They should not change the truth - Page 10

Hey mate,
yep... u got it right in ur second paragraph... what i meant by authoratative was that in current age, people will get more benefits from Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas than from Valmiki Ramayan due to language (sanskrit versus old hindi), explicitness, different nature of text (devotional versus itihaas)... and that is why to make a diplomatic and better conclusion i said that Valmiki Ramayan should be thoroughly studied when one reaches a certain state of spiritualism so that he can with his wisdom understand some explicit or even difficult statements... You can say that Ramcharitmanas is kindergarten and Valmiki Ramayan is for more erudite students... and that is why in my previous post i said:
Valmiki ramayan maybe considered the muul (root) but Ramcharitmanas is the phuul (flower)... only the gardner deals more with the root, the house-owner looks at the beauty of the flower... similarly we should appreciate the flower (ramcharitmanas), then when we gain some spiritual intellect should we consider Valmiki Ramayan as the authoritative granth/text.... Tulsi is a playschool teacher, he teaches us to love Ram (parents)... Valmiki is a highschool teacher, he teaches us to respect Ram (parents)...

Regarding did Valmiki write Ramayan before Ramavatar... that is what i have heard... But even if not.. he wrote it during Ramavatar which is Treta yug... But i do agree with what u said on the different possibilities.. because in the end we can only predict (at this stage).. hopefully we will get to know that all of these are right! :)

Yep, Adhyatam Ramayan, Yog Vashishth Ramayan all have a similar storyline, but they differ in terms the proportion each spends on one aspect of the story.. essentially all have written their experiences with brahm/Ram and that is the beauty...

relevant verses regarding Ravan agreeing that Ram is god... i had posted that a month ago or so in this same thread... here is that excerpt of the post:

When Surpankha (ravan's sister) went to Ravan and told him that a MAN (RAM) had killed Khar, Dushan and all their demons with one arrow. Ravan straightaway corrected Surpankha and said "Khar Dushan Mo Sam Balwanta, Tinhahi Ko Marai Binu Bhagwanta'... 'Khar and Dushan are as mighty as me. Who can kill them other than God himself!!" Ravan hinted that he knew Ram was god... And that is why in that dialogue Ravan says 'Hoi Bhajanu Nahi Tamas Deha, Man Kram Bachan Mantra Dradh Eha' (As I am a Rakshas, I cannot reach the supreme with devotion/bhakti and thus I will die off the hands of the God himself..) SO Ravan knew Ram was god... Ravan called Hanuman his guru (sarcastically)when Hanuman went to Lanka for the first time.. (Bola Bihasi Maha Abhimani, Mila Hamahi Kapi Gur Bad Gyani') and as we know Hanuman is an incarnation of Shankar and Shankar is Ravan's guru (which i have talked of in earlier posts)... Mandodari also talks to Ravan and tells Ravan that Ram is god ('Pad Patal SHish aj Dhama') and so on... Essentially Ravan knew and believed that Ram was god according to the ramcharitmanas...

Again, I like the ramcharitmanas and m very close to it thus quote it frequently... valmiki, ved vyas, vashishth and other great rishis have written their great account with the same if not more authority... I bow to all of em.. but Manas has more than enough for me to explore... haha.. I have read Valmiki ramayan once though (the complete version) but i am more of the bhakti path than gyan path so read Manas more often...

As I hinted in my post, I could understand what you meant by "authoritative". But I think the posts in this thread should be understandable by all those who read them. Majority of members here have not read scriptures but they are interested in having knowledge. They would have misunderstood. That is why, for their benefit, I asked you to clarify.

I agree whatever you have written regarding Tulsidas Ramacharitmanas. Both Valmiki and Tulsidas believed Ram to be God. To understand that Tulsidas believed Ram as God is very easy because Tulsidas has glorified Ram in various verses. Even if somebody reads Ramacharitmanas at random and not completely, then also he will know that Tulsidas glorified Ram as God.
But, to understand that Valmiki believed Ram as God, it is a must to read complete Valmiki Ramayan, with full attention and, may be, more than once.
After all their intentions were different. Valmiki's main intention was to make people know how to be a perfect human being. Tulsidas's main intention was to make people be devoted to Ram. Of course, they had other intentions too, but I have mentioned prime intentions. Both had novel prime intentions but the intentions were different.

Well, as far as I know......the first person who wrote Ramayan was Valmiki...he wrote the story before it actually happened...using his power to see into the future.....

Thus, whatever's written in Valmiki Ramayan is the true story....the others probably just added what they thought was write...

According to Valmiki Ramayan, Sulochana never entered the battlefield....

Valmiki Ramayan is probably the most accurate Ramayan you can get...not the most...the ACCURATE......

So, I think that they should use those stories...rather than fantasized ones.

If we take Valmiki Ramayan as literally, then Valmiki wrote some part of it after the incidents happened and the remaining part in advance. The part which he wrote in advance by looking into future is Uttar Ramayan. Some scholars claim that Uttar Ramayan is later interpolation. But this is debatable.

Either way there is a lot to learn - you can try to become perfect man or devote yourself to god. We all trying to learn less or more about Ramayan - be it Ram or Ravan. But over the ages there are some beliefe and we should stick to it. I thank both Darshil and akhl for sharing great knowledge. Keep posting good stuff.

There are so many stories about Sitamata's birth. We all know that Janak found her from earth but we do not know the reason behind it. Anyone know the real reason?

The story goes that Ravan collected tax from everyone, including sages. The sages were very poor and were not able to pay tax. Ravan's men tortured them. The sages decided to teach Ravan a lesson. Each of those sages took out some blood from his own body. They collected all the blood in a pitcher and buried the pitcher inside ground. The sages were spiritually very advanced. From their combined spiritual strength, the blood became Sita.

They showed that according to Ravan's Kundali, his first child is supposed to be the cause of his death. Does this make any sense? I thought Ravan was so powerful and he had blessing that the only way he would die is if someone suck the 'amrit' from his belly button.

Originally posted by: mainkaun

But over the ages there are some beliefe and we should stick to it.

Of course there are beliefs but you are making the mistake of assuming that beliefs and religious ideologies have been consistent throughout the subcontinent over time. This is far from the truth. In reality, beliefs have varied from region to region and from time and time often in dramatically different ways. This is reflected in the many different tellings of the myths. Truth, when it comes to religion and mythology, is subjective and not absolute (from a neutral perspective that is). An external example would be of Jesus. This one character is viewed differently by different groups. Mainstream Christians worship him as God while mainstream Jews reject him as an evil false prophet. Muslims honour him as one of God's prophets. Bahai revere him as a manifestation of God. Now add to this picture the following elements: there is a small group of Jews called "Messianic Jews" who accept Jesus as the Messiah in direct opposition to the rest of the Jewish community. Muslims popularly think of Jesus as still being alive and waiting to come back, yet there is a valid opinion among Muslim scholars that he is dead. Finally think of this: there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of this Jesus outside of religious scripture. No concrete evidence at all. This has led many scholars to think that the entire story and indeed the very character of Jesus is fiction, created to propagate what was then a new religious ideology. So then, what really is the truth of Jesus? No one knows for certain but the search is on.

Now come to the Ram-Ravan myth. There is no absolute concrete evidence of the factual truth of the stories. What about Valmiki himself: did Valmiki actually exist? Or, as many scholars think of Homer, maybe he did not? Even if he did exist there is the question of the authenticity of his text. There is a strong opinion among scholars that the Valmiki text has itself undergone many changes over time as it was passed on from generation to generation (both by manual copying of manuscripts - an error-prone process - and oral recitations). In fact the entire Bala Kanda and Uttar Kanda are thought to be later additions. There are variants of the rest of the Valmiki text as well. On top of this, the earliest Buddhist version is often claimed to predate the earliest Valmiki text (and this Buddhist debate has been going on for over a hundred years now).

There is also the theory (and a very probable one at that) that the legends of Ram, Ravan, Hanuman and Sita predate even the earliest written versions. In other words, many different versions of these legends already existed in oral form (folklore, songs, etc) when a talented poet decided to adapt his local variant of the myths into the magnificent poem we know so well. If this is so then it is very probable that Valmiki text does not represent the actual truth but simply an adaptation, an interpretation, even exaggerations of the truth (the supernatural elements of the story for instance). Again we are faced with question: what really is the truth of legends? One thing to note is that each version of the epic in line with the local beliefs of the associated region. Jain versions of the epic are completely in line with Jain beliefs and actions for instance. In places where Goddess worship is dominant, Sita is given a more prominent role often at the expense of Ram himself. Politics may also have affected the writing of the texts where the author(s) may have had to modify the events as per the political dictates of the then rulers.

The point being that we cannot simply assume that one version has to be the truth. More research is needed.

The sad thing is that the 3 versions of Valmiki, Tulsidas and Kamban have become so popular today - thanks in no small part to the near single-minded academic and religious focus on these versions alone as well as the many media adaptations ie movies and serials - that people are forgetting the other tellings. I am still amazed by the way in which Ramanand Sagar's serial alone has defined the epic for God knows how many people. 😕 People need to become aware that there is more to this myth than that. 😊


Anyway, at the end of the day, we must keep an open mind and respect the differences. As Mulder would say: the truth is out there. 😉

Kal El,
I agree with whatever you have written. But when a serial shows something which is against popular belief, then the makers of the serial must cite their sources as reference.