BHARAT JI DID NOT GO ALONE TO CHITRAKUTA - Page 2

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Okay, explain - how does Tulsidas, which was written during the Moghul empire, precede Valmiki?

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.

Originally posted by: sherlock

@Vrish:

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)"

Originally posted by: superdil19

zee tv ramayan missing very necessary scenes from staring of the show.😭

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I haven't been a regular viewer, but such as...?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Fine. In the context of the OP - that Bharat did not go alone to Chitrakuta, show me what the Vedas say about what Bharat did, and how it differs from what Valmiki wrote.

1. Vedas are Vedas - Rig, Yayur, Samar and Atharva. Since when were Upanishads or Puranas Vedas?
2. B'cos he was the contemporary of Rama, that's why. Like I mentioned previously, Vaishistha too is said to have documented the history of Rama, and if it's known to be there, that would be on par as well. Whereas works written thousands of years later have about as much credibility as me making up something today.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

1. Vedas are Vedas - Rig, Yayur, Samar and Atharva. Since when were Upanishads or Puranas Vedas?

Ever since Vedas told me that they are part of Veds!! 😆 I'm no Sanskrit scholar but do know enough of Sanskrit to get a general idea of what a Sanskrit text is telling me.

Rigved has 21 branches, Yajurved 100, Samved 1000 & Atharved 9. Total is 1130. Now every Ved 'mantra' has a 'mantra part i.e. Sanhita' and then a 'Mantrath part i.e. Brahman.' 'Brahman' are recorded in 'Aaranyaks' whose chapters form 'Upnishads.' It's as simple as that.

For example, Rigved's 'Shakhayan Aaranyak' has 15 chapters. Third to sixth chapter of this aaranyak form 'Kaushitaki Upnishad.' Another example, ninth chapter of Samved's 'Talavkaar' aaranyak is 'Kanopnishad.'

So, if I'm to study Veds by excluding the most important, in fact critical parts of Veds, Aaranyaks & Upnishads, (because 'sanhita' part as a stand alone is of little use to us) it will be like attempting to solve an algebraic equation but refusing to follow the rules of solving an algebraic equation.

As for how Purans are related to Veds, I've already given you some verses from Veds in my last post that tell us, as a rule, that if we have to read the codes of Ved mantra in great detail, complete with all events & everything, we should refer to Purans. There's another Vedic verse, don't remember where this verse is written, but it is a Vedic verse, about this I'm 200% sure, which lays down a rule that "if the mantrath part of Veds is to be further expanded, in fact expanded fully, then Puranas should be referred to." Only problem with this Vedic rule today is that apart from a few important Puranas, there's a question mark on the authenticity of others. For example, almost everyone interested in these studies has concluded that what we get today as "Bhavishya puran" is a complete fraud, where deliberate trickeries galore.

1. B'cos he was the contemporary of Rama, that's why. Like I mentioned previously, Vaishistha too is said to have documented the history of Rama, and if it's known to be there, that would be on par as well. Whereas works written thousands of years later have about as much credibility as me making up something today.

Have we not discussed this already? In my last two posts on this thread I've said that if I'm to seek an "original" explanation to who is Sita Ram or Radha Krishna, I'll go to Veds, why to Valmiki? Now since there are just conclusions there and not great detail, & if I am hell-bent on seeking every little detail, I'll go to an author whose detailing is most in tune with those conclusions. So, I for one, am unable to understand how Valmiki's account is the "original" or sort of an yardstick against which everything related to Sita Ram is supposed to be measured.