Where is original valmiki ramayana

Top Searches Suvendu Adhikari. Srabanti Chatterjee. Kolkata Metro News. Covid vaccine registration online. This story is from December 18, It is markedly different from the more accepted 4 BC Valmiki Ramayana.

The 12th-century rendition by Tamil poet Kamba is generally considered the second oldest among the more popular versions. However, now that may change. The 6th-century manuscript was discovered purely by chance. Scholars working on the 6th-century Vanhi fire Purana at the Asiatic Society library were puzzled to find that the manuscript seemed incomplete. They began looking through the Catalogus Catalogorum - a global repository of Sanskrit manuscripts compiled by German scholar Aufrecht - and realized two more identical manuscripts existed.

One was preserved at the India Office Library, London; the second at the Kolkata-based Samskrita Sahitya Parishad, a year-old research institution. The scholars scoured the archives and found the complete version of the Vanhi Purana manuscript. When they were analyzing it, they stumbled upon the Dasa Griba Rakshash Charitram Vadha, which did not have any bearing with the Vanhi Purana.

For some time they could not understand why the slokas of the Purana suddenly started telling another story - albeit a familiar one, as the main characters were Rama, Sita and Ravana. Before long, they realized it was a 6th-century version with many interpolations.

However, since the original claim was his, I wanted Vedveer Arya ji to realize the incorrect nature of his claim and thus I wrote…. The context for is very different. Same is also true for reference, i. Another Pathabheda : jayo nametihasoyam srotavyo jayamichhata Svargarohana Parva 5.

From the mysteriousness of their meaning, O Muni, no one is able, to this day, to penetrate those closely knit difficult slokas. Even the omniscient Ganesa took a moment to consider; while Vyasa, however, continued to compose other verses in great abundance. Adi Parva, 1st Adhyaya. Swargarohana parva repeats, partially, verses from the Adi parva, however they do not include the verses that refer to and verses. Vedveer Arya ji did quote the Mahabharata text reference that refers to 24, verses but not the translation of this verse.

He failed to quote the reference that refers to verses but did quote its translation from somewhere. We must go into the original verses, their translation and the context in order to understand what these narrations are truly saying. The verses referred to are referring to intricate verses filled with deep meaning that is not easily accessible to lay reader.

But before we could get to the bottom of this confusion, Shri Vedveer Arya ji had moved the goalpost elsewhere. Now he raised another issue interesting by itself but not relevant to the discussion of the length of Mahabharata ? Whatever the number of Slokas written by Vyasa but Vyasa, Vaishampayana and Ugrashravas Sutaputra lived within years from the date of Mahabharata war. It is impossible to imagine that they projected Krishna as incarnation of Vishnu.

The goalpost has already been moved without resolving his claim of or 24, verses long Mahabharata as the original Mahabharata of Vyasa or Vaishampayana. If yes. I do not see anything impossible in folks projecting Krishna as incarnation of Vishnu, within years of the Mahabharata war.

Shri Satya Sai Baba was considered incarnation of Krishna very much within his lifetime. Additions to Itihasa and Purana texts are a fact but there were no mindless interpretations. Internal astronomical evidence must be treated as original. There may be some contradictions due to updation in various ages or scribal errors. Some unscientific statements like the life of thousands of years are also later interpolations. Therefore, every acceptance and rejection of facts must be supported by evidence.

While I agree with everything that is said in the above note, I should add that it is a trivially true fact that our ancient narratives have numerous errors — interpolation, translation, transcription, transposition, transliteration etc.

This is all true and still, by luck, it allows us to test any claims for any of these errors. We should neither accept such errors blindly nor should we invoke such arguments, blindly, no matter how desperately we desire it for our new conjecture, theory or speculation. It is better to leave an issue unsettled rather than settle it, in an immature fashion, in a hurry, by taking recourse to faulty methods of Videshi Indology. Unscientific, inductive and agenda driven methods of Videshi indologists have destroyed Indic narrative immensely.

I think that Gandhari had cursed Krishna saying that Krishna, being an Avatar of Vishnu whom Gandhari had worshipped, should have prevented the fratricide.

One more angle of research is to analyse a unique mannerism of author in writing a book. Sanskrit Linguistic experts can easily comment about continuity of the style of naration in Mahabharata and Ramayana.

If there is no discontinuity in narration style than it can be taken as single author book. The Basis of writting of this granth is his statement that all the existing Dharma Granthas including Mahabharata have been corrupted hence the so-called truth known only to Madhvacharya came out in the form of the above Granth.

Ancient people have propogated that the original Granth was Jaya verses which was later assembled with additions as Bharat verses from which Mahabharata was created with 1,00, verses. My friend has in his possession 3 manuscripts of full Manusmriti granth, he has learnt Sanskrit and various scripts. When he read these three copies, he found out that there are considerable vast differences in their texts relating to verses, matter, their placements etc.

Bhandarkar institute is said to have prepared its own critical edition of Mahabharata based on 27 different codices which had differences. Vedas are in Cchanda Sahit form but there are enormous instance in various Ruchas where more than letters are found to be missing. This is unexplained inspite of having Jataa, Krama and Ghana Pathas. People, who interpret that way are illogical and completely lost. Because of the hidden and deep meaning inherently being there, O saint, even today others are unable to decipher them.

Even the all-knowing Ganesha had to pause a few moments. VedavyAsa composed many other verses also. I do not understand how some so called scholars could commit such big blunder.

If the original version consisted of only those terse verses, which others can not understand completely even today and all other verses available today are interpolations, then that implies that all of us understand only interpolations and none of the original verses! What a disaster! Please see the whole context. OK, let us assume that those somehow missed that basic interpretation. What happened to the very next sentence? Thank you. It is difficult to understand these blunders by well known Indic researchers.

Of course, to err is human and thus we all make errors. What is worse is, even when pointed out, these individuals are not willing to change their positions. To me, both Bhagawath Geeta and Shanti Parva look like later interpolations. I cannot imagine that Geetha was taught by Sri Krishna while 2 armies were facing each other ready for battle.

Does not sound logical, does it? More likely Veda Vyasa or some later sage interpolated the text there to give it a context. Ditto for Shanti parva. This again looks like an interpolation for me and was done for Kings to remind them of their duties towards their subjects! All the best. Those who might be interested in what you have to say may read or watch your stuff.

Is there any ritual, puja performed in Ramayan thats performed currently? What are the changes in this ritual, can you trace changes in meaning, importance or make an inference from this? If you are aware of any text from these regions with astronomy references with translations , let me know. You are commenting using your WordPress.