Rama's Killing of Vaali

Ramayana is a work of fiction and I have no problem with people who admire it as a piece of literature. But I do have a problem with people who flaunt it as some sort of moral authority when all it has is primitive ethics.

Take the killing of Vaali for example. Here was this guy who was fighting Sugreeva in a fair manner, a.k.a face to face and Rama shoots him in the back and kills him.

Now hindu apologists will say that Vaali is an animal and Rama is a kshatriya and according to dharma, kshatriyas have the right to kill an animal in whatever manner they think is necessary. That may well have been how morals worked in time of Rama. But we no longer live in that primitive age. Moral philosophy has evolved a lot in the intervening years with the help of science.

Respecting Life

Today we know that humans are not that different than animals. Life on Earth is beautifully interconnected in a way that the authors of Ramayana couldn’t even have dreamt of. They didn’t know about how microbes shape life. While they were chasing an imaginary entity called Brahman, they were blissfully unaware of the omnipresent bacteria. Bacteria are also omnipotent in the sense that they are capable of living off of a variety of energy sources. In fact plants can digest sunlight and animals can digest food because they entered into a symbiotic relationship with bacteria a few billion years ago.

And then there are the viruses. They have managed to embed themselves quite extensively in our genome and some of the traits we posses were given to us by viruses.

There are still a lot of things we don’t understand about life like why there is sentience and consciousness. But we do know that consciousness isn’t the sole privilege of humans. Our cousins from the hominid family - chimps, gorillas and orangutans are self aware and are also quite intelligent. So are elephants, dolphins and some birds.

When to comes to ethics, the question we have to ask is, where do we draw the line between killing a life form and letting it live? Traditionally speaking, the answer is easy. The line is between humans and non-humans as humans obviously are special in that we are intelligent and and animals are stupid. Scriptural moralities like the ones based on Ramayana are based on such arguments.

To be human is to recognize humanity in whatever form it exists. Many animals share the same characteristics as we do. They feel love and pain. They know about sacrifice. They care for each other. Science has taught us that much. So in order to call ourselves human and civilized, it is just not enough that we apply our morals to humans, but also to animals who are capable of displaying some human characteristics.

Dharma of the Ramayana fails in this respect. It does not understand life on Earth. But this transgression is minor when compared to the case where a human like intelligence is involved.

Respecting Intelligence

Today, when the hope of creating artificial intelligence in the future is very much alive, we understand the importance of intelligence well. It is the main aspect that separates us from other animals. So if we find another life form that is just as intelligent as us, feels the same emotions, it is only logical that we extend our morality to it.

The vanaras of the Ramayana satisfy that requirement. They were intelligent and most importantly they were able to use language, a distinctly human feature. In real life if such an intelligence exists, it will be the biggest thing since... well... anything. And yet Ramayana thinks just because vanaras were like monkeys, humans are justified in killing them. It fails to recognize intelligence and glosses over it.

This line of reasoning will seem stupid, given that Ramayana is work of fiction and it was written a long time ago. But if people are hell bent on using it as a moral guide in today’s world, it is only fair that it be judged against current moral standards. According to those standards, the killing of Vaali can be described as thus:

Rama knew full well that vanaras were intelligent and conscious beings like us. Yet he killed Vaali like a coward and justified it by calling Vaali an animal, someone who is inferior to humans. Rama also practised what could be called a form of racism. He discriminated against vanaras, just because they looked different than humans.

It is sad that millions of people consider a morally primitive book like the Ramayana as a definitive guide on morality.

Rama’s Bridge On The Moon

Whenever science finds something interesting, it serves as a proof of the greatness of the grand, glorious Indian civilization. It is a known fact that the ancient scriptures have all the answers. It’s just a matter of time before somebody else discovers them.

Last week one such discovery was made which proves again that Rama existed and that he is supreme. In addition to Rama’s bridge here on Earth, another Rama’s bridge was found on the Moon:

Here are the facts concerning this discovery:

1. It was made by NASA who have also proved the existence of Rama’s bridge on Earth.
2. The photo clearly shows a bridge that could have only been built by monkey-human hybrids and not some natural phenomenon.
3. Ramayan provides incontrovertible proof that space travel was known at that time. Hanuman was a master of this as he had travelled to the Sun and ate it when he was young.

This finding is a paradigm shift. All this while it was thought that Americans were the first to step foot on the Moon, but that picture proves that Rama and his army of monkey-human hybrids were already there at least 1.296 million years ago (as Treta Yuga ended 1.296 mya). If Rama could go to the Moon, other great divine personalities too might have gone there!

This also means that the Moon belongs to Indians. Americans have un-dharmically trampled upon our property. We need to organize another rath yatra and teach those mlecchas a lesson.

Morality of Rama

In Ramayan, after defeating Ravan, Rama takes Sita to Ayodhya. But rumors start spreading that Sita is "impure", having been enjoyed by Ravan. Bowing to pressure from the public, Rama abandons Sita.

Today, Ramayan is considered as an authority on moral behavior. So what is the moral that we gain from the abandonment of Sita? Let us assume that the Ayodhya public were correct and Ravan did rape Sita. So how does the public want a rape victim to be treated? Throw her into the forest. She doesn't deserve compassion and understanding of her fellow humans. Rama, a God gives into mob demands. So a mob is more mighty than God (Is that why mob violence is so common in India?).

How can Ramayan teach such depraved moral lessons? How can God stoop to the level of a narrow minded commoner? Why didn't he fight the stupid masses and set an example on how to combat idiocy? The answer will be obvious if Rama was not a God, but a human being. Mobs always have their way. You can fight them and die or you can give into their demands and live to see another day. Rama was just protecting himself, just like most humans would do. If there is any lesson to be learnt from Ramayan, it is to make sure that we never have Ramarajya (Kingdom of Rama). We don't want misogynists running amok on the streets.