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

[shyam subramanian]

Hari OM
I recall HH Swami Dayanandaji had categorically stated in one of his talks that Ramayana ends with the coronation of Rama and that Uttarakanda portion is a highly imaginative poetic fancy.

Just for information only.
Shri Gurubhyo Namah
Shyam


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 5, 2016, at 8:15 PM, Kalyan kalyan_kg at yahoo.com [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings Dear Sri Santosh
> 
> (Similarly, there si another pATha-vidhi followed which is "just to recite Sudara kanda", and learned people say, "Sundara kanda Parayana itself si enough". does that make us conclude sundara-kanda alone is authentic kanda and not others? No. That is the "Greatness" of that Kanda which needs to be understood from that statement.)
> 
> My mother has done Sundara Kanda parayana 26 times and I can say something about this. Those who recite Sundara kanda, also recite the Sri Rama Pattabhishekam episode (last chapter in yuddha kanda) after completing the recitation of Sundara Kanda. They dont recite the full Yuddha Kanda, but still they have to recite the Srirama Pattabhishekam episode after their Sundara Kanda parayana is complete. It is an implicit acknowledgement that the Ramayana ends with the coronation of Rama as the King of Ayodhya. This fact seems to go against the opinion you proposed that the uttara kanda is an integral part of Ramayana.
> 
> Warm Regards
> Kalyan 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:16 AM, "Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula mails4santosh at gmail.com [advaitin]" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Namaste,
> 
> So here are few more points to think over for Uttaka Kanda (UK) being a valid one:
> 
> First, do we believe Ramayana has 24000 verses? If yes, then it is impossible to have 24k verses if we discount Uttara Kanda. 
> 
> Secondly, the Gayatri encoding is incomplete without Uttara Kanda. 
> 
> Thirdly, Ramayana was seen in two phases - the pUrva-Ramayana (If I may call it), and Uttara-Ramayana (which is Uttara Kanda). By the time Valmiki started writing Ramayana, the Purva part was already past in time. He was blessed with the boon of having the ability to see the "Past" things "as it were" and write the poem. So, when he started writing Ramayana, that period was the time where Uttara Kanda's events were actually going on in Rama's kingdom. He started writing Ramayana and by the divine boon he recollected the "past" events and wrote it as "ramayana" in "Six" kandas. Now that was a "tale of the Past", let us call it "Story-A", then what comes "next" is the tale that is "[LATER to Story-A]", and in sanskrit "Later" is called "uttara", hence he named that seventh kanda as "uttara Kanda".
> 
> Fourth reason - Valmiki is himself a character in UK hence, it cannot be fiction - It needs little elaboration so here it goes --->  If you read UK, here Valmiki is one of the characters in UK, the UK activities were going contemporary to Valmiki's life. This is why you would see Valmiki himself as one of the "characters" in UK several times in his own poem. This is like Vyasa being one of the characters in Vyasa's own poem Mahabharata. what does it mean? It means that UK is authentic because an author who himself exists in a tale as a character, that cannot be falsified.For instance - If say I am interviewing Amitabh Bachan (AB), and I write his article saying "I met his wife Jaya and enquired about AB, "I" men his Son and his daughter in law and got inputs from them" - this article cannot be called a fiction as the author himself is a part of the narrative.
> 
> Fifth reason is - There is NO pATha-vidhi prescribed by Valmiki saying "One should recite Ramayana only till the Yuddha kanda and close". The Purva-Ramayana had a "logical closure" at the end of Yuddha-Kanda, hence a "phala-sruti" was included there. It doesn't say there is no further kandas to it. People usually stop reading Ramayana till that Yuddha kanda itself. that is just one pATha-vidhi.followed by people. Similarly, there si another pATha-vidhi followed which is "just to recite Sudara kanda", and learned people say, "Sundara kanda Parayana itself si enough". does that make us conclude sundara-kanda alone is authentic kanda and not others? No. That is the "Greatness" of that Kanda which needs to be understood from that statement. Similarly, the procedure to do parayana till Yuddha-Kanda is "yet another procedure" only  but not the conclusion. In fact, "Uttara Kanda" alone can be recited separately, hence it alone has earned a name "uttara-RAMAYANA", no other kanda is called "ramayana", they are Kandas only, only the Uttara Kanda is termed "uttara Ramayana" which also confers high benefits on the reciters. So, just based on the "popularity" of the pATha-vidhi adopted by the multitude in Kaliyuga, we cannot consider that as a "prescription" of Valmiki, it is just a procedure followed by different people. Hence UK is also a valid Kanda to be included in ramayana.
> 
> Sixth - Valmiki had himself mentioned about seven kandas in Balakanda of Ramayana itself.
> 
> "chatur.hviMshat sahasraaNi shlokaanaam uktavaan R^iShiH |
> tathaa sarga shataan paMcha shhaT kaaNDaani tathaa uttaram ||" (VR1-4-2)
> 
> Now from the third reason described above, it should be clear why he didn't say "Seven" kandas and instead prefer to say "six" kandas and "the later to them". Since the six kandas were events of the past which we recollected and wrote, and the seventh one was a narration of events which were "later (uttara)" to the events of those six kandas. he poetically mentioned in that way. 
> 
> The next verse reads:
> 
> "kR^itvaa tu tan mahaapraaGYaH sa bhaviShyam saha uttaram |
> chintayaamaasa konvetat prayuMjiiyaad iti prabhuH ||" (VR 1-4-3)
> "Though that great scholar composed thus with leading and sequel legends, that godly saint thought over thus 'really, who will render all this ballad..?."
> 
> Hope it makes it clear that the Leading (Purva Ramayana) and Sequel (Uttara Ramayana) both were his own compositions.
> 
> Seventh - The Bala-kanda itself starts from the Lava-Kusha singing Ramayana ballad as learnt in Valmiki's hermitage. Now if UK didn't happen, then why were Lava-Kusha in sage's hermitage? Hence UK events are correct. Ramayana has an excellent screenplay like our modern day films - it begins with current tale (Lava kusha narrating ramayana), and takes us into flashback (actual Ramayana tales of the past), and brings us back to present again in uttara Kanda. who could do such an excellent screenplay or direction that that adi-kavi??
> 
> Eighth - Rama doesn't refer to Lava-Kusha as his sons, he believes them to be "hermits" who have "kingly features".In the very same 4th chapter of Balakanda Lava-Kusha are trained by Valmiki to recite the ballad and they are sent to recite it all over the state. They reach Rama's kingdom and recite it in front of him. Rama praising them tells the following words to Lakshmana:
> 
> "imau munii paarthiva lakshaNaanvitau
> kushii lavau cha eva mahaatapasvinau |
> mamaa api tad bhuuti karam prachakshate
> mahaanubhaavam charitam nibodhata ||" (VR 1-4-35)\""These two saint-like Kusha and Lava, who also possess kingly features, but they are great hermits... this narration is endowing good fortune to me also, listen to that great efficacious legend [of Seetha...]" [So said Rama to those courtiers.]"
> 
> Why didn't he directly say, these two "sons of mine"? Point to ponder??
> 
> Ninth reason - Rama becomes disturbed on remembering Seeta, and the Ballad which was glorifying Seeta's tale (sItAyAh charitaM mahat) brought tranquility to his mind. why would this happen if Rama had not abandoned her as per the UK tale? 
> 
> "tataH tu tau raama vachaH prachoditau
> agaayataam maarga vidhaana saMpadaa |
> sa cha api raamaH pariShad.h gataH shanair
> bubhuushhaya aasaktamanaa babhuuva ||" (VR 1-4-36)
> "Then those two singers, motivated by Rama's words, sang the ballad in maarga system, for they are well versed in it, then even Rama, who is also in the congregation, again to pacify his mind, [for the story of Seetha puts his mind to turmoil,] became interested at heart [to continue listening Seetha's story...]"
> 
> Hope these reasons sound convincing. :-)
> 
> Thanks & regards,
> Santosh
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:28 PM, S Jayanarayanan sjayana at yahoo.com [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>  
> Venkata sriram P venkatasriramp at yahoo.in wrote:
> 
> > //////////////
> > 
> > My sole reason for this particular thread on Ramopakhyana is 
> > to question the dating of the Uttara Kanda -- whether or not it formed part
> > of the original Valmiki Ramayana, nothing else!
> > 
> > ////////////
> > 
> > 
> > Read the rAmAyaNa properly..
> > 
> > चतुर् विंशत् सहस्राणि श्लोकानाम् उक्तवान् ऋषिः |
> > तथा सर्ग शतान् पंच षट् काण्डानि तथा उत्तरम् ||१-४-२
> > 
> > ...All the 7 kANDAs were composed simultaneously.
> > 
> 
> The verse that you've quoted above says, "षट् काण्डानि" -- i.e. SIX Kandas!
> 
> Is the "uttaram" in the verse definitely a SEVENTH Kanda, or can it be construed of as simply an ending,
> say, of the likes of a Stotram to Vishnu or Phalashruti?
> 
> > That is the reason I have mentioned about those foreign scholars who tried to 
> > fix the date.
> > 
> > Keith fixes the date as 320 BC; Prof.Jacobi fixes as 6 BC.
> > 
> > There are more such fascinating dates from Indian scholars 
> > like Prof.Bhandarkar, Sri.Chintamani Vaidya,
> > 
> 
> At the outset, let me clarify that I haven't heard the names, let alone read the works, of ANY of the scholars
> that you've mentioned above. This is so that the discussion doesn't proceed along the lines of:
> 
> "He is comparing the Ramopakhyana with the Ramayana. Therefore, he must be siding with X, Y or Z!"
> 
> The question(s) I've raised about the Ramopakhyana and the Uttara Kanda are entirely from my own personal readings.
> 
> > We must go by what tradition says after proper study of shAstra
> 
> There is nothing non-traditional about asking these questions:
> 
> (1) Ramopakhyana contains events from EVERY Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana, EXCEPTING the Uttara Kanda. Why omit a whole Kanda, if it's so important?
> (2) Why does a Phalashruti for the FULL Ramayana appear at the end of the Yuddha Kanda (but not previous Kandas!)?
> (Yuddha Kanda says: रामायणमिदं कृत्स्नं शृण्वतः पठतः सदा || This FULL Ramayana, one who listens or reads...)
> (3) Samkshepa Ramayana, at the beginning of the Ramayana, has no reference to any narrative in the Uttara Kanda. Why not include at least a bit?
> (4) The "Rama Rajyam" as described in the Yuddha Kanda talks about a sorrowless Utopia: EVERYONE is joyous (and moral)!
> How can sorrowful disturbances appear within the Rama Rajyam (as claimed in Uttara Kanda), if the rule of Rama is claimed to be perfection?
> (5) Ramayana 1-4-2 says the Kandas are six in number. Why not say SEVEN Kandas, by including the Uttara Kanda?
> 
> I would appreciate answers to the above questions from a "traditional" scholarly viewpoint.
> But please let me know which scholar, along with background information, is being quoted!
> 
> > without carrying away by whims & fancies of western indologists !
> > 
> 
> FYI: I haven't read the work of any "Indologist" - Western or Indian - for over a decade!
> 
> Regards,
> Kartik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __._,_.___
> Posted by: Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
> 
> 
> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. (Members belong to vasudhaiva kutumbam)
> Advaitin Homepage at:  http://www.advaitin.net/
> To Post a message send an email to: advaitin at yahoogroups.com
> Messages Archived at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/messages
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> VISIT YOUR GROUP New Members 4 New Photos 3
> • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
> __,_._,___