Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_
One Question:
In Valmiki Ramayan, Ram does not know about his divine origin. But with such incidents like Ahalya's revival, and everyone always praying to him wherever he goes, didn't Ram suspect that he was divine? I mean, a normal human being does not touch a rock with his foot and make it turn into a normal human being, and if everywhere he went, people praised him excessively, prayed to him, and called him 'Prabhu', didn't Ram suspect that he was Vishnu?
Re: Ahalya, he may not have - Vishwamitra simply asked him to touch the statue w/ his feet and he did. If Ahalya had been cursed that only the touch of Rama's feet would resurrect her, then that curse could have had this remedy regardless of whether Rama was divine or not.
Also, people praising him excessively, calling him Prabhu - are all in the other versions, especially RCM, but not in Valmiki. In Valmiki, only a few rishis - Vashishtha, Agastya, Valmiki, Vishwamitra and a handful of others know about Rama's divine origin: no one else did. They may have praised him and done all the other stuff in admiration of his qualities, but they certainly did not know about his divinity. In fact, Indra made it a point that Rama should not see him and his chariot when one rishi, whose name I forget at the moment, was seeing Rama. Reason being that Indra would have been obligated to bow to Rama, thereby giving up the game. And none of Ravan's advisors knew that Rama was Vishnu, although some may have suspected as much. I have already elaborated on why it was so important for Rama not to know about his divinity until he killed Ravan.
Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_
As for Valmiki Ramayan's authenticity, I believe that the Ramayan Valmiki Maharshi wrote is the truest and most real Ramayan, but how can we say that what we have today 'called Valmiki Ramayan' is the same Ramayan Valmiki wrote? It was written so long ago and stories like the Shambhuka story, which are a bit controversial to Ram's character, are in it. Isn't it possible that people could have added their own stories in it as the years passed? It is hard to say whether the "Valmiki Ramayan" we have today is the same Ramayan Valmiki Maharashi wrote. That's why I give the "Valmiki Ramayan" we have today the same importance in terms of authenticity as I give Ramcharitmanas. We don't know if all the stories in "Valmiki Ramayan" are really what Valmiki Maharashi wrote.
Well, it's one thing to ponder whether certain things in the Valmiki Ramayan were actually there originally, such as Shambhuka, Kalapathi de Kalanjar, K-L singing the remainder of the Ramayan the day after Sita's passing et al, so that at the end of the day, one comes to a reasonable supposition as to what was there in the original. But that's completely different from giving other writings the same credibility as Valmiki, just as much as in a crime scene, one tends to give more weight to eyewitness accounts than to speculators who were nowhere near the scene at the time, and just wove stories months or even years later. Later on, one might analyze whether some of the evidence given by some witnesses were accurate or not, but regardless, one does not start believing the speculators just because the original eyewitnesses sometimes fall short.
Most of these other works, including Vyasa's, were written millenia after Valmiki's, so from a historical perspective alone, it's unthinkable of assigning them the same level of authenticity as Valmiki. RCM, for instance, was written centuries after the Ananda Ramayan, so shouldn't the latter then be more authentic? And once one starts accepting deviations that glorify Rama's character, on what grounds does one reject deviations that vilify Rama's character? For instance, in Valmiki, there is no mention of his taking a monogamous vow - something that both Sagar serials maintain. Let's say it's there in RCM. On what basis does one accept that over SE Asian versions that have Rama and his bros having multiple wives? Both conflict w/ Valmiki
When one stays w/ the original, things stay simple, and one doesn't get into inane arguments about K-L's battles w/ their uncles. Once one starts accepting various versions from Padma Puran, Adhyatma, RCM, et al re this or other aspects of the story not found in Valmiki, and what's worse, making moral judgements on that based on contemporary situations, then it's an intangible mess which is unresolvable for the simple reason of sheer complexity involved in the contrasts between various versions. A few days ago, in another thread, Kal El came up w/ a whole set of stories in Uttarkand alone. On what basis does one give any of them the same credence as Valmiki's?
Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_
As for other versions of Ramayan (books, movies, and serials), I think the most important thing is to retain the Bhakti rasa. So what if the story is not the same as in "Valmiki Ramayan"? It's wrong to call them fictional becase as I said, we don't know what's fiction or nonfiction in the version we have today. As long as the personalities of the characters are not changed, I really don't care if they change the story a bit or use scenes from other versions. The Bhakti is what is important. If the movie/serial creates devotion in you, then it has done its job. And one who is truly devoted to Lord Rams's story will not need to know what "truly happened" because all that one needs to attain moksha is love God. That's why the previous serial became so famous. Comparing it to the Valmiki Ramayan we have today, it is not completely "authentic" but it created bhakti in people. And same for the initial part of this NDTV serial. Until Ram Rajyabhishek, it was always high on the TRPs chart, not because of the question of its authenticity, but because of the Bhakti. Some people prefer a more historical view of Ramayan in serials and some people prefer to see more divinity that "history". I for one don't care if they show Ramayan in a historical sense. I just want the bhakti in it.
Anything not in the original is fictional, by definition, no matter what the bhakti involved it. For instance, in Ananda Ramayan, Rama asking Lakshman to cut off Sita's hand is fictional for one reason and one reason only - it's not there in Valmiki. OTOH, seeing Sita re-united w/ Rama, Ananda Ramayan certainly invokes more bhakti than even Valmiki's description of the same event. Once that is the standard, it's easy to dismiss the outrageous things written about him by authors who thought they were praising him, but analyzed closely, would be seen to be really vilifying him. But if that is not the standard, on what basis does one dismiss this account of the Ananda Ramayan?
If somebody were to write a Ramayan where in the Uttarkand version, there is no vanvas, it would certainly improve Rama's popularity w/ those sections of society who have chosen to reject him on that basis. So is that something you'd be okay w/, since it undoubtedly improves the devotion to Rama?
Once one rejects such distortions in the Ramayan by post Valmiki authors, one has to be consistent and reject all distortions - whether they show him in a worse light or better. Otherwise, one of us here could write a Ramayan today and expect that in 4087AD, people accept that over Valmiki and anyone else.Edited by Chandraketu - 16 years ago
Cricket
Current Affairs
Anupamaa
