The Cārvāka Podcast

Rama A Man Of Dharma

In this podcast, Kushal speaks with Priya Arora about her book "Rama: A Man of Dharma."

Buy the book here: https://amzn.in/d/5Kvuwcy

#Ramayana #ValmikiRamayana #Hinduism

Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast

Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Buy Kushal's Book: https://amzn.in/d/58cY4dU Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPx... Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop

Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraO... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakap... Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal... Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com

Duration:: 57m
Broadcast on:: 06 Sep 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Now, as everyone, welcome to the Charva Podcast. This is your host, Khushal Mehra. It's been a while since I have discussed a book. I've been guilty as a child, you know, I pride myself at covering at least two, three books every month, but such has been the last two months that my book coverage on the podcast had reduced drastically. But we are back on track and today we are talking about a book. It is called "Rama, a Man of Dharma" and I have the author Priya Rora Whitney Priaji, welcome. Thank you very much for coming on the podcast. Thank you. Thank you for having me. So this is your first time on the podcast. So before we get into the book itself, I'll request you to tell everybody a little bit about yourself, your background, your journey as an author, so that people, you know, kind of know as this is your first time here. Well, I grew up here in India in Kolkata and then I worked here in Citibang for some years and then moved to the U.S. and my husband and I have been there for 30 years now. So it's been quite a while and I got into Vedanta, which is what prompted my writing actually and that's important to communicate is the reason why I write is because of my interest in Vedanta. And Vedanta actually is our essence of the Veda, which is basically a philosophy. So it sits about religion. I always say that it's for everybody. Vedanta is not about rituals, it's not about any particular belief system, it's not about following anything, it's about being a seeker and finding out who you are and what you're doing in this universe, basically, your role in the universe. If you've ever asked who am I, that's the questioning that Vedanta does and it provides you with those answers as well as to who you are. So from that, I got into the Ramayana and then the book just filled out because drama is an exemplar of Vedic philosophy. So I have a question here in the introduction itself, you talk about relying on the Valmiki Ramayana for the purpose of this book. Now there are two, three questions that stem from there itself. Hey, why did you choose to stick only to the Valmiki Ramayana? That is question number one. And question number two is which, I mean everybody relies on Anuad or translation is the English word for that. So which ones did you use and how were you going about them and why only the Valmiki Ramayana? I mean as we know there are many versions of the Ramayana, so why stick only to the Valmiki Ramayana. Okay. Because Valmiki actually was the original author of the Ramayana. So he is the one who first composed this epic about 7,000 years ago. And he was also a contemporary of Ramayana, right? So he composed it as a biography, literally. And the reason he chose it, chose to write the biography of Ramayana, he says that in the opening verses of the Valmiki Ramayana, he states his purpose. And the purpose is to speak of a man of Dharma. In fact, he said, he actually uses that word, he asks his Guru Narada. He says, Koon was means Sam Pratam Loke, Bhunavan, Kastya Viriavan, which means who, Sam Pratam means in our time, in our world, who lives in our world, who is Gunavan, Kastya Viriavan. So Gunavan is someone who is of good qualities of character, right? Full of gunas, good qualities, and Viriavan is someone who is courageous and brave, right? And then he says, Dharmag Nya Scek Pratam Nya Scek, Satya Vavkyo, Dredal Radha. So basically, a person who has all these qualities, he asks his Guru, tell me if such a person lives among staff. So he is writing about a real person. He is not writing, this is not fiction. So he was writing the composing, I say writing, but he was composing because it wasn't written, it was or he composed this epic to disseminate Vedic philosophy. Because Vedic philosophy, as I said, it sits above religion and it teaches you to do the right thing in the circumstance that you are in. And that is not something that is dictated to you because the right thing to do varies based on context, right? So what is right in one context is not right in another context. And so the reason I wrote, retool the Balmiki Ramayana is not to retell the story, because as you said, there are many, many, many, many translations, many retellings and all hood. I mean, probably better than what I could do, but the reason I wrote my book was to revive the original purpose, the original purpose with which Balmiki composed this epic. And the purpose was to teach people to do the right thing and to understand what is the right thing to do when you are at a crossroads in life. So that's basically why I chose Balmiki Ramayana. Also, it's historical, it's the only one that's historical. Yeah. So let's dig a little further on this angle that you have given. Now, every time an author picks up the Ramayana and actually looks at the verses and does a summary, the biggest struggle. So I'll give you an example, I mean, I have covered the entire Balmiki Ramayana chapter to chapter verse for my members behind a paywall. But I did it in a very different way, I just read the Ramayana and I spoke about it in a video format. I did not write a book about it. So I read the entire Ramayana. So I used one Hindi Anuwad and one Angresi Ganuwad. So we wrote one Hindi, one English and we just went through the entire Ramayana from start to end everything, everything. Well, Miki Ramayana obviously. But the one thing that as I was going through the entire Ramayana which took me like a year and a half plus to complete was that if I was ever to write it in the book format, like my respect for authors increased so much after I covered the whole Ramayana and was that which parts do I keep and which parts do I not talk about if I ever, I decide to write a book on it is only after I went through the entire text. Because at the end of the day, the lens of the author have plays like the ideological lens or the intellectual lens or the Trishti from which a person comes from, right? Let's say if there is somebody who works in the DEI department of some random American university and they are going to do a retailing of the Ramayana and they are maybe in intersectional studies for example. Now they can write the entire Ramayana based on their intersectional Trishti also. So what Trishti were you using is very important and how did you decide okay because you know you have broken it down in small chapters and small subsections in the book and there are quite a few subsections in the book when you yourself go and break it down, right? I mean you have, I think if I remember correctly seven in the entire book where you have broken it down going right up to the epilogue. Now how do you go about it, like how do you decide okay this comes in, this goes out. What was your elimination system? Okay so the Ramayana is actually very voluminous and I use the you know the Gita Press English to Sanskrit to English translation and the good thing about it is it has the Sanskrit and then it has the English. So you can actually read it in the Sanskrit and the English as well and so you know I'm not obviously a Sanskrit, but though I do study Sanskrit and I can understand it but I do rely on the English for help but what I found was that it has a lot of Puranic stories in it which are unnecessary you know whole lot of stories which are not related to the main story. I concentrated on the episodes which explained Dharma which is why I call the book Ramayana Dharma and there's Dharma at every point you know starting from the very beginning you know when Rama goes with Lakshmana and when Vishwamitra takes them you know to because he's doing his yagya and the Subahu and Marijar putting flesh and blood on it and ruining his yagya so he asks Dasrata and he takes them right to protect his yagya. So on the way he's asked to kill Tata now one very important thing is you know women actually in basic times were kept in world really respected actually surprising but you see there were women you were not supposed to ever kill a woman it was just a no no you were not supposed to harm a woman if that was a no no. Now this Vishwamitra says there's this female woman she's a Lakshman she called Tata car and he tells Rama that you need to kill her. So he's like why you want me to kill her but you know he's a woman he didn't he wasn't rude or anything about it but he pushed back you know he was surprised that he wanted that Vishwamitra wanted him to to kill a woman and then Vishwamitra says explains the Dharma of it he says you know she she is an Atyajari right. So she is causing large scale destruction right. So you cannot say that when somebody is causing so much damage to society though it is another herma to kill a woman in this context is Dharma. You see what I mean by Dharma is contextual you cannot say that okay I'm not going to kill her because she's a woman and allow her to create a havoc in society. She is causing large scale destruction. So he explains to him that you know don't dither about it and don't let her hide behind her woman hurt and get off. She needs to go she needs to be eliminated. So there are a lot of things in the Valmiki Ramana especially where this whole Dharum Sanghat it's called you know the debate on what you should do because it's a tricky situation. Again you have that in the killing of Vali you know. So Subriva Vali had a necklace and was given to him by Indra and that necklace was a you would say a magic necklace and it protected him. It protected him by giving him the strength of his enemy. So whoever he faced whoever he faced that person's strength would slowly come to Vali. So obviously he would win right because it was not never a fair competition as long as he had that necklace. So when Subriva and Vali were playing Subriva would get got beaten up every time because his strength would go to Vali. They were put in by the way so they were pretty much they you know strength wise they had probably equal strength but Vali actually had the unfair advantage of the necklace which Subriva didn't have. So now they decide that Subriva and Vali will fight and Rama will get him. Now this is again if you think seems like an Adharma right. Why should Rama kill Vali while Vali is fighting he should have come in front taste him and killed him right. That's what people say but in this context what is normally an Adharma is actually Adharma and you have to understand it that Vali could not be killed if you faced him. So if Rama had faced him Rama's strength would have gone to Vali and Rama would have gotten here and Vali would have continued to do whatever he was doing right. He is at their job he would have continued. So I always like in this to say a modern situation for us to understand the Dharma better. If you have a terrorist okay and that terrorist is hiding out in a secret location right. The Dharma thing to do would be to get him try him you know in a court sentence him to whatever that would be the Dharma thing to do but you can't do that. So what you have to do is you have to have you have to do a covert operation and you have to take him out. You may take him out when he is sleeping you may take him out when he is eating you may take him out when he is not expecting to be taken out. Now technically speaking that's not the Dharma because you are doing it start up viciously right. You are not facing him nor are you calling him for a court trial. But if he has caused so much damage which is Dharma to take him out or to wait till you can bring him to trial see you can't bring him to trial. So basically you are saving the many by taking out the one even if it is not by strictly that big means which is why the whole this is what is called a Dharma santat actually. Well sometimes you have to let go of one Dharma for a higher Dharma. So you let go of the Dharma in this case of being fair to the terrorist and giving him a fair trial or whatever else you letting go of that Dharma for the higher Dharma of saving thousands of people whom he would get. So that is the same context you have to see the Bali killing him. And I gave this example just so that you know it's more relatable to modern times. But yeah. So I have a question then because we everybody keeps using the word Dharma then if somebody comes back to you and says then how would you define Dharma itself at a conceptual level. How would you do that? Impossible to define. It's something you have to understand. See Dharma there's no word in English for Dharma. There's no translation and sadly Dharma is translated as religion which is absolutely what it's not. The word that has been used over the years to translate the word Dharma into English is religion. But it's best just used as Dharma. And so that people can understand it as in related to what it actually means rather than as religion because it's not. It sits way above religion. So Dharma if I have to explain to you would be doing the right thing based on the circumstances that you're in. And that's why it's difficult to define because it varies based on context. What is Dharma in one context is not Dharma in another context. Right. So I give this example. It was Dharma for Rama to marry one wife. And he was loyal to that one wife. He never took another wife. He never looked at another woman. That was Dharma. It was also Dharma for Krishna to marry 16,108 women. And you'll ask me how is that Dharma? It was Dharma because there was a Surah called Narka Surah. Right. And he had captured 16,100 maidens for his own pleasure. And he had kept them like you know as captive as for his pleasure basically. Now Krishna went and he really he killed Narka Surah and he released these women. Right. He released them. And he said now you can go home. Now you're free. You can go home. And they came to him and they said thank you so much for releasing us but we can't go home. Why don't you go home? We can't go home. We can't go home because if we go home we are now fallen women. Who will marry us? We've been kept by this man. So now nobody's going to marry us. How can we go home? So he says okay if nobody is going to marry you I will marry all of you. I will give you my name. I will give you the honor of not being fallen women. So you know when you look at it that was Dharma then. Right. Because it was done for an acoustic purpose. He didn't marry 16,100 women for his own pleasure. He married them to give them a name and to give them stuff to protect them from dishonor which is what they were going to face. So Dharma again is dependent on the situation and the intention actually more than the situation is your intention. If your intention is correct and your intention is pure then it's Dharma. Otherwise it's Dharma. So to follow up on that do you think when Sri Krishna had to do what he did marrying those 16,000 etc. Women on paper at least on paper in courts? Do you think the society that treated them the way they did were Dharmaik? Not Dharmaik. You see the society society really doesn't change over the years. You know even today people talk. People talk when people talk now and you cannot prevent people from from their opinions right. So people will have opinion. So they were afraid but women were afraid that if we go back we will be looked upon you know as fallen women. They were worried about that. That you know they lived with this guy for so many years. They were nobody will marry them. And so he married them to give them a status. He says okay I will marry you. I will marry you. And so now then he housed them in my houses. But don't you think the society I mean the reason they had a fear is because the society was like that and what does it say about the society then. Like why would they have that fear? Let's say hypothetical I'll give you an analogy here. If I am committing a particular act and I know society is not going to judge me I will go on doing that back. The reason they had a fear is because there was a taboo associated right. So what is the taboo? Is that is that taboo? Dharmik or Dharmik? You know it's again it's not obviously it's not right to to look at anybody with you know badly. That's that in Sanatana Dharma to look at anybody badly is Dharmik. It is. But that doesn't mean that you can we can have a utopian society. Societies are not right. By definition whether it's whichever society look at today's society where we ostensibly think we are so modern so it's people will talk. People talk people say things in every society. That that's a given and of course it's not Dharmik. It's not Dharmik to to say bad things about anybody. It's not meant to even think bad things about anybody. People don't say right. You shouldn't even think badly of anybody. That's what our Shastra teachers is. One should not even think badly. So yes it's it is Dharmik but that that is a given. You have to see we have to we have to realize that we don't live in a utopia. That doesn't exist. And even even in Ramrachi actually talking about you know coming back to the Ramayana. I have in my book specifically discussed the sticky issues that people read. You know I have not 30 around them. I've discussed them and explained them. So killing a Bali was one. The other one is when Rama separates from Sita. That's a big one where people say oh, he left his wife and she was so loyal to him. And you know but you see that's not the whole story. So if you read the actual circumstances and you read the situation and I've gone through that in my book I've actually spent a lot of time explaining that in the book of how and why it was Dharma and Nauta Dharma in that context. In that context. In his circumstance. Now had he been an ordinary person, not a king, it would have been Nauta Dharma to leave his wife. But in his circumstance because he was the king and because he was answerable. You see this is the other thing. The Vedic king was never a sovereign. We have to realize that you know Chanakya says in Dharma Shastra. He says the king's pleasure will be in his people's pleasure. What pleases them will please him. So the way the king was an administrator. He was never a sovereign. He was never a sovereign. So even Rama he was actually that's why I say that we had a democratic governance. We had kings, but the governance was democratic because the people say was important. The king was actually answerable to the people. Believe it or not. And I'll tell you, I mean they're dressing a bit here, but when the shirt wants to crown Rama his successor, he's thinking about it because he is getting on an age and he says, listen, Rama's doing a great job. He's given him some portfolios to handle and he's done brilliantly with all that. So he says, you know, it's time now for me to handle. Now if he were a sovereign, he would call whatever his people the next day, his parisha, the whatever and say, okay, arrange the crowning. He's going to be my successor and done and dusted, right? That's what he would do if he was sovereign. But no, you know what Malmikya Ramayana says? He calls the parishes, right? The parishes is basically like the sama, right? He calls them and he says, I'm getting old. I want to retire and I would like to suggest my son Rama as my successor and he gives all the reasons why. He's good at managing the treasury. He's got the people's interest at heart and he gives a bunch of reasons why he thinks he's suitable for the job. Then he says, but if you have anybody else in mind whom you think is better, please let me know. Which sovereign would say that? Then the people say, no, no, no, no, he is the best. We want him. Still he's not happy. He says, no, I know you're saying that you want him, but how do I know that you're not saying this just to please me? You know, because everybody wants to please the boss, right? He said, yes, the boss says something is, do you think this is a good idea? He was a great idea, right? But not because they think it's a great idea, but because they don't want to go against the boss and the king is the boss, right? So he was very careful. He said, no, no, no. You tell me why you think he should be picking only when the parishes insisted and said, yes, we agree. Did he say, okay, in that case we will do the cognition. So it was that democratic and the parishes, the composition of the parishes, that's another important thing and that you get from the Mahabharata. Actually, that's not mentioned in the Ramayana composition, but the parishes actually according to the Mahabharata, it had four Brahmins, four Shudras, eight Shatriyas and 21 Vaishya. So you know what was important in the parishes? Economy. We were 21 Vaishyaas and defense, eight Shatriyas. So you see how and the parishes was very important, they decided. The king had to go with the parishes. Even when Kaikei said, no, you know, I want my son Bharat to be the king and not drama. Remember that whole thing that happens where she demands, chooses her, you know, her to exercise her two boons and then she says, no, I want my son Bharat to be king. One of the reasons Sashotar gives, he says, but the parishes have already agreed to Rama. You see how important the parishes, he could not really override the parishes. I mean he could, but it wasn't, it wasn't done. The ruling was democratic. So we have the earliest, earliest system of democracy, actually we do. And this was eye-opening to me. It was eye-opening to me when I read the Ramayana to see that things that we value today, we talk about democracy, democracy, democracy today, right? We had it then. It was, it was never an autocratic rule, never. So yeah. So why do you think we lost it then? You know, that is the sad thing because there's a huge difference, you know, between the way that the Vedic people, the Vedic philosophy and that life and what we, what it has become today and what we follow today. You know, we have become excessively ritualistic and we have lost our philosophy. So even the rituals actually mean something. Every ritual has a meaning. And I'll give you an example, you know, like we, simple thing, like we wear a tikka, right? That's a ritual. You do your puja and you put on your tikka. Now, why are you putting on the tikka? We don't know. We just do it. But the reason you put on the tikka is it's a reminder. See, this is your third eye here. So you're reminding yourself when you put the tikka that you are that consciousness, that I am the universal consciousness. I'm not just the body. I'm not just the body. And the more you think of yourself as a body, the more you expect to live at an animalistic level because then it's all about yourself and what visas the body. And it's not that you shouldn't live well. You know, that's the other thing that's actually a interesting point to note that you're not expected to, you know, wear sackcloth and go live in the jungles. You're not supposed to. That's not what it advises you to. Just that in your mind, you should have the mind of a monk, not become a monk, but mentally have the mind of a monk. And what is the mind of a monk? A mind which realizes that you are not just the body, that you are the highest self. And when you function on a day to day basis, when you wear that tikka and tell yourself, listen, I am telling you, say every morning you affirm to yourself that I am the spirit. I am not the body. I am the spirit. I'm not the body. Then when you go out and deal with people, you're not going to be mean to people. You cannot. After thinking of yourself as a higher being, how can you go and do bad things? You can't. So that was the purpose. We have forgotten the purpose and then it's become a tribal sign. You know what I'm saying? Any ritual that you follow without understanding the purpose, then it becomes a superstition. And it's meaningless. So do you think if you don't understand a ritual, it is not worth doing it? Or you can do it, but ultimately you should understand the importance of it. It would be better. So like where would you fall into this? Like, how would you say, like, let's say somebody does rituals is because their reason is, listen, that's what I saw people doing around me. I don't know why they do it. It works for me. I just do it because it gives me mental comfort. Maybe it makes no sense in today's world, etc, etc. But where do we fall into that? I'll tell you what Vedanta says about this. Vedanta says that even if, well, ideally if you, whatever rituals you do, you should actually understand what they mean. Ideally, you know, then they're meaningful. But if you do them without understanding what they mean, they're still benefiting that. Because if you keep doing something with piety, right, with a pious mind, if you do it with piety, in time that understanding comes. You know, so that's the answer really is that though ideally you should understand what you're doing, that is the Gyan math is to understand the path of knowledge, is that, that you understand the philosophy. But even if you don't understand the philosophy and you keep doing practicing rituals, at least in a pious way with piety even, you know. If you don't have the knowledge, but you're just doing it with emotion, there is benefit to that. There's great benefit to that because from that comes knowledge in time. I mean, not overnight, but yeah, in time. I want to focus on the appendices that you have in this book, because I want people to read the book, but we can discuss the appendices, which is why I asked the Dharma question because that is one of the appendices in your book. I want to focus on the historicity of Sri Ram. Now, I'll use the example of what Rajee Malhotra in his book Being Different talks about history-centrism, where he says monotheism and non-monotheistic religions, the one big difference between them is history-centrism. And history-centrism being, there was a unique incident in the history of humanity where God through an angel spoke to a prophet and the prophet then narrated the inspired word as per Christians or in the case of the Quran, the literal word of God to the people of that area. And then everybody goes around propagating that while the non-monotheistic paradigm is not history-centrism. So, the way non-monotheistic faiths look at history is different from how monotheists look at history. I'm not saying which one is correct, which one is wrong. That is for people from their religious proclivities to go and figure it out. But where do you come on the historicity of Sri Ram? How do you look at it? Well, it's very clearly, he was very clearly a historic figure. And that chapter gives all the evidence as to why. And how? I came to that conclusion. And one of the most striking pieces of evidence is that Valmiki has date stamped every single event in the Valmiki Romana. I just dated them. So now you'll ask me how did he date them? Was it A, B, B, C? You know, did he do the, you know, no, he date stamped them with a sky chart. And there is no more accurate dating than the sky chart. It's, you know, the position of the planets at that time. So, like Rama's birth, you can actually draw his Jana Bhatri. It's that accurate. Nowadays, you know, the people have, you know, there's this planetarium software that is available now. And a lot of, that's not my field. But a lot of people have done work on this, where they have input this data into the planetarium software. And it gives, it gives you the when that sky formation happened. And it does repeat. But the, the date that is most widely, the one that I think is most widely is Rama was born on January 10th, 5,114 B.C. That was the sky chart. And nowadays Rama Navami is in April, but that's because of the precision of the equinoxes, you know, that the month shift. What, what was Rama Navami in January is now in April or March or April, somewhere there. But that's because of the precision of the equinoxes that causes that phenomena. But every date actually is, is perfect to the chronology of the text. If you, the date stands, if you, if you put them into that software, like he was exiled at 25, exactly then was that was the star formation. So, that is very strong evidence. And as I said, this is not my area of research. There are a lot of people who have done this. There's a lady called Saroj Bala, who's done extensive research on the historicity. And the other interesting part is the, the Ram Thethum, you know, that bridge. Now in the Balmiki Ramayana, he clearly describes how it was built. So, it was not built from scratch. It was built because the ocean deva, Verundev, he says that there is a sandy ridge on the ocean bed. This is a sandy ridge. He said that you can actually put logs and stones on top of that and build it up to a level where you can walk across. So, the ridge was already there, the sandy ridge, and you can build. So, that's exactly, and they describe how they build it. It takes them five days to build it. But in five days, they put these logs, they put these stones and build this bridge. And that is exactly what, when the bridge was investigated, I think it was the early 2000s. I think you don't hold me on the date. But anyway, it was investigated by Dr. Bhadri Narayanan. And he, they discovered that this, the logs and things that are on top, they're not marine in a region. They're brought there. So, there is a sandy ridge, and on top of that sandy ridge, these things have been placed. So, what was investigated actually matches the description of in the Balmiki Ramayana. So, that's too much of a coincidence, if you ask me, you know, how, how would you know that? Yeah, but don't you think, don't you think the Ramseto could be explained with natural rock formations? Also, like I've seen multiple papers on that also, where they are there, these things can be explained in a very rational way. I'm not saying the government of India should not protect the Ramseto as a monument based on the faith of the Hindu population. That, that is not something I'm trying to say. But, but as far as planetary softwares are concerned, I, I have actually just spent some time looking at these dates. I mean, there is, there are, honestly, I, I don't find the dates convincing from an archaeological perspective, because when we read the Ramayana, right, we, we, we, the Ramayana very specifically talks about an archaeology and, and, and a geography. And when the archaeological digs are made and those artifacts are found, I mean, there is the red, you know, the coded wear culture and many other cultures that are standard archaeological facts, then, then these dates don't match. And, and that has been a constant struggle where when we use these planetary positioning softwares and then match it with the archaeology. So, so how, what do you think is the future of this? Or we look at it from the way Raji Malhotraji does, that he's like, I think we should not answer this question in a history-centric way. So, it's never meant to be a history, never meant to be written as history. Like, why would he wasn't writing history? He was using the story of a person who walked this earth to explain dharma. That's what he was doing. So, the rama was a historical character. He used his life story to explain dharma. Now, if you ask me, is, is every single thing exactly historical? No, it was written in epic form. So, hyperbole is part of the epic style, right? So, they'll say, okay, rama for 14,000 rakshasas, right, and single-handed. Now, maybe they were not 14,000. Maybe they were 14. I don't know. I mean, you can't tell, but in an, in an epic, there is hyperbole. So, there is a lot of hyperbole in it. There's also, over time, there have been some interpolations that have come in, in, into the book. There is an episode, for instance, well, the whole of the Uttarakhand, which is the epilogue, is believed to be an interpolation, not something that was part of the original, right? That, that is that. Like, there's a story of where rama gives justice to a dog, right, and the dog speaks. So, you know, maybe that's fiction. That may be not be true, but one should not take, in my opinion, the hyperbole to take away from the historicity, that he existed, that rama existed. And the other reason is, if you just think, rama is there in every, or so many, so many countries. It's not just India, right? There's a ramaian. There's an entire land in Badia, Indonesia, Mongolia, Japan, every, all these places, all have the ramaian, right? And the story is, basic story of this person who was a very karmic person, who lived an honest life, who was, who, who walked this earth. That is the common in all, all the, these, these countries. So, if it was fiction, how come there's so much about it, about this one man, this story, why is the story so widespread? It seems, does seem unlikely that it's fiction. And I'm not saying that everything is 100% historical. But the fact that he existed, that part, after all I've read, I've come to the conclusion that yes, he was historic. Now, everybody has their right to their own opinion. And that is another beauty of the philosophy, is that I personally think there was a historical rama. I personally think there was a historical rama that there is no, I just don't buy the dates a lot of people give. But you see where I'm coming from, I actually think there was a historical rama. And as far as the date on the Mahabharata goes, that I think BB last date is around 900 BCE. And now after the Sinole excavations, we can push that date maybe by 500 years, that's about it. So around 1500 is the best case scenario for the Mahabharata. Then we can date the ramaian according to the Mahabharata in and around that region based on that. But I follow the archaeology, I don't follow the planetary position argument is because the softwares have been, and there are multiple people who have actually looked into the softwares and shown that. But definitely like BB Lal was the first, you know, BB Lal literally is the father of Indian archaeology has spent generations, even the BB, it is BB Lal's work that has been used the most in the Ramjan Mabumi case also. And BB Lal has never dated the Mahabharata beyond 900 BCE. So we can actually backtrack the rama and accordingly. But the Sinole chariots have, you know, as they say thrown in a jugular now, considering the chariots can be dated to 2000 BCE now. And they are chariots, people who, you know, there are absolutely crazy academicians in the West because they are so invested in the Aryan migration hypothesis that they just, they can't let go of the step hypothesis. So if they accept the Sinole to be a chariot, their entire edifice falls. And it's so stupid that, and, you know, for me, a person like me, I find myself stuck between both worlds is because, like, what? It's okay if the step hypothesis is wrong, who cares? Like, why are you so invested in that? But because there are political consequences in India, because of the step hypothesis of apparently, it's so sad that honest discussions about the dating of these events in India is avoided. And it hurts me as someone who, honestly, I'm a disbeliever. I just look at these things as Indian history. That's all I do it for. I just look at them as historical events. Who are these people? Who are these figures? Like, I have never disrespected people's rights to believe Sri Ram was a deity. And I support their right to believe Sri Ram was a deity. But the point is I don't. And I look at these things as historical events and historical figures. And how do I make sense of it? I'm actually very sympathetic to a lot of things that where you come from. I'm actually very sympathetic to them, even when I disagree with them, because I understand how much the academia has muddled this subject in India. It is an absolute disaster. Both the left and the so-called right of India have destroyed Indian history writing cumulatively together. True. In fact, one of the purposes I had in writing this is to try and show that it's neither left nor right. I don't think Ram was either left or right. So, you know, this is for everybody. It's not like a lot of people. Thank you for saying that. Thank you for saying that. When I, a lot of people, when I talked about this book, friends, including, you know, associated with being, you know, right-wing. But it's not right-wing or left-wing. I mean, drama is been there for thousands of years, right? The left-wing and right-wing is today. So, why are we dragging hair into this with muddied waters? It doesn't have to be. Exactly. Thank you again. Thank you. And the other thing is that it is also the Ramayana, the Balmiki Ramayana coming back to your earlier point where you asked me why the Balmiki Ramayana. It, you know, we don't really realize this. It's the oldest piece of literature in the world. It's the oldest piece. There's no older piece of literature in any language. We don't realize this world heritage. The Ramayana is world heritage. And it's like, to me, it feels like we have this beautiful, beautiful epic, right? And we don't really realize it's worth. We don't realize it's worth. Because it is world heritage. If you think about it, and you will see the language in which it's written, the beauty of that, the Sanskrit language at a time when there was no language. The reason why, you know, and you're talking about the quest where it's not regarded is because it was oral. And for some reason, there is this belief that if it's oral, it's not worth it. You know, it has to be written to be a value. Now it was put to writing much later. But the beauty of Sanskrit is it doesn't degrade. So the Sanskrit in which the Rig Veda was proposed, it's reflected in exactly the same way. There is no degradation. So in fact, I think it was Whitsil who said that it's like a tape recorder. And it's exact. Despite thousands of years. So Sanskrit is that kind of language. It's a very mathematical, very tight, very, very scientific language, actually. The point is that Sanskrit doesn't degrade. So even though it's an oral tradition, it's not, it's being transmitted verbatim. The Veda has been transmitted verbatim. So I think we, from that point of view, the Veda is of course older, but not, then they're not considered literature. They are like revelations, the Veda revelations. I'm talking about, you know, like literature, which is a bestseller. The Ramayan is the bestseller, right? It's been a bestseller for thousands of years, even though that was not the purpose with which it wasn't written for entertainment. So I make this distinction. There are many books that are written for entertainment. And though the Ramayana is entertaining, it was not written for entertainment. So like Harry Potter is a wonderful story, right? A lot of the rings, wonderful story, but they're different from the Ramayana, which is also a wonderful story, in that they're not Dharmadranthas. The Ramayana is a Dharmadrantha. So its purpose is to teach Dharmah, which again is the right thing to do, not religion, through entertainment. So it's using entertainment for a purpose, for a purpose to benefit society. And again, the Ramayanas for everybody, because it's about religion. It's about ethics and values and stuff which has really got nothing to do with the religion you follow, whom you pray to. So you could be of any religion and find yourself in a Dharmadrankut. And it's not a religious answer. The way out of it is not a religious answer. It's not like you, okay, you, I'm in the Dharmadrankut, so I'm going to go and listen to Vishnu Sastranama. And that's going to help me out of this. No, it's a very practical solution, which is for everybody. And the solution is the way you think, to change your mindset. So before we wrap up Priyaji, any last words for the listeners or the viewers of this? So the most important thing I think that we learn from the Ramayana is that it teaches you oneness. So it's sad that today people see Ram as divisible when actually the whole Ramayana is about uniting people. Because essentially we are all one. It doesn't matter what religion you follow. It doesn't matter whom you pray to. It doesn't matter if you pray or don't pray. It doesn't matter if you're atheist. That's fine. We are all united because we all are from the same source. After all, we are all energy, right? And we are matter which comes from energy, the same energy that we call God. We are all, we are all that same energy. So we need to keep that in mind. And that's what the Ramayana teaches you. It teaches you oneness. And in my book, that's what I've tried to portray, that Rama should be for everyone. Rama was not for the right way. It's not for, you know, only for this set of people and not for this set of people. You know, Rama's for everybody. All around the world, no matter what religion you practice or if you don't practice any religion at all. That's Rama still for you. Absolutely. So that's, that's my take on the subject. Yeah, I couldn't agree more with you. So, you know, I appreciate you saying that because when the Rishvi Ramjini Bhumi movement finally culminated in the court judgment and Ram Mandir was finally a reality. The atheist that is me was, you know, shouting Jeshri Ram and hurling the Ram Kajinda. And a lot of people were confused, why are you doing this? And I was like, that is my cultural symbol too. It is not your Bapati alone. And I don't know. I'm neither left or right. I find, honestly, I find Indian discourse on average to be very stupid. And I have never hidden my views about, especially in this, in this entire episode, you know, the Indian left wing likes to sneer at the Indian right wing. And then when I point out to the Indian left fingers, you kind of believed in these crazy cuckoo views too. And then the right wing does the opposite to the left wing. And then I tell them you kind of believe in these crazy cuckoo things too. And it's just the same everywhere. And the culmination of that was recently in New York where there was a heritage rally and they just wanted to take out a small replica of the Sri Ram Mandir. And there was a certain clique that wanted to stop it in New York City. Finally, the Hindu community and the Asian community got to do it. But to even think that Sri Ram would have been a symbol of hate was something that really disturbed me and bothered me. And I'm glad that you mentioned it, that Ram is not left and right. Ram is Ram and Ram is for everyone. And not just of Indians. Ram is for everyone. And it was just, it was such a bad scenario to see what happened in New York also. So first of all, congratulate you for writing this book. And I wish you nothing but happiness. And I'm glad we were able to have this discussion. So once again, thank you for coming. Thank you so much for having me. All right, guys, we'll wrap today's discussion up in the description of the podcast. You will see the Amazon link to buy the book. So you can click that link and go buy it. It's a very interesting book. It is a Lumbee book for those who are because she had to cover the entire remind. So it is a long book. And I think Priyaji has done a great job at covering it. The appendices are something that you guys should read. I think the appendices are very important to get to where she's coming from because that's how she explains where she's coming from. So appendices are very important. And as far as the Charvok podcast is concerned, you should know that I only do this podcast for one reason, where I am able to have these kinds of conversations without the fear of who gets offended. So if you can do support this podcast by joining the membership program of this podcast, one of the perks when you join the membership program of this podcast, if you join the speak with me here is you get the entire Valmiki Ramayana chapter to chapter, verse to verse. So if you have not, please do consider joining the membership tier. If you can't do anything and you're an audio listener, leave a rating in the audio platform. And if you're a video viewer, just like this video, subscribe to the channel on YouTube and leave a comment in the comments section. I'll see you guys next time. Namaste. Take care. Jashir. [Music]