Guest guest Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 dear bhagavatas, the mails of smt.jayashree and sri vasudevan have thrown up some interesting points on the question of Sri Rama's age when He undertook vanavaasam. unfortunately, i had not seen the thread of mails in 2005--otherwise i could have attempted to address the questions in my recent article. to take up first smt jayashree's explanation that in Sri Kousalya's statement, the age of 17 could be counted not from birth but from the age of upanayanam. the argument in favour of this is--- only upon upanayanam is one considered to be born, because one is so far ineligible for any vaideeka karmas. and considering that the age for upanayanam for kshatriyas is 11, Rama was 28 when He came to take leave of His mother and the latter expressed her anguish. (Incidentally, the age for upanayanam for kshatriyas is 11 and not 8, which latter applies only to brahmanaas. this is borne out by the quote, " Ashta varsham braahmanam upanayeeta " " Ekaadaseshu raajanyam " . hence this would not make Rama 25 at the juncture of leaving for vanavaasam) however, this suffers from two inconsistencies. first and foremost, it would make Rama 28 when He left for vanavaasam and would contradict Sri Mythily's statement that He was just 25. it would also go against Dasaratha's statement as quoted by Maareecha, that Rama was twelve when He was married. secondly, Kousalya was obviously in considerable sorrow and despair. her emotional state was definitely not one which would prompt her to consider such fine points of Dharmasastra that a person is born only upon upanayanam and not merely upon his physical birth. this is what Sri Periavaacchaan Pillai also says in his commentary. hence Kousalya considering the age of upanayanam at a time of great distress does not appear very plausible. as for smt jayashree's interpretation of the period of time a year covers, to me, there appears to be no necessity for such an exercise at all. Sri Rama was an avataram of Sriman Narayana, who is timeless and eternal. If we are prepared to accept Sri Rama as the Lord personified, why should we quibble at His having ruled for 11000 years? and Sri Valmiki's words do permit any other construction being put on the matter, than is usual. If we are to take Rama as an ordinary mortal subject to mortal laws of " Sataayu: vai Purusha: " , then we ought not to put Him at all on a divine pedestal. normal laws of Smriti and Shruti do not apply to the Paramatma, whose avataras are prompted, begun and ended at His own will, in accordance with His perceptions of how long they have to last. While Sri Nrisimhavataram was the briefest in terms of time, Sri Ramavatara could have been the longest. in essence, we should not expect the Lord to conform to our own conceptions of life, time and death. if we are prepared to accept that He destroyed 14000 rakshasas single-handedly, if we are prepared to believe that He blessed Sri Jatayu and Si Sabari with emancipation, we should have no difficulty in accepting that He reigned for 11000 years or more. now for the points made by Sri Vasudevan regarding " dasa varsha sapta cha " , though the last word is normally used in the sense of " and " , here it indicates " more " --to mean " seven years more " . this interpretation has the approval of Sri Periavaacchaan Pillai and should therefore be acceptable. the birth of Lava and Kusa late in the lives of the Divine Couple is again a matter of divine will. Vedas talk about the resolution of the Parabrahmam that it become many-- " Bahu syaam prajaayeyeti " . similarly, the heirs to the Ikshvaaku throne were born when there birth was considered necessary by Sri Rama. as sri vasudevan has remarked, it appears to be a family trait of the Ikshvaakus to beget progeny rather late in their lives. by the standards set by Dasaratha, to whom children were born after 60000 years, Sri Rama is comparatively early in the matter. regarding the apparent puzzle of Valmiki recording events , sri vasudevan writes-- " c) Later same vaalmeeki gives asylum for seethaa when she is banished. If we take that it is towards the end of 11000 years, vaalmeeki was also of same age around 11000 + years. d) Is it the same vaalmeeki, who met raama in forest that who gave asylum to seethaa and later who wrote raamaayaNam as per naaradhaa's teaching or 3 different persons or at least 2 different persons. I would like to have comments from the elite group " " It is doubtless the same Valmiki who affords assylum to Sita and teaches the Rama Charitam to Her sons and the Maharshi is indubitably a contemporary of Rama. to understand how, we must banish from our mind the thought that all of Ramayanam had happened when Valmiki was visited first by Narada and then by Brahma, providing him the inspiration to put Rama's legend on paper. if you analyse the first sargam of Srimad Ramayanam, popularly known as Sankshepa Ramayanam, it provides a summary of the Rama Katha, narrated by Narada to Valmiki. and in this, the Uttara Kaanda episodes like the banishment of Sita do not figure. it stops with Rama's coronation and His ruling for 11000 years. thus, Narada's narration to Valmiki had consisted only of happenings upto Yuddha Kaandam. the third sargam of Baala Kaandam solves this riddle with the following slokam " Anaagatam cha yat kinchit Raamasya vasudhaatale Tat chakaara uttare kaavye Vaalmiki: bhagavan Rishi: " In writing down the story of Sri Rama, Valmiki recorded not only what had happened thus for (upto Yuddha Kaandam), but also events which would take place in future. thus, the whole of Uttara Kaandam was composed by Valmiki by looking into the future, for which he was afforded adequate powers by Brahma. in researching into apparent contradictions in the Epic, we must accept as the guiding principle that nowhere in the Kavyam does Valmiki utter an untruth or inaccuracy, for this is the boon bestowed on him by Brahma-- " na te vaak anrutaa kaavye kaachit atra bhavishyati " . hence whatever has been spoken by him is indeed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if there does appear to be a contradiction, it has to be resolved in the light of interpretations by Acharyas. thanks to smt jayashree and sri vasudevan for affording me an opportunity to study deeply slokas which i must have uttered several times in the past, without concentrating on the purport. dasan, sadagopan - " Jayasree Saranathan " <jayasree.saranathan <sadagopaniyengar; " MG Vasudevan " <vasudevanmg; <oppiliappan >; Monday, January 08, 2007 3:14 PM Re:A question of age. > SRIMATH E RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. > > Respected bhagavathas, > > We are back into the discussion on the date of Raama. > > The following are in addition to my earlier mails (in 2005) and also > as rejoinder to the recent mails by Srmaan Sadagpan Iyengar and > Srimaan Vasudevan Iyengar. > > (1) First, how to reconcile the mention of years in 1000s in Ramayana. > > The normal life span of human life is 100. > This is borne by > (1) the wish of " shathamaanam bhavathu " , > (2) in the madhyaaniha sandhya vandanam, > (3) by Sita in sargam 34 of Sudhara khandam > and (4) the allottment of a total of 120 years to the 9 planets > together in Vedic astrology. > > The life of a human being can not be more than a reasonale level of > 120 + a few years. > > But what constitues a year is a question when we talk about the 1000s > of years mentioned in Ramayana. I say this becasue we have in > astrology many types of years. > For instance there is a polar cycle which is about the axis of the > earth making a circle around the polar region. In other words it is > about the precession of equinoxes. By this we can say, that the Dhruva > nakshthram that Rama and sita would have seen in their vanavasam is > not the one we see now. > > Coming to the topic, I felt gratified when, after writing my mails > on the date of Raama based on the assumption of a Polar cycle of > 28,800 years with ascending (uttarayan) and descending (dakshinayan) > years of 14,400 years each, with a cycle of mini chathur yuga in each > phase, I came to know about the existence of such cycle in an > astrology text (by V.K.V.Acharya, with a preface by Paramacharyal of > Kanchi in 1956). > > This Polar cycle, known as Saptharishi kaala, has been mentioned in > Rajatharangini. Infact this cycle is the only mode of reckoning > adopted in Rajatharangini which tells about the history of Kashmir in > pre-Christian era. Polar cycle had been in vogue in Kashmir (Please > note that Kashmir derived its name from Rishi Kahyapa and > archeological findings reveal that this is the place of early vedic > period.). Varahamihira also has laid emphasis on this 28,000 year > cycle at many places in his Pancha siddhanthika. Please note this > master piece of his is based on Surya siddhantha and Vasishta > siddhanta besides 3 other ancient works which deal with astro theories > followed at very ancient times. > > I have attempted to answer the intrigue of Rama ruling over for > 11,000 years based on this Polar cycle in my mails on " The date of > Raama - 4 & 5 " . > > Apart from the Polar cycle, there have been in existence other modes > of calculation of years and cycles. > Like Soura maanam and chandra maanam based on Solar and Lunar > revolutions, Brahaspathiya maanam had been in vogue as per > astrological texts. > This is based on Jupiter's movement which had been in popular use in > Himalayan regions and is still being used in Ladak and Tibet. > This again is of 2 types, the 60 year cycle and 12 year cycle. > > Thus, it is highly probable that the mention of 1000s of years in > Ramayana could be about some now-forgotten calculation of years. > > > > (2) Moving to other issues, " Dasa sapta cha varshaani tava jaatasya > Putraka! " can be seen in different light. > > The 'jaatasya' can be about the upanayanam of Raman. There is no exact > mention of time of upanayanam and it is all said in continuation of > his birth. > > Since astrology has been very much part of life in those days, Rama's > upanayanam could not have taken place before 8 years. > > 8 year period is a crucial period because this constitutes > 'baalarishta ' period. Baalaarishtam means death before 8 years. > > The first 4 years including the period in the womb is influenced by > the mother's destiny (according to astrology). The next 4 years by > father's destiny. The child's destiny starts to work on it only after > 8 years, or after this baalaarishta period. > > Upon upanayanam, the child physically leaves the mother (after maathru > bhojanam ceremony before the start of the upanayanam ceremony.) > From then onwards, the child is an individual, taking care of himself. > > It is possible to assume that Kausalya meant this. She waited for 17 > years for Rama's coronation after Rama had his intiation at the age of > 8. This means 8+17=25 > This is the age we have arrived at by other calculations. > > > (3) Now about what Dhasharatha says. > > " Oona shodasa varsha: asou Ramo raajeeva lochana: > > Na yuddha yogyataam asya pasyaami saha raakshasai: " > > > " My Rama is a mere infant-He has not even completed sixteen. How then > could He > be equal to battling with terrible raakshasaas? " enquires the Emperor of > Visvaamitra. > > > Why the mention of 16? > > Again as per astrology 16 is a crucial year. > > The life span of man is divided into 3, alpaayusu (below 32), > madhyaayusu (between 32 and 72) and dheergayusu (between 72 and 100). > > Half of Alpaayusu is 16 years. > By 16 years the child completes his education in Gurukulam and comes > back to the father. (The education may extend upto 24 years) > Here Rama, though a kshathriya by birth, has had vedic teaching > (refer Hanuman's description of Rama in sargam 35 of Sundhara khandam) > and could have followed the regular learning schedule of a Brahmin. > > Dhasharatha might have meant this. Rama was still young not even had > crossed the 16 year mark of age which was alpa -alpa ayusu, not even > completed his formal education in astra vidya. How could he be > expected to battle with rakhshasas? > > (4) By the time the couple returned to Ayodhya, Rama must have been 39 > (25 + 14) and Sita 32 (18+ 14), as per this discussion. > > (Also refer to Sri MGV's mail on this topic on message number 7633 > in Olppiliappan archives) > > > Pranams, > > jayasree saranathan > > > -- > > > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/619 - Release 1/7/2007 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.