This is purely an academic exercise based on some references of Ramayan(a) and other such literature and there is nothing religious about this article. So, whoever is reading this article, I kindly suggest to leave your sentiments and religious beliefs aside and view this piece as objectively as you can. Any comments mocking at the plausibility of the numbers below will be plainly ignored.
Ravan(a) is said to be the mighty king of Lanka and is portrayed as "evil" and one to be slayed in the epic Ramayan(a). But those who have read Ramayan(a) in some detail would also admire some of the traits of Ravan(a). To begin with, it is said that he had the blessings of "God" and was powerful and knowledgeable. He was not only a great king but was well versed in Vedas (the highest possible education at that time) and in music (apparently he was a great player of Veena). To call him a "demon", hence takes away all these good accomplishments from him. Perhaps, it is not without reason that they say 'character makes a man'.
It can be gleaned from Ramayan(a) that Ram(a) was in his 30s (about 38 to be precise) when he took on Ravan(a) in battle. But I have always wondered how old must Ravan(a) have been at the time of battle. Just curious. To my knowledge there is no direct or indirect reference to his age in Valmiki Ramayana (and there are several versions of Ramayan(a)). So, I will try and put together some information from other references in Tarantino style ;).
1. When sage Vishwamitra seeks the help of Ram(a) and Lakshman(a), Dasarath(a) is clearly scared at the mention of Ravan(a). This implies that either Ravan(a) was a contemporary of Dasarath(a) or possibly even before. A note here that Dasaratha himself says he has lived for "thousands of years".
2. Ravan(a) had battled with King Karthavirya Arjun(a) and lost the battle. Karthavirya, obviously at some point later, was in turn killed in a battle with Parasuram(a). This implies that Ravan(a) was around even a generation before Parasuram(a)!
3. Various references vaguely mention that Ravan(a) had performed tapas for thousands of years!
My opinion
It is easy to set aside these references as fantasies. I somehow feel it is a lazy way to discard things. Maybe there are other explanations?
1. What if the references were of multiple persons? Most of the names are derived from Sanskrit and hence have a meaning behind it. For instance "Vishnu" just means "the all pervading one" (So, why can't Shiva or any other "God" be a "Vishnu"?) and Ram(a:) means "one who is pleasing (to others)". And the name in focus, Ravan(a), means "crying" or "one who makes others cry". So, could it be that there were (and are) several Ravan(a)s?
2. Was it just a figure of speech at many of these references? My mother often used to say "I have told you this a thousand times.. " I respond to her saying "No, this is the third time actually" :P
3. The earliest definition of year (defined as the time it takes for earth to go around its orbit) is around 7th and 8th century BC. Could it be that the word "year" meant some other time scale in these older references? People from Krita yuga (a phase in Earth) supposedly lived for 1000s of years. What definition of "year" are they using?
Perhaps not without reason they say "ageless" epics :)
Ravan(a) is said to be the mighty king of Lanka and is portrayed as "evil" and one to be slayed in the epic Ramayan(a). But those who have read Ramayan(a) in some detail would also admire some of the traits of Ravan(a). To begin with, it is said that he had the blessings of "God" and was powerful and knowledgeable. He was not only a great king but was well versed in Vedas (the highest possible education at that time) and in music (apparently he was a great player of Veena). To call him a "demon", hence takes away all these good accomplishments from him. Perhaps, it is not without reason that they say 'character makes a man'.
It can be gleaned from Ramayan(a) that Ram(a) was in his 30s (about 38 to be precise) when he took on Ravan(a) in battle. But I have always wondered how old must Ravan(a) have been at the time of battle. Just curious. To my knowledge there is no direct or indirect reference to his age in Valmiki Ramayana (and there are several versions of Ramayan(a)). So, I will try and put together some information from other references in Tarantino style ;).
1. When sage Vishwamitra seeks the help of Ram(a) and Lakshman(a), Dasarath(a) is clearly scared at the mention of Ravan(a). This implies that either Ravan(a) was a contemporary of Dasarath(a) or possibly even before. A note here that Dasaratha himself says he has lived for "thousands of years".
2. Ravan(a) had battled with King Karthavirya Arjun(a) and lost the battle. Karthavirya, obviously at some point later, was in turn killed in a battle with Parasuram(a). This implies that Ravan(a) was around even a generation before Parasuram(a)!
3. Various references vaguely mention that Ravan(a) had performed tapas for thousands of years!
My opinion
It is easy to set aside these references as fantasies. I somehow feel it is a lazy way to discard things. Maybe there are other explanations?
1. What if the references were of multiple persons? Most of the names are derived from Sanskrit and hence have a meaning behind it. For instance "Vishnu" just means "the all pervading one" (So, why can't Shiva or any other "God" be a "Vishnu"?) and Ram(a:) means "one who is pleasing (to others)". And the name in focus, Ravan(a), means "crying" or "one who makes others cry". So, could it be that there were (and are) several Ravan(a)s?
2. Was it just a figure of speech at many of these references? My mother often used to say "I have told you this a thousand times.. " I respond to her saying "No, this is the third time actually" :P
3. The earliest definition of year (defined as the time it takes for earth to go around its orbit) is around 7th and 8th century BC. Could it be that the word "year" meant some other time scale in these older references? People from Krita yuga (a phase in Earth) supposedly lived for 1000s of years. What definition of "year" are they using?
Perhaps not without reason they say "ageless" epics :)
