The Golden Lids
Ramayana and Mahabharata are the golden lids covering the truth
The Golden Lids
Ishavasya Upanishada enjoins us to remove the golden lid(s) which cover(s) the face of the truth. Let us examine what is the truth and which are the golden lids.
The lids, being golden, are very attractive and appear to be very valuable. Some religious preachers contend that our religion is covered by dust and cobwebs. If such were a case, it would have been very easy to remove the dust and the cobwebs because they are obviously unacceptable. In fact, our religious philosophy is covered up by some things which are so attractive and seemingly desirable that we do not realize that they are not the true substance but only coverings. Only when we discover the truth hidden by them, do we realize that the lids are relatively worthless. It is therefore important not to be misguided by the glitter of the lids.
True spiritualism is the truth, which is covered up by religion. The great philosophy of ancient India provides an excellent view of the universal truth. However it is masked by semi-spiritual, pseudo-spiritual and quasi-spiritual literature, which has become more popular than the spiritual texts of the Upanishads. Particularly, the stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata are the golden lids, which seem to be excellent but, in effect, only mislead us to worship and respect people not really worthy of such respect. We must discard our misplaced faith in these stories if we want to see the truth.
Ramayana is the story of a person who cannot and must not be respected, let alone worshiped, by any body in his or her right mind. Ram represents every thing that was and is wrong in our society.
Valmiki played a dirty trick to present an unworthy man as a divine one. He started the story with a chapter in which he asked Naradji for a recommendation about who to select as his hero. Naradji is said to have chosen Ram thereby imposing him as our god.
Ram incarnation is said to have been necessary because Lord Shiva granted Ravana’s wish that he might not be killed by any deva or danava. Since he chose to ignore humans (manava) as a possible source of a killer, Lord Vishnu took advantage of the omission and appeared in the form of a man for the main purpose of killing Ravana. (Why Ravana could not have been killed by other simpler means like disease, cobra bite, lightening etc. is never explained. Some how, Vishnu had to be made to be born as a human being.) Then again Vishnu was already roaming this earth as Parshuram who could as well have killed Ravana. Thus, the adherence to the literal meanings of wishes granted by even deity is proved to be unavoidable. With this fact in mind, let us examine the events of Ramayana.
When Bharat refused to accept the kingdom of Ayodhya, he had no right to do so. Based on his mother’s wish granted by his father, it was his duty to take up the responsibility of ruling the kingdom. Similarly, Ram had no right to give his sandals (Paduka) to Bharat for the purpose of keeping on the throne in his absence because the throne did not belong to him at all. However, this was done to save Bharat’s life who had threatened to commit suicide. It is therefore incorrect to say ‘Pran jaye par vachan na jaye‘. In fact the promise was broken only to save Bharat’s life. ‘Raghukula riti Ram thukarai, Vachan pitaka toda ke bhai ki jan bachai.’ रघुकुल रीति राम तुड़ाई वचन पिताका तोड़के भाईकी जान बचाई|
It was Ram’s duty to order Bharat to give up objections and take up the crown. Ram did not have the right to give away the throne that had not yet become his. If Bharat was still unwilling, it was Dasharath’s paduka (or pratima) that should have been placed on the throne but in no case those of Ram. However, Ram was shrewd enough to take advantage of Bharat’s weakness and insure regaining royal powers on return from forest.
Actually, in terms of Kaikeyi’s wishes, Ram did not have to go too far from Ayodhya. He and his father could have lived in a forest nearby. This could have saved Dasharath’s life and both could continue to provide guidance and support to Bharat.
If Ram was born to kill Ravana, he did not have to wait for Ravana to kidnap Sita. Any sage (rishi) could have requested Ram to kill Ravana for his tyranny just as Vishvamitra had asked Ram to kill Tadka.
Asking Sita to undergo agnipariksha was the most inhuman, unjust and despicable act in mankind’s history (if at all it was not just a myth). Sita would have been a victim of a sin or a crime against her but not by her, if Ravana had raped her. Making such an innocent person prove that a potential crime or sin did not happen is beyond all norms of justice and decency.
Once Sita had passed the test, Ram failed to protect her against unfounded allegations by ill-informed people. Thereby he broke the promises he had given Sita at their wedding ceremony. The excuse that it was his duty as a king to exile Sita does not hold under scrutiny. First, he had no right to be the king. Second, he could have again given his sandals to Bharat to rule the kingdom and accompanied Sita to another spell of living in the forest. Unlike present day politicians, he did not need power to do public good. Third, if Ahalya could be relieved of her sin just by the touch of Ram’s toe, why could not Sita be purified? Fourth, if stones could float in water just because they were marked with Ram’s name on them, why could not Sita? It is said that Ram punished Sita to set an example on the people. This is another falsehood. What kind of people lived in Ayodhya who needed an injustice to stop them from committing adultery? How could this type of people deserve Ramrajya?
Valmiki also failed in his humanitarian duty to uphold Sitaji's truth. When he found brandished Sitaji near his Ashram he used his own divine power find out that she was innocent. Right away he should have taken her to Ayodhya and declared it in front of everyone to compel Ram to take her back. He waited twelve years to say so. He hurt not only Sitaji but also ruined the childhood of her two sons. They grew up fatherless only to lose their mother to Ram's vain glory.
Another unjust act of Ram was the killing of Shambuka. He should not have allowed himself to be misguided by his advisers when they told him that the death of the Brahmin’s son took place due to Shambuka’s tapasya. The principle of Karma makes it impossible that one person’s misdeeds would affect an altogether unrelated person’s life.
In view of the foregoing, Ram worship is the worst disgrace of our religion. We indulge in it because we find nothing wrong in doing injustice to women and shudras.
Similarly, stories of Mahabharat are more misleading than enlightening. One only needs to read them with an unbiased mind to see through not only the fallacies but also the wickedness of the heroes so lavishly praised by the author. For example, consider Yudhishthira. He is said to have been able to enter the heaven without dying. This was the same person who treated his brothers as his personal property and placed them as stakes in games of gambling later to top this disgusting act by offering their common wife as a stake. How can he be called ‘Dharmaraj’? What type of place is heaven that admits such miscreants readily?
Similarly, Bhishma has been showered with praises instead of condemnations for his misdeeds. He gave up his duty to enter married life to let his old father marry and took a vow of celibacy. This was a very clever act to hide the fact that he was impotent. On many occasions later, it was his duty to give up celibacy but he did not. He was ordered by Parshuram to marry Ambalika and by Satyavati to perform ‘niyog’ with Amba and Ambika. On both occasions, he refused to comply. Worst of all he did not speak out against Dushashan’s attempt at removing Draupadi’s clothes. In fact, at that time, he was of such a ripe age that, in accordance with ashram system, he should have renounced the world and taken up sanyasa. Nevertheless, he is depicted as a hero by Vyasa.
So is Drona who deprived Eklavya of his right hand thumb. Even Arjuna does not measure up. Having heard ‘Gita’ directly from Krishna, he should not have become grief stricken upon the death of Abhimanyu like he did. How is it that he could not enter the heaven with his eldest brother although promised by Krishna that Krishna would absolve Arjuna of all his sins?
According to Gita (Ch.4, Verse 1 &2), Yoga taught to Ikshvaku was lost due to long time between him and Krishna. Our ‘great’ sanskriti (culture) could not preserve it. Why? Because the knowledge of yoga was restricted to kings who were selfish and did not pass on the knowledge to younger generations.
It is said that one hundred thousand shlokas of Mahabharat were dictated by Vyasa to Ganapati in a single sitting. Naturally, there are numerous editing mistakes. For example, when Draupadi was made to marry five brothers, Krishna explained it on the basis of her tapasya in her previous life indicating that the people were aware of the concept of rebirth. However, in the fourth shloka (verse) of the fourth adhyaya (chapter) of Gita, Arjuna asks a question as if he never knew rebirth.
A lot can be written to discuss the anomalies and the misdeeds of the heroes of these two books. Some of the mistakes, errors and deliberate wrongdoings of the heroes of Mahabharat are listed separately in Mahabharat - Series of Errors.
In short, it is important to realize that they are only stories and that there is nothing sacrosanct about them. Rather than making them our ideals to follow, they should be viewed as pitfalls to avoid. At least they should not be allowed to preempt independent thinking and cloud our judgment.
Let us therefore discard the golden lids that are Ramayana and Mahabharata but stick to the real substance (truth) of our great original philosophy.