[Advaita-l] Ramopakhyana of Mahabharata vs. the Uttara Kanda of Ramayana

[S Jayanarayanan]

Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula wrote:
 
> Lastly, Phala-sruti does not necessarily mean ending. If that is the case, Mahabharata is a crazy book.
> Drona Parva, karna Parva and Ashramavasika Parva have phala-sruti at their end.
 
Let us examine the Phalashruti at the end of the Drona Parva:
 
 "He who readeth or listeneth to the recitation of THIS PARVA every day is freed from
  heinous sins and the most atrocious acts of his life."
 
Note that the phrase "THIS PARVA" in the above Phalashruti on Drona Parva,
as contrasted with the Phalashruti in the Yuddha Kanda:
 
  रामायणमिदं कृत्स्नं शृण्वतः पठतः सदा || 
  
  "This FULL Ramayana, one who listens or reads..." (Emphasis on कृत्स्नं  = FULL)
 
Surely, Valmiki could've said, "युद्ध काण्डमिदं कृत्स्नं" if he meant only the Yuddha Kanda?
 
> The reason why people want UK to be proven as inauthentic is also because of their good nature only - 
> because Indians are emotional and kind by nature, they couldn't tolerate the separation of Sita-Rama and
> wished "I wish it were an interpolation", and then started breaking their heads to create reasons to call it interpolation.
 
Actually, I'm not one of those Indians :-)
 
Here's the way the doubt about Uttara Kanda crept in when I started reading the Ramopakhyana:
 
Towards the end of the Yuddha Kanda, Sita UTTERLY redeems herself by passing the "Agni Pariksha" in flying colors!
There were HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of witnesses to this grand event. Even the Gods came down to testify that Sita was pure!
If Rama's glory was in the killing of Ravana, Sita's glory was in proving her Purity and Chastity with a "Trial by Fire"!!
 It's a HUGE VICTORY for Sita! 
After Sita is proven completely pure and chaste, Rama takes her as his queen and they rule the earth.
 
Here are the questions:
 
(1) Sita's abduction by Ravana was known while she returned as the queen. Nothing has changed for a thousand years!
    If the subjects could accept Sita as the queen for a thousand years with this knowledge, why the sudden doubt?
 
(2) Sita's Purity and Trial by Fire should've been as known to Rama's subjects, just like her abduction by Ravana.
    Has the news of Sita passing the Trial by Fire not reached the lone washerman?
 
(3) Suppose the washerman said what he said. Is it the Dharmic duty of the king to banish the queen on one man's mere talk?
 
Last, but certainly not the least:
 
(4) Why not take the washerman to task for his slander, rather than banishment of the queen?!
 
Regards,
Kartik