Age of Ram Sita During Marriage !!

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Varnita Khare

@Varnita.

Sparkler

+ 5

Posted: 13 years ago

#31

@Lola

ur theory abt the age of 4 Sisters Seems Ok, But They all Should have an Age Difference of atleast 9 months Na ? which makes Shrutkirti atleast 3 years Younger than Sitaji, Isnt It ?

I also remember Reading it Somewhere that all 4 sisters have an age Difference of 1 year and Janu, Urmila was elder that Mandavi !!

Edited by Varnita. - 13 years ago

Quote

Aishwarya

@pakhara

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

I don't think anyone found it wrong that Sita may have been just 9 Aishu, but some are saying she was 6, and if that was the case then Shrutakirti must have been only 1 or 2 when she married Shatrughan since she was the youngest. We are just speaking in terms of accuracy, because while child marriages were prevalant, baby marriages weren't. I'm sure all four sisters were at an age to at least understand relationships. I think Shrutakirti should have been at least 8 or 9 when she married Shatrughan, because like Shivang Anna said, that is the age when many girls think of a husband in a spiritual manner and start to understand relationships. If Shrutakirti was 8, then Sita could have been 12-13. Even that's child marriage, but it makes more sense to me because I want to take the ages of all four sisters into consideration since all four married at the same time.

Well, if Sita, Mandavi, Shrutakirti, and Urmila were not siblings, must we assume that they were all born a year apart? Isn't it possible and even plausible that they were relatively the same age?

And it doesn't bother me so much to think that they were married at such a young age as they were, from their births, extraordinary human beings. In their case, since they were ultra devotional and pious from the start, since they were spiritually oriented, it's perfectly fine to think that they were married at 5-6.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: RadhaHiBawari

Well, if Sita, Mandavi, Shrutakirti, and Urmila were not siblings, must we assume that they were all born a year apart? Isn't it possible and even plausible that they were relatively the same age?

And it doesn't bother me so much to think that they were married at such a young age as they were, from their births, extraordinary human beings. In their case, since they were ultra devotional and pious from the start, since they were spiritually oriented, it's perfectly fine to think that they were married at 5-6.

I understand what you're getting at, but I like to think of Ramayan in a more humanistic perspective because while they were all spiritually oriented, they were born as humans and so must have adhered to human customs. Of course, we do not know the customs of treta yug, but in my mind the marriages did not happen so young because Sita was supposed to grow up in Janak's house for several years. He did not marry her off a few years after he found her.

And SUMS were siblings, but they weren't born around the same time like RLBS. Sita was found first, then Urmila or Mandav were born around the same time, and then Shrutakirti since she was Mandavi's younger sister. And since it takes at least 9 months before a child is born, they all more or less had a year age gap if not more. Like Varnita said, it could have been more.

Quote

MagadhSundari

@MagadhSundari

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#34

^^ But duuudeee, this is what I was getting at in my previous post which Aishu's confirming. Only Mandavi and Shrutkirti were biological sisters. Mrs. Kushadhwaj could have easily conceived Mandavi around the same time as Sita was found; there is no textual source to dispute that since Mrs. Kushadhwaj gets so little attention that we don't even know her name 😆 And similarly Sunayana could have conceived Urmila not too long after Sita was found - she'd still have been childless at the time of the drought, but not necessarily after. So the only gal that HAS to be at least a year younger than the rest is Shrutkirti. The rest could all, presumably, be 9 and she 8 or thereabouts. Say Urmila's a year younger than Sita and Shrutkirti's a year younger than Mandavi, then 2 can be 9 and 2 can be 8 years old. So long as we don't have solid evidence to claim otherwise, doesn't really matter what age gap you assign them, whatever makes you comfortable!

Edited by lola610 - 13 years ago

Quote

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 13 years ago

#35

^^^Perfect. Agreed with Lola and Aishu. Moreover, Janu consider the sasural. Despite their little age, Janak-Kushdhwaj would not let go this opportunity of Raghuvansh as sasural/samdhis. It was not ordinary family's case so as to compare even with the possible human customs back then. And Ram-Sita's marriage was dependent upon breaking of bow irrespective of age and other girls then would normally be married at the same time to make the occasion grand and to make Ayodhyavasis' visit to Mithila only once to feed them.😆 I would have said further that promise (vaakdaan) of girl in that era can even be when kid is just born. And marriage or bidaai can be later. But since we know that all the girls were welcomed by Ayodhya rajmatas on arrival of barat, I didn't put forward that point.

And Janu I think our DkDM discussion was logically over. I don't think there was any point left from our side. So only Lola has to decide to tapkana her views.😆 So she can copy paste our contents in her posts like quoting them and add hers in DkDM thread.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago

Quote

1 2 3 4

Age of Ram Sita During Marriage !! - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics