In contrast to the popular narrative, this post argues that Ceylon (i.e. called Sri Lanka in current-day) is not Rāvaṇa's Laṅkā.
The author's standpoint is purely supported by śāstras such as itihāsa-purāṇa, Saṁskṛta nāṭakas, and siddhāntic jyotiṣa śāstras. For not causing confusion, I would be calling current-day Sri Lanka as Ceylon (its past name) or Siṁhaladvīpa/ Siṁhala (as it's commonly called in Saṁskṛta literature). And here, the name Laṅkā would be only used to refer to the great dvīpa in the deep ocean, which Rājā Rāvaṇa Paulastya ruled and after his vadha by Rāmāvatāra, Rājā Vibhīṣaṇa Paulastya has continued to rule (still ruling). I would be dividing this topic into two subtopics - the first subtopic would be pointing that Ceylon (Siṁhala) is clearly not Laṅkā (i.e. both are distinct places), on the basis of textual evidence, and the second subtopic would be revealing the exact location of Laṅkā, as per jyotiṣaśāstras (of Āryabhaṭa, Bhāskara, etc.). There would be a map representation, at the end.
1. Siṁhala (Ceylon) & Laṅkā are distinct dvīpas
- In Bhāgavata Purāṇa (5.19.29-30), Śuka mentions that when the sons of Rājā Sāgara excavated the entire earth to find the lost horse (of Aśvamedha ; for knowing the kathā, refer to Bālakāṇḍa 39-40 of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa), that resulted in the formation of eight distinct upadvīpas from Jambūdvīpa, viz. Svarṇaprastha, Candraśukla, Āvartana, Ramaṇaka, Mandarahariṇa, Pāñcajanya, Siṁhala, & Laṅkā.
jambūdvīpasya ca rājannupadvīpānaṣṭau haika upadiśanti
sagarātmajairaśvā-nveṣaṇa imāṁ mahīṁ parito nikhanadbhirupakalpitān //
tadyathā svarṇaprasthaścandra śukla āvartano ramaṇako
mandarahariṇaḥ pāñcajanyaḥ siṃhalo laṅketi //
Siṁhala & Laṅkā are mentioned as two distinct dvīpas, out of the total 8 upadvīpas.
- In Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa (5.17-18) Mahiṣāsura recounts the kathā of Mandodarī (not Rāvaṇa's wife), daughter of Rājā Candrasena, who reigned over Siṁhala deśa. Mahiṣa called Siṁhala as a famed deśa on pṛthvi, endowed with lush greenery & prosperity.
siṁhalo nāma deśo'si vikhyātaḥ pṛthvitale /
ghanapādasaṁyukto dhanadhānyasamṛddhimān // (5.17.3)
In this kathā, the princess (of Siṁhaladeśa) Mandodarī was once spending time with her dāsīs in an udyāna. In this udyāna, perchance arrived Vīrasena on his ratha, and upon seeing the beautiful Mandodarī, he was enamoured. So, he got down his ratha, and asked a dāsī about Mandodarī's identity. The dāsī asked Vīrasena to introduce himself first. And then Vīrasena said that he was a Rājā of Kosala deśa, and his caturaṅgiṇī senā was following him. He had lost his way while traveling, and so ended up in the udyāna. (5.17.35-44). After learning Mandodarī's identity, he told the dāsī to relay his proposal of Gāndharvavivāha to Mandodarī (5.17.45-48), which Mandodarī rejected without hesitation. (5.17.56). While proposing, Vīrasena mentions that he belonged to Kakutsthavaṁśa (kakutsthavṁśajaścāhaṁ rājāsmi cārulocane - 5.17.46) and the dāsī also informs Mandodarī that he belonged to Sūryavaṁśa (sūryavaṁśasamudbhavaḥ - 5.17.50). Therefore, Vīrasena belonged to the same lineage as Rāma Dāśarathi. Since, Mahiṣāsura is mentioning this kathā (and no Rājā named Candrasena ruled Laṅkā after Rāvaṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa being the only Rājā till end of kalpa), it definitely precedes Rāmāvatāra. As Vīrasena precedes Rāma, it's impossible for him to enter Laṅkā casually with his caturaṅgiṇī-senā, because there was no setu connecting the subcontinent with Laṅkā-dvīpa then. However, Siṁhaladvīpa is connected via a natural formation to the subcontinent, remnants of which survive as Adam's bridge now.
- Skanda Purāṇa (1.2.39) mentions Siṁhala and Laṅkā as two distinct deśas.
grāmāṇāṃ ca caturlakṣo bālhikaḥ parikīrtyate /
ṣaṭtriṁśacca sahasrāṇi laṅkādeśaḥ prakīrtitaḥ // (1.2.39.155)
sahasradaśakaṁ cāpi siṁhaladvīpamucyate /
ṣaṭtriṁśacca sahasrāṇi grāmāṇāṁ pāṇḍudeśakaḥ // (1.2.39.158)
As per (1.2.39.155b) and (1.2.39.158a), Laṅkā deśa is known to have 36000 grāmas and Siṁhala deśa is known to have 10000 grāmas, respectively.
Clearly, both are mentioned as distinct deśas here.
- In Bṛhatsaṁhitā, Varāhamihira mentions Laṅkā and Siṁhala being two distinct deśas, which are located in the varga (southern) of Uttaraphālugunī, etc. three nakṣatras (Uttaraphālgunī, Hasta, & Citrā).
atha dakṣiṇena laṅkā-kālājina-saurikīrṇa-tālikaṭāḥ /
girinagara-malaya-dardura-mahendra-mālindya-bharukacchāḥ //
kaṅkaṭa-kaṅkaṇa-vanavāsi-śibika-phaṇikāra-koṅkaṇa ābhīrāḥ /
ākara-veṇā-āvartaka-daśapura-gonarda-keralakāḥ //
karṇāṭa-mahāṭavi-citrakūṭa-nāsikya-kollagiri-colāḥ /
krauñcadvīpa-jaṭādhara-kāveryo riṣyamūkaśca //
vaidūrya-śaṅkhamuktā-atri-vāricara-dharmapaṭṭanadvīpāḥ /
gaṇarājya-kṛṣṇavellūra-piśika-śūrpādri-kusumanagāḥ //
tumbavana-kārmaṇayaka-yāmyodadhi-tāpasāśramā ṛṣikāḥ /
kāñcī-marucīpaṭṭana-cerya-āryaka-siṁhalā ṛṣabhāḥ //
baladeva-paṭṭanaṃ daṇḍakāvana-timiṅgilāśanā bhadrāḥ /
kaccho'tha kuñjaradarī satāmraparṇiti vijñeyāḥ //
~ Bṛhatsaṁhitā (14.11-16)
In Vana Parva (51.22-26), Kṛṣṇa mentions some of the citizens (and/or Rājās) of different deśas, who had arrived in Yudhiṣṭhira's Rājasūya yajña. Among the many coastal deśas, there are two distinct deśas mentioned viz. Laṅkā & Siṁhala. Neither are both deśas equated, nor are they mentioned consecutively in the list.
yatra sarvān mahīpālāñchastratejobhayārditān /
savaṅgāṅgān sapauṇḍroḍrān sacoladraviḍāndhrakān //
sāgarānūpakāṁścaiva ye ca prāntābhivāsinaḥ /
siṁhalān barbarān mlecchān ye ca laṅkānivāsinaḥ //
paścimāni ca rāṣṭrāṇi śataśaḥ sāgarāntikān /
pahṇavān daradarān sarvān kirātān yavanāñchakān //
hārahūṇāṁśca cīnāṁśca tuṣārān saindhavāṁstathā /
jāgudān rāmaṭhān muṇḍān strīrājyamatha taṅgaṇān //
kekayān mālavāṁścaiva tathā kāśmīrakānapi /
adrākṣamahamāhutān yajñe te pariveṣakān //
~ Vana Parva (51.22-26)
In Sabhā Parva (adhyāya 31), Sahadeva went to southern deśas to proclaim sovereignity of his royal brother and Rājā Yudhiṣṭhira, and when he reached the coastline, he sent his nephew Ghaṭotkaca as an envoy further on to Laṅkā, which was still being ruled Rājā Vibhīṣaṇa Paulastya. Ghaṭotkaca saw the Nalasetu en-route to Laṅkā and successfully accomplished his diplomatic mission, returning with the gifts sent by Laṅkeśa. Throughout the entire adhyāya, not even once is the name Laṅkā used synonymously with Siṁhala. This is adhyāya 31, in other editions numbering might be different. The section with Ghaṭotkaca is present in Kumbhaghoṇam edition.
In 7th aṅka of the nāṭaka Anargharāghavam (by Murārī - 9th century CE), On their way back home, Rāma & Sītā saw Siṁhaladvīpa on their right, only some time after they had left Laṅkā. Murārī also specifies the Mt. Rohaṇa (Adam's Peak) and river Tāmraparṇī on Siṁhaladvīpa. I would be giving a transl. below-
Rāma: (watching, to Sītā) : My beloved, on the right
this wonderful Siṁhaladvīpa looks like an utpala born in the sea, and its blossom is the Ruby (Māṇikya) Mountain.
Sītā : There roams Ṛṣi Agastya's haṁsa, which looks a white Kāśa flower.
Rāma: (smiling) Indeed Maithili. It's here, at the foot of Rohaṇa mountain, that the second home of this Ṛṣi, Lopāmudrā's beloved, is situated.
This master of numerous disciples, this Ṛṣi born from a jar, easily drank up the ocean, whose abundant water thus filled just another vessel, Agastya's stomach. Then, after he alone managed to remedy the overgrowth of Mt. Vindhya's peaks, he was praised by Sūrya himself, who hwas enabled to pursue his daily in the sky thanks to him.
Moreover, when he drank up the water of the sea, the mountains that had been hiding there lost their shelter, and although they were trying to flying away with their wings heavily soaked, they fell back awkwardly at each movt.; then, when eventually they decided to enter some crab holes, he immediately saw them. How could one dare to sing the praise of someone so powerful?
And here is the bejeweled throne of the King of Śṛṅgāra, which is called the Siṁhaladvīpa. Here, at twilight, the pathways, which are wet with moonstones that have melted in the scattered rays of the rising moon, bear the deep lac traces of the footsteps and give away these wanton women when, rushing to their tryst, suddenly scared by the cakoras flying up, they take some steps backwar every now and again.
(looking elsewhere) Here is the river Tāmraparṇī, thanks to their puṇyakarma of enjoying the breasts of young women, were kept inside conch shells until they hardened into hail-like pearls.
- In the nāṭaka Bālarāmāyaṇa, Rājaśekhara (9th-10th century CE) goes into even more detail & precision. I would be quoting from (Godakumbura 2014 : 73-74) regarding Rājaśekhara's account-
In his drama, the Bālarāmāyaṇa, Rājaśekhara makes Rāvaṇa describe the location of Laṅkā to be to the south of Siṁhala. The lords of Laṅkā and Siṁhala are separately mentioned. Not only the Rohaṇa mountains, but the city of Anuradhapura also is in the Siṁhala dvīpa. Further, at the svayaṁavara of Sītā, where Śivadhanuṣa is bended, Rāvaṇa speaks of the Siṁhala Rājā as a person other than himself. During the journey by air when the party goes back to Ayodhyā, Rāma looks back and points towards Laṅkā as being rājadhāni of the new Rājā Vibhīṣaṇa. It's only after the vimāna had ascended to sky and come down that Vibhīṣaṇa points out Siṁhala to Sītā.
In his chapter on geography (deśavibhāga) of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā also, Rājaśekhara is very definite in distinguishing Laṅkā from Siṁhala. The former is rājadhāni, a capital ; the latter is a janapada, a settlement or district.
To Indian writers in medieval times, Siṁhala was not the home of Rākṣasas.The heroine of Harṣa's drama Ratnāvalī, is daughter of Vikramabāhu, the Rājā of Siṁhala. In the Kathāsaritasāgara of Somadeva, we read of a Rājā by the name Vikramāditya having vivāha with the daughter of the Rājā of Siṁhala. A Rājā of Siṁhaladvīpa by the name of Sirimehe (Sanskrit: Śrīmegha) is eulogised in the Mahārāṣṭrī poem Līlāvat (Līlāvatī) of Kouhala (pre-12th century CE). Śrīmegha was the alternative throne name of Sinhalese kings from about the 8th century (CE) - 12th century (CE), other being Siri Sanghabodhi. Malik Muhammad, in Avadhī poem Padumāvatī also speaks of Siṁhaladvīpa as a birthplace of charming women. Kalhaṇa's Rājataraṅgiṇī also mentions Siṁhala.
2. Location of Laṅkā (as per jyotiṣa śāstras)
ujjayinī laṅkāyāḥ sannihitā yottareṇa samasūtre /
tanmadhyā yugapad viṣamo diva viṣuvato'nyaḥ //
yojanaśatāni bhūmeḥ parimāṇaṁ śoḍaśa dviguṇitāni /
tāpyati merumadhyāt viṣuvastho'rkaḥ kṣitiṁ caviam //
ṣaḍaśītiṁ pañcaśatīṁ tribhāgahīnaṁ ca yojanaṁ gatvā /
kṣitimadhyamudagavantyā laṅkāyā yojanāṣṭaśatīm //
~ Varāhamihira's Pañcasiddhāntika (13.17-19)
The mid-day of Laṅkā is the same as that of Ujjain, which is north of Laṅkā on the same longitude. But their day-time durations are different, except when the Sun is on the equator. //17//. The circumference of the earth is 3200 yojanas. When situated on the equator, the Sun is visible from pole to pole at all latitudes (making day & night equal). //18//. The middle of earth (i.e. north pole), is north of Ujjain by 586 2/3 yojanas. It's north of Laṅkā by 800 yojanas. //19//.
viṣuvallekhā'dhastāllaṅkā tasyāṁ samo bhagaṇagolaḥ /
triṁśāḍyo divasaḥ triṁśacca tasyāṁ sadā ca niśā //
~ Varāhamihira's Pañcasiddhāntika (13.29)
Laṅkā is beneath the celestial equator i.e. the celestial equator itself is the prime vertial at Laṅkā. There the celestial sphere is equally divided (into the northern half with the north pole at its centre, and the southern half with the south pole at its centre). There the day and night are always 30 nāḍīs each.
laṅkārdharātrasamaye dinapravṛttiṁ jagād cāryabhaṭaḥ /
bhūyaḥ sa eva sūryodayātprabhṛtyāha laṅkāyām //
deśāntarasaṁśuddhiṁ kṛtvā cenna ghaṭate tathā tasmin /
kālasyā'smin sāmyaṁ revoktaṁ yathāśāstram //
madhyāhnaṁ bha stamayaṁ kuruṣūttareṣu ketumālānām /
kurute'rdharātramudya ratavarṣe yugapardakaḥ //
udayo yo laṅkāyāṁ so'stamayaḥ savitureva siddhapure /
madhyāhno yamakoṭyāṁ romakaviṣaye'rdharātraḥ saḥ //
~ Pañcasiddhāntika (15.20-23)
Āryabhaṭa has said that the day commences at midnight at Laṅkā. He himself again has said, the day commences from sunrise at Laṅkā. //20//. If it's argued that the different times for commencing the day can be accounted for by correction for longitude, it doesn't agree with what they themselves have said in this matter, according to śāstras (which is as follows). //21//. The sun rising in Bhāratavarṣa, makes at that very moment, mid-day in Bhadraśva-varṣa, sunset in Uttarakuruvarṣa, and midnight in the Ketumālavarṣa. //22//. What is sunrise at Laṅkā, that same moment is sunset at Siddhapura, noon at Yamakoṭi, & midnight in Romakapurī. //23//
Pañcasiddhāntika (15.23) is same as Āryabhaṭīya (4.13), Lalla's Śiṣyadhivṛddhidatantra (17.12). That Meru is situated on north pole and Baḍavāmukha is situated on south pole, is mentioned in several jyotiṣa śāstras too, such as Āryabhaṭīya (4.12). Each of the four cities - Laṅkā, Yamakoṭi, Romakapurī, & Siddhapura- are on islands, situated traversely at a distance of 1/4th of the earth's circumference (i.e 90°) each from the next one, as stated in Śiṣyadhivṛddhidatantra (17.4), etc. Āryabhaṭīya (4.14) states that the Laṅkā is situated at the quarter of earth's circumference from both north pole & south pole (as it's located on the equator). Furthermore, distance b/w Ujjaiyinī & Laṅkā is mentioned to be 16th of earth's circumference, which makes up the latitude of Ujjaiyinī ~ 22°30'N. But Brahmagupta differs from this view and stated that the distance b/w Ujjaiyinī & Laṅkā is 1/15th of earth's circumference, thus the latitude of Ujjayinī being 24°N, and this standpoint is taken by many ācāryas such as Nīlakaṇṭha, etc. too.
laṅkāvātsyapurāvantīsthāneśvarasurālayān /
avagāhya sthitā rekhā deśāntaravidhāyinī //
~ Laghubhāskarīya (1.23)
The line which passes through Laṅkā, Vātsyapura, Avantī, Sthāneśvara, and Surālaya (ālaya of suras) is the prime meridian.
aṅkātaḥ kharanagaraḥ sitorugehaṁ
pāṇāto misitapurī tathā tarpaṇī /
uktuṅgassitavaranāmadheyaśailo
lakṣmīvatpuramapi vātsyagulmasañjñam //
vikhyātā vananagarī tathā hyavantī
sthāneśo muditajanastathā ca meruḥ /
adhvākhyaḥ karaṇavidhiṣtu madhyamānā -
meteṣu prativasatāṁ na vidyate saḥ //
~ Mahābhāskarīya (2.1-2)
From Laṅkā (towards the north, we have the following places on the prime meridian) : Kharanagara, Sitorugeha, Pāṇāṭa, Misitapuri, Tarpaṇī, the lofy mt. called Sitavara, the wealthy town called Vātsyagulma, the well known Vanangari, Avantī, Sthāneśa, and then Meru, which is inhabited by happy people. For those who reside in these places, the correction for the longitude (of the local place) does not exist.
In Gaṇitayuktibhāṣā (Chapter 9, pp.509-510), Jyeṣṭhadeva explains -
Then, with the land of Bhāratakhaṇḍa appearing to be in the upward (northern) direction, at the confluence of the landed and watery division (of the Earth), there is a city known as Laṅkā. Conceive a circular line (vṛttākāra-rekhā) from that place, east-west, cycling round the Earth. On this line are situated four cities (including Laṅkā), to the west Romakapurī, to the other (diametrically opposite) side Siddhapura, and to the east Yavakoṭi.
Similarly from Laṅkā, conceive another circle round the Earth, which is north-south across and passing through the upper and lower halves of the Earth. On this line (are situated), Mahāmeru to the north, Baḍavāmukha to the south, Siddhapura on the opposite side. This line is the samarekhā (north-south standard meridian line). In this line is a city called Ujjaiyinī. Now, the places lying on the east-west line mentioned above are called nirakṣa-deśa (equatorial places having no latitude).
This is a simplistic model, based on what all has been mentioned regarding prime meridian, Laṅkā, etc. locations as per jyotiṣa
In the Indological circle, a non-traditional standpoint has been often pushed forth that the Laṅkā mentioned in jyotiṣa śāstras is nothing but a hypothetical location made up by jyotiṣācāryas, that exists on 0° latitude and 0° longitude (as per the Hindu system). But this is just a nonsensical claim, because the jyotiṣācāryas are pretty clear in their śāstras, that they are talking about the Laṅkā, which was ruled by Rāvaṇa Paulastya and is the abode of rākṣasas, and not some hypothetical mathematical point of the same name.
The ślokas from Sūryasiddhānta should leave no doubts on this issue.
rākṣālayadevaukaḥ śailayormadhyasūtragāḥ /
rohītakamavantī ca yathā sannihitaṁ saraḥ //
~ Sūryasiddhānta (1.62)
The meridian b/w Rakṣasālaya (Laṅkā) & Devauka (Meru), on which lie the deśas named Rohītaka, Avantī, & sannihita sarovara (Kurukṣetra), is the prime meridian.
In his comm. Gūḍhārthaprakāśikā on Sūryasiddhānta (1.62) , Raṅganātha clearly states - rākṣasālayaṁ laṅkā.
samantānmerumadhyāt tu tulyabhāgeṣu toyadheḥ /
dvīpeṣu dikṣu pūrvādinagaryo devanirmitāḥ //
~ Sūryasiddhānta (12.37)
And on all sides of the midst of Meru, in equal divisions of the ocean, upon dvīpas in east, etc. directions, there are fashioned four nagaras by devatās.
yāmyāyāṁ bhārate varṣe laṅkā tadvanmahāpurī /
paścime ketumālākhye romakākhyā prakīrtitā //
~ Sūryasiddhānta (12.39)
To the southward, in the Bhāratavarṣa, is in like manner, the mahāpurī Laṅkā : to the west, in the Ketumālavarṣa, is the the nagarī named Romaka.
In his comm. Gūḍhārthaprakāśikā on Sūryasiddhānta (12.39) , Raṅganātha adds - laṅkāsañjñā mahānagarī tadvat svarṇaprākāratoraṇā viśrutetyarthaḥ.
The svarṇa mahāpurī, which is the abode of rākṣasas and located in the south, is none other than Laṅkā of Rāvaṇa. Therefore, unlike the Indologists, the jyotiṣācāryas are pretty clear that the Laṅkā (which lies on intersection of prime meridian through Ujjain and equator) is none other than Rāvaṇa's Laṅkā.
Using the coordinates of Mahākāleśvara temple, Ujjain, I have marked the position of Laṅkā (as per jyotiṣa śāstras) on google earth map.
Orange/red balloon = Laṅkā = (0, 75.76829) ;
Purple balloon = Ujjaina = (23.18295, 75.76829)
As per jyotiṣa, there is prime meridian passing through these two, but as per modern western geographical system, the prime meridian passes through Greenwich. Laṅkā lies on the intersection of the equator and Hindu prime meridian.
The coordinates of Laṅkā in the Hindu coordinate system would be (0,0) as mentioned already. And it lies south-west to Siṁhaladvīpa (current-day Sri Lanka), in the deep ocean.
There is no detectable island now at the coordinates (0, 75.76829). However, just because there's no detectable island at the said coordinates now, doesn't necessarily imply Laṅkā doesn't exist there, or that it didn't exist there. There're many lokas & places that are beyond our pratyakṣa. And there are many places which did exist at one point of time (1000s of yrs ago), but now they don't, due to various geographical factors such as tsunamis, etc.
The numbering of ślokas & adhyāyas from Mahābhārata, follow Gītā Press version.
