What would women readers feel about such a guy - that is 'just a guy' most part :)) VD is young, good looking, talented, not married and is somewhat easily carried away by nature...what would one expect. I think VD is SO much more down to earth than Kalki's Arulmozhi - the only time we see shades of the 'more human' Arulmozhi is when he loses consciousness and confesses to his attraction for Poonguzhali.
I prefer Narasimha when it comes to a hero too. Narasimha gets angered easily, is afraid to really confront his dad and stand up for his love, and is torn between his duty and love many times. You feel sad for him but same time there are occasions where one does feel he could have more of a spine and stand up to his father.
Is there any indication of how old VD is when he meets with Kundavi/Nandini? I am thinking like 18 or so based on a general idea. Not exactly a mature adult. Anyone has any ideas?
Venkat, some things are generic, depending on physical growth and development in any time and age. 12 year olds cannot fall in love, the hormones and chemicals for that do not evolve until much later.When our grandmothers times people used to wed early (my grandmother wed at 8) the children stay with their parents until the right age (usually 16).
Teenagers are people between adulthood and childhood. They are usually driven by urges and less by thinking. Am not sure if these things are not true in PS times - they are true of all mankind.
Killing..well if the child is trained perhaps, he could kill. Given those times it was considred self defence and defence of the country so perhaps acceptable, although no 14 year old can weild a heavy sword like a grown man. His muscles would not have developed enough.
Am sure some liberties were taken with regards to description of age in historical records. The Ramayana for examples states that Dasaratha ruled 10,000 years. Perhaps a praiseworthy description not reality.
Malathy You may be right in today's case. But when you read Sarat chandra/Tagore's novels or even pre-Elizabethan England, girls seemed ready by 12-13. I am guessing it may have been true in the Muslim courts as well. I also read a couple of Phillippa Gregory's books about Henry the VIII's reign/wives, and the girls in his court were trained to attract rich men by the time they were 12-13. Since reputation/virginity was considered of supreme importance, parents wanted to marry them off as early as possible to prevent any scandal.
Sita was supposed to be only 8 when she saw Rama.. I think Rama was 12. And they are supposed to have been "attracted" to each other.. with all the "nokkinal, nokkinar" business :) (well, this may be true or may be a legend just like Dasharatha's ruling for 10,000 years :)
I think while a big part of the "falling in love" process depends on hormones, a small part may also be due to the expectations placed on you. For e.g., if right from age 3/4, if one is brainwashed into thinking of love/husband, maybe one would succumb earlier..
I am sure some psychoanalyst somewhere has researched this.. Deepa
Dear Malathy, Its been a while since I read PS, but I seem to remember that VD was 25. Kundavai was 22 or 21, and AV was 19-20. I remember making out lists (:P) and trying to match ages or something. I could be wrong, I guess.
> > Aditya/parthibendra pallava intro scene - on the beaches of mallai > with old man malaiyaman. kalki brings out aditya's age from > malaiyaman's mouth - that he was only 14 years during the battle > > does he say how long back the battle took place .?that is the age of aditya during PS
No it is not mentioned anywhere. Also, 1 point that i noted was... it is asumed that Nandhini was younger to Aditya. and Nandhini and Madhuranthakan were twins. Hence, Madhuranthakan was younger to Aditya. But in the intro scene of Aditya in mamallapuram, aditya refers to madhuranthakan as an 'old man' mockingly when dicussing abt his recent marriage.
I think while a big part of the "falling in love" process depends on > hormones,
the chemistry over biology theory....
but isnt there a chance that hormones could have worked at an earlier age in historical periods( the intelligent dna taking into account the lower life expectancy??)
we do have reports of those happenings with changing food or environment.
Once again Aun Krishnan or Chandramouli where are you?????
> No it is not mentioned anywhere. > Also, 1 point that i noted was... it is asumed that Nandhini was younger to > Aditya. > and Nandhini and Madhuranthakan were twins. > Hence, Madhuranthakan was younger to Aditya. > But in the intro scene of Aditya in mamallapuram, aditya refers to > madhuranthakan as an 'old man' mockingly when dicussing abt his recent > marriage. > > Isnt there a slip somewhere?
there was indeed a slip we discussed it just last month
also add sendan amudan portrayed as a very young boy. he too was born on the same day as the twins.
As for me, you aren't wrong. While going to the battle at Ilangai AV was 19. It is also given that Kundhavai is two years elder to him. So 21? Adithya 24. But Vandhiyathevan? He should be younger to Adithya? I guess.
Killing..well if the child is trained perhaps, he could kill. Given > those times it was considred self defence and defence of the country > so perhaps acceptable, although no 14 year old can weild a heavy > sword like a grown man. His muscles would not have developed enough. > > Am sure some liberties were taken with regards to description of age > in historical records. The Ramayana for examples states that > Dasaratha ruled 10,000 years.
Many Indian kings have entered the battle field when they were very young. eg: Thalayalanganathu seru vendra Pandian Neduncheliyan in Tamil nadu. Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer is said to have won the battle against the king of Gujarat(Bheem Dev I think) at the age of 12. He was crowned to the throne of Delhi at the age of 13. And when he elopes with Samyuktha he may be just 17! King Akbar was also too young when he went to the battle field. And they say Karikala valavan was also very young when he ascended the throne. I remember a song "URAIMUDIVU KAANAN ILAMAIYON ENDRA......" Can anyone say what was his age when he became a king?
The children who entered battle were perhaps inspirational to the army/generals and other soldiers. The motivated army won the battle, not the child, is my thinking. Exaggereted accounts of age are very possible. It is humanly impossible for children to do battle and weild weapons like adults too and against an army of adults.
Deepa, child marraige was very common in those days Tagore and english authors did write a lot about it. If I reemmber right TAgore rarely missed out on the fact that the victims are children.
No the Ramayana does not say Sita was 8 when she was married. She was 2 years younger to Rama. He was 16 when he left with Vishwamitra that makes her 14. I will post some references on this later.
Ravi, Skanda and Ayyappan are myths let us not confuse that with history (Atleast Ramyana and Mahabharat have some evidence of history attached) Am not saying rare instances are possible but not the number and kind in history besides having proxy young kings such as Akbar with wise ministers ruling while they reached adulthood is a proven fact.
Children have to have time and age to mature into adults we cannot take that away from any time and age. There are few things as irritating as a over grown child and that is true everywhere.
Malathi Will be interesting to see the different versions. (In parts of north India, they even believe Sita was older than Rama!)
I have not personally read the evidence, but have heard in discourses/harikathas (I know..I know.. that these may not be classified as pure evidence, albeit interesting :)
1. Valmiki mentions Rama as 14 when Vishwamitra asks for him. Dasharatha says that Rama is a mere boy of 14 who falls asleep in the evening.. how can he fight with Asuras who are always awake only in the night. (if I remember, while refusing, Dasharatha says Rama is a "rajiva lochana" (lotus-flowered). It is not meant to be a compliment to Rama's eyes.. why would Dasharatha talk about the beauty of his son's eyes while refusing to send his son. Apparently, it is a simile to say that his son's eyes close in the evening like a lotus :))
2. I believe, in Kamba ramayanam, Janaka bemoans how Sita is already 8 and is still unmarried :) (cant vouch for this)
3. Rama was 16 when his first coronation was being planned (and when he left for the forest) - from a book I read. This is a complicated book called Astronimical history of the Vedic period (based on research funded by Dr.N.Mahalingam) which validates this based on the detailed astronomical facts mentioned by Valmiki. I will try to get some excerpts scanned soon.
However, having read a few historical works, I won't be surprised if Rama/Sita/historical charactes were not even in their teens when they showed valor/love.
On a side note, I marvel at our collective consciousness that we dig deeper into our epics, try to prove/disprove with such meagre evidence (and in my case, with meagre/second-hand knowledge!) and never get tired of it :) Deepa
> > > No the Ramayana does not say Sita was 8 when she was married. She > was > > 2 years younger to Rama. He was 16 when he left with Vishwamitra > that > > makes her 14. I will post some references on this later. > > > > Malathi > > > I think Rama left for 'vanavasam' at 16 and not with Vishwamitra at > 16. I think he was 12 when Vishwamitra took him. And if he was 16, > Dasaratha had no reasons to say 'No' to vishwamitra claiming that he > is a mere child and cannot protect him and he can come with > vishwamitra to protect his penance. > > my 2 paise... >
Dear Deepa, knowledge, meagre or otherwise is nothing to be ashamed about. A healthy mind encourages debate so let us not feel guilty about anything :))
Yes Sita is at times said to be 'older' than Rama because she was not born by ordinary human birth she was eternal and her birth date was just the day she was found at the plough by Janaka. Valmiki mentions she is of 'marriageble age' with some description of her bodily features which suggest a young woman not a child and he also describes in no uncertain times their union and married life for 12 years before they are exiled. Their marraige was therefore definitely not a child marriage.
There are some researches done based on astrology with Rama's horoscope, am unable to find them right away. Let us remember tho cthat the Ramayana is not a history text it is a work of poetry wiisth some historical origins. Valmiki says Dasaratha ruled 10000 years and Rama 11000 which is logically impossible, if we are talkting different years he also says 14 years of exile which is vwhld ery long so one has to attribute poetic exaggerations in some cases.
Generally put I find it odd and must confess somewhat disgusting to even imagine child marriages, child warriors and so on. Not sure about others. 12 yer old AK courting 8 year old Nandhini is just not appealing in the least. And a kid slashing sword at grown men is just even more gross/unappealing. Am not sure why we must argue to maintain these images.
Venkat, I thin Pavithra mentioned VD was approx 24 (not sure how it was arrived at). Somehow the reader gets same image, a guy in early twenties when VD starts his journey. When I started reading KM same thing struck my mind. Kanda maaran and VD are friends of compatable ages. Assuming PS takes place in a time span on 15 years end of which VD would have been approx 35-40 (and still not married) how come KM is portrayed so young? Or do you think they were not close age wise?
Dear Swaropini Karikalan mocks at madhuranthagan as kilangalil ellam periya killam.. Karikalan is born before Madhuranthgan..because Sundara was crowed as crowmn prince before Kandirathitha met Sembiyan madhevi...
Kalki mentions after an apology about Madhuranthagans youthful looks when he reintrodecs him...Senthan refered to as pillai and thambi is the colloqial reference which Royalty use when refereing to commoners...
Unfortunately Venkat our life expectancy has increased but our growth and puberty havent changed...the biological nature of attractions begins at the puberty when there are hormonal changes...and physical impact of those... looking at our sculptures and reading our old literaure I dont think that has changed Sri
-> Karikalan mocks at madhuranthagan as kilangalil ellam periya killam..
... and is so deeply in love with his twin.
venketesh
> Karikalan is born before Madhuranthgan..because Sundara was crowed as crowmn prince before Kandirathitha met Sembiyan madhevi... > > Kalki mentions after an apology about Madhuranthagans youthful looks when he reintrodecs him...Senthan refered to as pillai and thambi is the colloqial reference which Royalty use when refereing to commoners... > > kind Regards > Ssri > > --- On Wed, 11/2/09, swaroopini balachandran
I dont believe Skanda or Ayyapa to be a myth. I think time plays this trick to converting a legend to myth.
Skanda is said to be prior to the time of Lord Narasimha during the Krita Yuga. While our time in history makes reality turn to legends then as fables and lands up as myth, obviously, data could be lost in transit.
Ayyapa on the other hand, is later gen, vavar, the sea man on the arabian coast, is a friend of Manikandan, who is islamic (very lesser known religion then), which takes us to less than 2000 years ago, I would time it close to the heels of the Pallava dynasty. Killing of Mahishi, is relatively easier, Rama took on Tataka when he was 14. Riding a tiger again is nothing out of the blue, as late as 1658 AD, Kumaragurupara did ride a lion into court yard of the sulatanate of Delhi.
In 2005 census, India had 21K odd elephants, but when you look at elephants, in another 500 years, we will talk as if pulikesi's army was a joke as elephants themselves would not possibly gone for war.
Schliemann believed that Homer's myth of Achilles was a legend when the rest of the world thought otherwise, the archelogist found Troy and Priam's treasures, exactly where Homer had said they were burried.
Time - makes things change, no wonder, the great Azhwar composed: pallANdu pallANdu pallAyiraththANdu pala kOdi nURAyiram mallANda thiN thOL maNivaNNA! un sEvadi sevvi thirukkAppu
Vyakyana Saram Seeing that Lord with great auspicious qualities, in this world which is subject to time, Azhvar is worried what might happen to Him. Therefore he performs mangalashasanam to Him that His beauty be protected for as long as time is there.
VJ, am only saying since you asked for comments. Most people talking about myths versus history versus legends is a dead end conversation since it upsets their religious sentiments to even discuss it.
I will just explain what I understand. I don't believe myths are lies as commonly said. A myth is an allegorical truth, not a historical one. Historical truths are factual. Myths may or may not have origins in history - the meaning of myth is metaphysical and it is never intended to be a factual truth.
Ayyappa riding a tiger may or may not be factual. Tiger represents warrior spirit/consciousness. The Divine God riding it represents the surrender of that consciousness to Divine Will. To me that makes much better sense than making a macho guy of 14 year old Ayyappa conquering tiger.
Malathi: There is more to Tiger and related lines in spiritual realms though I am not sure about warrior spirit. Tiger is a significance of lust and Shiva seated on it is said to have won over lust. Tiger skin is very static has potential of attracting cosmic energy.
However, WRT to this thread, I believe in reality, Ayyapa was an incarnate who rode a tiger, that is again not something which is not possible. Sheer muscle power is not needed to over power animals, be it a dog or an elephant, they can be controlled by the mind and not by muscle. I am to believe that when He 'talks' to them, they listen.
Ravi, I just took one meaning of tiger, which is warrior spirit, Durga riding tiger is intended as warrior spirit in some interpretations. I do agree with your interpretation also.
If you belive Ayyappa really rode a tiger that is fine, there are many of us who believe but we cannot talk like our beliefs are facts. It does not necesarily mean the opposite - that they are lies, but not physical historical facts unless we know for sure. When we are talking of religious topics it makes sense to bring this in and not specify the same but while discussing history or literature it gets confusing that is all since history is not totally beleif and literature is related to story.
VJ: Interesting read, if I understand it right, the author suggests that Ayyapa could be a Buddhist deity.
I think its the way the author looked at it, there are genuine holes in analysis, for example, the similarities in the chants Swamiye sarnam etc, I am positive that the saranam lingo is common to the nation and not suggestive of Buddhism overtones.
The historical read / suggestion seem very interesting though.
Ravi, just fyi, the Bible has stories of humans overpowering *hungry* lions and tigers by power of spirit. Maybe possible, nobody denied. I am just request you to consider a perspective where people may not want to mix Ayyappa and Kumaragurupana with kings and queens alike for various reasons. I certainly don't and have seen others like that also. Please try to acknowledge that even if you dont agree.