Talk:Ramayana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of Spoiler warning

I am removing the spoiler warning. It seems out of place while describing an epic, a religious one at that. It makes as much sense as adding a spoiler alert in Bible chance 10:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah and Ramayana spin-offs

"Interesting slants on the epic have been created that view the Ramayana from the eyes of the asura king of Sri Lanka, Ravana, and his clan. Dravidian Tamil books such as the Ravanakaviyam and Kambarasam are the oldest of this genre. A more recent reprisal of this theme, curiously analagous to Virgil's Aeneid in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey, was created by the famed Bengali writer Michael Madhusudan Dutta, who rendered what he appelled the Meghnadh Bodh Kobbo (Tale of the Death of Meghnadh) in Bengali epic poetic form. Of course, all these texts share a similar opposition to the traditional hero-role of Lord Rama."

Note, my friend, that it's clearly stated here that these books all "share a similar opposition to the traditional hero-role of Lord Rama" and that they "view the Ramayana from the eyes of the asura king of Sri Lanka." I don't know why you're getting so upset. I merely excised your sentence which says that the books "slant" the Ramayana. There is no such verb, in the English language, as "to slant" where the meaning is to run in opposition to. I hope you're not being petty with me because of other disagreements in other pages, since no one's arguing the idea that the Tamil and later Bengali stories are counter to the conventional spins of the story. No one's changed the content, given misinformation or done anything of the sort. I mean, both sentences above are mine! --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:05, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The major problem is that you don't know anything about the subject, but you _presume_ certain ideas and pushing here. I guess, you didn't read Kambarasam page (where I left *at least* few ideas about the book). Ravanakaviyam and Kambarasam are not oldest. Kambarasam was criticising the dirty/illicit/obscene character of Rama. Ravanakaviyam characterize Rama as villan and Ravana as hero; it glorifies Ravana's characters (good characters) and etc. --Rrjanbiah 04:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

YES! I KNOW! THat's why I've written that! I said that they go against the traditional grain of Rama as a hero and glorify Ravana's side! How am I disagreeing with you? I'm not! I simply corrected some grammar and left explanation clear!--LordSuryaofShropshire 15:40, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

demise of Book 4

The Empire of the Holy Monkeys was removed in December - is this because of conflicts between translations, or was it an accident? Both the introduction and the Valmiki Ramayana indicate it was grouped in 7 books.

Don't know why it was removed, but it should be there. I have restored it. —Lowellian (talk) 08:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ramayana and History

I've started a section called "Historical evidence" that records the various archeological reveals that point to the historical significance of Ramayana. All those of you from different parts of India, please add the points from your nearest ancient city, with pictures of archeoloical/religious monuments that are said to be related to that. --H P Nadig 03:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama's bridge

While the section on this island chain says that it was discovered by NASA, I'm quite certain that the chain was known before, and I'm reasonably sure but not certain that it is marked by the name 'Adam's bridge' on older, pre space-age maps. NASA probably used an old British name. In the present context, it would make sense to name it Rama's bridge. Imc 19:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the section. It's a hoax. (Sources here and here). The original claim itself is preposterous. It claims that the bridge is 1.75 millions years old. Human ancestors only evolved approximately 2 million years ago and Homo Sapiens most definitely haven't been around for 1.75 million years. Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 23:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're just bowing out for factoids instead of looking at the NASA image. There's no official technical/scientific document as mentioned in the article pointed by you, that suggests the bridge didn't exist. There might be varied opinion about its age, but one has to take into account that besides theories, even the exact dates of Ramayana are also unknown.

I wrote that Laputan Logic article back in 2002. These kinds of structures are created by ocean currents and are not all that rare. As for the purported age of 1.75 million years, I think it's worth pointing out that, geologically speaking, India and Sri Lanka were a single piece of land only 18,000 years ago.

Hereis the famous image which I believe was actually taken in 1996 and this is what the Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it back in 1911:

"ADAM'S BRIDGE, or RAMA'S BRIDGE, a chain of sandbanks extending from the island of Manaar, near the N.W. coast of Ceylon to the island of Rameswaram, off the Indian coast, and lying between the Gulf of Manaar on the S.W. and Palk Strait on the N.E. It is more than 30 m. long and offers a serious impediment to navigation. Some of the sandbanks are dry; and no part of the shoal has a greater depth than 3 or 4 ft. at high water, except three tortuous and intricate channels which have recently been dredged to a sufficient depth to admit the passage of vessels, so as to obviate the long journey round the island of Ceylon which was previously necessary. Geological evidence shows that this gap was once bridged by a continuous isthmus which according to the temple records was breached by a violent storm in 1480. Operations for removing the obstacles in the channel and for deepening and widening it were begun as long ago as 1838. A service of the British India Steam Navigation Company's steamers has been established between Negapatam and Colombo through Palk Strait and this narrow passage."

Speaking of "factoids" this whole thing was a creation of the Indian news media. The oldest version of this story still online is here although I know it was lifted from the *religious section* of another site. A few more images of the sandbar here and here. John Hardy 23:09, 16 May 2005 (AET)

There is no place for the natural causeway under "Historical Evidence". The Ramayana states that the bridge was actually built. How could a Natural Causeway be evidence of that? We could perhaps hypothesize that there used to be a land bridge between India and Sri Lanka, which Rama and the Vanara Army could have used. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Dating of Ramayana

I came across this artical which dates Ramayana around 3000 BCE as is clear from the description of astronomical events in Ramayana, but if you go through Mahabharat then it is also dated around 3700 BCE. Did the two epics evolved around the same time? Is the fact of Ramayana being atleast 10000 years older than Mahabharat false? My head is spinning. Experts please clarify.

Subhash Kamboj

                                  Here's Clarification(24th Jan 2006)

If we can decide the time of Ramayana, MahaBharat time can be easily determined by the fact that King Shalya who took over the fighting on Kaurava's side after the death of Karna was 50th generation from Luv and Kush (Rama's sons). Lets take an average of 40 years for each generation, that would mean atleast 2000 years as the difference between Ramayan and Mahabharat. This would mean if Mahabharat happened is dated around 3700 B.C., then Ramayan could be easily dated as somewhere near to 3700+2000 = 5700 B.C. But taking into consideration the average age of Human at that time as around atleast 80 years as it has been mentioned in a lot of ancient books that the Humans had a high life expectancy. It would mean that 50 generations is equivalent to 4000(50*80)years, which would mean that Ramayan happened nearly in 7800 B.C. which is what a lot of old scripts from India point to. According to Valmiki Ramayan's star formation it can be calculated that Ramayan did happen somewhere between 7000-8000 B.C. which is around 10000 years from now.

Mayank B. Prasad

The date of the Ramayana has the be older than that of the Mahabharata. Rama is mentioned in the Mahabharata many times. Hanuman was half man, half ape. Hanuman is also mentioned in the Mahabharata. How many years ago did whe see the last Neantherthalers? Mayank I am adding your comments in the main article, you have valid points.

---

25-AUG-2006: There is more to this around 1 Million Years ago the first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa some time before this, they evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, and the Neanderthals were around till 270,000 Years ago. The scientist stillbelieve that there is a missing link somewhere in the evolution of the modern man. The same missing could have been the apes that were around during the Ramayan Period and Hanuman was one of the other intelligent species other than the Homo Sapiens. And according to our epics they were present during the ramayan period but were not mentioned anywhere in the epics depicting the mahabharat period. There are many more facts which need to brought under light, I will keep on adding newer findings from my side. Lets hope we have more inputs from others also

I do not think historian Sankalia and Basham (his dating is particularly absurd) have made correct assessments. Please let me mention that Alexanders historians in 323 BC mentioned a Ramakoop (Rama's well) with bubbling mud in Baluchistan, the wells (or more correctly geysers) still exist in Gwadar region of Pakistan (As reported by Alexander Cunningham, Surveyor-General, Archeological Survey of India, in the British times). So Rama's story was that pervasive in India even at that early time. Indian folk stories, myths, and scriptures did not require writing down because people learned them by heart. Even after writing is with us for two or three millenia, Indians still learn Vedas by heart, and consider that to be the best way. Written matter does not give information on the stress to be given on various words and the sound. It would be an insufficient method of passing down Vedic verses and how they should be sung. Aupmanyav 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Manuscripts

What is the oldest extant manuscript of Ramayana? Do we still have the original writings of Valmiki from 4th-2nd century BCE? --Itinerant1 23:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There are no "experts" in this "field". All we have as a connection between that as-of-now "unconventional" version of earlier civilizations and this one are devoid of anything "practical" or materialistic. Whenever, wherever and however the Vedas, Puranas etc including the epics might have been composed, the ones we know to survive today constitute less than 1% of the original scriptures or texts in content as allusions to way larger numbers are uniform and consistent, so that that could not be considered the work of some Hindu fanatic or something similar at a later point in time

No experts in this field, but you're able to give percentage statistics, or are they just speculations? Dwayne Kirkwood 09:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DURING THE PERIOD OF RAMAYANA, HUMANOIDS WERE IN EXISTENCE AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT TO SOME DEGREE THERE WAS A CLEAR COMMUNICATION WITH THEM, WHICH SUPPORTS THE EXPLANATION OF ENORMOUS PHYSICAL STRENGTH AND LABOR THAT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THEM TOWARD BUILDING THE BOULDER BRIDGE BETWEEN INDIA AND LANKA, AND TO ATTACK LANKA TO RESCUE SITA. ALSO, DURING THAT PERIOD HUMANS WERE OF SMALL STATURE, AND SO WAS KING RAMA, AND HUMANOID HELP SEEMS LOGICAL.THEREFORE, RAMAYANA PERIOD HAS GOT TO BE MUCH EARLIER THAN THE PERIOD OF MAHABHARATA. IF MAHABHARATA HAPPENED AROUND 20,000 YEARS BC, THEN RAMAYANA COULD HAVE HAPPENED AROUND 50,000 BC.ARGUMENT IS HUMANS WERE MUCH SMALLER AND HUMANOIDS EXISTED, CONDITIONS WERE LESS SCIENTIFIC THAN DURING THE PERIOD OF MAHABHARATA WHEN HUMANS WERE BIG AND WEAPONRY AND RULES OF WARFARE WERE MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED, EVEN FROM TODAY'S STANDARDS.(PREM K. BHANDARI Jan. 2, 2007).

Minor Question

"Just like Christians historically believe in the birth of Jesus, people of the Hindu religion believe in the birth of Rāma." Does this phrase really need to stay? It seems to presume a bias towards Christianity (or at least presume inherent knowledge of Christianity) on the part of the reader, and it seems out of place. Kobresia 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it is out of place, i have removed it. --vineeth 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Death of Dasharatha

I believe the king Dasharatha died as a result of a curse - can anybody with more information add the relevant text? Shreekar 06:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Once while Dashratha was hunting, he killed Shravan Kumar accidentally. Shravan Kumar was the only son of blind parents. The blind parents then cursed Dashratha that he will also die due to the pain of his son's separation. After saying the curse, Shravan Kumar's parents died. This is why Dashratha died due to the pain of his son Rama's separation when Rama went to the forest for 14 yrs.

Unnecessary for politics to come in here

No need to mention political aspects in the text related to Some landmarks related to Ramayana - Ayodhya. I will be removing these references if no compelling reason is given. Shreekar 06:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Archeological Correlations

While I accept that certain Hindus may take the Ramayana as literally true,the archeological evidence does not back up the time estimates made here. That persons in the epic may have been neandrethal or sub-human is also an unlikely proposition. Perhaps an accurate attempt at dating the oral and textual representations would provide some context as to revisionism over time and the correlation of events to the historical record.

All of the dead would have been thrown into the ganga, or burned, as is the custom. So, it is not surprising that there is little archeological evidence. The lack of evidence doesn't mean that the dates are wrong however. Dwayne Kirkwood 05:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lack of evidence does not mean the dates are wrong, but by the same token it also means they are not absolutely right either. The second para in the lead section is full of POV and original research. I am moving it to a separate section on Dating Ramayana - Parthi 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Work (23-06-06)

Hey Venu62, are you planning on reworking all of this article? I'm curious if you're planning on renaming all of the headers in the section "Story of Rāmāyaņa". If so, perhaps this can be done in advanced? Looks messy as most of the titles are named "BOOK III" etc, while your new titles don't have this prefix. Personally I'd prefer that the Book titles were kept, rather than being changed (the book titles are useful for reference). Dwayne Kirkwood 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwayne, I am in the process of rewriting the story section. I think it will be more readable if the story is given without sticking to the original canto structure of Valmiki Ramayana. I am also intending to add a section after the story giving the sturucture of the book with its canto titles. I am also changing the tense of the story into past from the current present tense. I should be finished tonight, but I had to wake up early to see the Socceroos go through to round 2. So I don't know how long I will be up tonight. I shouls finish it on the weekend though - Cheers Parthi 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Style that we use

Are we referring to the Ramayana as "the Ramayana" or "Ramayana"? The usage doesn't seem to be uniform throughout the article. --Kaushik twin 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be just 'Ramayana' - Parthi 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words?

How does

In its current form the Valmiki Ramayana is dated variously from the fifth century to the first century BCE. It has gone through many interpolations, making it impossible to accurately date it using internal evidence. Some historians have proposed that hidden within its Hindu religious imagery is the story of the migration of the Vedic religion to the Deccan and the peninsular India.

fit with the Weasel words criteria?

- Parthi 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some historians Is it clear now???

No, it is not anon, the sentense is cited. - Parthi 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to include that historian's name .other wise remove that line . I am re-adding the tag.Bharatveer 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Book Titles

Why were they removed? It is accurate to include them in the article. I believe we should re-add them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is not only about Valmiki Ramayana, but Ramayana in general. There is a section detailing the structure of Valmiki Ramayana, the oldest version of Ramayana available - Parthi 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lava-Kusha Kanda

My edition of the Ramayana, which I bought near a temple in India, although it shouldn't make much of a difference. Has an extra chapter, the Lava-Kusha Kanda, however, when I added it it was promptly removed without any notice...is it just my edition that has the chapter then? Or is the story of Lava and Kusha detailed in the Uttara Kanda in other editions. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed it, however all the version version I have seen have only seven. Without actually seeing the book, I can only guess that in your edition, the Uttara Kanada has been split into two. - Parthi 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, I won't readd it then. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bharatveer's edit wars

This user has unreasonably started to indulge in edit wars on a passage in this article. He/she is unwilling to discuss this in the talk page before unilaterally deleting the following passage:

There is even a version of the story prevelant amongst the Mappilas of Kerala. This version, known as Mappila Ramayana, handed down orally over generations has been comitted to writing recently. Being or Muslim origin, the hero of this story is a sultan. There are no major changes in the names of characters except for that of Rama's which is changed to `Laman'. The language and the imagery projected in the Mappilapattu are in accordance with the social fabric of the earlier Muslim community.<ref>See ''A different song'', ''The Hindu'', Aug 12, 2005</ref>

I need some help dealing with this user - Parthi 09:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can u term it as an edit war; its just a dispute about content.

A 'reputed' newspaper reports about some "claims" of "reputed" researchers. , but it should not be included in an encylopedic article , when it is not even published in any 'reputed ' journal.Bharatveer 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone insists in reverting changes repetedly then it is an edit war. Content disputes are discussed, not unilaterally changed.

If you have problems with the way The Hindu has reported this, then take it up with that journal. There are numerous articles in WP citing newspaper sources. They don't wait until things get published in so-called reputed journals. I do not agree with your delete. Please revert back your reversion. - Parthi 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

sigh, I would be overjoyed if Bharatveer would respect WP:CITE even by citing as much as newspaper articles for his own fanciful additions. The removal of this section obviously qualifies as misconduct on Bharatveer's part, and his 'retort' above doesn't even seem to make sense (which I find to be a very frequent property of his contributions). dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

dab,Nice to see you here . It hurts me very much whenever i see you "sigh" and "gasp".It is strange a person like you who insults in his every reply finds "misconduct" on my part. My contributions are for everybody to see .They don't need your "scholarly" guidance. Bharatveer 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid they do. They would, rather, but since I am not prepared to act as your private tutor, they are better off being rolled back. I've yet to see you do anything useful around here. Now please stop editing article space until you have a point to make, consider using Wikipedia:Sandbox in the meantime. dab (ᛏ) 17:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid they don't. Atleast not from a person who feels like this :

"I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them." (Emphasis mine ) .Indians may feel hate , but I am sure they wont ever achieve the levels of "success" of "national socialists " or their "switssshs" bankers either.

So you first better mend your own ways before advising anyone .Bharatveer 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adhyathmaramayanam

Adhyathmaramayanam, the Malayalam version of Ramayana, is based (mostly inspiration; loose translation at some places) on a Sanskrit work on the same name whose author is not known. If anyone knows more about the Sanskrit work, can they please add it to Adhyathmaramayanam Tintin (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On a sanskrit work? by an unknown author?? Bharatveer 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have seen it in a few places, notably in the introduction of the NBS edition of Adhyatma Ramayanam. This one that I have at home was bought by my father some thirty years back and the 40 odd page intro was written by one A.D.Harisarma. It contained examples of places where Ezhuthachan has used ideas from the the original, with translations from the original work and Ezhuthachan's lines. I can look up and tell the exact details in a few weeks time, when I go home again.

This link talks about a Sanskrit Adhyatmaramayana by Ramanandacarya. I can't remember the NBS intro mentioning the name of the author, but I may have misremembered it. Tintin (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravo!! post modernistic revelation pehaps.Bharatveer 11:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ramayana and Book by Hasmukhlal Sankalia : Navjivan Trust

Navjivan Trust of MK Gandhi has published in Gujarati Language Ramayana in Historical Perspective by Hasmukhlal Sankalia. The reader of this article will be benefited if somebody will give the information in short.

vkvora 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

English Translations

This article needs to include a section on the various English translations of the Ramayana. As with any great piece of literature, translations often play a major role in the interpretation of the text. For example, one of the most widely read translations of the Ramayana in the American academic context is the translation by Arshia Sattar. Sattar's translation often takes precedence in American universities because of the measured use of more contemporary language, which makes this particular translation more accessible to a non-native audience. --JupiterMoon 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Shouldn't there be a spoiler tag somewhere in this article? Or is this accepted for ancient literatures? Aurora sword 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Generations

The generations argument is near non-sense. A generation is the time that it takes for procreation; it is, therefore, often calculated at 20 years. Rama himself was considered to be of marrying age at 16. Using a generational calculation of 80 years is absurd and does little for dating the epic.

Rupa Gosvami

The references to Rupa Gosvami's work looked irrelevant in the synopsis section. Hence removed them. It does not add to the overall article.

Ramayana

I came across this site which had collection of good links on ramayana. I wanted to suggest one more link which mainly concentrates on webcasting Ramayana, Geeta(weekly) and other philosophical discourses in Kannada.

Here is the link: Ramayana: http://www.vyasamadhwa.org/sundarakanda.htm Sundarakanda: Sundara Kaanda is the heart of Raamaayana. It is the story of Hanumantha, who is the personification of the highest form of Jnaana, Bhakti and Vairaagya. These three attributes when blessed by the Lord will make one, lead a purposeful life in this world and attain Moksha thereafter. Hanumantha is the ultimate symbol of efficiency and optimisation. No act or word of his is either superfluous or deficient. He is the perfect role model for all of us to emulate. If we do, all our apparently imponderable problems will wither away. It will cleanse our mindset of greed, jealousy and anger leaving us free to lead a successful life as useful members of society.

Geeta(weekly): http://www.vyasamadhwa.org/recital.htm

Geeta (Archived earlier discourses) http://www.vyasamadhwa.org/archive.htm

Hope it will be useful for people who want to know more about Ramayana and Mahabharata,

Spelling of Vali or Bali

I believe the standard spelling for the name of Sugreeva's brother is Vali, not "Bali", as in the article. The Sanskrit text in Devanagari uses the semivowel 'va' and not the labial 'ba'. User:RajeevA

It is 'vaali' only. Why it is pronounced as 'baali' is because, in Sanskrit there is a ruling - va, ba yoH abhedaH - there is not much difference between the letters va and ba. So va can be pronounced or written as ba. This is why Bengalis, whose vanga bhaaSa is laden with Sanskrit, pronounce va as ba even today - vanga as banga, samvaad as sambaad etc.

Sita's Svayamavara

This article is going under the generic name Ramayana, though most of the material seems to be for Valmiki's original. The tale of Rama seems to be based on Valmiki's. As this summary is very detailed and not an overview, it would be better to tell what the primary source is. There is no Svayamvara in Valmiki. Janaka is holding a sacrifice and the pre-condition is told to Rama by Vishvamita. The bow is then brought to the sacrificail enclosure. The svayamvara is a latter addition, even if very charming. Some versions even have Ravana turning up for it!

                                           16th Jan 2006

It is better to hve some mechanism to print the date of article or reply at top-right of it, without a big box whioch sudden ly appears when the date is put, and even to separate mesaages. This page is discussing Valmiki Ramayana, and it hoped that the participants are aware of the website >>www.valmikiramayan.net << where most of the above points are given in comments section

Transliteration

The article has Ram, Raam, and Rama. Should there be an agreement on a spelling to use consistently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.154.10 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama birth in Treta Yuga

I've added the details. Kindly comment. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is okay but remember that this page is for the Ramayana, not Rama specifically. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Balmikism.

There is Balmikism Tag added to article, It seems Balmikism is a sect which treats Valmiki as God. This article is not proper place to put it. it can be put in Valmiki article. I'll remove this tag if there is a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokesh 2000 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image in thispage is wrong

The image embedded in this page is wrong. As per ramayana, Ravana never touched Sita.

---

The image is by renowned artist Raja Ravi verma. The imagery is as per his imagination and can not be declared right or wrong.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ram bridge

The Ram setu history part is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.143.137 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned it up. -- Hidoshi (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and Biases

I've gone over parts of the article, correcting spellings and cleaning up some biases. And interesting point: Both Shiva and Brahma tend to crop up in different versions of this story. If I'm not mistaken however, Ravana prayed to Shiva because Shiva is impartial, supporting both Gods, Humans, and Demons in all their quests. However a popular notion is that whenever Shiva grants a boon to a powerful demon, he immediately tells Vishnu so that a balance may be maintained. Additionally, one of the Jyotirlingas in India was given to Ravana, but he couldn't carry it all the way and was forced to set it down. If I'm not mistaken, this is shortly after he obtained his boon from Shiva. If the boon was from Brahma, how could it be that Ravana had a Jyotirlingam with him? I would take that as a more accurate version of the story. -- Hidoshi (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Source

Does anyone have access to Bose, Mandakranta (2004). The Ramayana Revisited. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195168321.? It was a good collection of essays on the epic and can be used as a source here. I might have a copy lying around somewhere.

Vtria 08 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Hope to use it soon. Vtria 08 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[sock]

The Line Drawn Around Sita Story

This is driving me crazy- can anybody cite for me the story of the bow line drawn around Sita- does it appear in Valmiki? I have read the silly William Buck version, the Krishna Dharma version, and the 1870 translation translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith, printed by "Forgotten Books". Both the William Buck and the Krishna Dharma versions include the story of the bow, but the translation does not include it. So I think that this story comes from later sources- maybe the Tulsidas version? I am pretty sure that the episode is missing from the original: I have looked on the verse-by-verse translation of the Valmiki text provided by this website and it is missing there, too. So I think it's not there in Valmiki. David G Brault (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered the edit [1] that added the story. From the nature of this edit (the story was complete, the person read through the story, had something to add, and added it) I conclude that this story does not originate from Valmiki and is instead from some other source. I am removing it. David G Brault (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The line is called Lakshmana rekha and does not appear in Valmiki's Ramayana (see [2]), although it is mentioned in later versions. It would be interesting to find out when this bit was first added. Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Valmiki" Ramayana

What is the plot summary here a plot summary of? It seems to me it is either a summary of the Tulsidas Ramayana or the TV serial- fine for either of those articles, but this is the Ramayana, period- that implies Valmiki Ramayana. If nobody has a problem with that, I would like to try to rewrite the summary to confirm to the Valmiki Ramayana. I will put a note describing the differences between the Valmiki and other versions. Sarga-by-sarga citations to the Valmiki text in the summary by this website would be nice. David G Brault (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no problem with your proposal; it would be good not to have a mish-mash (even though I don't agree that this article is only about the Valmiki Ramayana). As you say, the Valmiki Ramayana can be summarized with citations, and the significant points of departure between that and other "prominent" Ramayanas can be noted either in the maintext or the footnote. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there some better source than the website that can be used ? The two contributors are not exactly scholars ([3], [4]). Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to do it like this: move the extended summary to another article, then expand the Structure of the Valmiki Ramayana part. David G Brault (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Anomaly : Dwapara or Treta?

The article states Ramayana to be set in the Dwapara Yuga, but every child knows that Sri Ramachandra was an avatar of Treta Yuga. Even corresponding entries on Treta and Dwapara on Wikipedia itself do not concur with this Ramayana article. Can any responsible person help please?

Vivek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.74.246 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ramayana takes place in the Treta yuga and not the dwapara yuga.--62.120.211.105 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tulsidas and the Uttar Kanda

I removed a reference to the Uttar Kanda having been written by Tulsidas, because it is a grossly inaccurate speculation. First, Tulsidas' own Ramcharitmanas has its own Uttar Kanda, which in no way resembles the Uttar Kanda attributed to Valmiki. Second, the Uttar Kanda attributed to Valmiki shows Rama in a negative light, but Tulsidas' writings are always praising Rama in the best possible terms. In the Ramcharitmanas, controversial elements of the original Ramayana have been mitigated or eliminated (e.g., Vali's death, Sita's agni-pariksha, etc.). Tulsidas would never write anything critical of Rama. Finally, Tulsidas wrote exclusively in Awadhi, while the Uttar Kanda attributed to Valmiki is written in Sanskrit. Hence, I removed this unsourced assertion. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. While the Bala- and Uttara-kanda of Valmiki's Ramayana are considered to be relatively later accretions to the core; they are undoubtedly much older than Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanas. Goldman discusses different views on this issue in considerable detail in the introduction of his Balakanda translation. It would be good to add a summary of that to the Authorship section. Unfortunately the whole article needs an overhaul and reorganization - which is quite a daunting task! Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This article almost needs a complete rewrite... right from the lede. I am working on it, as of now I have added subsections in "The Story" for better readability. --Nvineeth (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A question that needs to be decided at some point is whether this article is on Ramayana or Valmiki's Ramayana. Presently, since there is so little encyclopedic content in this article it doesn't make much difference, but ideally the two topics deserve article(s) of their own. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What a co-incidence! I was just about to remove failed verification and add stuff on Valmiki Ramayana. Anyway, once done, pls review it. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>
I think the current aim should be to add pertinent sourced content to the article; splitting it into the main Ramayana article and the Valmiki Ramayana would then require only cut-and-paste and reorganization, which is much easier.
Btw, the article statement about Goldman's conclusion is not false; just miscited. I have read it myself somewhere in Goldman's writings, although I don't have the reference with me right now (your removal is fine; it can always be re-added if/when the correct reference is found).
Since you are reorganizing the article, you may find the following sources useful:

• The Ramayana of Valmiki: An Epic of Ancient India (7 volumes), Princeton University Press (Robert P. Goldman is the series editor): This is the English translation of the critical edition of Valmiki's Ramayana. More importantly for us on wikipedia, are the introductory essays at the beginning of the volumes. For example see the introductions by Goldman and Pollock in Volume 1 (Balakanda), which discuss the historicity of the epic and Valmiki, the different recensions, the style and organization of the Ramayana; the best part is that the authors review past and current scholarly and traditional views on these topics and are not only propounding their own theory. Unfortunately volume 1 is not available online AFAIK; I had read it earlier and will try and get it once again.
• Richman, Paula, editor. Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1991: scholarly essays; on Ramayana (not only Valmiki's) available in full online!

Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Other good resources are:

• Bose, Mandakranta (ed.) The Ramayana Revisited. New York: Oxford UP, 2004.
• Richman, Paula (ed.) Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

I'd like to say that I am very pleased to see a concerted effort to rewrite this article. This is obviously a very important topic and the article was quite poorly written before. I agree that this article should provide an overview of the Ramayana tradition as a whole, including references to the many versions out there (Tulsidas, Kamban, Krittibas, and the Adhyatma Ramayana to name a few), with a separate article being written specifically about the Valmiki Ramayana (where we can address the issue about the authorship of the first and last books).

I'd like to note also that I created and am the primary author of the Ramayan (TV series) article. I am trying to provide a scholarly presentation of this TV series, but having just one author has its own limitations in terms of resources and bias. I would like to encourage those with a scholarly interest in the Ramayana to contribute there as well. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

To begin with, I see the following problems with the lead:

• The date, "400 BCE and 200 CE" seems to be inaccurate; According to one ref I got, its is around 4 B.C. Also discussions and speculations on date can be moved to "Textuality" section.
• The lead goes very deep into the intricacies of Sanskrit (possible OR), which can be quite daunting for a normal user. For Ex: "The name Rāmāyaṇa is a tatpurusha compound..." I think these intricacies belong to a separate section, say "Etymology"; I suggest simplifying the para, as something like, "Ramayana means Rama's journey".
• "Verses in Rāmāyana are written in a 32-syllable meter called anustubh..." can be moved to "Textuality" section. And if we fail to get a RS, I suggest deleting this section.
• The para, "...the Ramayana has had a profound impact on art and culture in the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia..." can be moved into a (new?) section on "Influences on Culture and art".
• Most important of all, we need to provide a brief interesting overview of the story.

--Nvineeth (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it is best to refine the lede after the article is substantially written, so that we can make sure that it reflects a good summary of the main points. As for the individual points:

• Yes, the "400 BCE and 200 CE" is inaccurate, or at least context-less. Estimates of the dating or Ramayana have historically ranged from 6th millenium BC to 4c AD. Goldman (who I have mentioned before, and which I have with me now) discusses the issue in some detail and concludes that the earliest compositions of Valmiki's Ramayana are unlikely to be any earlier than 7th c BC, while even the later (core) portions of Balakanda should have been in place by the beginning of 5th c BC. I can add this to the article sometime later, when I have a bit more time.
• The etymology can be simply added to the parenthetical text in the first line (as in Rigveda). I don't think we need a separate etymology section, since it will perhaps be just 1 sentence long anyway.
• I think the verse form (mainly the 32 syllable meter, with a few exceptions) is an important fact worth mentioning in the lede. We should try finding appropriate sources for these facts before deleting current content; unless we think the content is actually false.
• We need a paragraph about the religious/cultural significance of the Ramayana in the lede, with the details of course being expanded in later section(s).
• Are you suggesting an overview of the story in the lead ? I don't think we need more than say 2, or at most 3, sentences on that. Even the summary of the epic in the article itself should be cut to 1/3rd - 1/4th of its current length (parts of it can be moved to sub-articles on the individual kandas). The current write up is particularly poor; see for example the Yuddha Kanda, which spends about 10 sentences on telling about the "shadow Sita" the agnipariksha, and dismisses the actual yuddha itself in half a sentence!

More comments later. Nice to see this article receiving attention! Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, its best to refine the lede after we write the main article. I will finish (re)writing the individual kandas, and Adecedare and others can "edited mercilessly" / cut to 1/3rd - 1/4th . --Nvineeth (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Valmiki

Another missing piece is that of Valmiki... what circumstances made him compose the Ramayana. Probably a small para on this will be good . --Nvineeth (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of IAST

Sometimes, it is Rama and sometimes Rāma. Instead I suggest, as in FA Ganesha, IAST be given at first occurrence (if neccessary), then standard English be used. Here, I think, instead of first occcurrrence, the IAST be given only in the characters list. The problem with IAST is that most people do not known it. People will recognize Shiva instantly, Śiva is alien to most non-scholars. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Of course, terms and names that are important in Ramayana but not mentioned in the character list, can have their IAST mentioned parenthetically at first occurrence.

Further, the character section should perhaps be shortened by removing secondary characters like Vibhishan and shortening the description. It may also help to add a basic suryanansha family tree, like the Kuru family tree at Mahābhārata#Kuru_family_tree (this one will be much simpler :)). Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even I was thinking to create a family tree for Rama and Ravana, will do after 5 May. A little busy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis: out of place para

Found this para inappropriate in synopsis: Add some interpretation section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Removed:

The story operates at multiple levels. At one level, it describes the society at that time: vast empires, the life of a prince destined to become the next king, the rivalry between mothers and stepmothers, the bond of affection and loyalty between brothers, contests to win the hands of a princess, etc. At a second level, it describes how an ethical human being and a leader of men conducts himself at all times, facing situations with equanimity, rising to occasions to lead his people independent of his own personal tragedies and limitations, cultivating affection and respect of his people. At yet another level, it is a story of the seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu, this time as a human, combating evil, restoring justice in the land, fully aware of his divinity and resorting to use of his superhuman powers only when absolutely necessary.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs to interpretation section, if it is not a OR. I would have removed it in any case, from the story section. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested layout

• Textuality
• Dating: 4th century is not an unanimous date. [5] A spectrum of dates available in this ref
• Characters
• Synopsis
• Regional variants and Classical Sanskrit versions: Tulsidas, Kambar. There are things which are not in Valmiki Ramayana, which are found in later Ramayana, most famous being the Lakshaman Rekha.
• Foreign adaptations: special features
• Impact on Art and culture: portrayal in sculptures, dances. Ramlila. Balinese dance, Thai dances
• Theological significance
• Criticism: of sita's Agni pariksha and later her exile by feminists, of Rama killing a Sudra
• Contemporary versions

Any thoughts? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I support this reorganization, especially a section on Regional variants and Classic Sanskrit versions is much needed. I was wondering if the episode of criticism agni pariksha belongs to the Sita article(?). I also have another section on Interpretations in my mind. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It belongs here as it is not the criticism of the character Sita or Rama, but the criticism of the work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OK got it, it belongs here. Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed layout, but with one proposed change: "Regional variants and Classical Sanskrit versions" and "Foreign adaptations" can be combined into "Variants and adaptation" section, with further sub-sections, if needed. Aside: "Foreign" is somewhat ill-defined and seems anachronistic, but I can't think of a better word. Thoughts ?Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Even I was wondering about the usage of "Foreign", since the Ramayana is seen as belonging to south asian region ( for ex: William Buck ). Probably, we can remove the word "Foregin" and rephrase it as "South Asian adaptations" or just "Adaptations". --Nvineeth (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking into the dating before I read the talk page. I am not happy with the source, and agree we need to be clear about the disagreements/variants surrounding the dating.

Material for the foreign adaptations section

Hi all. I've noticed the {{expand-section}} banner at the top of the foreign adaptations section. You might find useful material in last year's version of this article. Next edit has substantially shortened the article and it seems deleted sections never went back contrary to editor's initial intent. — Xavier, 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good observation. The rationale behind removing the referencing sections is unknown. I am restoring those sections.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the accuracy of the entire text, some unreferenced so I am putting some text in comments.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs little cleanup. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Family tree

I am in the process of building of the family tree of Rama. Layout.

• Dasharatha · Kausalya · Sumitra · Kaikeyi
• Janaka
• Rama · Bharata · Lakshmana · Shatrughna
  • Rama's sister: Shanta married to Ekashringa
• wives: Sita · Urmila · Mandavi · Shrutakirti
• Lava and Kusha

Family tree of Ravana

• Pulastya
• Visravas
  • Idvidaa --> Kubera
• Malyavan - Tataki Sumali
  • Maricha
  • Kekasi (wife of Visravas, Ravana's mother)
• Ravana · Kumbhakarna · Vibhishana · Surpanakha
• Mandodari (father Mayasura)
• son: Indrajit, who are the other important children of Ravana

Anyone to add or delete. Suggestions? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard (but don't have exact textual references to back me up) that Malyavan was actually Ravan's grand-uncle and the older brother of Sumali, who was actually Ravan's grandfather (i.e., Kekasi's father). Furthermore, I know that Tataka is the mother of Maricha, but I'm not sure that she is actually Ravan's grandmother. She is sometimes referred to as such, just as Maricha is often referred to as Ravan's "uncle," but it could be that there is actually more of a cousin relationship than a direct relationship. I'm not sure... --Hnsampat (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Characters from Buck will be useful. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are too many characters in the Ramayana, I wanted help to narrow down to the important ones needed in the family tree. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No I did not mean to include all the characters :) I added the above link so that we can consult it if we have confusions like Hnsampat had. I am unaware of several characters in the family tree, so thought this could be helpful. Just one small suggestion, it is better to follow this order : "Rama · Lakshmana · Bharata · Shatrughna" ([6]). I think maricha does not belong to the family tree, because he was the son of a slain demoness Tataki.([7]). Also we may include Khara, a brother of Ravana (he is not very famous though) [8] --Nvineeth (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I prefer the "Rama · Bharata · Lakshmana · Shatrughna" ordering by seniority, especially since it keeps the twins Lakshmana and Shatrughna together. The closeness of Rama-Lakshmana can be made clear in the text. I am not familiar with Ravana's ancestral relations; the above list looks okay to me but somebody to make sure that all these are mentioned in Valmiki's Ramayana. One final suggestion: If we are mentioning Janaka, may as well mention his wife Sunayana for completeness. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article, Prahasta was Indrajit's younger brother. Should be added to the tree if confirmed. Also, this book outlines the Kubera/Ravana's lineage, as described in the Mahabharata. We should try to find a similar description for the Ramayana version (which may not match exactly). Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have to be pretty careful here. There's a lot of disagreement and a lot of different versions of this family tree in the various versions of the Ramayana. The biggest example of this is one South Indian version (and, I think, one Assamese version), in which it is stated that Sita was actually the secret daughter of Ravan and Mandodari. (The story here is supposedly that Mandodari gave birth to Sita in the forest to hide her from Ravan, then buried the child alive, in the same spot where Janak would then find the baby Sita...and so Ravan kidnapping Sita to make her his wife was the ultimate sin, as marrying her would unknowingly be incest.) Also, different regions refer to the same characters by different names. (She's not part of the family tree, but for illustrative purposes, Manthara is referred to as "Kooni" in South Indian versions.) Also, as far as I know, Khar was actually Ravan's cousin, but not his brother per se (i.e., I do not believe that Khar was the son of Vishrava or Kekasi). I have always heard that Vishrava and Kekasi's only children were Ravan, Kumbhakarna, Vibhishan, and Surpankha. So, yes, we're going to have to try some REALLY good sources here. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid disputes, I think we should stick to Valmiki Ramayana. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on using Valmiki's Ramayana. Is there any progress in the family tree? Is anyone still working on it? I came across Ramayana Cast of Characters and The Ramayana - Characters & Places in the Great Hindu Epic. Is it acceptable to add the second one in the external links section? Wiki-uk (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Family_trees for layout guidelines. Wiki-uk (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish vs dab

I'd like to change the distinguish link to Ramayan (TV series) to a link to a dab where other topics will also be covered: Kamba Ramayanam, The Ramayana (R. K. Narayan) and others that I'm searching for (there should be one for Rajaji's translation!). I'll get that done once I have all the current links ready. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nepal, etc.

See recent edits, now reverted. Most of them are silly (changing the names of articles etc.), but one or two might be worth changing. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is their sometime's an "a" at the of Hindu names?

Is it Ram or Rama? Krishn Or Krishna? Buddha or Buddh? Karma or Karm? Ramayana or Ramayan? Mahabahrata or Mahabarat? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Typical doubt of North Indians. "a" is not added in end of any word in Hindi (and English), while that is present in Sanskrit and South Indian languages. Doorvery far (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First you don't have to turn this into a North South Indian thing. Im representing India homie....Secondly......What are you saying? that it is not added in Hindi or English becuase it was their in Sansrkti and South Indian languages? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a typical north indian doubt. Most of the hindu names are in fact sanskrit words with specific meaning(s). All sanskrit names have their meaning and end with last "a". For example, "Bhaskara" (Bhaskar in hindi), "Sudarshana" (Sudarshan in hindi).In Hindi, this last "a" is ommitted due to persian/urdu influence. But this is not so in south indian languages where original sanskrit words are preserved properly. In academic literature original sanskrit names are used, such as "Rama" instead of "Ram". people who know only hindi forms get surprised to see Ram spelt as Rama. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, see our article on Devanagari transliteration. By the way, such questions are better posted at wikipedia's reference desks than talk pages of individual article. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So doesn't Hindi come from Sanskrit? If the original meaning's have an a at the end then why does Hindi not? I mean I understand Hindi might be influenced with some Persian and Urdu. But Hindi is still Hindi. And doesnt it come from Sanskrit then here? So are you sure most of the word's should have an "a" at the end? Someone gave me a link, which I opened, but for example it said something like I think how Siva , became Siv. Now if this is partly due to Persian and / or Urdu influce then, well im confused cus in Persia people have the name Shiva. So they still kept the "a" at the end then. So what does that mean? Does it depend on the word? Or what then? If you don't mind me asking then. Ok thank you here. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The "a" at the end of some words is because according to Sanskrit, it's not polite to end words with abrupt endings, specially nouns. This is why in Sanskrit, lot of words have "aha" (colon or :) at the end of the word, to make the pronunciation of the word soft. The same rule is followed in South Indian or Dravidan languages. Ashish Sharma (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the translations by Dutt are complete

Both translations by Dutt are condensed or abridged. 68.54.107.114 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)AmateurIndianLiteratureScholar

What is the need of "Professor Ram Sharan Sharma, one of the two most renowned living historians of early India (the other being Professor Romila Thapar),"

Is this article on Rama or Professor Ram Sharam Sharma??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.38.50 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

sravanakumar's parents

what were the names of sravanakumar's parent's? his parents were killed by dasharatha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.46.162 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Ramayana

Hello All,

It seems there is nothing written here ascertaining the historicity of Ramayana.

Most of us here are Hindus and we believe in Rama as god. We should find/show evidence that Lord Rama did exist as a historical person and present it in the wikipedia. Lot of us Hindus out of "adult-ego" say "historicity of Rama" is debatable.

Let us not get logical but accept by our religion that Rama is certainly a real historical character. Let us accept that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Rama is unhistorical and lets find proofs for saying the same.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esrujan (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

who holds the original script of Ramayana?

Hi Guys

I lookup on the internet and tried to find that who hold the original (i am talking about the original, physical thing on which Ramayana was written) Ramayana these days?

Is that the Indian Government or some hindu religious organisation?

P.S. there are lot of internet version of Ramayana available and I am fully aware about that. So, please do NOT direct me to those internet links.

211.31.254.67 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Vishal (02 June 2011)

There is no original Ramayana manuscript. After its creation, the Ramayana was passed down orally for many years before being copied onto manuscripts. The manuscripts, mostly made from palm leaves, deteriorated over time, and so were copied and recopied, generation after generation. There are two manuscript traditions (recensions), one from the north and the other from the south, with two ‘sub-recensions’: a northeastern and a northwestern. Almost everyone agrees that the southern recension is the most authoritative. The critical edition created by Bhatt and Shah in 1975 used over 37 different manuscripts, which are held in different museums and research institutes around India. Beecher70 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 30, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A scene from the Ramayana, an ancient Sanskrit epic. Depicted here are several stages of the War of Lanka, with the monkey army of the protagonist Rama (top left, blue figure) fighting the demon army of the king of Lanka, Ravana, to save Rama's kidnapped wife Sita. The three-headed figure of the demon general Trisiras occurs in several places – most dramatically at the bottom left, where he is shown beheaded by Hanuman.Artist: Sahibdin

Uttara Kanda a later hand

The Translator of Valmeeki Ramayana Ralph Griffith also ends with Rama's consecration and this is what he says about Uttara Kaanda -

The Rámáyan ends, epically complete, with the triumphant return of Ráma and his rescued queen to Ayodhyá and his consecration and coronation in the capital of his forefathers. Even if the story were not complete, the conclusion of the last Canto of the sixth Book, evidently the work of a later hand than Válmíki's, which speaks of Ráma's glorious and happy reign and promises blessings to those who read and hear the Rámáyan, would be sufficient to show that, when these verses were added, the poem was considered to be finished. The Last Book is merely an appendix or a supplement and relates only events antecedent and subsequent to those described in the original poem.

Hindu texts typically end with a verse or verses that describe the religious merit or reading the text. These verses are calledPhalasrutis. Curiously in the Valmiki Ramayana, the Phalasrutis occur at the end of 6th Kanda, which indicates that the entire Uttarakanda is a later addition.

Lava and Kusha were called Prince when they arrived at Valmiki Ashram to learn Valmiki Ramayana and were called son of Rama .

I don't know why the editor of this page deleted my posts . Monkeys are editor and this is like gun in the hand of monkeys . They can shoot anyone and no action can be taken as per constitution . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyanika (talk • contribs) 05:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

is Ramayana the same things as Ramine?

please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.249.134 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Textual History

The Wikipedia page of Mahabharata says with citation: "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE."

It is an established fact that Ramayana is older than Mahabharata. Valmeeki lived during Rama's time (since Ramayana was written during Rama's time), and Rama lived before Vyasa's time (Vyasa has mentioned Rama many times in Mahabharata, for example Arjuna uses a chariot while fighting a war for Indra, which was previously used by Rama). Why then is the textual history of Ramayana given as 5th to 4th century BCE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.143.186 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The name Ramayana is anglicized

The extra "a" in the great epics Ramayan and Mahabharat reflects the anglicization of these Hindu epics by the Britishers. The British literature and the subsequent Indian adaptations had the habit of adding extra "a" to all the Hindu Gods and epics. This is not the case with "Quran" or "Mohammad", but only with "Ramayana" and "Mahabharata". This is a request to all to please look into the matter and support to remove this anglicised "a" from these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not because of Anglicization. In Sanskrit, the epic is not 'Ramayan', but 'Ramayana'. Languages which got derived from Sanskrit (like Hindi, Marathi, etc.) have a slightly different usage of symbols, which is the cause of this popular misconception.59.184.143.186 (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

In Sanskrit, it is neither Ramayan (as in Hindi) nor Ramayana (as in English), but Ramayanam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.57.113 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No category for historicity?

Just wondering if a decision was made to not include anything related to historicity of the ramayana, is it a moot point? Was expecting that would be there for sure so I'm quite surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZG1001 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ramayana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120715090440/http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/mahabharata_ramopakhyana_parva.htm to http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/mahabharata_ramopakhyana_parva.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110180550/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/thehindu/fr/2005/08/12/stories/2005081201210200.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2005/08/12/stories/2005081201210200.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dating and Planetarium software

The source seems dubious acc. Wikipedia:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS bearing in mind that Indus valley civilisation only arose around this point. The article should be clear that it is not suggesting that the epic is that old. The reference to the use of metal in the Epic makes any suggestion before the iron age ridiculous.

The statement 'any suggestion before the iron age ridiculous' is WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Anyway, the source claims that it was the birth of Rama not the time during which it was penned down. If you have any alternate source, you are free to cite them as well as a counter argument. Simply because it doesn't sound correct (to you), isn't a worthy enough argument for discussion. Crawford88 (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You have really trashed this wiki-article and reduced it to a laughing stock instead of respectable encyclopedia reference article. if I was more bothered I would have argued with you on this, but go ahead make a fool out of yourself at your own peril. I will just amuse myself from the sidelines as an observer J mareeswaran (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I-SERVE's claims based on "'Considerable research' and a software procured for around Rs 7,000 from the US" are utter fringe. And as Crawford himself admits, purported birtdates for a mythological figure are not related to the dates on which the related text was composed. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ramayana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101027001647/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/thehindu/fr/2005/08/12/stories/2005081201210200.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2005/08/12/stories/2005081201210200.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Using "the" before "Ramayana"

I'm going to change this article to refer to "the Ramayana" and "the Mahabharata" rather than just "Ramayana" and "Mahabharata". The first way is the normal way to refer to epics in English, as in "the Odyssey" or "the Shahnameh". For example, look at the versions by R. K. Narayan, by Ramesh Menon, and by Rosalind Lefeber.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

trial by fire

Dear User:Crawford88, you have reverted my edits, but you give no reason for doing so. My edits were intended to clarify the passage for English language readers, who will not know what "Agni pariksha" means. The expression "trial by fire" is an appropriate translation (see Olivelle's section on "ordeals" in his A Dharma Reader: Classical Indian Law. (Olivelle, Patrick. A dharma reader: classical Indian law. ISBN 9780231179560.)

My other updates were to bring the description into line more closely with the Valmiki version of the Ramayana. In Valmiki's epic, Sita's trial by fire is described in Yuddhakanda, chapter 116. See the Sanskrit text and an English translation.

The version you have reinstated is back-to-front, historically. It says that this fire-test is a later addition, possibly added with the rise of patriarchal social patterns. This is the opposite of the truth. The ordeal by fire is original to Valmiki's Ramayana.

If you have another view, please present your reasons here. If not, kindly reinstate my edits.

Wujastyk 21:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Prof, I don't had any problem with the word 'trial by fire' rather with you removing the traditional word for it i.e 'Agni Pareeksha'. The argument that 'who will not know what "Agni pariksha" means' is moot as there's already a disambiguation page for the word. see Agni Pareeksha.

About the chronology of various versions of the epic, Wikipedia enforces WP:NOR i.e. as a wiki editor one is not supposed to do WP:OR. If you have a peer reviewed paper to cite, even by yourself, please go ahead and do the edition. Crawford88 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling?

Should the third to last word for the first sentence be "Krishna" rather than "Krsna"? 70.174.165.155 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe, yes. Krsna is a spelling for Krishna used in very specific cases by specific organization. It doesn't bother me, tbh but I don't mind an edition either. Crawford88 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Sanskrit name Ramayanam is spelled as "Ramaya am". I corrected it but was reverted back. Pretty sure my correction was right. Anyway have corrected it again. Nak.ngn (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change the standard spellings

Please use the spellings that correspond to the spellings used in the pages being linked to. Changing the spellings leads either to redlinks or to redirects, neither of which are desirable. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)