Ramayana's Uttara Kanda: Time Loops, Kakabhushundi and Rama's End

You'll see the contributions. That is, up until the war episode.

You'll see Bharata coming along on foot.

What is Shatrughna doing? So basically, Shatrughna later went and, you know, took on Lavana Sura and killed him in the Madhuban forest.

Lord Shri Ram gave him some weapons. He used those to kill him.

And they kind of, you know, avenged Mandata, whom Lavana had killed.

Ultimately, they got their revenge. Anyway, one more thing, You know the washerman's story I mentioned, the washerman who was spreading such slander about Sita, which affected Lord Shri Ram and was about maintaining their own dignity.

There's a story about that, basically. These two— I mean, these two parrots, they actually, you know, the Ramayana had already been composed before Ram was born.

Valmiki composed it. So Valmiki was once reciting the Ramayana aloud, verbally.

And the two birds hear that. One of them had, you know, I mean, killed a parrot there.

He had killed the washerman, apparently, and the other parrot cursed him, saying that this very parrot would be the cause of his sorrow later on.

So, since she was reincarnated as Sita, that very parrot was the washerman who was reincarnated in Ayodhya and spoke ill of her. It was that very parrot, you see.

There is a story like that, too. I mentioned it to you since it exists.

And besides that, in the Uttara Kanda, what we see is Kaka Bhusundi.

I've told you about him. That Malayalam film that brought in a time loop you'll see I talked about Kaka Bhusundi then.

A crow had seen the Ramayana and Mahabharata happen multiple times, you know, it had seen this happen.

So, his story and Garuda's story. The crow had gone to Uncle Bhusundi, you see, about how, during that battle, Meghnad had released a weapon that was like a snake that trapped both of them—Ram and Lakshman.

Then Garuda came and saved them. So Garuda’s question was, if Vishnu has reincarnated, how could this weapon have trapped him?

He just wanted to find out about it from people, and each person kept redirecting him to someone else, saying, “Go ask him,” “Go ask him.”

After going around like this, he reached Uncle Bhusundi.

And then Uncle Bhusundi told him the whole story.

It was something that had happened over and over, like a time loop.

There, this concept of a time loop is that these things are cyclical in nature.

This keeps happening again and again because a crow has seen this happen so many times, seen it happen over and over.

The concept of this time loop comes up here once.

And the second time it comes up is when, well— Yama, well, Hanuman Ji, well— doesn't let him take Lord Shri Ram away.

Then, well, Lord Shri Ram takes off a ring, This—I had made a video about it before and shared it with you a long time ago.

So, there— Hanuman Ji goes to the netherworld to look for the ring.

And when he gets there, he sees that a great many rings are lying there.

That means this Ram— this event, the war in the Ramayana, and so on, is cyclical in nature.

It will happen again and again. So the concept of this time loop is mentioned in these two places.

All these things are in the Uttara Kanda, and we also see here the matter of Lakshman taking jal samadhi.

So the story of that went like this: Lord Shri Ram was having a conversation with Yama.

And there, they said that no one should go inside.

Otherwise, Yama would kill him, and at that point, a sage arrives.

He says, “I’ll meet Rama right now.” So then Lakshman accidentally goes inside.

Otherwise, he was calling out from outside, saying he would curse them.

So he goes in there to call out too, and since entering that place was forbidden, Lakshman then had to enter the waters and give up his life.

So first, Lakshman enters the waters and gives up his life.

Later, Lord Shri Ram also enters the waters and gives up his life.

And Lord Shri Ram is said to have ruled Rama Rajya for 11,000 years, and done various things.

So these are the kinds of things that are mentioned.

We see these events, such as the ritual drowning, in the Uttara Kanda itself.

So that was more or less what is there in the Uttara Kanda, I mean, what it contains, and why I’m saying this: scholars say the opposite.

The reason is There’s a nice episode in one place, where, you know, our Ram first sends a few peace messengers, to Ravana.

He sent Angad, and he sent Hanuman. So at one point, Ravana tells Vibhishan to kill Hanuman.

Then Vibhishan says, “We don’t kill peace messengers here.”

That kind of conversation takes place. But elsewhere, in the Uttara Kanda, it says that when the flashback origin story is shown, when Kubera sent a peace messenger to Ravana, Ravana immediately killed him.

So if that’s what happened, if this is a flashback, I mean, a prequel story from the past, if that’s the case, then why does this come up in the Sundara Kanda?

That Vibhishan doesn’t even know that peace messengers are killed.

Because if it had happened earlier, Vibhishan would know about it.

So then the two things are contradictory.

This is one point, meaning, there is a logic to it, I mean, scholars use logic, you know.

And there’s another thing called the conclusion.

That is, say you read a book or a series of books, then what is your takeaway from it, what lesson did you learn?

That is called the conclusion. It appears at the end of a book.

But it’s written at the very end of the Yuddha Kanda.

It isn’t in the Bala Kanda, I mean, sorry, in the Uttara Kanda.

So the point is, if the story doesn’t end there, why did they write the conclusion there?

They wrote it there because the story ended there.

Otherwise, why would they write another book after that?

So this is the logic many people use: Since the conclusion is in the Yuddha Kanda, the actual Valmiki Ramayana ends there.

The Uttara Kanda is a later addition, you know.

So, that's what a lot of people say. Another thing is, the Mahabharata mentions the entire Ramayana in one place.

So, that... The mention there goes only as far as the Yuddha Kanda.

It has Lord Shri Ram being born and growing up, and defeating Ravana, everything, but it only goes as far as the Yuddha Kanda.

So, if the Uttara Kanda existed at that time, why isn't it mentioned in the Mahabharata?

Because the Mahabharata came just in the age after the Ramayana.

That's another argument a lot of people make.

So there are lots of things like this that I mentioned, that contradict the character of the book, Shishta.

Those things are also there, which, as I told you, are controversial.

At one point, it shows that the man doesn't believe in caste, but then it shows that he believes in the caste system.

At one point, it shows that he loves his wife very much.

He rescued a woman like Ahalya. He has always respected women.

So how did the character suddenly become such a mixed bag?

There are controversial things like this.

I already told you about Sambuka’s killing.

Now, since this is the controversial Uttara Kanda...

That’s where this movie’s story begins. And somewhere along the way, Ravana also has a kind of antihero arc.

There’s a rags-to-riches arc. And these things are deliberate, I mean...

After the asuras, I mean Ravana and the others, became rulers of Lanka...

They committed a lot of atrocities against the sages and ordinary people.

Now, what they show here is... Just watch one shot. It shows...

From now on, they won’t be allowed to perform any rituals.

That’s all they show, so that the gods’ power won’t grow.

That’s all they’ve shown so far, but they don’t show how he killed them, how brutal he was.

You see, that thing I told you about last time, the thing about Ravana being pure evil, those aspects aren’t being shown.

They’re deliberately omitting them, or they’ve omitted exactly what the curse is, too.

That’s one aspect of what’s going on. So, look, they’ve handled it intelligently, and they did that because they cast a star like Yash.

Otherwise, his image would be damaged. If they showed him as outright evil, as a villain.

So they deliberately omitted that. I mean, it’s kind of like this guy is the demons’ sort of savior, right? And he has his own arc.

He’s good in every way. But he has just one flaw, that he’s losing because of his pride, his arrogance.

That’s how they’re building it up. Anyway, I should also tell you this Lakshman Rekha, the Lakshman Rekha, wasn’t in the actual Valmiki Ramayana.

I mean, the way the Lakshman Rekha was shown, that there'd be something like this all around, it wasn't like that. All right, there's no mention of it.

Also, let me tell you, the Valmiki Ramayana is incredibly, incredibly brutal.

I mean, every battle sequence there is incredibly— very dark, I mean, there's bloodshed and all that.

Those things, though, they can't show. Even the abduction of Sita, he grabs her by the hair, then drags her away by force.

They didn't show those things here. I mean, that scene could be controversial, so that's why they didn't show it.

I mean, Ravana doesn't even lay a hand on Mother Sita.

They showed it that way, and they didn't show any of that backstory either, about why Ravana couldn't do it, what the reason was, what the deal was, why he couldn't touch her.

On the other hand, they didn't show this either.

I mean, they didn't show what appears in the Valmiki Ramayana either, the one where he's pulling her along by the hand.

They didn't show any of that. They completely omitted that whole part.

Otherwise, there would've been controversy.

The description of the Pushpaka Vimana, that description was of something like a royal palace flying through the sky.

All right, the whole thing was as if it were made of gold.

So the makers closely followed the description in the Valmiki Ramayana and closely based it on that here.

I mean, the design they created for the Pushpaka Vimana was made according to that description.

But in the actual Valmiki Ramayana, it shows that when Ravana came to abduct Sita, to kidnap her, he didn't bring the Pushpaka Vimana then.

There's a mention of another golden chariot being pulled by some donkeys, that's how it's described, or by some demon-like creatures.

That sort of thing has been mentioned. But there’s no mention of the Pushpaka flying chariot there.

But it was used for the kidnapping. The Pushpaka Vimana is mentioned elsewhere.

I mean, when Hanuman is going there, to Lanka, you know, he sees this Pushpaka Vimana.

And later, he describes it to Rama. So, from there, the description of the Pushpaka Vimana is what we got to see in this film.

They designed it accordingly. Anyway, I’ve laid out every angle for you.

Now the rest is up to your opinion. As a film, I quite liked it.

And what’s your opinion? Do you think they should have made the film inspired by the Uttarkand, or not?

Will this controversy have any effect on the film?

Will this controversy grow even more later on?

Will the thing be converted in these boycotts and so on?

You’ll see that Pratik Borah is talking about this the most.

He’s talking about it the most. He’s been spreading negativity about it for a long time, and he’s been facing backlash over it for quite a while.

Since the Ramayana assets were turning out really well.

But now a lot of people are talking about this publicly.

So, what do you think about that? How far do you think this controversy will go?

Be sure to let us know in the comments. If you liked this video, please like and share it, and don’t forget to subscribe to the channel.

Bye-bye.