Sarga 1.4 - Proof of UttaraKanda being a Part of RAMAYANAM! -

[@devendranabiyal244]

Ram Ram

[@Pushplata-k5b]

Now I'm your big fan from today 🙏

[@raghavgaur4679]

Jai shree Ram

[@Pushplata-k5b]

You are great 👍 Great pronunciation 👌👌👍👍

[@ramanujadasa121]

Uttarkand is authentic part of valmikiRamayana.

[@bhakteshakti3339]

Jaya Sri Rama.🙏🙏🙏 .

[@dormantboy2056]

What is the probability that the religious book we are buying today are somehow manipulated ( because nowadays many slokas are being manipulated )

[@roykumuda]

Even Ramanand Sagar, who made “Ramayana Serial” to be televised did not agree with lava-kusha part of extended version (of course along side many Gurus, Pandits of Sanskrit, Rishis, Learned people of Sanatan beliefs ). He was forced to extend the serial with pain and tears. You younger generation should stop promoting wrong information about our epics.

[@floe61]

The Uttara Kanda begins after the Phalashruti anyways lol Even the language and cadence differs.

[@mkh2799]

🙏

[@Piyushहिन्दू]

To decide whether Uttarkand is a part of SHRI VALMIKI RAMAYAN or NOT One should go and read the entire RAMAYAN and one will come to know on his own....BUT *IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY MAHARISHI VALMIKI* Namaskar🙏

[@vipindadhich8083]

Sir i have a sloka which i used to listen in my childhood but don't have any reference where i can find this Please help me The sloka is Kaalikaal Bhayawaha Bhagwati Tararrjsarwasadha Bhuneshree Bhunatre Vijayani Dhumawati Durjata

[@dg383]

uttara kanda if it is true, then its sad what everyone did to sita.

[@srinathcaitanya]

Every great Acharya who took studying Valmiki Ramayana as their life mission including the revered Ramabadhra Acharya now has rejected Uttarakanda as a later addition and not a part of Ramayana. I also read Valmiki often and definitely conclude that Uttarakanda is not a part of Ramayana.

[@hari7priya]

Adulterated content - why did Lava Kusa come into picture when Bala Kanda is about Rama’s childhood. Do not justify Uttarakanda ever. It’s all fake.

[@hari7priya]

- What was the age of Rama when Lava Kusa were born according to Uttara Kanda (UK)? Almost close to end of his reign. Why? It was said that Rama ruled for 11000 years. According to UK, Rama handed over the kingdom to lava kusa when they are young. So Rama and Sita waited close to 11000 years to give birth to children. Illogical? - When people of Ayodhya know Sita has already performed Agni Aahuti and when they were all worshipping Sita Mata as their holy queen, why would one drunken man would ridicule her after 10900 years? If Rama was living for 10000 years, those people in his era would also be living for similar number of years. It’s not a question of new generation though. It’s Treta Yuga… people would not be so disrespectful drunken idiots those days period. - When Rama Sita Lakshmana traversed through the forests of India in their exile journey, why didn’t they meet Valmeeki who is said to have ashram near Ayodhya. Rama would have met him first or sometime in his journey right? Why not? Along his path, he met so many Rishis. Why no mention of Valmeeki during Rama’s life journey in Valmeeki Ramayana? - Valmeeki has foreseen Ramayana due to the grace of his Tapas and blessings of Narada Mahamuni. Valmeeki and Rama are not contemporaries. How would Vaalmeeki come into picture after 10900 years when Sita was exiled according to UK and looked after her for few years? - When Rama fought a war with Ravana who is so very powerful for Sita alone, why would Rama exile Sita for a drunken idiot (if he really existed during Treta yuga- impossible) - Character of Rama can be known through Lord Hanuman alone. Can we think in any manner what Rama in any negative manner when he has great Bhakt like Hanuman. Would Hanuman worship Rama if he exiled Sita so illogically? This is a crap story in UK to just defame Rama. There are n-number of questions that have no answers logically. The invaders couldn’t do much other than putting a fake narrative in the new book… May be in first few phrases of Valmeeki Ramayana. Remember we have been through invasions for 2000 years! It’s time to realize ourselves. You are doing a great service Bhaiyya. Thank you. -

[@ramanujadasa121]

Lol uttarkand is authentic part of Ramayana , all allegations against uttarkand being later addition is answered by Sri nigrahacharya in his two granthas against Sri rambhadracharya. All acharyas accept It is authentic. Only neo-hindus have problem with it I don't know why.

[@7vkasharma]

yes the timeline is too confusing. sita being exiled is also confusing. as u said valmiki suddenly being involved also seems shady. whole Uttarakanda seems too shady.

[@ramanujadasa121]

@@7vkasharma lol no , just read nigrahacharya's book about uttarkand ur all confusion will be clear

[@kaushiksunapu5657]

​@@hari7priya a lot of what you have said seems to be in the form of some sort of justification for your person beliefs or view of the epic. Firstly, it is said that Sri Rama ruled for about 1100 years and that he handed over the kingdom to his son's of a fairly young age, and this struck you as absurd, rightfully so. But since the claim of having LIVED for that long at all is debatable, how come can you question one thing and not the other. Also the assumption that people at that time in the Treta Yuga wouldn't have been deluded because the times were holy is also just your own belief. At any time and age, people will exist who pollute minds and get carried away themselves, such as the antagonist of the story, Ravana. Furthermore it wasn't just some one drunk person doubting Sita devi's chastity, it was a whole lot of people all over the kingdom, all asking themselves what had happened behind closed doors in Lanka. Remember, none of them had social media or news channels to update them on these things convincingly always, so questions were expected to arise. And about Valmiki not being contemporary to Sri Rama because he didn't come across him during his Vanavaas? Something you made up for sure, because their encounter is also mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana, can't tell you where exactly, since I'm no scholar, but the 21 Notes Valmiki Ramayana did describe it.