BHARAT JI DID NOT GO ALONE TO CHITRAKUTA

Today, they showed Janaka & Sunaina having been there to meet Rama & Bharat.

It's one thing that RSR was the first TV mytho, but to conclude that everything they showed was authentic is wrong, particularly once one reads the original Ramayans. What the serial makers do is take bits & pieces of all versions and mix them, and what's left leaves people scratching their heads.

Just one question.

Which is the "original Ramayans"?

I'd have thought that 'original' automatically means Valmiki (although Vaishistha is also thought to have written a version). Tulsidas was a medieval account, and actually followed a lot of versions. Adhyatma is the account written by Vyasa - and which Tulsidas really follows (particularly the accounts of Lakshman being Sesha naag avatar and so on) and that was written in the Dwapar Yuga. Since then, during the classical age, there were the Ananda Ramayan, Adhbhuta Ramayan and a few more. Even the Bengali Krittivas Ramayan preceded Tulsidas, and IIRC, so did Kamban. So by no means can Tulsidas be called 'original', even if it may be the version many believe.

Sure about this??? If yes, then obviously we two have been reading different Ramcharit Manas. 😊

I saw one book that had Tulsidas Ramayan, which had Uttarkand, and in an appendix, it had a 'Luv-Kush' kand as well. But in those days, poets & authors didn't have this system of appendices, so obviously, this seems to be added there as an afterthought. I had raised this issue in the AS Ramayan forum some years ago, when I was under the impression that Luv-Kush kand was under Tulsidas, and it was pointed out that Uttarkand - which was what I described above - was the last chapter there. Tulsidas did not include any account of what happened after Rama's rajyabhishek.

The main reason Tulsidas is so popular is that it was the first version written in Hindi. But it's certainly not sourced from Valmiki, and conflicts w/ it in several places.

If you consider Veds to be most ancient, then Rig Ved becomes the first book giving us an extremely summarized account of Shri Ram's "life" as well as telling us who he is.

Further, the same ancient Veds tell us that 'itihaas-puran' are 'sanatan', just like them. (Atarva Ved 11.4.24, Chandogya 7.1.2, Brihadaaranyak 2.4.10) That makes account of Shri Ram's life in say, Shrimad Bhagwat, 'sanatan' just like the person whose account it is. All these Puranic accounts then naturally predate Valmiki's Ramayan.

I've nothing against sage Valmiki. I don't know him, never met him, why would I be angry with him? And I hold his version in high esteem. And if someone thinks that Valmiki's version is the best, well & good, but this opinion should be based on criteria like you are impressed by his writing style or something like that, not because "many believe" that he is the first one to write about Shri Ram.

About Ramcharit Manas, rest assured, I know when it's written.😆 😆 As for "nothing after Shri Ram's Rajyabhishek is mentioned there," I'll have to ask you again, "which Ramcharitmanas have you been reading?" I've a copy with me at my current location, and there are almost 100 pages worth of events AFTER the coronation.

AND, in Ramcharitmanas Uttarkand, this is what I read about Luv & Kush. "Sita gave birth to two pretty sons, Luv & Kush by name, who have figured in the Veds & Puranas. Both these boys were victorious in battle, modest, accomplished and handsome, the very images as it were, of Shri Hari (Ram)"