Did Uttar Ramayan happen?

Many people can't comprehend how Ram in the Ramayan turned "stony hearted" in the Uttar Ramayan. And many argue that since Uttar Kand wasn't written along with the rest of the story by many writers, it didn't happen.

My viewpoint on this subject is that Uttar Ramayan did happen. And I will explain why.

Ram and Sita are known in our Hindu religion as the ideal couple, and many argue that Ram in Uttar Ramayan doesn't act like the ideal husband, man, etc, but that is wrong. Here are some questions which create doubts in people's minds whether the Uttar Ramayan happened or not.

It most certainly is, but it is a King's Dharma to make his subjects happy and satisfied at all times. There is only one difference between a man's Dharma and a King's Dharma. A man's Dharma is to stand by his family and relatives and to defend and protect them at all costs. A King's Dharma is to stand by his subjects, protect them, and make them happy. For a King, relations are not permanent, because his subjects are his father, mother, sister, and brother. What to say of a wife? Only after he performs his Kingly Dharma, is a King allowed to perform a man's Dharma. So you see, if Ayodhya's people were unhappy with Sita as their Queen, what could our Lord Ram do? He was as helpless as Sita in this issue. And he was most definitely not cold-hearted in his decision to banish Sita. Because he didn't leave her in the middle of a jungle or something, helpless in her present state, but he leaved her close to Valmiki's Ashram, in the hope that the kindly sage would take care of her.

During Ram's corontation, many sages had arrived in Ayodhya to bless him on the occasion. As Ram was conversing with the sages a brahmin arrived there with the corpse of his son and wailed---"o son! your death is certainly due to some flaw of Ram. now, your mother and I have decided to give up our lives as there is no point in living." Ram's heart was filled with grief and he asked sage Vasistha as to how the brahmin could be helped. Sage Vashishth revealed to Ram that the brahmin's son had died a premature death because of Shumbhak. Vashishth said--"Shumbhak is a shudra by birth, but he is doing an austere penance. Shudras are not entitled to do penance in all the three yugas, except the kal-yug. So, only his death can bring back the brahmin's son alive." Ram instructed both his younger brothers--Lakshman and Bharat, to look after the state's affairs in his absence and went in search of Shumbhak, boarded on his pushpak vimaan. Ram saw a man doing penance at the shore of a reservoir. he landed his pushpak vimaan and went near that man. he introduced himself and enquired about the man's identity--Ram asked--why are you doing such an austere penance. who are you? without moving the man replied that he was a shudra named Shumbhak. he said---- I am desirous of attaining to devaloka and hence I am doing this penance. Ram took out his sword and severed Shumbhak's head. all the deities hailed Ram and the brahmin's child became alive once again.

Cited From: http://www.bhagwanvalmiki.com/sambuka.htm

Reading this article, it seems as if Ram was very unfair with his treatment of Shumbhak, but if you understand the event behind the lines, you will see again that Kingly Dharma again came into the issue. If Ram's subjects started dying and he knew the reason but wouldn't kill Shumbhak, then he would be going against his Dharma and wouldn't be hailed as a righteous ruler. Plus, it is the Gods that decide who is permitted to do yagnas and who is not, so as a man, Ram too had to follow the rules of morality written by the Gods. Thirdly, when a sage such as Vasishta Mahamuni instructed Ram to kill Shumbhak, that means the act wasn't wrong, because Vasishta is a Brahmarshi, and a Brahmarshi's words can never become wrong.

This question pertains to the first question. As a King, Ram had to make his subjects happy, and as a man, he wanted Devi Sita back, but how could he do that without clearing the doubts of Ayodhya's people? So he asked her to do another pariksha. And Devi Sita proved her chastity by calling upon Mother Earth and sitting on her lap. This isn't a symbol of cruelty of Ram, but the fact that the avatar of Devi Sita was completed, because the mission she had come upon the Earth was over. Ravan was defeated and she had given birth to Luv and Kush, therefore leaving two heirs to the throne of Ayodhya. Remember, when Gods take birth on Earth, they don't dilly dally for a long time, but stay enough only to fulfill the purposed of their avatar.

There are so many more questions which arise, but it will take forever to address all of them. All I want to say in conclusion is this: the Uttar Ramayan did happen, and there are evidences out there to prove it. Plus, Uttar Ramayan only adds to the beauty of Ramayana, it doesn't take away from it. This tragical period in the lives of our beloved Ram and Sita adds to the adventure, romance, and sacrifice symbolized in the Ramayana. Plus, the ideal husband and wife pair they symbolize is proven more in here. Sitaji's sacrifice, Shri Ram's suffering, and Luv and Kush's birth, all adds to the thrilling story of Ramayana. Plus, did you know that after Devi Sita left the kingdom, Shri Ram slept on the ground on Kusa grass, and forsaked his royal bed? While Sita lived a hermit's life in Valmiki's Ashram, Shri Ram lived a hermit's life in his own

kingdom. I love this part of the Ramayana, because it symbolizes sacrifice and how to act during life testing situations. It also symbolizes unselfish acts and love towards others. I hope this clears the doubts many people have, and most of all, I hope Uttar Ramayan is loved as much as the rest of the Ramayana.

Please tell me your thoughts about this article.

Yes I know, but that was before he was King. I think after becoming a King, his responsibilities changed and he had to make his people happy. However, I don't know if this particular story is correct. I just read it somewhere.