Comments on: “Three Hundred Ramayanas” & “The Jewel of Medina”

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:11:53 +0000

Harapriya (#25): Well said. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus

By: S

Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:19:13 +0000

“Within the Hindu tradition, there is a distinction between Ithihaasa and Kaavya. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus. ”
@harapriya
100 % correct. Just remember ‘Shakunthala’ of MahaBharata Vs Shakunthala of Kalidasa.

By: K. Harapriya

K. Harapriya — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:41:20 +0000

Within the Hindu tradition, there is a distinction between Ithihaasa and Kaavya. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus. Just because ignorant Hindus claim that there a any number of Ramayanas does not mean that each occupies the place of ithihaasa in Hindu tradition.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sat, 19 May 2012 16:20:42 +0000

Somewhat related, courtesy Koenraad Elst:
Vishal Agarwal replied (5-12):
…
“Where Ramanujan got it wrong, driven by his ideological agendas, is to to place all the diverse renderings of Ramayana at par with the Valmiki Ramayana. Let us get one thing VERY CLEAR – All these different versions of Ramayana (Dasharatha Jataka included) have the Ramayana of Valmiki as their basis and draw their storyline to it. It is another matter that they adapt it to their own purposes. Even Ashvaghosha, the author of Buddhacharita, salutes Valmiki as the Adikavi. The Shakya lineage was derided for having descended from a brother sister union. The Buddhists therefore created the Jataka in which Rama and Sita married, and linked the Shakyas with the Ikshavakus. So, their agenda was obvious. To claim, despite this obvious explanation, that in the ‘most ancient version of the Ramayana, Rama and Sita are siblings’ is to distort stuff with the deliberate intent of deriding Hindu beliefs.
…
“The claim that this puerile essay provides ‘alternative viewpoints’ is absurd. Alternative viewpoints must be based on the original epic, on the original story and not on fantasy. You can’t alter the original dramatically — like making Ravana Sita’s father — and then claim that it’s an ‘alternative viewpoint’. That’s distortion, not an alternative viewpoint. And 300 Ramayanas does precisely that — it legitimizes such distortions…

By: S

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:23:34 +0000

read about Mappilla Ramayanam (http://www.cukerala.ac.in/docs/Press%20Release%20Katha%20I.pdf)