I find the nature of Rama's holiness very fascinating. Ironically, the fact that he is unwittingly the incarnation of a god opens up all kinds of pathways to explore the human condition. Rama can not understand the meaning of his suffering and for much of the story he has no concept of his true essence (Vishnu). These are two key philosophical questions that I'm eager to find out how the Ramayana explores.
Sattar brings up various opinions and critiques of the Ramayana, one of which is that there is minimal or no character growth. However, hearing Sattar describe the contrasted sets of characters, I feel like the Ramayana just uses a different strategy to narrate a story. I'm glad that these dualities (Vali/Rama, Bharatha/Sugreeva, Sita/Soorpanaka) are on my radar now because I think they will come in handy when trying to analyze the stories.
I'm also very intregued by Rama's renunciation of wealth and life in the forest. I am not very well versed in Buddhist mythology but to me, this sounds very similar. It sounds like Rama and Buddha go through similar tribulations: they both shed their riches and expensive garb, they leave the city, they lead a life without appetitive desires, they come back as a changed beings (I hope this doesn't sound reductionistic). I look forward to hopefully finding the ways in which the Ramayana is influenced by other traditions or where there is some crossover material.
This leads me to one of my questions. Sattar mentioned that some scholars say the Ramayana is not unique. If we're dealing with mythology, then what does the world "unique" even mean? I feel like every holy or ancient text is overflowing with motifs from other stories (great floods, miraculous births, overcoming impossible obstacles, betraying/angering gods, etc.). I guess my question is whether content is more important than narration. To me it feels like the way these texts differ from eachother is how they get told.
My second question is more ambiguous. After reading the introduction I found myself really pondering how obscure it is that I'm able to read a story or even a variation of a story that existed in 500 BCE. If Valmiki could time travel and spend an hour with anyone with an iphone or a car, he'd think he was standing in front of a god. So my question is not just why are people making tv shows about the Ramayana or reading the epic to their children, but why are people even remotely concerned with any of the content in the book? Isn't that strange? Our lives look nothing like the lives of people living thousands of years ago and yet we somehow are compelled by the same stories? How is that possible?
463 words