How is it possible to rule a kingdom for so many years?

Or was it like his kingdom followed his dynasty for so many years?

Ravana lived more than Lord Shree Ram as per this link. How is this possible?

What I assume is Ram Rajya was there for 11000 years, he created such a robust living style that it was continued for 11000 years.

  • 4
    There are 2 types of yuga theories - traditional one and Sri Yukteswar's theory. In traditional theory, the years in yugas are multiplied by 360. I consider Sri Rama's rule of 10,000 years as inflated so if you divide it by 360, we get approx. 28 years or 30 years in case of 11,000 years. Now this looks more realistic considering the life span of humans is approx. 100 years as told by Sita in Ramayana. – Pinakin Mar 17 '17 at 10:46
  • Rama only lived for 100 years. See this answer. Ramayana is both poetry (kavya) and history (itihasa). Some people take every word written in it to be true. Things that defy the laws of nature need to be rejected using common sense and the various pramanas. – sv. Mar 17 '17 at 17:02
  • 3
  • 1
    @ram Is Valmiki Muni above Vedas? Vedas clearly mention life span of humans as 100 years. – Pinakin Mar 21 '17 at 12:16
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria, did you hear or see the vedas yourselves (mantra drashta) ? if not, then everything we know about vedas are only through munis/rishis. If you question valmiki muni, also question vishvamitra who did tapas for thousands of years and gave us gayatri mantra, or question bhrigu. Itihasa puranabhyam vedam saupabrahmayeth - vedas are meant to be understood with the help of itihasas and puranas. What vedic verses mean however can only be understood from scholars who have devoted their life and blood to vedas. – ram Mar 22 '17 at 6:13





In Treta Yuga, life span of humans was very long. Dasharatha ruled Ayodhya for about 60,000 years.

Let's be scientific for a moment.

None of us saw Rama. Do you believe Rama existed ? What is your basis/proof for that belief ?
We all know about Rama only through Valmiki muni's Ramayanam. If you believe Rama existed just because it is said so in Ramayanam, then you should also believe Rama ruled for 11,000 years just because it is said so in Ramayanam. If you totally reject the 11000-year rule based on 'common sense' (you don't see anyone living for more than 100+ years nowadays), then you should also totally reject Rama's existence (you don't see Rama nowadays). If you neither accept nor reject the 11000 year-rule, then you should neither accept nor reject Rama's existence.

Apply the same level of belief OR non-belief on an evidence. If you want to be scientific, you cannot accept one part of an evidence based simply on faith, and reject another part of the same evidence based on 'common sense'.

| improve this answer | |
  • How the verse linked in your question answers the question? It says Lord Vishnu took avatar and it doesn't say anything about how many years Sri Rama lived. – The Destroyer Mar 18 '17 at 8:12
  • @ram nobody is discussing about Ram's existence, we all do believe Rama's existence. Rama must have lived and ruled for some years, but affect/rules of his ruling period was followed for 11000 years. after returning from the Lanka there is no such stories of him. – Mongrel Mar 21 '17 at 3:34
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer, the verse says Vishnu assured he will rule for 11000 years. I also added another verse by Narada muni. and another post linking to uttara khanda verse. – ram Mar 21 '17 at 4:39
  • @Mongrel, what i'm saying is that - questioning Rama's ruling period is the same as questioning Rama's existence, because the evidence/basis of belief (pramaan) for both is the same (Valmiki's Ramayanam). – ram Mar 21 '17 at 4:40
  • 1
    If Rama ruled for 10000 years then why was he given just 14 years of exile? 14 years is like 14 seconds if you have that long lifespan. And Rama would be a baby at the age of 200 years if you have that long lifespan, why only adulthood is long, every period of life must be relatively long as well. Like babyhood lasting around 200 years, toddlerhood lasting 500 years, teenage lasting 2000 years etc.. – Pinakin Aug 23 '18 at 16:03

Figure of 11000 years, is likely a case of bad translation.
Following is the verse, which is not specified in the Qn:

दशवर्षसहस्राणि दशवर्षशतानि च । रामो राज्यमुपासित्वा ब्रह्मलोकं प्रयास्यति ।। [source]

In Sanskrit the word "सहस्र / Sahastra" is translated as "many/several" or "thousand". An accurate number like "thousand" is least likely to be the right word for such verses.
However, some people would strictly translate as following:

दशवर्षसहस्राणि = 10 thousand years
दशवर्षशतानि = 10 hundred years
Total = 10000 + 1000 = 11000 years!

This is not only irrational, but is also not sensible even from Ramayana perspective itself.

  • Archaeology: As per recent survey, RAmAyana happened 7000 years back (i.e. killing of RAvana). In that sense, RAma must be living till now!
  • RAmAyana: Just imagine if the ages were 10000 years, then would Kaikeyi make RAma to exile for just 14 years!? 14 years in 10000 years is as good as 51 days in 100 years. :-)

So here is more sensible interpretation:

After serving the kingdom for several decades and ten years after [the age of] hundred, RAma proceeded towards Brahmaloka (highest of all planes).

So RAma's life span can be 110+/- years. During that, he ruled the kingdom for few decades (5-7).

Here is another misinterpretation of Dasaratha's age depicted as 60000 years!

षष्टिः वर्ष सहस्राणि जातस्य मम कौशिक ... [Valmiki Ramayana- Verse-10]
Sixty thousand years have passed from my birth, ...

In 60000 years, 14 years of exile of RAma would have felt like 9 days! It's unbelievable, that Dasharatha would have died in grief of just short span!
Now here is how one should interpret:

षष्टिः = 60 
सहस्र = many or several (not thousand)

[1] Six decades of years have passed from my birth, ...
[2] As many as Sixty years have passed from my birth, ...

Refer this post for some more information on the same topic.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Well, you translated the verse in a wrong way. Dasha varsha sahasrani doesn't have an "and" in it. When the word formation is like that, they should be added. According to which translation, it is "After serving the kingdom for several decades & ten years after [the age of] hundred" ? – Sarvabhouma Dec 13 '17 at 4:52
  • @NogShine, Sanskrit is Not a strictly ordered language. The word can be jiggled here and there, still churning out the same meaning. The jiggling is however limited typically to a sentence. "I am going to Mumbai" in Sanskrit can also be written as "Mumbai am go I to". Both have identical meaning. Anyways on your main Qn - the word "च" is translated as "and" in Sanskrit. Moreover "Dasha varsha sahasrani" is translated as "several decades". The "and/&" comes after that, which links "10 years after hundred". – iammilind Dec 13 '17 at 4:56
  • 1
    and also Sahasra means thousand or infinite. It is not used for several which are less than 100 or similar. several is not the word for sahasra. – Sarvabhouma Dec 13 '17 at 5:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .