You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Jan 2007

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00038 Jan 2007

 
Jan 2007 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jayasree Saranathan" <jayasree.saranathan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sadagopaniyengar@xxxxxxxx>; "MG Vasudevan" 


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:SriRangaSri-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:SriRangaSri-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list