deity Aditi (Punarvasu) and when five grahas were exalted. The nakshatra was Punarvasu (Devata= Aditi) and 5 grahas were exalted. Jupiter (Vak-pati) was along with the moon (or they were in similar positions, i.e. ascendant, descendant, etc.)."
"While commentators/researchers have added specific interpretations of what exalted grahas mean, Valmiki Ramayana does not provide definitions of what it means to have a graha (or plaents) in exalted state."
Astrology isn't arbitrary or a matter of personal interpretation upto a matter of certain exact astronomical positions, and "exalted, debilitated" are exact terms in astrology for each planet. Interpretations come after this level.
"GP edition refers to the sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus as five grahas and their appearance in zodiacal signs of Aries, Capricorn, Libra, Cancer and Pisces, respectively, qualifies them as being exalted. Vartak and Bhatnagar refer to similar interpretation."
There's no other possibility when once a statement about five planets being exalted in the horoscope- those are the respective signs that Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus are in; but Oak’s omission of the Moon therefrom isn't obvious, unless the specific planets mentioned by Valmiki omit Moon.
As far as general consensus goes, it's Moon included amongst exalted planets, not Venus, which accords with his being dingle for most of his life beginningalmostwith conception of his sons, when he sent his Queeninto exile. If Venus is exalted in this horoscope, he'd not be single by choice thereafter.
Mercury couldn't be exalted if Sun is, in any horoscope.
This chart serves to illustrate the lesson of astrology about unhappy result of specific four exalted planet Sun, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, set in a square due to their exalted positions and opposing or otherwise badly aspecting one another.
"While Vartak and Bhatnagar claim to have grahas in exalted positions for their proposed timeline, this is not the case. Grahas are not in exalted state (as per definition) for my proposed day either. In short, notwithstanding the claims to contrary, no researcher has shown five grahas in exalted positions (per astrology rules and/or their own interpretation) for their proposals."
That's because this is taken as the last, not the first, point to consider, and dismissed when the author's favorite dates don't oblige. It ought to be done the other way - search first and foremost for those specific five planets being in those specific signs. This shouldn't be difficult.
***
"Table lists positions of five astral bodies (Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus) for 4 different proposed dates for Rama Janma. Second column shows desired positions of these astral bodies to qualify as being in ‘EXHALTED’ state. Epoch of 2000 CE was used for ‘Right Ascension values’ in defining areas of Zodiac and also positions of astral bodies. Time: 12:00 PM
"I conjecture that exalted state of grahas, assuming my proposal is a valid proposal, may refer to ....
That is convenient attitude due to his hypothesis of a birth date of Rama not matching the horoscope, but Oak is wrong here. It's pretty silly to assume the first statement above, and then try to interpret anybody saying that five planets were exalted at noon when Rama was born, as "they were all above horizon ", when in reality they could not be visible unless it was an eclipse, and that's impossible since it was a waxing 9th date!
No matter how much Oak despises astrology, no matter how inconvenient it is to his thesis, the very basic, factual, fundamental contradiction in the two statements by him there is unbridgable and makes his whole effort suspect, despite having found a comet, a plausible timeline and some eclipses.
"I must make it clear that while not a final word on this subject, I do claim my work to be the best, and my theory/proposal to be the better theory/proposal, among five proposals (SRS, Vartak, Bhatnagar-Bala, Yardi and Oak) put forward to determine the timing of Ramayana."
While that may be correct, is it good enough? Not if the horoscope data, as given by Valmiki, doesn't match.
Basic thesis of Oak, that he's found a plausible timeline which fits much of astronomical observations, is already working at the first major fitting thereof - the Pole star being brilliant can only work with Vega being the Pole star, and so his timeline is the first plausible such possibility.
But he's hiding here the fact obvious to anybody looking at skies, or a sky map, or Wikipedia, that Vega isn't the only such possibility. There's at least one more star, Deneb, which is bright enough and close to the circle traced by axis of Earth in its precession over 26,000 year cycles.
Another surprise sprung here is that while he's explained Pole shift and consequences on seasons, he hadn't explained that it meant a shift of the lunar month corresponding to the solar year; the diatribe so far seemed to fit a shift of seasons along the solar year, as in spring coming earlier until its in September.
This assumption of his is based on an assumption that earth's Pole shift did not affect the seasons and Nordic seasons adhered to the dates we know, while lunar months of India shifted.
Reality could very well be, in fact is, the very opposite. Wikipedia in fact assumes, and states it, as such, and presumably that's based on conventional interpretation in West, agreed on by astronomers, physicists and generally scientists.
So unlike Oak’s presentation throughout this work, where he's glued Gregorian calendar to seasons as we know for all past millennia, Wikipedia even gives diagrams to illustrate the shift through a cycle of 26,000 years, with each quarter thereof shifting seasons a quarter forward along the year as one looks back in past.
This is consistent either astrology and calendar of west, where zodiac signs and seasons are not welded to visible constellations, while most Indian calendars and astrology ignore the precession, and is true to the constellations observable.
According to which, then, 13,000 years ago, summer was in December-January-February, winter in June-July-August, and spring similarly switched with autumn along Western calendar. But since that calendar ignores constellations and Indian ones don't, Indian months stayed true to seasons, Chaitra remained Vasanta, Ashwin the beginning of sharad, and so on.
***
Author does a good job of explaining astronomical facts related to calendar, especially Indian Calendar, and also about scientific methods of theory, experiments and logic.
But he presents it badly by asserting that he's ruled out Chaitra being Vasanta, not having given reasons thereof, and thereafter by two other lapses in reasoning.
First, he hasn't explored other possibilities of timelines, which might have better fitting, and occurred every time 26,000 years cycle was completed, going backwards. This could even fit better around the million year ago timeline.
Two, he's unclear about astronomical observations versus astrological rules and interpretations thereof; He misinterpreted "exalted planets" as to mean "above the horizon", which is incorrect and in fact meaningless.
He also does the opposite, and misinterprets a poetic description of Rama meeting Bharata to mean that Sun, Moon, Venus and Jupiter were all together; he explicitly states that it therefore must be a no Moon day, Amawasya, with further interpretation that Jupiter and Venus also were in conjunction with Sun.
But Valmiki was a poet, not astrologer. His observations must be visual, of beauty seen in heavens. Therefore it had to be of greatest possible elongations of each, of Moon and of the planets, from Sun. This can only be with a full Moon and Jupiter rising on an Eastern horizon, opposite Sun just setting but visible on Western horizon, with a bright Venus visible high above in Western horizon.
This is perhaps a minor one in the sense of just one date which is less important than the whole timeline, but it's major in context of lapse in thinking, and even more in that of an attitude - he hasn't bothered to consult asttology in context of the astronomical observations, nor thought about or realised just when it's a poet's observation versus when it's an astrological one.
Perhaps there's another timeline, modulo some numbers of cycles of 26,000 years in past before one he picks (which is the first possible timeline), which fits better. Perhaps his mistaken observations are modifiable on his timeline as well.
Either way, it's a good thesis but leaves much in terms of gaps in reasoning and observations, assumptions and interpretations.
Oak mentions, and later reminds of his mentioning, as per his own timeline, that Venus and Jupiter were visible and not mentioned by Valmiki, and wondering why.
He's unable to come to terms with this discrepancy nixing his timeline, and need to go back in past modulo 26,000 years cycles, until everything fits as per diverse descriptions of Valmiki; also, perhaps need to reconsider Chaitra being Vasanta as traditionally held, rather than the proposed sharad he's held on fast to, seemingly not so much for its logic than for its being rather shocking to traditional India and other readers of the text.
***
" ... While the first day of the year in Gregorian calendar is arbitrary, in the sense that it does not coincide with any specific cardinal point, the Gregorian calendar has rules so that it closely approximates the solar year and will continue to do so for next 8000 years without introducing much inaccuracy."
As a matter of fact, it's when Sun is closer to Earth, and perhaps it was in not too distant history that it was the day the two were closest.
Around turn of this millennium, as per a scientist at planetarium, when questioned about the date about when the Earth and Sun were closest and whether that was the significance of the first, it was stated that that was 3rd or 4th of January, at this time.
At some point in past, that point in time, of Earth being closest to Sun, might have been the beginning of the year, just as winter solstice might have been 25th December at some time in past until two millennia ago, and hence celebrated for centuries as Saturnalia, until it had to be given a false new name, because a new creed couldn't stop the celebrations.
Oak spends a great deal of space in initial chapters on logic, reasoning, rigorous examination of theory and evidence, and scientific methods of examination.
His subsequent treatment of the subject however jumps over logic, evidence and reasoning, and simply uses sleight of reasoning repeatedly to create an illusion of evidence having supported his contentions and assertions.
It's unclear if he's aware of the huge gaps.
***
Chapter six where he claims he's ruled out Vasant as season of coronation of Rama, and fixes the timeline of Ramayana circa 12,000 BCE to 17,5000 BCE, isn't convincing.
There's no reason to not go back to 24,000 to 26,000 years in the first place, and the argument about pole star being bright, therefore Vega, ought to have preceded that about month of coronation being season of flowers, besides Vega beingnot the only option.
Even so, that only fixes it at the period he picks, modulo a number of cycles of 26,000 years, since Vega being Pole star is the fixed conclusion.
There's still no reason to not question if it wasn't a suitable number of cycles of 26,000 years, taking it closest possible to a million years ago, since that's the timeline of Himalaya and Vindhya being of comparable heights and "looking at one another", (across an ocean that vanished as Himalayan ranges rose out of the ocean?), as he refers before beginning part I.
He discards the million year BCE timeline and its unclear if that's in order to pick a unique one for himself instead, but gives the reason of glow of Yamuna having shifted East only 50,000 years ago. This shift, however, may have occurred several times in past.
But this rigorous objection or reasoning isn't applied to his own choice of season and time, except in observation that Vega is the only star that can be seen as a bright pole star.
And even if his choice of Chaitra as Sharad be correct, which isn't proved by him but merely asserted, he hasn't presented it with logic enough, but merely stated it as proved. He's made choices further that are arbitrary, too, while traditional choices - Chaitra as Vasant - fit several other points better, such as Ashwin and Sharad being the traditional month for campaigns, and more.
***
"Bala Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana described the Graha-sthithi (planetary positions), at the time of Rama’s birth as follows:
"ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतू नाम षट समत्ययु:
"तत: च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ
"नक्षत्रे अदिती दैवत्ये स्व उच्च्छ संस्थेषु पंचसु
"ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह"
"Translation:
"After completion of Yajna and when six seasons had elapsed, then in the 12th month, i.e. during the lunar month of Chaitra, on the 9th day, on nakshatra Punarvasu (Nakshatra Devata-Aditi) and when five grahas were in exalted state, Rama was born. Jupiter and the moon were in some specific combination with nakshatra Pushya (or area of zodiac Cancer). Karka was ascendant.
"The observation makes it clear that the lunar day (Tithi) was Chaitra Shuddha 9 and nakshatra Punarvasu. Jupiter was together with the moon, and since nakshatra was Punarvasu, it is reasonable to expect the moon near Gemini/Cancer. The five grahas were described as exalted, however, neither the details of specific five grahas mentioned nor the definition of their being exalted."
Valmiki wasn't about to write a treatise on elementary astrology! Those meanings and much more can be easily found in such a book. And it is easy in this case, even if most astrologers of India didn't know thus particular horoscope as an elementary lesson in astrology. The five exalted planets are Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn; Venus could be exalted but it contradicts life of Rama, who was single a year after returning to Ayodhya, for ever.
Moon isn't exactly exalted in Cancer, but is very strong in every way, being home and with Jupiter. The elementary lesson of this horoscope however is about five exalted planets bringing not ease as a result but strife, and eventually, lone existence on earth.
"I have proposed day of 29 November 12240 BCE for the day of Rama-Janma. On this day, the sun was in Pisces, Mars was at the border of Pisces and Aquarius, Jupiter was in Sagittarius, Venus was in Capricorn and Saturn was in Sagittarius.
"The planetary positions for the day of Rama-Janma, proposed by me, do not corroborate with this Ramayana observation."
Oak does face saving by calling astrological tenets "of our times" and claims to neither accept nor reject them. This however won't do, and his proposed date is in need of correction to fit the necessary condition. It shouldn't be too difficult to feed the horoscope into the program and ask for matching dates for a million years.
In short, Oak needs to rethink his concern regarding West, or forces assaulting everything Indian of Indian origin, by whatever label.
***
Next, he uses a comet observed by Laxman to search for the timeline. Again, he's fixing the game; this only says, might be. But to say there's no other possibility, one has to eliminate all possibilities up to a million years ago, going approximately by 26,000 year cycles in past with two possibilities in mind, of Vasanta in Chaitra and Sharad in chaitra. What Oak fixes so far is only the latest possible date that Ramayana could have occurred.
Now Oak springs a surprise -
"Comet Laxman was seen near nakshatra Moola as Rama and his Vanara army traveled towards Lanka. This year was 12209 BCE. The comet was in apparition during the month of September and was brightest around 9-10 September 12209 BCE. The corresponding lunar month was that of Margashirsha/Pausha and the time of summer solstice.
"Since Ramayana text stated that Rama did return to Ayodhya at the end of the 14th year6 of his ‘forest stay’ and since he had left for the forest on his birthday – Chaitra Shuddha Navami, we can calculate the timing for the month of Chaitra occurring after 9-10 September 12209 BCE. Chaitra Shuddha Navami occurred on 17 December 12209 BCE and we can mark it as the approximate (and tentative) time of Rama’s return to Ayodhya from Lanka. Thus Rama-Ravana Yuddha took place in the year 12209 BCE."
"We can define, albeit tentatively, 13th Millennium BCE as the Ramayana Millennium."
Oak is still ignoring the 26,000 years cycles with two options in each cycle, corresponding to Chaitra being either Vasanta, spring or opposite, Sharad. This gives us several possibilities still to eliminate, twice every 26,000 years cycle for a million years past.
***
"‘Situation similar to the time of Rama’s birth’ could mean simply the timing of Chaitra Shuddha 9. On the other hand, if this reference also means positions of grahas, we will have to explore planetary situations separated by 17 years and evaluate their positions and compare for similarities between two instances, i.e. Rama Janma and scheduled coronation of Rama, 17 years after his birth."
Rahu position repeats every 18 years, but the transit through a sign lasts a year and half; rest of similarities could be exactly identical for inner planets, and impossible for outer ones as identical. They might, however, be similar in some aspects. A planet aspect in some regions or other planets well, for example, can recur without exact repetition of positions of either.
Oak would have done well having an astrologer, or at least a student thereof, to collaborate with him to interpret the verses related to astronomical observations and astrological interpretations thereof.
***
"The astronomy observations at the time of Rama Janma are certainly confusing with the exception of the nakshatra of the day – Punarvasu. The exact text of Ramayana, at the time of Rama Janma states18,
"ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतू नाम षट समत्ययु:
"तत: च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ
"नक्षत्रे अदिती दैवत्ये स्व उच्च्छ संस्थेषु पंचसु
"ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह
"प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथम सर्व लोक नमस्कृतम
"कौसल्या अजनयत रामं सर्व लक्षण संयुतम
"विष्णो अर्धं महाभागम पुत्रं ऐक्ष्वाकु नन्दनम
"लोहिताक्षम महाबाहुं रक्त ओष्तम दुंदुभी स्वनम"
"When six seasons (one year) had passed, during the 12th month, on the 9th day of Chaitra, when the Nakshatra was presided by its Deity Aditi (Punarvasu) and when five grahas were exalted. The nakshatra was Punarvasu (Devata= Aditi) and 5 grahas were exalted. Jupiter (Vak-pati) was along with the moon (or they were in similar positions, i.e. ascendant, descendant, etc.)."
"While commentators/researchers have added specific interpretations of what exalted grahas mean, Valmiki Ramayana does not provide definitions of what it means to have a graha (or plaents) in exalted state."
Astrology isn't arbitrary or a matter of personal interpretation upto a matter of certain exact astronomical positions, and "exalted, debilitated" are exact terms in astrology for each planet. Interpretations come after this level.
"GP edition refers to the sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus as five grahas and their appearance in zodiacal signs of Aries, Capricorn, Libra, Cancer and Pisces, respectively, qualifies them as being exalted. Vartak and Bhatnagar refer to similar interpretation."
There's no other possibility when once a statement about five planets being exalted in the horoscope- those are the respective signs that Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus are in; but Oak’s omission of the Moon therefrom isn't obvious, unless the specific planets mentioned by Valmiki omit Moon.
As far as general consensus goes, it's Moon included amongst exalted planets, not Venus, which accords with his being dingle for most of his life beginningalmostwith conception of his sons, when he sent his Queeninto exile. If Venus is exalted in this horoscope, he'd not be single by choice thereafter.
Mercury couldn't be exalted if Sun is, in any horoscope.
This chart serves to illustrate the lesson of astrology about unhappy result of specific four exalted planet Sun, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, set in a square due to their exalted positions and opposing or otherwise badly aspecting one another.
"While Vartak and Bhatnagar claim to have grahas in exalted positions for their proposed timeline, this is not the case. Grahas are not in exalted state (as per definition) for my proposed day either. In short, notwithstanding the claims to contrary, no researcher has shown five grahas in exalted positions (per astrology rules and/or their own interpretation) for their proposals."
That's because this is taken as the last, not the first, point to consider, and dismissed when the author's favorite dates don't oblige. It ought to be done the other way - search first and foremost for those specific five planets being in those specific signs. This shouldn't be difficult.
***
"Table lists positions of five astral bodies (Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus) for 4 different proposed dates for Rama Janma. Second column shows desired positions of these astral bodies to qualify as being in ‘EXHALTED’ state. Epoch of 2000 CE was used for ‘Right Ascension values’ in defining areas of Zodiac and also positions of astral bodies. Time: 12:00 PM
"I conjecture that exalted state of grahas, assuming my proposal is a valid proposal, may refer to ....
December 20, 2025
With Nilesh Oak – the man who changed my idea of Indian History (इतिहास: "thus it happened")
This is not a book you casually skim with a cup of tea. It’s a tectonic shift disguised as scholarship. Oak doesn’t merely argue that Rama was historical; he insists—calmly, relentlessly—that Indian civilization itself stretches back to the very threshold of the Holocene, emerging from the long shadow of the Ice Age with memory, mathematics, sky-knowledge, and narrative coherence intact.
This is not myth-busting. This is myth re-dating.
Oak’s central proposition is audacious but methodologically grounded: the events of the Ramayana are rooted in a real, datable historical epoch, specifically toward the end of the Pleistocene, around 12,000–14,000 years ago.
In other words, Rama did not walk a vaguely imagined “ancient past.”
He walked a world undergoing dramatic climatic transformation—melting glaciers, rising sea levels, shifting coastlines, and newly forming river systems.
The opening chapters establish Oak’s intellectual posture: respectful of tradition, impatient with lazy dismissal, and allergic to unexamined colonial chronology. He does not ask the reader to suspend disbelief.
He asks them to suspend inherited prejudice. Why, he asks, should ancient Indian texts be presumed symbolic when other civilizations’ deep-time memories—Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan—are increasingly validated by archaeology and astronomy?
The Vedas already warned us not to underestimate memory. The Atharva Veda declares:
yad bhūtaṃ yac ca bhavyam—"That which has been, and that which will be."
Indian civilization, Oak argues, never fully severed itself from that continuum. The Ramayana preserves not just ethics and devotion, but environmental and astronomical recollection from a world on the brink of geological rebirth.
One of the book’s most compelling sections situates Rama’s era within paleoclimatology. The end of the Pleistocene was marked by catastrophic floods, rapid warming, and sea-level rise—events that resonate uncannily with Ramayana geography.
The submergence of coastal regions, the shifting course of rivers like the Saraswati, and the existence of land bridges align disturbingly well with geological data. Lanka, Oak suggests, is not a fantasy island but a region whose accessibility changed dramatically as sea levels rose.
Modern science backs this uneasily. Marine archaeology has revealed submerged structures along India’s western coast, including near Dwarka.
Satellite imagery shows paleo-channels of now-vanished rivers. Oak does not claim the Ramayana predicts geology; he argues it remembers it.
Astronomy, once again, is Oak’s strongest ally. Like his work on the Mahabharata, Oak subjects astronomical references in the Ramayana—planetary positions, eclipses, solstices, and nakṣatra placements—to rigorous simulation.
When Valmiki notes specific celestial events surrounding Rama’s birth, exile, and return, Oak treats them not as poetic flourishes but as chronological keys.
The results are explosive. The sky described in the Ramayana aligns not with 2000 BCE or even 5000 BCE, but with configurations plausible only in the deep past, near the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.
Precession of the equinoxes—a phenomenon modern astronomy fully understands—becomes a silent witness. The heavens themselves refuse to cooperate with compressed timelines.
This is where modern astrophysics enters the chat, very unbothered, very factual.
Astronomers today routinely use ancient eclipse records to calibrate Earth’s rotational history. Oak asks a brutal question: if Chinese and Babylonian records are trusted for this purpose, why are Indian astronomical memories dismissed as “mythological”?
The Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa already demonstrates that Vedic civilization possessed long-term observational rigor. Oak extends that trust backward.
Rama, in this framework, is not a solar deity allegory drifting through metaphor. He is a kṣatriya king in a world where cosmic order (ṛta) and social order (dharma) are inseparable. The Bhagavad Gita—though chronologically later—echoes this worldview. Krishna says:
dharma-saṃsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge—Gita 4.8
“I manifest age after age to restore dharma.”
Oak’s move is subtle but devastating: what if Rama’s “age” is not poetic eternity but a specific yuga-bound historical moment, one that tradition remembered because it mattered existentially?
The book’s environmental sensitivity is one of its quiet strengths. Oak reads the Ramayana as a text born of ecological awareness. Forests are not backdrops; they are protagonists.
Exile to the forest is not mere punishment; it is immersion in a world where humans and nature negotiate survival.
This resonates with what we know of late Pleistocene societies—small, mobile, and deeply attuned to landscape and seasonal rhythms.
Valmiki’s descriptions of flora, fauna, and terrain are startlingly precise. Oak suggests that such precision is unlikely to be invented millennia later without experiential memory.
Oral cultures, especially ancient ones, encode survival knowledge in story. The Ramayana becomes, in this reading, a civilizational survival archive.
Of course, Oak knows he’s stepping into contested territory. He anticipates objections about textual layers, interpolations, and devotional accretions.
His response is refreshingly non-defensive: yes, texts evolve—but astronomical memory resists distortion. You can embellish dialogue; you cannot casually move eclipses across millennia.
This insistence on verifiability is Oak’s intellectual mic drop.
Literarily, the book invites comparison with epic traditions worldwide. Just as Homeric Troy was long dismissed until archaeology caught up, Oak suggests Rama’s Ayodhya awaits similar re-evaluation.
Shakespeare understood this tension between legend and history intuitively. In Henry IV, he writes:
“For history is a pattern of timeless moments.”
Oak’s project is precisely this: restoring timelessness to time, without dissolving it into fantasy.
There is also a philosophical undercurrent that deserves attention. The Ramayana’s conception of time is cyclical but not vague. It acknowledges vast spans—yugas, kalpas—yet anchors meaning in lived human action.
Rama’s greatness lies not in superhuman spectacle but in ethical restraint. Oak’s historicization does not diminish this; it intensifies it. A moral ideal forged in an age of climatic upheaval feels urgently relevant today.
We are, after all, once again living at a civilizational threshold—climate anxiety, environmental loss, ethical drift. Oak’s Rama emerges not as nostalgia but as deep-time wisdom surfacing exactly when modernity is running out of narrative confidence.
Critically, one might argue that Oak’s thesis demands interdisciplinary courage from academia that institutions are slow to muster. Accepting his timeline would require rewriting textbooks, rethinking migration models, and abandoning Eurocentric developmental ladders. But Oak is not asking for blind acceptance. He is asking for honest engagement.
And that’s the book’s ultimate flex: it is fearless without being fanatical.
By the final chapters, it becomes clear that The Historic Rama is less about proving a single date and more about restoring epistemic dignity. It insists that ancient Indians were not passive dreamers but active observers of sky, land, and time. The Vedas already said as much:
ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ — “Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.”
Oak takes this injunction seriously—from satellites and star charts to verses and legends.
In the end, Rama stands at the edge of melting ice and emerging humanity, bow in hand, not as a god removed from history but as a human ideal shaped by it. The book leaves you unsettled—in the best way. It cracks open the timeline and dares you to look inside.
Low-key revolutionary? Absolutely.
High-key uncomfortable for lazy certainty? Even more.
But one thing’s clear: after this book, you can’t say “it’s just a myth” and walk away untouched.
The Ice Age ended.
Civilization began.
And according to Oak, Rama was already there—watching the stars, keeping the vow, holding the line between chaos and order.
Honestly? That’s not ancient history.
That’s legacy energy.
Most recommended.
This is not a book you casually skim with a cup of tea. It’s a tectonic shift disguised as scholarship. Oak doesn’t merely argue that Rama was historical; he insists—calmly, relentlessly—that Indian civilization itself stretches back to the very threshold of the Holocene, emerging from the long shadow of the Ice Age with memory, mathematics, sky-knowledge, and narrative coherence intact.
This is not myth-busting. This is myth re-dating.
Oak’s central proposition is audacious but methodologically grounded: the events of the Ramayana are rooted in a real, datable historical epoch, specifically toward the end of the Pleistocene, around 12,000–14,000 years ago.
In other words, Rama did not walk a vaguely imagined “ancient past.”
He walked a world undergoing dramatic climatic transformation—melting glaciers, rising sea levels, shifting coastlines, and newly forming river systems.
The opening chapters establish Oak’s intellectual posture: respectful of tradition, impatient with lazy dismissal, and allergic to unexamined colonial chronology. He does not ask the reader to suspend disbelief.
He asks them to suspend inherited prejudice. Why, he asks, should ancient Indian texts be presumed symbolic when other civilizations’ deep-time memories—Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan—are increasingly validated by archaeology and astronomy?
The Vedas already warned us not to underestimate memory. The Atharva Veda declares:
yad bhūtaṃ yac ca bhavyam—"That which has been, and that which will be."
Indian civilization, Oak argues, never fully severed itself from that continuum. The Ramayana preserves not just ethics and devotion, but environmental and astronomical recollection from a world on the brink of geological rebirth.
One of the book’s most compelling sections situates Rama’s era within paleoclimatology. The end of the Pleistocene was marked by catastrophic floods, rapid warming, and sea-level rise—events that resonate uncannily with Ramayana geography.
The submergence of coastal regions, the shifting course of rivers like the Saraswati, and the existence of land bridges align disturbingly well with geological data. Lanka, Oak suggests, is not a fantasy island but a region whose accessibility changed dramatically as sea levels rose.
Modern science backs this uneasily. Marine archaeology has revealed submerged structures along India’s western coast, including near Dwarka.
Satellite imagery shows paleo-channels of now-vanished rivers. Oak does not claim the Ramayana predicts geology; he argues it remembers it.
Astronomy, once again, is Oak’s strongest ally. Like his work on the Mahabharata, Oak subjects astronomical references in the Ramayana—planetary positions, eclipses, solstices, and nakṣatra placements—to rigorous simulation.
When Valmiki notes specific celestial events surrounding Rama’s birth, exile, and return, Oak treats them not as poetic flourishes but as chronological keys.
The results are explosive. The sky described in the Ramayana aligns not with 2000 BCE or even 5000 BCE, but with configurations plausible only in the deep past, near the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.
Precession of the equinoxes—a phenomenon modern astronomy fully understands—becomes a silent witness. The heavens themselves refuse to cooperate with compressed timelines.
This is where modern astrophysics enters the chat, very unbothered, very factual.
Astronomers today routinely use ancient eclipse records to calibrate Earth’s rotational history. Oak asks a brutal question: if Chinese and Babylonian records are trusted for this purpose, why are Indian astronomical memories dismissed as “mythological”?
The Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa already demonstrates that Vedic civilization possessed long-term observational rigor. Oak extends that trust backward.
Rama, in this framework, is not a solar deity allegory drifting through metaphor. He is a kṣatriya king in a world where cosmic order (ṛta) and social order (dharma) are inseparable. The Bhagavad Gita—though chronologically later—echoes this worldview. Krishna says:
dharma-saṃsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge—Gita 4.8
“I manifest age after age to restore dharma.”
Oak’s move is subtle but devastating: what if Rama’s “age” is not poetic eternity but a specific yuga-bound historical moment, one that tradition remembered because it mattered existentially?
The book’s environmental sensitivity is one of its quiet strengths. Oak reads the Ramayana as a text born of ecological awareness. Forests are not backdrops; they are protagonists.
Exile to the forest is not mere punishment; it is immersion in a world where humans and nature negotiate survival.
This resonates with what we know of late Pleistocene societies—small, mobile, and deeply attuned to landscape and seasonal rhythms.
Valmiki’s descriptions of flora, fauna, and terrain are startlingly precise. Oak suggests that such precision is unlikely to be invented millennia later without experiential memory.
Oral cultures, especially ancient ones, encode survival knowledge in story. The Ramayana becomes, in this reading, a civilizational survival archive.
Of course, Oak knows he’s stepping into contested territory. He anticipates objections about textual layers, interpolations, and devotional accretions.
His response is refreshingly non-defensive: yes, texts evolve—but astronomical memory resists distortion. You can embellish dialogue; you cannot casually move eclipses across millennia.
This insistence on verifiability is Oak’s intellectual mic drop.
Literarily, the book invites comparison with epic traditions worldwide. Just as Homeric Troy was long dismissed until archaeology caught up, Oak suggests Rama’s Ayodhya awaits similar re-evaluation.
Shakespeare understood this tension between legend and history intuitively. In Henry IV, he writes:
“For history is a pattern of timeless moments.”
Oak’s project is precisely this: restoring timelessness to time, without dissolving it into fantasy.
There is also a philosophical undercurrent that deserves attention. The Ramayana’s conception of time is cyclical but not vague. It acknowledges vast spans—yugas, kalpas—yet anchors meaning in lived human action.
Rama’s greatness lies not in superhuman spectacle but in ethical restraint. Oak’s historicization does not diminish this; it intensifies it. A moral ideal forged in an age of climatic upheaval feels urgently relevant today.
We are, after all, once again living at a civilizational threshold—climate anxiety, environmental loss, ethical drift. Oak’s Rama emerges not as nostalgia but as deep-time wisdom surfacing exactly when modernity is running out of narrative confidence.
Critically, one might argue that Oak’s thesis demands interdisciplinary courage from academia that institutions are slow to muster. Accepting his timeline would require rewriting textbooks, rethinking migration models, and abandoning Eurocentric developmental ladders. But Oak is not asking for blind acceptance. He is asking for honest engagement.
And that’s the book’s ultimate flex: it is fearless without being fanatical.
By the final chapters, it becomes clear that The Historic Rama is less about proving a single date and more about restoring epistemic dignity. It insists that ancient Indians were not passive dreamers but active observers of sky, land, and time. The Vedas already said as much:
ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ — “Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.”
Oak takes this injunction seriously—from satellites and star charts to verses and legends.
In the end, Rama stands at the edge of melting ice and emerging humanity, bow in hand, not as a god removed from history but as a human ideal shaped by it. The book leaves you unsettled—in the best way. It cracks open the timeline and dares you to look inside.
Low-key revolutionary? Absolutely.
High-key uncomfortable for lazy certainty? Even more.
But one thing’s clear: after this book, you can’t say “it’s just a myth” and walk away untouched.
The Ice Age ended.
Civilization began.
And according to Oak, Rama was already there—watching the stars, keeping the vow, holding the line between chaos and order.
Honestly? That’s not ancient history.
That’s legacy energy.
Most recommended.
May 9, 2019
Psuedo science at it's worst
This book starts of as an endeavor to date the Rama Yana based on objective evidence. But falters upfront by using the date for Mahabharata proposed by the same author (which probably uses similar questionable assumptions).
The text of the Ramayana is intrepreted according to the author's whims and fancy where in allegories are intrepreted as planetary combinations present at the time of the particular event in the epic.
Rama allegedly took only six days to return to ayodya as he travelled in vibishan's pushpaka vimana ! and it is taken to be factual..You get the drift..
The author has the right to believe in anything (after all it is a free country) but not in the name of history or science please ..
This book starts of as an endeavor to date the Rama Yana based on objective evidence. But falters upfront by using the date for Mahabharata proposed by the same author (which probably uses similar questionable assumptions).
The text of the Ramayana is intrepreted according to the author's whims and fancy where in allegories are intrepreted as planetary combinations present at the time of the particular event in the epic.
Rama allegedly took only six days to return to ayodya as he travelled in vibishan's pushpaka vimana ! and it is taken to be factual..You get the drift..
The author has the right to believe in anything (after all it is a free country) but not in the name of history or science please ..
September 26, 2023
The more I read indic books more I rue my choice of leaving Sanskrit as my second language. Though it was the year of 1990 - 1991 when Sanskrit was demonized as a language that had no future.
The ignorance of our elders astounds me now. Look where we have come from that point.
Nilesh Nilkanth Oak ji is an abnormal person to have researched and written it in this detail. Generally a book of 260 approx pages in english takes me 3 days to be read, but each of Nilesh ji's book took me a month to complete, the reason was the exhaustive research and references given out all through the book.
I had gone in the wrong direction while reading his books.. I had just completed Bibek Debroy's Mahabharat and high on it I started with Bhisma Nirvana : An Astronomy pill by Nilesh Nilkanth ji (which is his second book) on 31st July 2023 and finished it on 15th Aug 2023 (16 days) though I have to tell you I could not understand most of the things.. but being an ameture astronomy buff I could at least get the astronomical data references and reading them along with the mentioned Mahabharata verses in the appendix was pure pleasure.. but it was still very confusing.
After that I picked up the first book When did Mahabharata war Happen? the Mystery of Aruundhati.. wow man.. this now got me clear of so many doubts that I had from my earlier reading (book 2). This is where I had to start and going the other way I made things unnecessarily hard for myself. The data again and the research made me understand the passion of Nilesh ji. The data and the appendix with the mentioned verses from Mahabharat was just lovely. This took me another 16 days to finish i.e. from 16th Aug 2023 to 1st Sep 2023.
I was very excited to read his 3rd book 12209 BCE Rama Ravana Yuddha - started it on 1st Sep 2023 itself and it took whopping 26 days to complete this marvelous 260 + pages books. The information and the logic of the book was so profound that I was forced to recheck every chapter with the astronomical data and information provided in it.
Though I am not very good at mathematics but the information and the logic helped me see his point of view and his derivation of dates of both Mahabharat and Ramayana.
Thank you Nilesh ji for this wonderous reading you have provided.
Book #23 series Indic books
The ignorance of our elders astounds me now. Look where we have come from that point.
Nilesh Nilkanth Oak ji is an abnormal person to have researched and written it in this detail. Generally a book of 260 approx pages in english takes me 3 days to be read, but each of Nilesh ji's book took me a month to complete, the reason was the exhaustive research and references given out all through the book.
I had gone in the wrong direction while reading his books.. I had just completed Bibek Debroy's Mahabharat and high on it I started with Bhisma Nirvana : An Astronomy pill by Nilesh Nilkanth ji (which is his second book) on 31st July 2023 and finished it on 15th Aug 2023 (16 days) though I have to tell you I could not understand most of the things.. but being an ameture astronomy buff I could at least get the astronomical data references and reading them along with the mentioned Mahabharata verses in the appendix was pure pleasure.. but it was still very confusing.
After that I picked up the first book When did Mahabharata war Happen? the Mystery of Aruundhati.. wow man.. this now got me clear of so many doubts that I had from my earlier reading (book 2). This is where I had to start and going the other way I made things unnecessarily hard for myself. The data again and the research made me understand the passion of Nilesh ji. The data and the appendix with the mentioned verses from Mahabharat was just lovely. This took me another 16 days to finish i.e. from 16th Aug 2023 to 1st Sep 2023.
I was very excited to read his 3rd book 12209 BCE Rama Ravana Yuddha - started it on 1st Sep 2023 itself and it took whopping 26 days to complete this marvelous 260 + pages books. The information and the logic of the book was so profound that I was forced to recheck every chapter with the astronomical data and information provided in it.
Though I am not very good at mathematics but the information and the logic helped me see his point of view and his derivation of dates of both Mahabharat and Ramayana.
Thank you Nilesh ji for this wonderous reading you have provided.
Book #23 series Indic books
July 27, 2021
Great read for generation Z so the right seeds may be sown
Great read for lovers of ancient India, it’s mythologies and believers of India as the true Motherland of human civilisation. Lots of efforts have gone into the research of this literary work and poses watertight cases to support all the conclusions drawn about Ramayana’s timing and events that transpired during that age. The only shortcoming that can be pointed out is the heavy defensive stance taken all through the narrative, especially in proving all other researchers wrong. This makes it a jarring experience for readers who haven’t ever heard of any of the learned researchers the author refers to, and makes it an overkill in the process.
The book could have preserved the core story free of all those references (and experiments) so that it becomes a gripping tale being brought to life using well-researched ‘time’ as the reference frame, while saving the entire gamut of arguments as a separate canto for relevant academia to devour.
Great read for lovers of ancient India, it’s mythologies and believers of India as the true Motherland of human civilisation. Lots of efforts have gone into the research of this literary work and poses watertight cases to support all the conclusions drawn about Ramayana’s timing and events that transpired during that age. The only shortcoming that can be pointed out is the heavy defensive stance taken all through the narrative, especially in proving all other researchers wrong. This makes it a jarring experience for readers who haven’t ever heard of any of the learned researchers the author refers to, and makes it an overkill in the process.
The book could have preserved the core story free of all those references (and experiments) so that it becomes a gripping tale being brought to life using well-researched ‘time’ as the reference frame, while saving the entire gamut of arguments as a separate canto for relevant academia to devour.
December 23, 2025
Historic Rama is a deeply analytical and intellectually stimulating work that attempts to date the Ramayana using rigorous astronomical evidence. Nilesh Oak goes remarkably deep, breaking down shlokas to minute observational details and correlating them with planetary positions and celestial events. His approach is unapologetically scientific and methodical, making the book fascinating for readers interested in chronology, astronomy, and historical validation of epics.
That said, the depth can feel overwhelming at times. For readers not keen on detailed astronomical or astrological breakdowns, parts of the book may come across as dry or overly technical. My suggestion: read it to appreciate the process and framework Oak uses, and feel free to skim the denser sections. Overall, it’s an important and thought-provoking contribution—best suited for curious and analytical readers.
That said, the depth can feel overwhelming at times. For readers not keen on detailed astronomical or astrological breakdowns, parts of the book may come across as dry or overly technical. My suggestion: read it to appreciate the process and framework Oak uses, and feel free to skim the denser sections. Overall, it’s an important and thought-provoking contribution—best suited for curious and analytical readers.
May 20, 2021
Any review of a book by a reader is based on his comprehension of the information given therein. To actually review this book one probably needs to have at least basic knowledge of concepts astronomy, astrology, time calculation, calendars, seasons and itihasa.
Although the author tries to briefly explain the scientific concepts but one needs to refer to many other sources to get a proper understanding of the concepts.
Once you under the concepts you will really enjoy the book and be amazed that ancient Bharat had such a rich knowledge of the world around us.
Although the author tries to briefly explain the scientific concepts but one needs to refer to many other sources to get a proper understanding of the concepts.
Once you under the concepts you will really enjoy the book and be amazed that ancient Bharat had such a rich knowledge of the world around us.
September 17, 2022
A wasteful reading experience. The research methodology is amateur at best and the author fails to corroborate his astronomical readings through other sources or adds them in the bibliography. Moreover, there is no cross-check on what the author himself has described as ‘visual observations’ of the planetary positions nor has he mentioned whether they’re exclusive or not.
A case in point and one of the primary sources for the conclusion is the sighting of Comet 2p/encke without any validation and the author uses this to pinpoint his entire timeline.
Avoidable!
A case in point and one of the primary sources for the conclusion is the sighting of Comet 2p/encke without any validation and the author uses this to pinpoint his entire timeline.
Avoidable!
April 18, 2024
A very detailed plunge into 'when Ramayana happened?'. A question that has always taunted my curiosity. This book is enticingly assertive in it's language and establishes the arguments very firmly and quite convincingly, with ample astronomical and seasonal corroborations from the observations in the literature.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews