Ramayana without its fictional aspects ?

A while back I was discussing with a friend about how many of the events in Ramayana are fictional and reading a nice thamil blog about ram sethu issue in India, stirred my thoughts again by asking the same question again... While there is no doubt that Ramayana seems to be more realistic and historical and rama's qualities are no doubt a good role model, I feel that problems like Ram Sethu issue could not have become so controversial if only people could really take Ramayana as a work of historical fiction and not attach any religious sentiment to the things being said in there... unfortunately, its not and am afraid, will not be the case for some time more ;-)

When we argue about some "impossible" things, there is always a counter-argument that these "impossible" things could have been "possible" then. I feel that there is always a sensible limit of extrapolation we can do, beyond which, I feel afraid that we might be entering the world of delusion... As Dawkins would put it, if we exhibit such imagination in any realm outside religion, such a person will most likely be diagnosed a Schizophrenic! Also, for those who argue that, the burden of proof lies with the skeptic, I would just point to the Russell's teapot analogy ;-)

Now, here are some of the well known aspects in Ramayana, that I think are "purely fictional" and you can imagine how different the real story of Rama would be if we cull out these things from the epic we know as Ramayana...

- Rama's complexion could not have been "dark blue like blue lotus" - imagine how much this will affect the deity's image in so many pictures ;-) at the most he could have been just dark like a Dravidian which people would not want to admit ;-)

- Sita could not have been "born" out of a Earth's chasm

- Hanuman could not have been a talking, intelligent monkey or ape - imagine a Ramayana where Hanuman is a human, but a powerful army general... hmmm that looks ordinary ;-)
btw, i think that this is one very good example in fiction writing, of how adding a single fictional element could make a big difference!

- Hanuman did not translocate a hill to bring the Sanjivani plant - okay.. this should have been added for those "harry potter" fans among the religious folks ;-)

- similarly Vaali/Sugriva could not have been a ape / monkey and there was no ape/monkey army to help Rama! in fact, the whole kishkindha kanta will look very different if not for the fictional element ?

- Jatayu could not have been a talking Eagle knowing about Rama's lineage and how all the animal species were created!

- Ravana did not have ten heads

- Ravana and Mareecha could not have come to abduct Sita by an "aircraft" (read here for an interesting blog on such "Pushpaka Vimana". If we assume that Rama was the first one to build the bridge between India and Sri Lanka, they should have just used a boat and then a chariot ?

- Mareecha could not have "turned" into a golden deer to lure Sita! At the most, he could have wore a pretty cool, golden deer (halloween) costume ;-)

- Hanuman did not fly to Sri Lanka first. He should have taken a boat ;-) just like Ravana and Mareecha earlier!

- Jambumali, who fights Hanuman in Sri Lanka, could not have been a demon with great tusks! (okay, this applies to all ogresses, demons which are anyways acceptedly fictional! but the reason i specify Jambumali separately is to show how ordinary this part of Sundara kanta will change without this fictional thing)

- Ravana did not set fire to Hanuman's "tail" - A more realistic thing that could have happened is Hanuman gets some kind of a punishment like flogging, probably after going around the city (as Vibishana mentions to be the custom) and he either escapes after or before that, and sets fire before "LEAPING" into india ;-)

- Sagara, the ocean god did not come before Rama and suggest building a bridge!

- Garuda, the divine eagle did not come and heal Rama and Lakshmana from the wounds inflicted by Indrajit!

- Ravana's brother Kumbakarna did not sleep for "nine, seven, ten or eight" months...

After so much of comments, that may seem like bitching, I should definitely mention that reading Ramayana (english version with some good commentary from here) is quite a enjoyable read to look at all the descriptions of the various hills, nature etc., and the good qualities of Rama, and various insightful dialogues between the characters including the way Vibishana argues with Ravana not to kill Hanuman etc., pretty good for a historical fiction :-)

In fact, I was reading a treatise on the works of the legendary thamil poet Kannadhasan, and I was surprised to find that almost 80% of his ideas in his poems seem to be rooted in "Kamba Ramayan"!

and some more of the minor things I found interesting...

- Story of creation that Vasishta tells to Rama is interesting too :-) It goes like this, "Initially everything was water... then comes Brahma and his team of gods... then Brahma assumes the form of boar..." Was wondering when was the boar created/designed ? just like in Genesis in Bible, there is no mention of when the talking Serpent was created during the 7 days of creation ;-)

- if Ravana could not magically turn into a brahmin to abduct Sita, it is funny to imagine him trying to remove all his kingly dress and accessories and then dress up like a brahmin asking for alms... and his comments about Sita's sexiness is like erotica ;-) as seen in the translation below:

"Your hips are beamy, thighs burly akin to elephant's trunks, and these two breasts of yours that are ornamented with best jewellery are rotund, rubbing and bumping each other, and they are swinging up and up, their nipples are brawny and jutting out, and they are smoothish like palm-fruits, thus they are covetable for they are beautiful." (hope Rama did not hear this!)

- another interesting thing is, though many people even now, believe Hanuman to be the faithful servant of Rama, still when he meets Sita Ashoka garden, Hanuman asks for a proof that he could show Rama to make sure he met Sita. I wonder if it was because Rama was the greatest skeptic of all :-) If it was because Hanuman wanted to make sure it was Sita, he should have gotten some proof question from Rama first... otherwise by the time he finds out that he met a fake Sita, he would have to come back again to Lanka to search again for the real Sita... So, it seems likely that, like most of the kings, Rama might not have his full confidence with Hanuman ;-) ?

anyway, the description just brings Pamela Anderson to my mind ;-)

the GOD Delusion

Everyone wants to go to heaven,
But no one wants to die!

Just heard this funny yet true lyrics of a song from my colleague during a meeting

I am reading the book, God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, one of the renowned evolutionists (author of the famous The Blind Watchmaker) and it is really enjoyable in the sense, he questions many things about religions, that i have thought about , like why do they call Jesus, Son of David, if Joseph is not his real father ? and why did they trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph to David, since it would not matter if Joseph did not father Jesus at all ? anyway, that is a separate blog topic altogether :-)

His comments about various aspects of religions and how they "prove" the existence of GOD are all very funny and enjoyable...

and here is a documentary in the same subject... it is a good doc where he visits famous religious sites, argues to a famous pastor Ted Haggard (pastor for Geroge W. Bush?) and as usual asked to leave his premises since religion or its followers can never stand any hard questions, and then visits some religious sites in Jerusalem and talks to some people there asking some "interesting" questions and finally he talks to a muslim-turned-jew "fundamentalist" which is all the more interesting! :-)

Enjoy!

and a radio debate by Charles Dawkins...