Ramayan- some clarifications

A) Ram-Charit-Manas-

Although many books were written by various saints of Ramavat sect but most of them were destroyed. And in the presently available literature RamCharitManas of Tulsidas is considered to be the most descriptive and most respectable book of Ramavat sect.

Shri RamCharitManas is the beautiful account of the life of Shri Rama in Awadhi dialect. Written by Goswami Tulsidas in 16th century it is an original account and is not a translation of Valmiki Ramayana.
Goswami Tulsidas was a great ‘Ram Bhakt’ and he saw the life of Shri Rama in vision. So RamCharitManas is not a second hand translation of Valmiki Ramayana, but is an original first-hand experience of Goswami Tulsidas. Shri RamCharitManas is a sea of bhakti, in which we can find eternal bliss. 

B) Uttar-Kand of Valmiki Ramayan

There are two proofs that Uttar Kand in Valmiki Ramayan is not the original part of Ramayan and it has been added later-

Fal-Shruti evidence-

Fal-shruti evidence is crystal clear. And even a lay person can see it.

Fal-shruti of a book(of religious importance) describes that what spiritual or other benefits one can get after reading that book or chapter. Exactly fal-shruti is either given at the end of a book or at the end of each chapter in some books(in case when each chapter has its own specific and separate benefits).

In valmiki Ramayan which is available today we can see that fal-shruti is given at the end of yuddh kand and not after each chapter. And that also describes the importance of reading whole Ramayan not yuddh kand alone.
It means that the whole book ends with the end of yuddh-kand.
But when the fal-shruti describes the benefits of reading Ramayan and Ramayan ends with it………..the book proceeds again in the form of uttar Kand.
So we can easily analyse that what is the actual case.
Why the whole book ends before the starting of uttar kand?
Why only uttar kand contains an additional fal-shruti?

 

Difference in language- 

And now in modern era when European linguists tested the language of Valmiki Ramayan, they stated that there is a clear difference in the language of uttar-kand and the language of rest of the Ramayan. It seems that there is a difference of minimum two centuries between them.

(And by my own parampara of Ramanand sect I am saying that uttar-kand was added during the Mauryan era, and not only this but also some more verses were changed in the remaining Ramayan)
(And I personally think that it is a work of some Buddhist, Jain or orthodox caste biased Brahmin).
And all the foolish and caste biased stories which degrade the status of Ram are present in this “Uttar-Kand” of Valmiki Ramayan.

C) Shambhook vadh-

There is a story that shambhook was a shudra and was doing Tapasya and Ram killed him because shudras have no right to do Tapasya. I have three points against this story-
1) Shabri case- All of us know that Shabri was also a shudra and she had also done tapasya during previous time and due to it she had acquired many siddhis. Now when Ram came to her why did not he kill her; but instead he showed great respect towards her by eating her leavings. How is it possible that Ram treated 2 people differently for the same deed?
2) The story of shambhook is present in the same uttar kand of Valmiki Ramayan.
3) It is not present in RamCharitManas.

D) Sita-Tyag-

Now again I have four points against this story-

1) Ok ram had promised his citizens that he will work according to their wishes but didn’t he promise his wife that he will protect and feed her and keep her happy always. Can anyone break the previous promise for a fulfilling a new one.
2) There were 3 brothers of Ram to take care of the state and people but Sita was the sole responsibility of Ram only. In such a condition any rational being could had left his kingdom and not wife.
3) This bloody hell story is present only in the same Uttar-kand of Valmiki Ramayan.
4) No hint of this story is present in RamCharitManas.