Recently, on ‘Itihasa’ thread, Shri Vedveer Arya ji wrote…
Valmiki was the earliest poet who wrote Adi Kavya Ramayanam. He is referred to as Adi Kavi because he wrote a Kavya based on historical subject. Unfortunately, the available Valmiki Ramayana is not the original one because it is stated in Yuddha Kanda that this poetry (Ramayana) was written by Valmiki in ancient times (Puraa idam Valmikina kritam). Seemingly, someone has recomposed and edited the available Ramayana during Gupta period.
I object to the very method employed in developing conclusions. This is not a new method. It is been employed by Videshi Indologists and their Indian sepoys for at least last 200+ years. The method has predetermined and thus specific agenda/goal and the method only focuses on arbitrary and selective evidence that support the agenda/goal set while ignoring and discounting all evidence that would falsify the very agenda/goal.
Thus I responded to this note of Shir Vedveer Arya ji as follows:
“It is not unusual that the notes of commentators also get copied when next set of manuscripts are generated. We can see evidence of it everywhere, and especially with epics. No need to jump to the conclusion that what we have is not ‘original’.
In any case ….proof is in the pudding. And Valmiki Ramayana preserves enough proof (all 7 Kandas) to confirm that what we have is indeed original and consistent narration and that leads us to a time interval of at least 10,000 BCE or beyond.
Granted, there are interpolations and transcription, translation, transliteration, transposition errors. This is a trivially true fact of all of our ancient literature (and that of the world). Fortunately, none of these errors affect our ability to know the core in the –original.”
But there are more serious problems with the claims of Shri Veveer Arya ji. For example, I was curious to know what made him think that someone recomposed and edited the available Ramayana (Valmiki Ramayana available to us) during Gupta period. I did not get any response from Shri Vedveer Arya ji but someone else tried to respond that only shifted the goalpost for evidence and led to further digression and the thread came to a standstill.
Shri Vedveer Arya ji did respond with his additional imaginations where he added his thought about the original nature of Vyasa’s Mahabharata we have…
As per my imagination, the authorship of all 24000 slokas of Ramayana cannot be attributed to Valmiki. It is extremely difficult to find out the original slokas of Ramayana. Vyasa wrote entire MB in 8000-10000 slokas. Probably, Valmiki might have written original Ramayana in 4000 or 5000 slokas. Since Itihasa and Purana texts were like encyclopedias, additional information has been incorporated at a later stage. All Purana texts have undergone updation during later Shatavahana and Gupta period which is evident from the Shatavahana kings list given in Puranas. Most probably, Mahabharata and Ramayana were also updated with additional slokas that project Rama and Krishna as incarnations of Vishnu. For ex. Vishvaroopa Darshan in Virat Parva and Rama as Vishnu’s incarnation in Balakanda. There are at least two slokas in Yuddha Kanda which inform us that Valmiki wrote this Kavya in ancient times. Very frequent use of Lit Lakara in many slokas also indicates that a contemporary person may not have written these slokas.
“Imagination does have a place in formation of a conjecture. However, once that is accomplished, only evidence and that too objectively testable evidence can determine the fate of the conjecture.
That is all that needs to be said about Ramayana
“Vyasa wrote entire MB in 8000-10000 slokas”
What is the evidence in support of your conjecture?
In effect, I was saying that such claims have no meaning unless they can be backed by evidence. Vedveer Arya ji responded with the following claims:
In Adi parva, it is mentioned that Vyasa composed Jaya kavya in 8800 slokas. The same was updated by Vaishampayana in 24000 slokas and named it as Bharata.
This is factually incorrect. To be fair, Shri Vedveer Arya ji is not the first one to make this factually incorrect claim. Many western indologists have either deliberately or based on secondary information, have made such factually incorrect claims and they have been picked up by their indian sepoys, and are in wide circulation. This is so widespread to the extent many well meaning Indic researchers regurgitate it frequently without bothering to check what is said in the original.
However, since the original claim was his, I wanted Vedveer Arya ji to realize the incorrect nature of his claim and thus I wrote…
“Quote the original verse and translation. The context for 8800 is very different. Same is also true for 24000 reference, i.e. a specific context.”
Vedveer Arya ji responded with the following:
there are many versions. महर्षिर भगवान वयासः कृत्वेमां संहितां पुरा शलॊकैश चतुर्भिर भगवान पुत्रम अध्यापयच छुकम II Svargarohana Parva, 5th Chapter, 46. Another Pathabheda : jayo nametihasoyam srotavyo jayamichhata (Svargarohana Parva 5.51).
A Translation of Adi Parva (I could not get the original Verse) “I am (continued Sauti) acquainted with eight thousand and eight hundred verses, and so is Suka, and perhaps Sanjaya. 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.
चतुर्विंशतिसाहस्रीं चक्रे भारत संहिताम
उपाख्यानैर विना तावद भारतं परॊच्यते बुधैः
62 ततॊ ऽधयर्धशतं भूयः संक्षेपं कृतवान ऋषिः
अनुक्रमणिम अध्यायं वृत्तान्तानां सपर्वणाम
63 इदं दवैपायनः पूर्वं पुत्रम अध्यापयच छुकम
ततॊ ऽनयेभ्यॊ ऽनुरूपेभ्यः शिष्येभ्यः परददौ परभुः
64 नारदॊ ऽशरावयद देवान असितॊ देवलः पितॄन
गन्धर्वयक्षरक्षांसि शरावयाम आस वै शुकः
2nd Adhyaya gives the complete details of every Parva’s slokas.
Let’s ignore his digression into Swargarohana parva. Swargarohana parva repeats, partially, verses from the Adi parva, however they do not include the verses that refer to 8800 and 24000 verses.
Vedveer Arya ji did quote the Mahabharata text reference that refers to 24,000 verses but not the translation of this verse. He failed to quote the reference that refers to 8800 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. Let’s do that.
The 8800 verses referred to are referring to intricate verses filled with deep meaning that is not easily accessible to lay reader.
The 24,000 verses referred to is to the version of Mahabharata that is stripped off all portions of ‘Upakhyan’ from the 100k verse long samhita of the Mahabharata text.
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 (8800? 24,000? 100,000?) or the original Mahabharata.
Vedveer Arya writes….
Whatever the number of Slokas written by Vyasa but Vyasa, Vaishampayana and Ugrashravas Sutaputra lived within 100 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 8800 or 24,000 verses long Mahabharata as the original Mahabharata of Vyasa or Vaishampayana.
So , I wrote…
“so are you ready to drop the argument of Vyasa writing only 8800 verses and Vaishampayan writing only 24,000 verses? If yes. ..we can move to deification of Krishna.”
I will briefly add my response to assertion of Vedveer Arya ji, when he wrote..
It is impossible to imagine that they projected Krishna as incarnation of Vishnu.
I do not see anything impossible in folks projecting Krishna as incarnation of Vishnu, within 100 years of the Mahabharata war.
Shri Satya Sai Baba was considered incarnation of Krishna very much within his lifetime. This is also the case with saintly personalities such as Shri Gajanan Maharaj-Shegaon, Sri Sant Jnaneshwar and many other.
And let’s not forget the attempt to build temple of Mahatma Gandhi immediately after his death, and the plans were dismantled only when Vinoba Bhave intervened.
Shri Vedveer Arya added a note…
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. Let’s not repeat this nonsense, no matter how genuine are our intentions to build truthful (as close to the truth as we can, realizing that it will always be a best approximation) narrative of Indic civilization.