myth about Sita being older than Raama

[Sita Raama]

Namaste 

Its a well known myth that seeta was older than Raama. Atleast thats what I heard in my childhood however this verse in Valmiki Ramayanam gives facts. This is in a chapter in AranyaKanda, and argument between seeta and ravana before sita's abduction. 

मम भर्ता महातेजा वयसा पञ्चविंशकः || 

अष्टा दश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते | ३।४७।१०

महातेजा = great resplendent my, husband; 

वयसा पंच विंशकः = by age, five, twenty - twenty-five years; 

मम जन्मनि = my, from birth; 

अष्टा दश वर्षाणि हि = eight, ten - eighteen, years, only; 

गण्यते = reckoned up.

My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth. [3-47-10]

I would like now ask scholars here, is there any other proof in any other renowned literature which talks about their age. I want to know how did this myth originated that Seeta was older than Raama. 

-- 

धन्यवाद: - राम 

[Nityanand Misra]

I have never heard of this claim. The "Aavirbhaava" of Sita occurred seven or eight years after that of Raama, is what I have heard from traditional accounts.

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[Sita Raama]

Nityanandaji 

You are lucky to hear just the facts. I never met anyone who told me this until I read Valmiki Ramayanam. 

Here is a simple google search result, the myth do exists in the stories.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061014034941AAZ8H9p

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sita+older+than+rama&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

regards

[Vidya R]

Namaste!

If person A is 25 years old, but is reckoned at 18 from person B's birth (for whatever the context), I understand it to mean person B is 18 years old.  I am not sure I understand how person B ends up being older than person A.

Vidya

---

From: Sita Raama <raam...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] myth about Sita being older than Raama

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Sita Rama,
There are several false and unsubstantiated claims on yahoo answers. Please be sure before you believe them. A wife normally in Indian Tradition is younger than husband. Sita is definitely younger than Rama

Most of The answers provided on this link 

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061014034941AAZ8H9p

are your own answers they are not backed by any stanzas from Ramayana. Please don't try to mislead yourself or the group

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

A small correction to my previous post.

Dear Sita Rama,
There are several false and unsubstantiated claims on yahoo answers. Please be sure before you believe them. A wife normally in Indian Tradition is younger than husband. Sita is definitely younger than Rama

Most of The answers provided on this link 

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061014034941AAZ8H9p

answers that are not backed by any stanzas from Ramayana. Please don't try to mislead yourself or the group

[manohar chenekala]

This is my first post in this group, If any mistakes are there please forgive me.

there is one more claim that, growth of sita is not like others and normal. she came to the marraige age with in few days after getting into janak maharaj hands.
I don't know the facts about this. If anybody know any information please share.

There is one more sloka in sundarakanda , in which maa sita says that she was happy with her husband for almost 12 years in ayodhya. so, with reference to that,
her age, by the time of abduction by ravan should be morethan 25. as this abduction happened in the 14th year of vanavas...
I will give reference to this sloka as early as possible


regards,
Manohar.Ch

మనోహర్,సిహెచ్.(Manohar.Ch)
www.newjings.blogspot.com
www.etelugu.org
www.surasa.net

[murthy]

In Sarga 66, Balakanda, Valmiki Ramayan, Gorakhpur edition there is reference to a number of kings going to war against Janaka for refusing to give Sita in marriage. Janaka was defeated and had to do tapasya to win the favours of gods who gave him an army. 

भूतलादुत्थितां तां तु वर्धमानां ममात्मजाम् । वरयामासुरागत्य राजानो मुनिपुङ्गव ॥

Sita would have been of marriageable age many years before Sita got married. But Rama was ऊनषोडशवर्ष- less than sixteen at the time of his marriage.

This could make one believe that Sita was older than Rama. Of course one could also believe that kings were eager to marry her when she was not yet of marriageable age. The word वर्धमानाम् does not support it. 

Regards

Murthy

----- Original Message -----

From: manohar chenekala

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 9:20 AM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] myth about Sita being older than Raama

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The age of Marriage for men and women has varied considerably from age to age, province to province and caste to caste even at the same time. A man was to marry after completing his Vedic studies: but the peroid varies ( 12, 24, 36, 48). Usually 12 years were devoted to Brahmacharya in ancient times and as Upananyayna took place at the age of 8 a man would ordinarily be at the age of 20 at the time of marriage.

Manu Remarks (IX, 94) remarks that a man of thirty may marry a girl of 12 years old or a man of 24 years who is in hurry to marry may marry a girl fwho is 8 years old. Based on this Vishnu purana ( III, 10.16) says that the ages of the bride and bridegroom should be in the ratio 1:3. Angirasa says that the bride should be 2, 3, 5 5 or more years younger. In Mahabaratha Gautama is prepared to give his daghter to Uttanka if he could be a youth of 16 years. One can also read anusasana 44.14 and other relavent verses for varying details

Some verses in the Rig Veda ( X, 85-87, 26-27, 460) indicate that married wives could not have been child wives, but must have been grown ups. Some verses may give different opinions.  On the whole one may conclude that during Rg vedic times girls were probably married at any age ( either before or after puberty) and sometimes remained spinsters.

From various Grahya and Dharma sutras it is clear that girls were married before or just after puberty.

I can elaborate on this topic further but i don't think it is required.

From this it is very clear that the age of a wife is always less than that of husband.  It becomes  untenable to interpret any of the verses of Ramayana or any other Indian Epic that the age of Sita is Older to Rama. Please note Ramas marriage was sanctified by great Sages such as Vasista and Visvamitra the Custodians and of Dharma and Shastras.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Sita Raama]

Ajitji,

Can you please tell me how am I misguiding the group ? 

If all the members in the group never heard the story that sita was older than Raama, then I must I must be living under a rock all these years. 

I did not create 10 IDs to post various comments on yahoo answers. I just stated in the mail to support the argument that this myth does exists. 

regards

Raama

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The discussion about the age of Rama is given in this portion of Govindaraja's commentary on Balakanda 19.2 verse:

 अत्र शङ्क्यते- अत्र दशरथेन पित्रा ऊनषोडशवर्ष इत्युक्तम् । ऊनत्वं च मासेन मासत्रयेण षण्मासैर्वा स्यात्, न त्वेकवर्षद्विवर्षादिभिः । तस्मिन्नेव वर्षे सीताविवाहः । तदनु द्वादशवर्षाण्ययोध्यावासः । "समा द्वादश तत्राहं राघवस्य निवेशने । भुञ्जाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्वकामसमृद्धिनी" इति सीतया वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । तथा च वनप्रवेशकाले रामस्याष्टाविंशतिवर्षाणीति प्रतिभाति । तदनुपपन्नम्- "मम भर्ता महातेजा वयसा पञ्चविंशकः । अष्टादश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते ।।" इति सीतावचनात्। कौसल्यया च वनप्रवेशसमये प्रोच्यते "दश सप्त च वर्षाणि जातस्य तव पुत्रक। आसितानि प्रकाङ्क्षन्त्या मया दुःखपरिक्षयम्।।" इति । तस्मात् अष्टाविंशतेः पञ्चविंशतेः सप्तदशानां च कथमविरोध इति । अत्र केचित्, कौसल्यावाक्ये जातस्येति द्वितीयं जन्मोच्यते- क्षत्रियस्यापि द्विजत्वात् । द्वितीयं जन्म च उपनयनम्, तच्चवृद्धेन दशरथेन काम्यपक्षमाश्रित्य गर्भाष्टम एव कृतम् । तथा च द्वितीयजन्मापेक्षया सप्तदशत्वम् । उपनयनात्पूर्वं सप्तवर्षाणीति "वयसा पञ्चविंशकः" इति सीतावचनमप्युपपन्नम् । 
"ऊनषोडशवर्षः" इत्यत्र पादोनत्वम्, द्वादशवर्ष इत्यन्यत्रोक्तत्वात् । अतः सर्वथा वनप्रवेशकाले पञ्च विंशतिवर्ष एव राम इत्याहुः । अन्ये बहुक्लेशं सहमाना एवं व्याचख्युः- अष्टाविंशतिवर्ष एव वनप्रवेशे रामः । ऊनषोडशवर्ष इति यत्किञ्चिन्मासोन षोडशवर्षवयस्क इत्यर्थः । "बालो ह्यकृतविद्यश्च न च वेत्ति बलाबलम्" इति दशरथवचने बाल्ययौवनसन्धौ बाल इति व्यवहर्तुं शक्यत्वात् । "बाल आषोडशाद्वर्षात्पौगण्डश्चेति कीर्त्यते" इति वचनात् । "बालो द्वादशवर्षो ऽयमकृतास्त्रश्च राघवः । अजातव्यञ्जनः श्रीमान् पद्मपत्रनिभेक्षणः ।।" इति मारीचवचनन्तु युद्धभीरुतया भ्रान्तिकृतम्, रावणविभीषिकयोक्तं वा, अत एव स्वयं वायव्यास्त्रभग्नोऽप्यकृतास्त्र इत्याह। अजातव्यञ्जनत्वं च निरुदरा कन्येतिवदल्पश्मश्रुत्वम्। "एकवस्त्रधरो धन्वी शिखी कनकमालया" इत्यपि दृढपरिहितोत्तरीयतया सन्नद्धत्वमाह। वयसा पञ्चविंशक इति तु पञ्चविंशतुल्यत्वमाह। इवार्थे कनो विधानात्। तेन नित्ययौवनत्वं ज्ञापयति। देवा हि सदा पञ्चविंशतिवार्षिका इत्युच्यन्ते। कौसल्यावाक्यमपि "गर्भैकादशेषु राजन्यम्" इति विहितोपनयनापेक्षया। तस्मान्न किञ्चिदनुपपन्नमिति। वस्तुतो वयसा पञ्चविंशक इति सीतायाः शापभीतायाः सन्न्यासिनं प्रति वचनमेव यथार्थम्। दश सप्त च वर्षाणीति कौसल्यावाक्ये तु चकारेण सप्तवर्षाणि समुच्चीयन्ते, तेन जन्मापेक्षयैव पञ्चविंशतित्वसिद्धिः। ननु विवाहानन्तरमेव सम्भोगः श्रूयते "रामस्तु सीतया सार्द्धं विजहार बहुनृतून्"इति। स कथं द्वादशवर्षस्य बालस्य सम्भवति ? सम्भवत्येव, सौकुमार्यातिशयेन प्रौढशरीरतया। अत एव हि देव्याश्च षड्वर्ष एव यौवनारम्भः। "अष्टादश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते" इति वनप्रवेशेऽष्टादशत्वम्, विवाहकाले सीतायाः षड्वर्षत्वमवगमयतीति सर्वं सुस्थम् ।। 1.20.2 ।। 

And here is the second verse quoted by Ramakoti:

मम भर्ता महातेजा वयसा ऽञ्चविंशकः । 
अष्टादश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते ।। 3.47.10 ।।

 

वस्तुतो मम भर्ता प्रव्राजनायोग्यः बालत्वाद्गुणवत्त्वाच्चेत्याह- मम भर्तेति । पञ्चोत्तरा विंशतिः पञ्चविंशतिः । वयसा पञ्चविंशतिवर्षाण्यर्हतीति पञ्चविंशकः । "विंशतित्रिंशद्भ्यां ड्वुन्नसञ्ज्ञायाम्" इत्यार्हीयो ड्वुन् प्रत्ययः । "सङ्ख्यापूर्वपदानां तदन्तग्रहणमलुकि" इति तदन्तविधिः । पञ्चविंशतिवर्ष इत्यर्थः । वयः परिमाणं वननिर्गमनकालिकम् । मम जन्मनि सति वर्षाण्यष्टादशेति गण्यते । रामस्य जन्मारभ्य द्वादशे वर्षे विश्वामित्रागमनम्, तदनन्तरं वैदेह्या सह नगरे द्वादशवर्षाणि वासं कृतवान्, ततः परं त्रयोदशे वर्षे यौवराज्याभिषेकारम्भः, ततश्च वनप्रवेशसमये रामः पञ्चविंशतिवर्षार्हः, ततो मुनीनामाश्रमेषु दश वत्सराः, पञ्चवट्यां त्रयः, वनवासस्य चतर्दशे वर्षे सीतापहरणम् । सीतायाश्च भूगर्भादाविर्भावानन्तरं मिथिलायां षट् संवत्सराः, ततो विवाहानन्तरमयोध्यायां द्वादश इत्येवमष्टादश वर्षा गताः वनवासारम्भ इत्युक्तम् । विस्तरेणायमर्थः "ऊनषोडशवर्षो मे" इत्यत्र प्रत्यपादि । इदानीं तु रामः अष्टात्रिंशद्वर्षः मम त्वेकत्रिंशद्वर्षा गताः । इदानीं तु द्वात्रिंशो वर्षो वर्तते । अस्मिन् श्लोके मम भर्तेत्यत्र भकारो गायत्र्याः नवमाक्षरम् । अष्टसहस्रश्लोका गताः ।। 3.47.10 ।। 

Interested persons in their age may consult the different commentaries. The Yahoo discussion wanted to argue that age of the couples of is not an important factor and quote some arguments from  legends they believe. 



--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Hnbhat B.R.]

All the claim that Sita was elder than Rama is related with the fact that she was found and brought up by Janaka and was not born to him as Ramayana and many other sources confirm. The remaining factors are dependent on how She was born and got into the box he found when he was ploughing the land for sacrifice on the river bank which is differently described in different versions of Ramayana, but Ramayana of Valmiki itself is silent on this point. Here is an article discussing the various explanations on the birth and parentage of Sita herself, 

http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications/afs/pdf/a416.pdf 

One of the sources say she was born as the daughter of Mandodari and was abandoned by them as she would destruct him due to inauspicious moment. This seems to be influenced by the story of Krishna's birth as the destroyer of Kamsa was foretold to him at the time of the marriage of Devaki and Vasudeva and he killed the children born. The rest is left to the imagination how the chronology corresponds to Rama's birth and parentage as speculated in the other discussions in different groups.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The article talks about motif of Sita's Birth . Thanks for bringing notice to this article. I think Dr. Raghavan has done some good research on this topics as depicted in various Ramayana in South Asian Variations .  One can refer to Asian variations in Ramayana edited by Srinivasa iyengar. It is available on DLI website. But all this doesn't prove Sita being older to Rama.
One can also refer to Dr Bhat's post in the same thread.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari




In Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sita Raama]

Dr. Bhat, 

Thanks for such an elaborate answers. 

regards

Raama

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.