Why Ramayan & Mahabharat cannot be true accounts
I was reading B R Ambedkar's The Riddles in Hinduism (my 10th reading!) and its associated commentaries, published by Columbia Press on his 100th birth anniversary in 1991.
Ramayan is believed to have been written by Valmiki much before the putative Ram was born and Mahabharat was written by the blind Vedvyas. Ganesh was his amanuensis. The whole thing appears to be so simple and even realistic to the crores of mostly fanatic Hindus, who swear by Ram and Krishna (they're thought to be same being the reincarnations of Vishnu; Ram preceded
Mind you, both were not Hindu-haters. They left all man-made faiths in order to teach Comparative Religions at
Both the long essays are unavailable in
Until circa 650 AD, Hinduism wasn't an organized religion. It was a mere notion that was a medley of discrete theological undercurrents and perceptions. It was only after Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded Sindh in 712 AD and the subsequent foreign rule that witnessed a number of rulers till 1947, the Vedic Sanatan Dharm got 'organised' and looked back at its mythical characters with a renewed vigour and false pride, making a simple and fictitious Ram as Lord Ram and a philandering Krishna as Krishna bhagwan. Both the characters were consolatory saviours for the (oppressed) Hindus from the clutches of foreign rulers.
'An enslaved country (like
Like scriptures of all religions, the texts and treatises of Hindus are also fraught with late and later unauthentic additions that must be ignored and deleted by all those who've reservations about the authenticity of Hinduism's religious texts.
Lastly, for such a mythical Ram, we're killing Muslims and others! 'Jay' ho.