Uttar Ramayan an interpolation?

Hi everyone, 

Hope all of you are fine😊

I am following this series and had a doubt regarding the turn of events, basically about the authenticity of the Uttar kand of Valmiki Ramayan. There is a huge section who believes in it and then there are people who feels that it isn't written by Valmiki and they have some solid reasons to support their point. Additionally , all the other prominent writings like Ramcharitmanas ,Ramavatram ends at Ram coronation ceremony too. 

I will be glad if someone can help me in this.

Edit:- the reasons favouring the interpolation idea.

• The first one being the "Phal Shruti"(benefits of reading or listening this holy write up) thing, In the valmiki ramayan we have, the phal shruti is after the Yuddh kand i.e. in the middle of the book  whereas the phal shruti is always mentioned in the last after the whole story or any write up is done.

The contradictions

• In the last of  Yuddh kand it is mentioned that Rama ruled for 10,000 years and the people were very happy and there was no premature death, everyone died after being old and no one died before their children but then in the Uttar kand it is mentioned that a Brahmin came to Rama with a plea as his son had a premature death.

•  The reason for the death was a dalit who was performing puja to enter heaven( I guess directly without dying not completely sure though), Shambuk, Rama killed him, and the brahmin son revived. The devtas were quite happy that Rama did this stunt.

• Again, according to the character of Rama he never differentiated between people on the basis of caste,and more over killing someone  who is performing penance is highly condemned, Rama being maryada purshottam is highly unlikely to do this.

The other points are from Ravana side( which I am copy pasting)

• When Ravana orders to kill Hanuman in Lanka, Vibhishana says that killing of a messenger had never been heard before, yet in Uttara Kanda Ravana kills a messenger of Kubera and that was before hanuman arrived Lanka.
• In Aranya Kanda, Ravana was introduced as an undefeated warrior that couldn't be defeated by God's, divine beings, sages or any other being. But in Uttara Kanda, we see Ravana being defeated by Vali, Kartavirya Arjuna, Shambhasura. There is no mention of these warriors defeating Ravana in the first six books of Ramayana.
• It is clearly mentioned in sundara kanda that Ravana himself defeated Indra and 33 other Gods. His Victories over Yama, Varuna, Kubera was mentioned explicitly. But in Uttara Kanda, Ravana was shown being dominated by Indra before Meghnada came to the rescue. He couldn't defeat Yama properly as well.
• The six books of Ramayana don't quote Ravana having Pashupata yet Ravana uses this astra in Uttara Kanda. Yuddha Kanda mentions Ravana having defeated the nivatakavachas before learning illusions from them yet in Uttara Kanda it shows Ravana and nivatakavachas having a treaty. Even mandodari mentioned in Yuddha Kanda how Ravana dominated nivatkavchas even after Brahma's boon upon them.
• In kiskindha Kanda, Indra attacked Hanuman with his Vajra yet the child vanara wasn't injured. But in Uttara Kanda, It shows Indra killing baby Hanuman with his Vajra before Brahma revived him. In kiskindha Kanda, only Brahma and Indra grants Hanuman a boon while in Uttara Kanda all the God's including Shiva grants Hanuman boons.
• Ministers of Ravana were glorifying Ravana in Yuddha Kanda as to how Ravana defeated khastriyas on earth whose valour were equal to Indra. Yet in Uttara Kanda, we see Kartavirya Arjuna defeating him.
• One more point, just remembered, In yuddh kand it was written that the Pushpak Viman is given back to Kuber after Ram came back to Ayodhya but in Uttar Kand it was again with our Rama😆

• Srimad Ramayana was written much earlier to Mahabharata. In the 272-289 Sections of Vana Parva of Mahabharata, the story of Sri Rama was narrated to Yuddhistara by Sage Markandeya. Though the story contains minor variations compared to the story told in the Srimad Ramayana, those episodes describe the story of Sri Rama in full.
• However, the sage Markandeya ends the story of Sri Rama in 289 Section of Vana Parva of Mahabharata with the coronation of Sri Rama as the king of Kosala Kingdom. No mention was made therein the story of UTTARA KANDA.

Edited by incrediblycute - 3 years ago

This content was originally posted by: incrediblycute

Hi everyone, 

Hope all of you are fine😊

I am following this series and had a doubt regarding the turn of events, basically about the authenticity of the Uttar kand of Valmiki Ramayan. There is a huge section who believes in it and then there are people who feels that it isn't written by Valmiki and they have some solid reasons to support their point. Additionally , all the other prominent writings like Ramcharitmanas ,Ramavatram ends at Ram coronation ceremony too. 

I will be glad if someone can help me in this.

I don't think Uttar kand is interpolation as it is mentioned in valmiki ramayan and if people take this an interpolation then by their logic entire ramayan and ancient history except late British era can be false.Yes there can be few things which are changed in ramayan over the years of invasions but to think entire kand then 😓. From what I have heard people treat this kand as interpolation because THEY THINK THAT it establishes ramji image as anti-women which it doesn't because at that time ramji was king and he was responsible for the people and he can't do anything which hurts the people's sentiments.Ram rajya was a democracy and it was just like today's parliament which if passes some law and it is unacceptable to people then they have to withdraw but reasons differ.Now we have right to privacy but at that time king didn't have which is same as some famous people who don't have privacy.So this fact establishes ramji as great king.Now coming to his duty as husband then in this moment he also fulfills that as if he didn't have banished (this word is not suitable and u will know later in the post)then people wouldn't have left sitaji peacefully and even luv kush.And even now people would have pointed their finger on her.Now why I said it was not banishment as ramji ordered lakshmanji to leave sitaji near valmiki ashram and when she gave birth shatrughanji was present and he met her.We don't know if ramji told him to pay visit or not but it establishes the fact that ramji knew about sitaji  whereabout and his kids as shatrughanji would have told him and also if not then he was king so he would have known.So people who are saying Uttar kand as interpolation don't have any proof and are just saying for the sake of saying.

Edited by Horizon566 - 3 years ago

I doubt the entire kanda is an interpolation because a lot of facts and info are given during this section also, but some stories (like the killing of Shambhuka) are a clear interpolation, and the way in which Sitaji was exiled may have been an interpolation also, but that's up to people's beliefs I guess. After so many years, it's hard to say.

This content was originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

I doubt the entire kanda is an interpolation because a lot of facts and info are given during this section also, but some stories (like the killing of Shambhuka) are a clear interpolation, and the way in which Sitaji was exiled may have been an interpolation also, but that's up to people's beliefs I guess. After so many years, it's hard to say.

does shambuk killing is present in valmiki ramayan

This content was originally posted by: Horizon566

I don't think Uttar kand is interpolation as it is mentioned in valmiki ramayan and if people take this an interpolation then by their logic entire ramayan and ancient history except late British era can be false.Yes there can be few things which are changed in ramayan over the years of invasions but to think entire kand then 😓. From what I have heard people treat this kand as interpolation because THEY THINK THAT it establishes ramji image as anti-women which it doesn't because at that time ramji was king and he was responsible for the people and he can't do anything which hurts the people's sentiments.Ram rajya was a democracy and it was just like today's parliament which if passes some law and it is unacceptable to people then they have to withdraw but reasons differ.Now we have right to privacy but at that time king didn't have which is same as some famous people who don't have privacy.So this fact establishes ramji as great king.Now coming to his duty as husband then in this moment he also fulfills that as if he didn't have banished (this word is not suitable and u will know later in the post)then people wouldn't have left sitaji peacefully and even luv kush.And even now people would have pointed their finger on her.Now why I said it was not banishment as ramji ordered lakshmanji to leave sitaji near valmiki ashram and when she gave birth shatrughanji was present and he met her.We don't know if ramji told him to pay visit or not but it establishes the fact that ramji knew about sitaji  whereabout and his kids as shatrughanji would have told him and also if not then he was king so he would have known.So people who are saying Uttar kand as interpolation don't have any proof and are just saying for the sake of saying.

Hey buddy, thanks for replying. 

While I do agree that the basic motivation behind this is that they think Ram is shown in poor light in this kaand but then they have some strong points too

• The first one being the "Phal Shruti"(benefits of reading or listening this holy write up) thing, In the valmiki ramayan we have, the phal shruti is after the Yuddh kand i.e. in the middle of the book  whereas the phal shruti is always mentioned in the last after the whole story or any write up is done.

The contradictions

• In the last of  Yuddh kand it is mentioned that Rama ruled for 10,000 years and the people were very happy and there was no premature death, everyone died after being old and no one died before their children but then in the Uttar kand it is mentioned that a Brahmin came to Rama with a plea as his son had a premature death.

•  The reason for the death was a dalit who was performing puja to enter heaven( I guess directly without dying not completely sure though), Shambuk, Rama killed him, and the brahmin son revived. The devtas were quite happy that Rama did this stunt.

• Again, according to the character of Rama he never differentiated between people on the basis of caste,and more over killing someone  who is performing penance is highly condemned, Rama being maryada purshottam is highly unlikely to do this.

The other points are from Ravana side( which I am copy pasting😆)

• When Ravana orders to kill Hanuman in Lanka, Vibhishana says that killing of a messenger had never been heard before, yet in Uttara Kanda Ravana kills a messenger of Kubera and that was before hanuman arrived Lanka.
• In Aranya Kanda, Ravana was introduced as an undefeated warrior that couldn't be defeated by God's, divine beings, sages or any other being. But in Uttara Kanda, we see Ravana being defeated by Vali, Kartavirya Arjuna, Shambhasura. There is no mention of these warriors defeating Ravana in the first six books of Ramayana.
• It is clearly mentioned in sundara kanda that Ravana himself defeated Indra and 33 other Gods. His Victories over Yama, Varuna, Kubera was mentioned explicitly. But in Uttara Kanda, Ravana was shown being dominated by Indra before Meghnada came to the rescue. He couldn't defeat Yama properly as well.
• The six books of Ramayana don't quote Ravana having Pashupata yet Ravana uses this astra in Uttara Kanda. Yuddha Kanda mentions Ravana having defeated the nivatakavachas before learning illusions from them yet in Uttara Kanda it shows Ravana and nivatakavachas having a treaty. Even mandodari mentioned in Yuddha Kanda how Ravana dominated nivatkavchas even after Brahma's boon upon them.
• In kiskindha Kanda, Indra attacked Hanuman with his Vajra yet the child vanara wasn't injured. But in Uttara Kanda, It shows Indra killing baby Hanuman with his Vajra before Brahma revived him. In kiskindha Kanda, only Brahma and Indra grants Hanuman a boon while in Uttara Kanda all the God's including Shiva grants Hanuman boons.
• Ministers of Ravana were glorifying Ravana in Yuddha Kanda as to how Ravana defeated khastriyas on earth whose valour were equal to Indra. Yet in Uttara Kanda, we see Kartavirya Arjuna defeating him.

This content was originally posted by: incrediblycute

Hey buddy, thanks for replying. 

While I do agree that the basic motivation behind this is that they think Ram is shown in poor light in this kaand but then they have some strong points too

• The first one being the "Phal Shruti"(benefits of reading or listening this holy write up) thing, In the valmiki ramayan we have, the phal shruti is after the Yuddh kand i.e. in the middle of the book  whereas the phal shruti is always mentioned in the last after the whole story or any write up is done.

The contradictions

• In the last of  Yuddh kand it is mentioned that Rama ruled for 10,000 years and the people were very happy and there was no premature death, everyone died after being old and no one died before their children but then in the Uttar kand it is mentioned that a Brahmin came to Rama with a plea as his son had a premature death.

•  The reason for the death was a dalit who was performing puja to enter heaven( I guess directly without dying not completely sure though), Shambuk, Rama killed him, and the brahmin son revived. The devtas were quite happy that Rama did this stunt.

• Again, according to the character of Rama he never differentiated between people on the basis of caste,and more over killing someone  who is performing penance is highly condemned, Rama being maryada purshottam is highly unlikely to do this.

The other points are from Ravana side( which I am copy pasting😆)

• When Ravana orders to kill Hanuman in Lanka, Vibhishana says that killing of a messenger had never been heard before, yet in Uttara Kanda Ravana kills a messenger of Kubera and that was before hanuman arrived Lanka.
• In Aranya Kanda, Ravana was introduced as an undefeated warrior that couldn't be defeated by God's, divine beings, sages or any other being. But in Uttara Kanda, we see Ravana being defeated by Vali, Kartavirya Arjuna, Shambhasura. There is no mention of these warriors defeating Ravana in the first six books of Ramayana.
• It is clearly mentioned in sundara kanda that Ravana himself defeated Indra and 33 other Gods. His Victories over Yama, Varuna, Kubera was mentioned explicitly. But in Uttara Kanda, Ravana was shown being dominated by Indra before Meghnada came to the rescue. He couldn't defeat Yama properly as well.
• The six books of Ramayana don't quote Ravana having Pashupata yet Ravana uses this astra in Uttara Kanda. Yuddha Kanda mentions Ravana having defeated the nivatakavachas before learning illusions from them yet in Uttara Kanda it shows Ravana and nivatakavachas having a treaty. Even mandodari mentioned in Yuddha Kanda how Ravana dominated nivatkavchas even after Brahma's boon upon them.
• In kiskindha Kanda, Indra attacked Hanuman with his Vajra yet the child vanara wasn't injured. But in Uttara Kanda, It shows Indra killing baby Hanuman with his Vajra before Brahma revived him. In kiskindha Kanda, only Brahma and Indra grants Hanuman a boon while in Uttara Kanda all the God's including Shiva grants Hanuman boons.
• Ministers of Ravana were glorifying Ravana in Yuddha Kanda as to how Ravana defeated khastriyas on earth whose valour were equal to Indra. Yet in Uttara Kanda, we see Kartavirya Arjuna defeating him.

So shambuk killing is present in valmiki Ramayana can u plz provide citations as I never read full Uttar kand just tid bits that too just sita residing in valmiki ashram part.Your reasons of interpolations are sensible but still as RamKiSeeta said entire kand is not interpolation just like Bal kand is not.

Edited by Horizon566 - 3 years ago

This content was originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

I doubt the entire kanda is an interpolation because a lot of facts and info are given during this section also, but some stories (like the killing of Shambhuka) are a clear interpolation, and the way in which Sitaji was exiled may have been an interpolation also, but that's up to people's beliefs I guess. After so many years, it's hard to say.

Hey dear, thanks for replying

It's just not about our beloved Rama and Sita but also about the great warrior Ravana, Uttar kand completely confuses me 😆😆 I feel like I am reading something entirely new , the characterisation is completely different.

This content was originally posted by: Horizon566

So shambuk killing is present in valmiki Ramayana can u plz provide citations as I never read full Uttar kand just tid bits that too just sita residing in valmiki ashram part.Your reasons of interpolations are sensible but still as RamKiSeeta said entire kand is not interpolation just like Bal kand is not.

The story of Srimad Ramayana ends with Sri Rama's coronation as the King of Kosala Kingdom. Sage Valmiki describes in the concluding chapter of Yuddha Kanda that having enjoyed the kingship for ten thousand years, Sri Rama performed a hundred horse-sacrifices. It was described very briefly about the happy life of the people of Kosala kingdom during the reign of Sri Rama.

सर्वे लक्षणसम्पन्नाः सर्वे धर्मपरायणाः ||
दशवर्षसहस्राणि रामो राज्यमकारयत् | (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 106 Sloka)

"All the people were endowed with excellent characteristics. All were engaged in virtue. Rama was engaged in the kingship thus for Ten thousand years."

2) This was followed by PHALA SRUTI. In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading Srimad Ramayana, was described.

धर्मयं यशस्यमायुष्यं राज्ञां च विजाअवहम् ||
आदिकाव्यमिदं चार्षं पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम् |
पठेद्यः शृणुयाल्लोके नरः पापात्प्रमुच्यते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 107-108 Slokas)

"In this world, whoever person reads and listens to this foremost lyric derived from the speech of a sage, which is endowed with righteousness, conferring fame and longevity, fetching victory to kings and as written at first by Valmiki, that person is delivered from all misfortune."

श्रुत्वा रामायणमिदं दीर्घमायिश्च विन्दति |
रामस्य विजयं चैव सर्वमक्लिष्ठकर्मणः || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 112 Sloka)

"On hearing this epic of Ramayana and all the episode of victory of Rama, who was unweary in his actions, a person gets longevity to life."

विनायकाश्च शाम्यन्ति गृहे तिष्ठन्ति यस्य वै |
विजयेत महीं राजा प्रवासि स्वस्तिमान् भवेत् || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 116 Sloka)

"Whoever carefully listens to the epic in his house, all obstacles come to an end. A king conquers the earth. A person staying away from home, fares well."

In all Hindu Paraayana texts it is a tradition to incorporate the PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading a Sacred Text, in the end of any PAARAYANA but not in the middle.

Hence, if the PHALA SRUTI was added at the end of Yuddha Kanda of Srimad Ramayana, it indicates that Sage Valmiki in fact closed his writing on Srimad Ramayana with that Sarga. Consequently, UTTARA KANDA can be concluded to be a PRAKSHIPA, and insertion made at a latter date,

3) While trying to stop Ravana in ordering killing of Sri Hanuma, Vibhishana says there was no precedence, of killing messenger (Sundara Kanda).

वैरूप्याम् अन्गेषु कश अभिघातो |
मौण्ड्यम् तथा लक्ष्मण सम्निपातः |
एतान् हि दूते प्रवदन्ति दण्डान् |
वधः तु दूतस्य न नः श्रुतो अपि || (Sundara Kanda 52 Sarga 15 Sloka)

"Some of the punishments to an envoy are-deforming the limbs, striking with a whip, shaving the head and impressing marks on the body. Indeed, we have not heard at any time of killing a messenger."

Vibhishana was saying just One month before Great Battle that took place in Lanka. He was saying that till then there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

However, it was narrated in the 13 th Sarga of Uttara Kanda about killing of the messenger of Kubera by Ravana. This incident stated to had been took place at the time of Ravana's commencement of wars on Devatas, Yakshas, Gandharvas, etc, at his younger age.

Had Ravana really killed a messenger of Kubera, Vibhishana might not had said that there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

Hence, the Uttara Kanda is PRAKSHIPTA

4) In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda it was described that While Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years, with thousands of their progeny, all free of illness and grief. And, old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters.

निर्दस्युरभवल्लोको नानर्थः कन् चिदस्पृशत् |
न च स्म वृद्धा बालानां प्रेतकार्याणि कुर्वते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 100 Sloka)

"The world was bereft of thieves and robberies. No one felt worthless nor did old people perform obsequies concerning youngsters."

It is said by 'Valmiki' that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It would be unbearable to a father, if his son dies before him. Any father wishes to die in the hands of his son. It was stated in above sloka that while Sri Rama was ruling the kingdom of Kosala, no youngster died before his father died consequently old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters. .

However, a premature death of a son of a Brahmin was described in the 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda.

It happened that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Sri Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Sri Rama unless his son was restored to life.

Sri Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told him that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Sri Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Sri Rama mounted his aerial car and searched the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him. That person inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka, who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person. Sri Rama without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head.

At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Sri Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life.

This episode of Sambuka described in 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda contradicts the statement of Sage Valmiki that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths.

 The sargas and the sholkas are mentioned, hope it helps😊

This content was originally posted by: incrediblycute

The story of Srimad Ramayana ends with Sri Rama's coronation as the King of Kosala Kingdom. Sage Valmiki describes in the concluding chapter of Yuddha Kanda that having enjoyed the kingship for ten thousand years, Sri Rama performed a hundred horse-sacrifices. It was described very briefly about the happy life of the people of Kosala kingdom during the reign of Sri Rama.

सर्वे लक्षणसम्पन्नाः सर्वे धर्मपरायणाः ||
दशवर्षसहस्राणि रामो राज्यमकारयत् | (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 106 Sloka)

"All the people were endowed with excellent characteristics. All were engaged in virtue. Rama was engaged in the kingship thus for Ten thousand years."

2) This was followed by PHALA SRUTI. In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading Srimad Ramayana, was described.

धर्मयं यशस्यमायुष्यं राज्ञां च विजाअवहम् ||
आदिकाव्यमिदं चार्षं पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम् |
पठेद्यः शृणुयाल्लोके नरः पापात्प्रमुच्यते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 107-108 Slokas)

"In this world, whoever person reads and listens to this foremost lyric derived from the speech of a sage, which is endowed with righteousness, conferring fame and longevity, fetching victory to kings and as written at first by Valmiki, that person is delivered from all misfortune."

श्रुत्वा रामायणमिदं दीर्घमायिश्च विन्दति |
रामस्य विजयं चैव सर्वमक्लिष्ठकर्मणः || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 112 Sloka)

"On hearing this epic of Ramayana and all the episode of victory of Rama, who was unweary in his actions, a person gets longevity to life."

विनायकाश्च शाम्यन्ति गृहे तिष्ठन्ति यस्य वै |
विजयेत महीं राजा प्रवासि स्वस्तिमान् भवेत् || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 116 Sloka)

"Whoever carefully listens to the epic in his house, all obstacles come to an end. A king conquers the earth. A person staying away from home, fares well."

In all Hindu Paraayana texts it is a tradition to incorporate the PHALA SRUTI, the result of reading a Sacred Text, in the end of any PAARAYANA but not in the middle.

Hence, if the PHALA SRUTI was added at the end of Yuddha Kanda of Srimad Ramayana, it indicates that Sage Valmiki in fact closed his writing on Srimad Ramayana with that Sarga. Consequently, UTTARA KANDA can be concluded to be a PRAKSHIPA, and insertion made at a latter date,

3) While trying to stop Ravana in ordering killing of Sri Hanuma, Vibhishana says there was no precedence, of killing messenger (Sundara Kanda).

वैरूप्याम् अन्गेषु कश अभिघातो |
मौण्ड्यम् तथा लक्ष्मण सम्निपातः |
एतान् हि दूते प्रवदन्ति दण्डान् |
वधः तु दूतस्य न नः श्रुतो अपि || (Sundara Kanda 52 Sarga 15 Sloka)

"Some of the punishments to an envoy are-deforming the limbs, striking with a whip, shaving the head and impressing marks on the body. Indeed, we have not heard at any time of killing a messenger."

Vibhishana was saying just One month before Great Battle that took place in Lanka. He was saying that till then there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

However, it was narrated in the 13 th Sarga of Uttara Kanda about killing of the messenger of Kubera by Ravana. This incident stated to had been took place at the time of Ravana's commencement of wars on Devatas, Yakshas, Gandharvas, etc, at his younger age.

Had Ravana really killed a messenger of Kubera, Vibhishana might not had said that there was no precedence of Killing a messenger.

Hence, the Uttara Kanda is PRAKSHIPTA

4) In the fag end slokas of Yuddha Kanda it was described that While Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years, with thousands of their progeny, all free of illness and grief. And, old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters.

निर्दस्युरभवल्लोको नानर्थः कन् चिदस्पृशत् |
न च स्म वृद्धा बालानां प्रेतकार्याणि कुर्वते || (Yuddha Kanda 128 Sarga 100 Sloka)

"The world was bereft of thieves and robberies. No one felt worthless nor did old people perform obsequies concerning youngsters."

It is said by 'Valmiki' that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It would be unbearable to a father, if his son dies before him. Any father wishes to die in the hands of his son. It was stated in above sloka that while Sri Rama was ruling the kingdom of Kosala, no youngster died before his father died consequently old people did not perform obsequies concerning youngsters. .

However, a premature death of a son of a Brahmin was described in the 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda.

It happened that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Sri Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Sri Rama unless his son was restored to life.

Sri Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told him that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Sri Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Sri Rama mounted his aerial car and searched the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him. That person inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka, who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person. Sri Rama without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head.

At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Sri Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life.

This episode of Sambuka described in 73 - 76 Sargas of Uttara Kanda contradicts the statement of Sage Valmiki that in Sri Rama's reign there were no premature deaths.

 The sargas and the sholkas are mentioned, hope it helps😊

Thank u for providing citations 

This content was originally posted by: incrediblycute

Hi everyone, 

Hope all of you are fine😊

I am following this series and had a doubt regarding the turn of events, basically about the authenticity of the Uttar kand of Valmiki Ramayan. There is a huge section who believes in it and then there are people who feels that it isn't written by Valmiki and they have some solid reasons to support their point. Additionally , all the other prominent writings like Ramcharitmanas ,Ramavatram ends at Ram coronation ceremony too. 

I will be glad if someone can help me in this.

Edit:- the reasons favouring the interpolation idea.

• The first one being the "Phal Shruti"(benefits of reading or listening this holy write up) thing, In the valmiki ramayan we have, the phal shruti is after the Yuddh kand i.e. in the middle of the book  whereas the phal shruti is always mentioned in the last after the whole story or any write up is done.

The contradictions

• In the last of  Yuddh kand it is mentioned that Rama ruled for 10,000 years and the people were very happy and there was no premature death, everyone died after being old and no one died before their children but then in the Uttar kand it is mentioned that a Brahmin came to Rama with a plea as his son had a premature death.

•  The reason for the death was a dalit who was performing puja to enter heaven( I guess directly without dying not completely sure though), Shambuk, Rama killed him, and the brahmin son revived. The devtas were quite happy that Rama did this stunt.

• Again, according to the character of Rama he never differentiated between people on the basis of caste,and more over killing someone  who is performing penance is highly condemned, Rama being maryada purshottam is highly unlikely to do this.

The other points are from Ravana side( which I am copy pasting)

• When Ravana orders to kill Hanuman in Lanka, Vibhishana says that killing of a messenger had never been heard before, yet in Uttara Kanda Ravana kills a messenger of Kubera and that was before hanuman arrived Lanka.
• In Aranya Kanda, Ravana was introduced as an undefeated warrior that couldn't be defeated by God's, divine beings, sages or any other being. But in Uttara Kanda, we see Ravana being defeated by Vali, Kartavirya Arjuna, Shambhasura. There is no mention of these warriors defeating Ravana in the first six books of Ramayana.
• It is clearly mentioned in sundara kanda that Ravana himself defeated Indra and 33 other Gods. His Victories over Yama, Varuna, Kubera was mentioned explicitly. But in Uttara Kanda, Ravana was shown being dominated by Indra before Meghnada came to the rescue. He couldn't defeat Yama properly as well.
• The six books of Ramayana don't quote Ravana having Pashupata yet Ravana uses this astra in Uttara Kanda. Yuddha Kanda mentions Ravana having defeated the nivatakavachas before learning illusions from them yet in Uttara Kanda it shows Ravana and nivatakavachas having a treaty. Even mandodari mentioned in Yuddha Kanda how Ravana dominated nivatkavchas even after Brahma's boon upon them.
• In kiskindha Kanda, Indra attacked Hanuman with his Vajra yet the child vanara wasn't injured. But in Uttara Kanda, It shows Indra killing baby Hanuman with his Vajra before Brahma revived him. In kiskindha Kanda, only Brahma and Indra grants Hanuman a boon while in Uttara Kanda all the God's including Shiva grants Hanuman boons.
• Ministers of Ravana were glorifying Ravana in Yuddha Kanda as to how Ravana defeated khastriyas on earth whose valour were equal to Indra. Yet in Uttara Kanda, we see Kartavirya Arjuna defeating him.
• One more point, just remembered, In yuddh kand it was written that the Pushpak Viman is given back to Kuber after Ram came back to Ayodhya but in Uttar Kand it was again with our Rama😆

• Srimad Ramayana was written much earlier to Mahabharata. In the 272-289 Sections of Vana Parva of Mahabharata, the story of Sri Rama was narrated to Yuddhistara by Sage Markandeya. Though the story contains minor variations compared to the story told in the Srimad Ramayana, those episodes describe the story of Sri Rama in full.
• However, the sage Markandeya ends the story of Sri Rama in 289 Section of Vana Parva of Mahabharata with the coronation of Sri Rama as the king of Kosala Kingdom. No mention was made therein the story of UTTARA KANDA.

Thank you for compiling all of the evidence in one post! I personally find it very convincing, between the phalashruti and the inconsistency regarding Ravan's "unvanquishable" status. I've also read research on the poetic structure suddenly changing, and considering the origin story of Valmiki Ramayan having so much to with the structure of the verse that emerged from his curse on the hunter, I think that evidence is also worth scrutinizing. As it turns out, even Ramanand Sagar didn't consider it authentic or particularly valuable and only made this addendum to the series after facing immense public and institutional pressure.

Edited by MagadhSundari - 3 years ago