DOTW: Stories from Uttarkhand - Page 13

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

That matches Sita's description to Ravan.

But somehow, while I respect Valmiki as the ultimate authority, his stats & timelines sometimes invite more questions than provide answers. Like if Rama & Sita lived 12 years in Ayodhya, what happened during all that time? Also, how did Sita have all that renowned beauty that a ruler Sudhanva of Saamkaasha demanded Shiva's bow and her hand in marriage from Janak (1-71-17). Janak killed him in battle, and handed over his kingdom to Kushadhwaj. Which adult ruler, even then, would demand the hand of a 6 year old in marriage, particularly since the custom, even then, was to marry off daughters when they were at least in double digit ages, if not teens. (How about the possibility that Sita inflated her time in Ayodhya to demonstrate that she had been married even longer than she actually had been, in order to make the disguised Ravan less interested in her?)

Also, how much younger would Urmila have been then - 5, or 4? And along with Sita to Rama, Janak would have handed her over to Lakshman in marriage? Somehow, I still believe that the brothers were 16, and the sisters were 14 and younger, but not by much.

Yeah, but we got sidetracked by the question on Dasharath. One last - let me answer your last question, and then, I promise - future questions will be back on Uttarkand.

On Sudhanva's demand, we have in 1-71:

[Quote=Valmiki] kasyacit tu atha kaalasya saa.mkaashyaat agamat puraat |
sudhanvaa viiryavaan raajaa mithilaam avarodhakaH || 1-71-16

16. atha= later; kasyacit tu kaalasya= sometime, but, after time; viiryavaan= valorous one; sudhanvaa raajaa= Sudhanva, a king; mithilaam avarodhakaH= Mithila, to beleaguer; saamkaashyaat puraat= from Saamkaasha, city; agamat= he came.

"Then after sometime, a valorous king named Sudhanva came beleaguering Mithila, from his city Saamkaasha... [1-71-16]

sa ca me preSayaamaasa shaivam dhanuH anuttamam |
siitaa kanyaa ca padmaakSii mahyam vai diiyataam iti || 1-71-17

17. anuttamam shaivam dhanuH= unexcelled, Shiva's, bow; padmaakSii kanyaa siitaa ca= lotus-eyed, virgin, Seetha, along with; mahyam diiyataam= to me, be given; iti saH ca me preSayaamaasa= thus, he, even, me, started to urge.

" 'The unexcelled bow of Shiva shall be given to me, along with the lotus-eyed virgin, Seetha...' thus he started to urge me... [1-71-17]

tasya apradaanaat brahmarSe yuddham aasiit mayaa saha |
sa hato abhimukho raajaa sudhanvaa tu mayaa raNe || 1-71-18

18. brahmarSe= oh, Brahma-sage Vashishta; a+ pradaanaat= non, bestowal - for the reason of; tasya= to him; mayaa saha= me, with; yuddham aasiit= war, occurred; raNe abhimukhaH= in war, he who affronted; saH raajaa sudhanvaa tu= he, king, Sudhanva, on his part; mayaa hataH= by me, put to the sword.

"Oh, Brahma sage Vashishta, for the reason of my non-bestowal of bow or bride he warred with me, and when he affronted me in that war I have put that Sudhanva to the sword... [1-71-18]

nihatya tam munishreSTha sudhanvaanam naraadhipam |
saa.mkaashye bhraataram shuuram abhyaSi.ncam kushadhvajam || 1-71-19

19. munishreSTha= oh, best sage; naraadhipam tam sudhanvaanam nihatya= lord of people, him, Sudhanva, on eliminating; bhraataram shuuram kushadhvajam= brother, valiant one, Kushadhvaja; saamkaashye abhyaSincam= in Saamkaasha, I have anointed.

"Oh, best sage Vashishta, on eliminating king Sudhanva, I have anointed my valiant brother Kushadhvaja in the kingdom of Saamkaasha... [1-71-19]

So there you have it.

I find it hard to believe that at an age below 6 (since this incident would have taken place, say, a year or 2 before Sita's wedding), Sita was so attractive that a ruler would demand her hand in marriage. Usually, while child marriage was the norm, princesses were in their teens when they married, not below 10. And if you then factor in Urmila being 4, and Mandavi and Shrutakirti being around that age - say 5 and 3, then what we have here is unbelievable even by Treta yuga standards. A 4 year old lotus eyed virgin?😲

Re: Sita's stay in Ayodhya, isn't Ravan's conversation the only place where Sita mentions that she lived in Ayodhya for 12 years prior to Rama's exile?

Okay, like I promised, I'll get this back to Uttarkand.

Question: everywhere in Valmiki I've read, it's said that Rama ruled for 10000 years, so where does the figure of 11000 come from?

Also, how is it split? In 7:42, when it describes the years Rama & Sita spent together, what's mentioned is 10000 years:

Originally posted by: Valmiki

Sarg 42 - Ten Thousand Years Pass

After sending Pushpak off, Raam came to His Beautiful Ashok Vaatikaa. Raam got very please the Sandal, Arun, mango, Paarijaat, Madaar, Kadamb, Jaamun, pomegranate trees which were blooming and were laden with fruits. There were several ponds with Sphatik (a kind of stone) stairs and blooming lotus flowers. Many flowers had fallen on the ground, and they looked like star in the sky. Raam ate many sweet fruits. At that time Kinnar and Apsaraa came there to sing and dance.

Thus Raam enjoyed life with Seetaa for 10,000 years. He used to spend day's first Prahar in religious activities, second one with Seetaa Jee. Seetaa also spent Her first Prahar in religious activities and serving mothers-in-law and second Prahar in the service of Raam. After some time, Seetaa got pregnant, then Raam said to Her happily - "At this time when you are pregnant, whatever your desire is, tell me, I will fulfill it." Seetaa said - "I have an intense desire to greet great gracious Rishi's lotus feet. Please permit me to go there for one night." Raam said - "To fulfill your desire I will definitely send you Tapovan tomorrow." Then He went to somewhere else with His people.

In 7:99, after the passing of Sita, it again says that Rama ruled 10000 years since then:

Originally posted by: Valmiki

Sarg 99 - Remaining Raamaayan

Next day Raam called all Muni and kings and told His sons to recite the remaining part. Lav and Kush started reciting. After Seetaa had left for Rasaatal, Raam completed His Yagya with great difficulty. He sent off all Vaanar, Raakshas and kings and came back to Ayodhyaa. He was extremely sad in Ayodhyaa. He did not remarry so in every Yagya He used to keep a gold statue of Seetaa beside Him.

Raam ruled for 10,000 years according to religious rules. He did Vaamdev, Agnishtom, Atriraatra, etc Yagya His public was very happy in His kingdom. Clouds rained enough, Prithvi gave enough grains, there was never a disease to anybody. Nobody died untimely. After long time Kaushalyaa died, after her Sumitraa and Kaikeyee also died and all lived with Raajaa Dashrath. Raam donated to a lots of Tapaswee and did Yagya to satisfy Pitar

Question: did Rama then rule for 20000 years, or is the latter mention of 10000 years inclusive of the time he spent with Sita? Also, where does the 11000 number come from?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

That matches Sita's description to Ravan.

But somehow, while I respect Valmiki as the ultimate authority, his stats & timelines sometimes invite more questions than provide answers. Like if Rama & Sita lived 12 years in Ayodhya, what happened during all that time? Also, how did Sita have all that renowned beauty that a ruler Sudhanva of Saamkaasha demanded Shiva's bow and her hand in marriage from Janak (1-71-17). Janak killed him in battle, and handed over his kingdom to Kushadhwaj. Which adult ruler, even then, would demand the hand of a 6 year old in marriage, particularly since the custom, even then, was to marry off daughters when they were at least in double digit ages, if not teens. (How about the possibility that Sita inflated her time in Ayodhya to demonstrate that she had been married even longer than she actually had been, in order to make the disguised Ravan less interested in her?)

Also, how much younger would Urmila have been then - 5, or 4? And along with Sita to Rama, Janak would have handed her over to Lakshman in marriage? Somehow, I still believe that the brothers were 16, and the sisters were 14 and younger, but not by much.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

So there you have it.

I find it hard to believe that at an age below 6 (since this incident would have taken place, say, a year or 2 before Sita's wedding), Sita was so attractive that a ruler would demand her hand in marriage. Usually, while child marriage was the norm, princesses were in their teens when they married, not below 10. And if you then factor in Urmila being 4, and Mandavi and Shrutakirti being around that age - say 5 and 3, then what we have here is unbelievable even by Treta yuga standards. A 4 year old lotus eyed virgin?😲

Re: Sita's stay in Ayodhya, isn't Ravan's conversation the only place where Sita mentions that she lived in Ayodhya for 12 years prior to Rama's exile?

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Hmmmm, I guess what you say may be right... Callin a 4yr old as a lotus eyed virgin 😉 sounds a bit too much. I wasn't that thorough about the exact verses from Valmiki.

And also I think its only that one place that mentions of Sita's time of stay in Ayodhya...🤔

But still, its hard accepting Valmiki would have exaggerated.....

Thanks everybody for your inputs on Sita's age. Can we now examine how long was Rama's reign - both with and after Sita? See below.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Okay, like I promised, I'll get this back to Uttarkand.

Question: everywhere in Valmiki I've read, it's said that Rama ruled for 10000 years, so where does the figure of 11000 come from?

Also, how is it split? In 7:42, when it describes the years Rama & Sita spent together, what's mentioned is 10000 years:

In 7:99, after the passing of Sita, it again says that Rama ruled 10000 years since then:

Question: did Rama then rule for 20000 years, or is the latter mention of 10000 years inclusive of the time he spent with Sita? Also, where does the 11000 number come from?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Thanks everybody for your inputs on Sita's age. Can we now examine how long was Rama's reign - both with and after Sita? See below.

Khalrika

Another question. Do you happen to have any material on which verses were originally there in Uttarkand, and which ones got added later? There are some that I strongly doubt:

1. Shambhuka

2. The talking dog

3. After Sita passes on and Rama threatens to destroy the world unless he gets her back, Brahma tells him to ask his sons to recite the balance of the Ramayan, and that would calm him down. If there's anything in the Uttarkand that I doubt, this is it - whoever wrote this was probably smoking something illegal even then. 🤔I mean, K-L had to be traumatized at seeing their mother pass on, and instead of being consoled by family, they had to sit and recite the future of what's going to happen?😲 Was Brahma that heartless that he'd do that to 2 innocent kids, who in this situation, the last thing they needed was to be put under that stress all over? Besides, if Rama heard this, couldn't/wouldn't he have taken steps to ensure that Lakshman wasn't foresaken at the end?

4. Sumantra narrating to Lakshman Durvasha's predictions to Dasharath, and then asking him to keep that secret from Bharat & Shatrughan. Even if Rama did, wouldn't he have been obligated to tell Rama what he was told?