Questions asking whether something is an interpolation are opinion based and not appropriate for this site

Question

There are many questions, particularly by user Srimannarayana KV, asking or stating whether a particular scripture, chapter, verse, etc. is an interpolation.

For example: Was Vishnu Sahasranama, a part of Anusasana Parva of Mahabharata, or a later day addition?

Is Shanti Parva an interpolation in the Mahabharata?

How can these questions be answered from Hindu scriptures or even commentaries of acharyas, outside of their own opinions?

The topic of interpolations belongs to the field of textual criticism and not Hinduism, let alone Hinduism stack exchange, where we answer from scriptures.

As a matter of fact, it is impossible to prove whether a verse, chapter, or scripture is an interpolation; you can only guess with or without confidence whether something is interpolated or not.

Moreover, one can claim that something was redacted or omitted from an earlier manuscript just as easily as one can claim that it was interpolated into later ones.

So these kinds of questions are not appropriate for this site and should be closed as opinion based. In some cases, they actually were closed as opinion based.

Answer 1

I am reproducing the question content hereunder.

How can these questions be answered from Hindu scriptures or even commentaries of acharyas, outside of their own opinions?

The topic of interpolations belongs to the field of textual criticism and not Hinduism, let alone Hinduism stack exchange, where we answer from scriptures.

As a matter of fact, it is impossible to prove whether a verse, chapter, or scripture is an interpolation; you can only guess with or without confidence whether something is interpolated or not.

Moreover, one can claim that something was redacted or omitted from an earlier manuscript just as easily as one can claim that it was interpolated into later ones.

So these kinds of questions are not appropriate for this site and should be closed as opinion based. In some cases, they actually were closed as opinion based.

---

Basically, these type of ideas will crop only when ONE thinks that everything that is available in EPICs, Puranas, etc, are to be taken on FACE VALUE.

No. They should not be taken on FACE VALUE.

If we accept them in toto, we will be doing unjustice to ourselves and to Sanatana Dharma.

For example:

The disowning of Sita episode is available in Sargas 115-117 of Valmiki Ramayana.

In this episode, a deliberate attempt was made by subsequent writers to project Sri Rama and Sita as the incarnations of Narayana and Lakshmi.

भवान्नारायणो देवः श्रीमांश्चक्रायुधः प्रभुः || ६-११७-१३ एकशृङ्गो वराहस्त्वं भूतभव्यसपत्नजित् |

"You are the Lord Narayana himself the glorious god, who wields the discus. You are the Divine Boar with a single tusk, the conqueror of your past and future enemies."

सीता लक्ष्मीर्भवान् विष्णुर्देवः कृष्णः प्रजापतिः || ६-११७-२८ वधार्थं रावणस्येह प्रविष्टो मानुषीं तनुम् |

"Seetha is no other than Goddess Lakshmi (the divine consort of Lord Vishnu), while you are Lord Vishnu. You are having a shining dark-blue hue. You are the Lord of created beings. For the destruction of Ravana, you entered a human body here, on this earth."

---

Here, we can cross check with Rig Veda, Brahmanas, etc, the slokas mentioned above, and can easily deduce that these Sargas 115-117 of Valmiki Ramayana, as interpolations.

1. Nowhere in Rig Veda or brAhmanAs, it was mentioned that Narayana and Lakshmi are DIVINE Couple. It was the product of Puranas.

2. In Rig Veda, Rudra was mentioned as DIVINE boar, but not NARAYANA. There was no mention of NARAYANA in Rig Veda. In brAhmanAs, it was Prajapati, who took the form of Boar.

3. Except in the interpolated areas of Ramayana, the word Lakshmi was not used to indicate the DIVINE consort of Vishnu. It was used to indicate riches only.

4. In their anxiety to describe Sri Rama as the incarnation of Vishnu, those writers forgot that in subsequent generations, like ours, an accusation will arise about Sri Rama as male chauvinist.

This is only illustration of an interpolated version in Ramayana. If we study deeply and cross check with available scriptures, we can easily find the interpolations.

Answer 2

How can these questions be answered from Hindu scriptures or even commentaries of acharyas, outside of their own opinions?

They can be answered by citing works of either acharyas, traditional commentators or modern scholars. E.g., commenting on this verse from Bālakāṇḍa of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, one traditional commentator (Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa) says:

caturviṃśat sahasrāṇi ślokānām uktavān ṛṣiḥ |
tathā sarga śatān paṃca ṣaṭ kāṇḍāni tathā uttaram ||1-4-2

---

The Number of Slokas and Sargas in the Ramayana 1.4.2

'Sargasatam panca satskandani' means the Ramayana comprises five hundred sargas covering six kandas. But the sloka says the total number of slokas in the Ramayana to be 24,000. Since the actual number is far less and there is no reference to the Uttarakanda, this sloka is spurious.

The Critical Edition of Rāmāyaṇa which includes the Uttarakāṇḍa as one of its kāṇḍas has excised this verse from Chapter 4 of Bālakāṇḍa.

So a user answering a question on the authenticity of this verse should be free to cite either of the two sources. I don't think the site should mandate that users cite only opinions of traditional commentators.

The topic of interpolations belongs to the field of textual criticism and not Hinduism,

If textual criticism doesn't belong to Hinduism why are people like Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa commenting on authenticity of Rāmāyaṇa verses? Why are they pointing out inaccuracies when they are supposed to blindly believe whatever was passed down to them?

let alone Hinduism stack exchange, where we answer from scriptures.

I've yet to come across a single site policy or FAQ which says only scriptures should be used as references. This FAQ on the other hand explicitly states that questions can be answered using works of scholars:

2. In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

We have several other questions which are of historical nature that cannot be answered solely using scriptures:

Why cows are given so much importance in Vedas?

Are there any strong evidence that Hinduism religion is an ancient one?

How has Lord Vishnu's understanding developed and what was his role initially?

Aryan Migration theory—evidence for and against it in the Vedas

Is there a scriptural basis for Out-of-India hypothesis?

Were Aryans the forefathers of Hindus?

If you want this site to become a knowledge base (like Wikipedia) for all things related to Hinduism, you need to allow questions of all sorts, traditional, historical, controversial, questions criticizing Hinduism, etc. If you are going to ban questions related to interpolations, users will go to other sites like Quora and get the answers they want any which way. You just cannot stop curious minds.

Answer 3

I agree we should not allow interpolation posts. The question is clearly explained. Whoever agrees, please upvote this answer.