Figuring out what Ramayana and Mahabharata versions to read is irritatingly difficult.
The popular English translation written by white people are often a bastardization of the classics from a Woke lens. Others are outright further-fictionalizing accounts to suit a narrative flow as if this was a Steve Jobs biography.
The more faithful english translations are written by scholars who won't consider English to be their first language. So the quality of prose is lacking and epics reads more like textbooks. Hindi and other native language works are pretty good, but my proficiency in them is restricted to speech.
I am still on a search for a book that strikes the right balance. A few hindu historians & intellectuals have started writing incredible English language books. I would count Sanjeev Sanyal, Vikram Sampath and Tharoor as institutionally important writers who want to tell the story of India & Indic traditions by looking past the Delhi-focused view of our rather shoddy academic institutions.
I hope to read more works that conduct primary research instead of regurgitating a few 200 yr. works by british historians that can often veer on outright propaganda. It is the age of much needed revisionism in Indian scholarship. I am glad to see it be rooted in evidence, and not counter propaganda. That being said, I hope they get to continue contributing before the academic establishment decides to fully sideline them for being counter narrative.
Sincere question...what does it mean that the translation is written from a Woke lens? What should I be looking out for as different/hallmarks of propaganda or a viewpoint?
Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable?
The thing with the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, is that they exist in 100s of different translations, each with different levels of geographic uptake and historic validity. There has been a lot of discourse around these over the centuries, that is captured in various Indian language texts and spoken traditions.
**Philosophical incompatibility:**
Most modern writer is trained in western philosophy and often derives their understanding of philosophical building blocks from western classics and sometimes even more incompatible, contemporary philosophy. This leads to conclusions such as "Eunuchs were the original transgenders", when it is historically well known that these were forcible conversions. Contemporary politics & a urge to push progressive ideas through their works muddies the academic rigor of their work.
**Indians as a 2nd language/class:**
This is a huge problem in many western communities studying other cultures. When written documents are given much higher important, a lot that is captured by the native people in oral traditions (Often ones that are just as or more rigorous) is discarded. Similarly, the works of Indian theologists is rejected in favor or either Colonial era British Orientalists or those who would consider English to be their first language. This intersects with the Indian left taking a more western/atheist/marxist stance that leads to an inherent alienation of scholars who derive from a more traditional/religious/'native' set of sources. Lasly, these people often only understand Sanskrit in a literal sense and treat it as some sort of holy grail. Reality is that there exist just as definitive sources in other languages, and that Sanskrit itself needs a strong cultural understanding to decode metaphors that sound odd when interpreted literally. The criticism usually comes from scholar with centuries long traditions of studying the Mahabharat/Ramayana complaining about how certain interpretations have been discussed to death and the discourse is well documented. The refusal of western/english-speaking scholar with excellent funding to even do this kind of basic due diligence leads to insinuations of Hindu-phobia from said scholars. Can you imagine a christian theologian who rejects any scholarly work by the Church, it's libraries or its priests? That's what you have here.
**(Pardon my french) They bad:**
Now this part is clearly opinion but hear me out. Think about how someone ends up in theology. They are either deeply interested in these works from the POV of devotion or some kind of dislike. The western and indian academic community actively ostracizes anyone who comes across as too hindu. You will struggle to find a single hindu in a hindu-theology program anywhere. There are no jobs for you unless you are on the far end of liberal. If you are a competent Hindu with a strongly sourced native POV, you are shit out of luck. Hell, you will be actively chased off Twitter and be on the top of the 'get cancelled' list. This means that there is an inherent dislike for hinduism (I do not mean hindutva, I want to be specific here) in Academia in India and the West.
Growing up in India, Science was for the smart kids , Commerce was for those who could get by and Arts was for those for whom you had no hope. I don't endorse this by any means, but it is hard for me convey just how deeply this is embedded in the nation's psyche. I do not know a single person with half-decent grades/ who was considered bright who decided to pursue an undergrad in the liberal-arts in India. Even the best artists go into Architecture or Design, because you need money. This is the reality of an underdeveloped scarcity based society.
This leaves Liberal Arts Academia to the rich (often ones who practice western ideas with the zeal of a convert and have a deeply rooted disdain towards non-english speaking Indians) or the not-so-bright.
So you can guess what the quality of work coming out of there looks like.
**Modi:**
India is in the midst of a Trump-like hysteria around the cult of personality that is Modi. Either side has been taken in by this. This means that anything positive about Hindus is expected to be used by Modi to strengthen his case. I will let you guess if the academics like Modi or not.
> Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable?
Western Academia & the political left of India. (Most of India's marxist agitation begins in the elite liberal arts schools of the country. Yes, India has real communists, not the milquetoast types you find in the US.)
I'm a now liberal-leaning Atheist in the US (pretty standard for someone on HN), so I have no interest in those claiming blasphemy, hurt feelings or disrespect towards their gods. However, the undue influence of the incredibly low quality liberal-arts Academia elite of India is something I have real issues with. Also, watching our literature get butchered by those who are either incompetent or malicious is just not nice to look at.
Ive read, listened and watched many versions of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Of the two, the latter is the superior story in every way. Most importantly for me, the characters. I hope I won’t offend anyone’s religious sensibilities when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly.
The Mahabharata has its share of misogyny, but it has a couple of fantastic characters - Karna and Bheeshma. It’s worth reading for these two alone.
“The only thing worth reading about is the human heart in conflict with itself”. These two exemplify that principle, whereas I found it absent in the Ramayana.
What conflict did any of the characters in the Ramayana face? Hanuman for example, decides to do Rama’s bidding and then does it. The only major dilemma he faces is whether he should bring the cure for Lakshmana or the entire mountain containing the cure. He goes with the latter. Same with Lakshmana. Only conflict I can recall is when he is told to abandon Sita in the woods. He is torn, but decides to anyway.
Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties.
I don’t much care for Krishna as a character. Since he’s a god, a lot of what he does makes no sense and doesn’t need to either. He is supposed to be inscrutable. Such a character isn’t that interesting IMO.
> Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties.
Karna is a legend generated in recent times. In most editions of Mahabharata, he is willingly standing on the wrong side of justice willingly. He didn't even care for the well being of his supposedly friend Duryodhana. Here is a talk[0] and book[1] by Mahabharata researcher.
Personally, I feel the characters in Mahabharata are more shades of grey (rather than just Good or Bad) unlike Ramayana which is portrayed as a fight between Good vs Bad.
Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
> Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
My apologies but both statements doesn't stand if you read the original work of Ved Vyasa or a faithful translation of it. One single incident disproves both the statement. I am not a Mahabharata expert but this proves how false legends have spread around texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana.
Krishna went as diplomat to settle the dispute without war. As a final proposal, he offered to settle the dispute just for 5 villages. Duryodhana under influence of Karna said "I will not give land worth a needle's tip." and that was the end of all negotiations.
Edit: Please refer to my other comment for details about Karna's Character.
IMO Mahabharatha's heroes (and all its characters in general) are closer to people who you may come across on a day-to-day basis; they all have various degrees of all the human traits. The story is also intimately human so it makes it easy to relate to say someone like Arjuna than to Rama.
Yeah, that's why I specified "Near East". I know there's supposed to be some really good, very early material from India, but I've not gotten to it yet, so I can't say whether Gilgamesh stands up to the best of that. There is, for sure, an intimidating amount of it, so it has that going for it.
That is a very interesting observation because there is no one definitive version. For the modern reader in English, you could try Devdutt Pattanaik's versions - I really liked his Mahabharata, but haven't read his version of Ramayana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Ramayanas:_Five_... can give you some insight into why there are so many different versions of these epics.
He said near East. The Mahabharata be ramayanan are only the best know stories out of India. There are hundreds of prominent works and millions of stories.
