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

[Ramachandra Sastry]

Namaste Shyamji,

Could you please share if there is any article/book from Swami Dayananda
sarswathi where he has established the below.

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Ramachandra



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:52 PM, shyam subramanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> > __,_._,___
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>