Posted:
12 years ago
Lola
I'll get to it. Points 1 & 2 are not difficult.
On #3 (you really know me well by now 😆) I am okay w/ not dissing sources, but there is a caveat here. Your suggestion seems to imply an equivalence b/w all versions of any story - something I've never agreed w/. For instance, if one looks @ the Ramayan as a fairy tale, then it's legitimate to say that Valmiki is as good as Vyasa is as good as Kamban is as good as Krittivas is as good as Tulsidas... But if one looks @ it historically and analytically, one will prefer some versions over others for any host of reasons, like the ones that contemporaries are more likely to be historically accurate than those who came millenia later.
Why do I mention this? It's not to be contentious, but rather to point out that different sources sometimes, if not often, have conflicting accounts of several events. According to Valmiki, Sita was left @ his ashram by Lakshman, not merely abandoned in the jungles, as is stated by some of the other accounts and popularly believed. That's a pretty big issue, and not just authenticity, but sometimes integrity of the authors can come into question, like they do w/ the authors of the Ananda Ramayan. Yeah, some of the differences can be trivial, like Sushena being Sugriv's uncle in Valmiki, vs Ravan's physician in Tulsidas. But more often then not, they matter.
So here's what I'd suggest - when providing answers, it will be incumbent on whoever is providing the answer to cite the sources used - be it an original Vyasa, a copy of the Bhagwat Puranas or even an Amar Chitra Katha lying @ home. No need to comment on authenticity of those sources, beyond stating that they are the sources, so long as it doesn't give an impression that the general belief is that all versions are equally authentic.