Ramayana vs Mahabharata — Book Review

Dharma was thus not a set of laws; it was a way of being. It was anchored in the human ability to reverse the law of the jungle

The studious may like theory and talk about the Vedas and the Upanishads. But us commoners will always like stories better. And what better stories than the two greatest epics the world has ever seen.

So he invited the King of Gandhara and his hundred sons to a meal and then locked them up and gave them only one portion of food every day, thus slowly starving them to death. Technically, Bhishma was not breaking the rules of hospitality — because he was offering them food.

This diabolical story from the Odia retelling is most interesting. What is it supposed to convey? Kill but keep up appearances while doing it? The second part of the story is even more fascinating where the King of Gandhara only feed his most clever son — Shakuni. He even breaks his leg to remind him of the revenge he ultimately has to extract on Hastinapur.

By now you must have guessed that this book is not really about Ramayana versus Mahabharata. All chapters start with ‘Both’. It is about the commonalities relating to the basic thought of Hinduism. The Karma-Dharma thing. Which is surprisingly well put in this book.

There are other interesting things like how both the epics were codified as a response to the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. While those focused on the ascetic Hinduism focused on the householder-hermit. Hence it more colorful and has innumerable tales to tell about how to lead a social life. And then leave it as well (vanaprashashram).

Upholding dharma does not guarantee happiness — for that, one has to pursue kama, artha and moksha. Dharma merely guarantees stability for the world at large.

It is a short book with a lot of information. Gets boring at times since you know most of the stories anyway.