The
Ramayana and the Mahabharata are among the largest and finest literary works
across the globe. Krishna Dwai Payana Vyasa, who also plays an important
character in the epic, compiled the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata traditionally
contains 100,000 verses and is the longest epic known to mankind. It is said to
have occurred in the ‘Dwapar yuga’. The Ramayana was ascribed to a sage named
Valmiki. The Ramayana contains almost 20,000 verses. The Ramayana is said to
have occurred in the ‘Treta yuga’. Originating in the period following that of
the Vedic literature and reflecting the interests and concerns of the Kshatriya
aristocracy, the epics reveal much about the process by which the more theistic
emphases of classical Hinduism emerged from late Vedic ritualism.[1] The
Mahabharata deals with shades of grey, where ‘Dharma’ is obscure. People try
again and again to do the right thing, and fail, until they no longer know what
the right thing is.[2]
It is presented at a time when questions of life and death were answered by
‘karma’ and the actions of the people, justified by ‘dharma.’ On the contrary
you had the Ramayana that dealt with black and white, where society remained a
mere paradox; one that is not only idealistic but seen as a reflection of
sought after perfection. It introduces the ‘picture perfect’ characters who
were flawless and depicted in a very utopian light. Yet, on a deeper level,
both the epics displayed a society where class, caste and sex determined your
position within the society. Even though both these epics are based on the
incarnations of Lord Vishnu, Rama (the seventh avatar) and Krishna (the eighth
avatar), who are considered as the embodiment of ‘Dharma’ are inimitable in
their own way.
The Mahabharata illustrates the lust
for power which in due course leads to a cosmic war. A war so gruesome, that no
man had ever witnessed before. This war takes place between the Kauravas, sons
of the blind king, Dhritarashtra and the Pandavas, sons of Pandu. Pandu and
Dhritarashtra are real brothers that led to the Kauravas and the Pandavas being
cousins. Both considered themselves legitimate heirs to the throne of
Hastina-Puri. For the contentment of both, the Kauravas and the Pandavas, the
kingdom finally divided. The kingdom of the Pandavas, ’Indra-prastha’
flourished and reached the peaks of prosperity, the eldest of the Pandavas,
Yudhishtra performed the ‘Rajsuya yagna’ to declare his sovereignty. This story
of success made the Kauravas see red. They invite the Pandavas to a game of
dice, knowing that Yudhishtra had a weakness for gambling, what the Pandavas
did not know was that the dice were rigged. Yudhishtra stakes his entire
kingdom, his family and himself and loses it all. His wife, Draupadi was
disrobed in front of the whole court and the elders watched in despair. This
further aggravated the situation and vowed to avenge their wife’s humiliation.
Because of their loss in the game of dice, they were asked to go on exile for
thirteen years and only if the conditions put forth by the Kauravas were
fulfilled would they get back their prior glory. Thirteen years went by and
every condition set forth by the Kauravas was duly accomplished. Time had come
for Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kauravas to keep his promise and return what
belonged to the Pandavas. Duryodhana was so enticed with his power and success
that he refused to honor his own words. Now, the war was inevitable. The war
was not only a war over a kingdom or power but also a war of doing what was
right, a war to re-establish the order and moral values, a war to avenge a
women’s humiliation and a war for the ‘greater good’. “Whatever is here
concerning the four aims of mankind may be found elsewhere, but what is absent
from here does not exist anywhere.”[3]
The Ramayana is a little
less complicated. It’s a simple story about a prince called Rama who is the
heir to the throne and is sent away in exile for fourteen years by his
ambitious step-mother, Kaikeyi. Rama was
the eldest and most loved son of king Dashratha and queen Kausalya. He was the
epitome of magnificence and great virtue. King Dashratha expressed his desire
of crowning Rama as his successor. No sooner was this announced than Kaikeyi
fell into the traps of envy laid by her maid Kooni. Kooni reminded her of the
two boons she had received in exchange of saving king Dushratha’s life. She
lured her into believing that her luxurious life would soon turn into poverty
as soon as Rama becomes king. It was time she provoked the king into changing
his mind into proclaiming Bharata, her son the heir of Ayodhya. Dashratha was
devastated when he heard of her desires. However, it was his duty to keep his
words. Rama was sent into exile even though several people tried stopping him
only because it was his duty to make sure his father’s words are kept. Sita
like an ideal wife chose to depart with her rich attires and fine jewelry, only
to accompany her husband. Laxman, an ideal brother leaves the kingdom of
Ayodhya to accompany his brother on his path of hardship. Bharata was a devoted
brother too. He refused to take over the kingdom which he believed rightfully
belonged to his eldest brother, Rama. He places his brother’s slippers on the
throne and looks after the kingdom as a regent. The epic explicitly talks about
the journey of Rama, Sita and Laxman in exile. The hardships they face, the
various people they encounter and several lessons learnt. The turning point
occurs when Sita is abducted by the king of Rakshasas, Ravana, who was a
staunch devotee of Lord Shiva, but power, pride and arrogance get the better of
him and finally lead to his death in the hands of Rama in the war. Thus the two
epics have a completely different set-up altogether. While the Mahabharata is
more realistic and deals with polity, caste, gender roles and the problems with
what one ought to do in a particular situation, the Ramayana is extremely
idealistic and deals with the victory of good over evil. The Mahabharata has
been regarded by several modern scholars as an exploration of the problems
involved in establishing the nature of dharma
and in applying it in particular situations.[4] The
Ramayana thus deals with some of the most basic themes of human existence and
constitutes a powerful exploration of the concept of dharma.[5]
According to Indian
tradition, the Ramayana took place in the second age (right after the Golden
Age), when the moral life was still relatively intact, while the Mahabharata
took place later, at the cusp of the third age and the fourth, the Kali Age,
when all hell broke loose.[6] The Ramayana envisages an epoch prior to the
chaos and disruption of the order and moral values. While the Mahabharata sees
the collapse of the moral world. The Mahabharata is generally regarded as
having reached its final form later than the Ramayana but also to have begun
earlier; the Ramayana is shorter and in many ways simpler, certainly more
coherent, but not necessarily chronologically prior.[7]
We can see
the existence of the caste system in both. Caste could be defined as a fairly
well marked, separate community, whose individual members are bound to each
other endogamy (and hyper gamy), and very often also by a common hereditary
profession or duty, actual or supposed.[8]
However, according to Dumont, the caste system must be understood in terms of
its essentially religious (‘Hindu’) ideology, which pervades all the immense
varieties that it displays. It is reflected in the endless, complex, even
conflicting, arrangements of rank, the highest belonging always to the
Brahmins, who are the ‘purest’ and command much of its ritual.[9] The caste-system was divided into four main
classes. The Brahmins were at the apex; following them were the Kshatriyas,
then the Vaisyas and lastly the Shudras. Apart from the caste-system, both the
epics mention the existence of a marginal society.
Marginal society was a society
that lay on the edge or the outskirts of what is considered to be the
mainstream society. While the Mahabharata clearly looked down upon the marginal
society, the Ramayana portrayed them as evil and demonic. In the Mahabharata we
see how dispensable the lives of the Nishadas (considered to be part of the
marginal society) were when the five Nishadas unknown that the house was made
of flammables embrace a gruesome fate. The Pandavas along with Kunti escape the
palace, letting the Nishada woman and her five son’s burn only to create an
illusion that symbolized the death of Kunti and the Pandavas. However, in the
Ramayana the Rakshasa were portrayed as evil. They were depicted as cannibals
and interfered with rituals. Some of them were even feared by Gods and sages of
high power and knowledge. Hence, we see that in both the epics the marginal
society was depicted in a negative light right from the beginning. The Vaisyas
and the Shudras were hardly spoken of. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata mention
charioteers, maids, and cooks all of which were Shudras. Thus, in a society
like this caste determined the profession and profession the economic status.
The ambience of the Mahabharata is
that of clan-based societies, particularly in the case of the Yadavas.[10] The
Yadavas were described as a council who were led by a chief. The Yadavas, the
Pandavas and the Kauravas are shown as relatives; the Yadavas were traced back
to Puru’s elder brother, Yadu.[11] The Mahabharata is said to have focused in
geographical areas like the Ganga-Yamuna doab and the adjoining areas where the
Pandavas and the Kauravas lived. The Yadavas were based in Saurashtra, Gujarat.
The starting of the epic shows no clearly idea of a set monarchy, however the
later stages of the epic sees the emergence of a set monarchy. The Ramayana is
said to have been set further east into the middle Ganges Plains and the
Vindhyan forests. The kingdom of Kosala represents the sophistication of the
newly emerging monarchies and is a contrast to the society of the Rakshasas, or
demons, where the latter might be an exaggerated depiction of the forest tribes
who were demonized because their pattern of life was so different from that of
the monarchies.[12]
The forest was treated as a humble
abode for sages and at the same time depicted as a place with a lot of
hardships. Hence, in both the epics the protagonists are sent to the forest to
complete their years in exile. The dichotomy of kingdom and forest is an
illustration of the vision of the world divided into grama and aranya-the
settlement and the wilderness-which underlies much of the tension in Indian
epic-literature.[13]
The Ramayana depicts a set monarchy, Dashratha, had a royal priest, Vasishtha,
a chief minister, Sumanthra, messengers were sent to the court of Dashratha to
inform him about Rama’s great deed of breaking Shiva’s bow and winning Sita’s
hand in marriage.
We see the characters in
the Mahabharata and the Ramayana abide by the Asrama System, an ideology of
Dharma; they are the stages of a man’s life and must be dutifully followed. The
four stages are: that of the celibate student (brahmacharya), householder
(grhastha), hermit or forest dweller, and renouncer (samnyasa).[14] This
system is followed in the Mahabharata. The young Kuru princes learn the art of
war from their teacher Drona (brahmacharya stage) and once they were done learning
all that there was to learn in the art of warfare, got graduated and later got
married to Draupadi and had children with her thus marking the ( grhastha
ashrama). Just like the Kuru princes, Rama and Laxman also adhered to these
Ashramas. Rama and Laxman leave their father’s palace to accompany sage
Vishwamitra into the forests. Thus, marking the beginning of their, ‘Brahmacharya
ashrama’. Soon after which Rama and Laxman get married, marking the ‘Grhastha
ashrama’. The Brahmins and the Kshatriya males were expected to follow these
four stages of life while the women were not really considered part of this
system.
Speaking of the women, the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata have both portrayed women quite differently. Even
though, both depict a very patriarchal society. The women play an important
role in both these epics. Sita, who was Rama’s wife, is portrayed to be the
most ideal wife any man can have. She leaves her luxurious lifestyle, her fine
attire and her grand jewelry only to accompany her husband into the forest that
was to live in exile for fourteen years. She was extremely beautiful, loyal and
dutiful. Never did she question her husband’s decision. Sita is abducted by
Ravana which enrages Rama and war is inevitable. The women in the Ramayana were
subtle and tactful. They never questioned, didn’t curse and followed their
Dharma dutifully excepting a few like Kaikeyi who was just like the other women
portrayed in the Mahabharata, till she was manipulated by her maid. However,
the portrayal of women in the Mahabharata is quite different, it wasn’t all
perfect. Not all women were portrayed as ideal; in fact Draupadi was
manipulative and outspoken. She questioned the elders, even though she was
later depicted as an ideal wife when she is speaking to Satyabhama. Satyavati,
plays an important character in the Mahabharata. However, earlier she was
depicted as a woman who was part of the marginal society and later incorporated
into the main-stream society which comes as a shock. Gandhari, is portrayed as
an ideal wife only because she chose to blind-fold herself to accompany her
husband who was blind. However, there could have been a possibility that she
did that only as resentment towards her father who unknowingly got her married
to a blind man. Devyani, even though stubborn had a mind of her own. What we
see in the Mahabharata is that some women were depicted as strong characters,
which isn’t the case in the Ramayana except for Sita who plays the protagonist.
Marriage was
an important social institute and was considered to be one’s Dharma. There were
eight different kinds of marriages that were acceptable to the society then.
There are eight different types of marriages that were acceptable to the
society then, ‘Brahma’, ‘Daiva’,’Arsha’,’Prajapatya’, ‘Asuras’ which is
mentioned in the Mahabharata. This type of marriage takes place when the father
receives wealth of any sort, more like an economic contract (Madhavi), ‘Gandharva’
is a voluntary union of two willing lovers. Neither the consent of the parents
nor dowry was essential in this form of marriage. The main purpose of this type
of marriage was sexual gratification and desire (Dusshyanta and Shakuntala in
the Mahabharata and it is also mentioned in the Ramayana when Surpanakha tries
to convince Rama into marrying her), ‘Rakshasa’ form of marriage was marriage
by forcefully abducting a maiden and if her kinsmen came to her rescue they
were killed (Sita is abducted by Ravana in the Ramayana) and ‘Pikasa’. Even a ‘swayamvara’
is spoken about in the Mahabharata where a girl chooses her husband from many
suitors. (In the Mahabharata Arjuna and Draupadi get married in this manner and
so do Rama and Sita in the Ramayana). Marriage was regulated by the rigid
caste-system and the caste laws. There has been a mention of ‘anuloma’( a
higher caste man could marry a lower caste woman; Bhima and Hidambi) and
‘pratiloma’(when a woman of higher caste marries a man of lower caste) was not
permitted. Monogamy was considered to be
an ideal form of marriage where one man is married to only one woman for the
rest of his life (Savitri and Satyavan in the Mahabharata and Rama and Sita in
the Ramayana). It also speaks of polygamy, in which a man has many wives. This
form of marriage was common amongst the Kings (Pandu had two wives, Dashratha
had three wives). Polyandry is mentioned, where a woman has many husbands
(Draupadi and the Pandavas).
Alongside, these social institutions were
customs and norms. ‘Niyoga’ was one such ancient Hindu custom in which a woman
was allowed to bear a child with another man if her husband was either
incapable of fathering a child or died without having a child only then was she
allowed to be with another man for reproducible purposes. A highly respected man was appointed by the
elders of her family incase her husband had died or by her husband, in case he
was incapable of being a father. However
this custom had various clauses, the woman would agree for this not for
pleasure but to bear a child. Even the appointed man would follow this custom
as ‘dharma’ or duty to help a woman bear a child and not for sexual
gratification. The child that she bears with the appointed man would carry the
name and caste of his/her mothers husband and not his/her birth father. The
birth father must completely detach himself from the child and seek no paternal
relationship with his child in his complete lifetime. To avoid misuse, a man
was allowed to be appointed only three times in a complete lifetime. While
doing the act neither the appointed man nor the woman could think of lust or
sexual gratification. Even while doing the act the mind should only have
‘dharma’ running in it. It is believed that before getting physically intimate
with the man they were asked to apply ghee on themselves so that they could
abstain from the feeling of lust. The most suitable example occurred in the
Mahabharata. Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were all born of this custom. This system was only for the women. If the
woman was incapable of bearing a child her husband was allowed to remarry or
even have an extra-marital affair if required with no permission needed from
his wife or family. This custom just shows how patriarchal the society was.
However, this practice has been mentioned only in the Mahabharata and not in
the Ramayana.
Another such practice
that is mentioned only in the Mahabharata and not in the Ramayana is the practice
of Sati. Sati is said to be ‘the product of a strong patriarchal society’. The
sati system is connected with the cremation of the wife with the dead husband.
It indicates so much of patriarchal dominance that the wife was compelled to
accompany her husband even after death. [15] However,
there is no compelling nature in the Mahabharata as such. In fact, Madri
voluntarily jumps into her husband’s burning pyre because she believed that she
was the cause of his death. Even after a lot of people tried persuading her
into not jumping into the burning pyre, she did. This is probably the most
important thing that has been mentioned about sati, in the Mahabharata.
With the mention
of these two practices only in the Mahabharata and not in the Ramayana we can
infer that Ramayana was portrayed as a simpler, idealistic type of society. It
was quite unrealistic and mainly spoke about Rama and his period in, after and
before his exile. Hence, Ramayana barely gave a glimpse of the actual society.
However, the Mahabharata was realistic and reflected greatly on the society
then. Idealism was considered as a huge thing in the society. Here, the society
is shown changing from a clan-based to a set monarchy; the economy is changing
from being a pastoral one to an agrarian one. These changes and new ideologies
made the society a little complicated, in turn causing rigidity. The
Mahabharata covers everything, right from the kind of society there was, its
flaws, the ideals, what a person ought to do, what a person shouldn’t do. .
“Whatever is here concerning the four aims of mankind may be found elsewhere,
but what is absent from here does not exist anywhere.”[16]
The yagnas were performed by the priests and
the kings. The kings performed certain yagnas which could be sacrificial in
nature in order to gain power, land and to please the Gods to gain some boon
for their own selfish reasons. Yagnas were considered to be the link between
humans and the cosmos. It was also considered to be a path that helped in
attaining liberation. Yagnas usually have sacrificial fires. Rajsuya Yagna has been mentioned in the
Mahabharata. This Yagna was performed only by kings in order to establish their
kingship, to amalgamate factions under their sovereignty, and to distribute
wealth to many people. Kings from all over the country were invited to attend
this sacred and grand ceremony. During this ceremony the host as well as the invitees
exchanged gifts. The host of this ceremony often gifted the other kings some
gift in order to gain approval and to appeal. Another sacrificial ritual
mentioned in the Mahabharata is Sarpa Sattra also known as snake sacrifice, it
had the power to destroy all the snakes on earth. This Yagna was going to be
performed by Janamejaya, to avenge his father’s death. However, this Yagna was
stopped by Astika, nephew of Vasuki, king of the Nagas. The Ashwamedha Yagna or
the horse sacrifice has been mentioned in both, the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata. This Yagna could only be performed by kings in order to gain
power, supremacy and glory over the neighboring kingdoms. A horse is set loose
towards the north-east direction and if it passes the kingdoms of the enemy,
the enemy had to be conquered, thus the performer of sacrifice acquired land
and gained supremacy. The Pandavas performed this Yagna in the Mahabharata and
Rama’s ancestor, Sakara, performs it in the Ramayana. Another ritual that is
mentioned both in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata is ‘Putra-Kameshti Yagna’ which was performed in order to have children.
King Dashratha performs this Yagna and so does Drupada in the Mahabharata. Even
though the Yagnas were carried out to please the Gods, they were done with some
selfish motive.
Penance
has been mentioned in both the Mahabharata as well as the Ramayana. This wasn’t
a ritual or Yagna. Penance could be done either to gain liberation or to please
the Gods again for some motive. In the Ramayana, king Drupada does penance to
please Lord Shiva, in the Ramayana, king Bhagiratha meditated before Brahma for
a thousand years only so that the souls of his ancestors could be liberated of
their curse, their ashes be washed by the sacred waters of the Ganga and
finally their souls could go to heaven.
Rama plays
the hero in the Ramayana. He is depicted as an ideal man. He is “good”. He
fights and defeats Rakshasas who were depicted as “evil”. In the end when Rama
kills Ravana, it clearly symbolizes the victory of good over evil. Telling the
hero in the Ramayana is not at all difficult. However, it is difficult to tell
who the real hero is in the Mahabharata because unlike the Ramayana the
characters are realistic and all of them make some or the other flaws. Who is
the hero of the Mahabharata?[17]
Certainly not any of the Dhartarastras, who are openly villainous, nor
Draupadi, who is disqualified by her sex.[18]
However the Pandavas are depicted in a very heroic light, especially Yudhishtra.
He is said to be a “Dharma-raj”, one who abides by his dharma, who never lies
and is just. While some people that Karna is the real hero because he even
though he was cursed over and over, he found a way through it. He stood by his
friend right till the end, even though towards the end he knew he was fighting
his real brothers. He fought valiantly against all odds. However, according to
me it was Krishna that stood out as a real hero. A lot of people would disagree
with what I have to say by saying that he had the power to stop the war but he
didn’t, he manipulated Dharma even though he was God. However, I’d like to say
that the war was an important lesson for mankind. No one really wins in a war.
We consider him to be God, but we also expect God to be omnipotent, omniscient
and supremely benevolent. If that were the case then there should be no evil,
pain or suffering because God is supremely benevolent. These attributes of
perfection is what we have given God. We believe that God should be ideal. Even
though the Mahabharata has portrayed Krishna with divine powers, they have also
shown him with flaws. God is not perfect and even He has to pay a price for his
wrong doings. Dharma is above all caste-systems, even above God. Krishna is
finally cursed by Gandhari which was his punishment for his wrong-doing.
Krishna rather than being more manipulative as most people would say, I think
he was more of an opportunist. He was cunning and he did everything he could to
attain the final goal that was victory of the Pandavas. He knew that the war
was just not for a piece of land or for power or wealth. The war had a higher
meaning to that. The war was fought for the greater good, and it was very
important that Arjuna fought the war. Had he not bent Dharma the Pandavas would
have probably lost the war, and the whole purpose (the higher reason) of the
war would have been lost. Even the
Krishna did not participate in the game (war), he knew the rules of the game.
We as humans are very much like Krishna. We all know the rules but we still
look for loop holes to bend the rules according to our convenience. Without Krishna, the epic wouldn’t be as
interesting as it is. He added a little flavor of spice which we all look for.
Rama played the
protagonist in the Hindu epic, Ramayana. Rama was depicted as a man with virtue
and a Kshatriya who always followed his Dharma. A man loyal to his wife, he was
a great son, an honorable king, a remarkable student, a noble warrior, a man so
ideal that it was nearly impossible to believe. Rama is said to be the seventh
avatar of Lord Vishnu. Even though he was divine and had divine powers, he was
portrayed in a very human-like character, where his divinity was never exposed
and neither did he utilize them. Rama was a character that every man aspired to
be, that each mother would want her son to be, each wife would desire a husband
like him, each teacher a student and each brother would wish for a brother like
him. He was looked at more as an aspiration rather than a deity. He was
absolutely flawless.
Krishna
on the other hand, wasn’t all that perfect as Rama was depicted to be. He was
born as Kshatriya but was raised as a cowherd boy. He was said to be the eighth
avatar of Vishnu. His divinity is shown in a few instances in the Mahabharata.
Krishna from being a mere cow-herder became a hero. He was opportunistic and
extremely manipulative. While the Pandavas treated him like God, the Kauravas
treated him like a mere cow-herder but were fully aware of his power. Krishna
is also portrayed as a philosopher in the Mahabharata. He explains to Arjuna
why he should fight the war of Kuru-kshetra and not run away from it. He is
portrayed as a savior, when he saves Sita from her worries about feeding the
priests in the forest, as a true friend, when Sita asks him for his help while
she’s being disrobed. He was the only one who knew the greater reason of the
war of Kuru-kshetra. Even though he has been depicted as the one who knows
Dharma the best, he is the one always finding loop-holes to bend it. He is
omnipotent and omniscient. He explains dharma and karma. Krishna even though
divine, was depicted with a few negative qualities.
Why
do we need a Ramayana and a Mahabharata?
The Mahabharata reflects on the society that existed then. The society
as we see was flawed, complex and ever-changing, patriarchal, rigid. We see a
similar sort of society today. A lot of norms and customs have faded away, some
even abolished, some have probably even been replaced or modified and maybe
given rise to completely new norms. The society can never be perfect, it never
was. The characters in the Mahabharata are so realistic. Each one of us can
somehow relate to some character or the other in some odd way. We still do not
know what is right and what is wrong, but we try each day to strive to be better
human beings. We yet don’t know if our actions are autonomous or pre-ordained
but we still act like we have free-will, we do not know if there is a greater
reason to this, we are not omniscient, neither are we omnipotent. This what the
Mahabharata does, it tells us each who we are and what we can do but it’s the
Ramayana that tells who we can be or rather ought to be. We should look at the
Ramayana as an aspiration. We as humans cannot be perfect but always have
desired to be. The Ramayana is all ideal; it tells us what we ought to do, what
qualities one should possess. These epics clearly speak volumes about our
culture and are easily comprehensible to the youth as well. We don’t know if
these epics could be accounts of real events, or maybe these epics are accounts
of real instances, in an exaggerated manner, either way they teach us so many
morals. The lust for power and wealth led to a war that was so gruesome, it led
to a kingdom losing out on fourteen years of its glory as it was ruled by a
regent. A promise that was not kept resulted in grave consequences. What we
also learn is that no one really wins after a war. Hence, I’d like to conclude
by saying that the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are just not fine works of
literary but it is much more than that.
Sanika Shah
FSLE-3
Works Cited:
1.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington,
The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
2.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The
Hindus: An Alternative History, Chapter 11: Dharma in the Mahabharata, pg: 278
3.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington,
The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
4.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington,
The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:117
5.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington,
The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:117
6.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The
Hindus: An Alternative History, Chapter 10: Violence in the Mahabharata, pg:262
7.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The
Hindus: An Alternative History, Chapter 10: Violence in the Mahabharata, pg:262
8.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Irfan Habib, Essays
in Indian History :Towards a Marxist Perception; p.161
9.
A
Comparative Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Irfan Habib, Essays
in Indian History :Towards a Marxist Perception; Homo Hierarchus, p.300
10. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, The Penguin History of Early
India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 101
11. A Comparative Study between the Ramayana
and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin History of Early India, Chapter
4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 102
12. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin History of Early
India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 103
13. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin History of Early
India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 103
14. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Gavin Flood, Chapter 11: Dharma, pg:239
15. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, R.S. Sharma, Rethinking India’s Ancient Past,
Chapter 8: Light on Sati System, pg: 112
16. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell Companion to
Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
17. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Mary
Brockington, Husband or Slave? Interpreting the Hero of the Mahabharata,
pg:23
18. A Comparative Study between the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Mary Brockington, Husband or Slave? Interpreting
the Hero of the Mahabharata, pg:23
[1] (Brockington) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
[2] (Doniger) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An
Alternative History, Chapter 11: Dharma in the Mahabharata, pg: 278
[3] (Brockington) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
[4] (Brockington) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:117
[5] (Brockington) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:117
[6] (Doniger) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An
Alternative History, Chapter 10: Violence in the Mahabharata, pg:262
[7] (Doniger) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An
Alternative History, Chapter 10: Violence in the Mahabharata, pg:262
[8]
(Habib) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Irfan Habib, Essays in Indian
History :Towards a Marxist Perception; p.161
[9] (Habib) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Irfan Habib, Essays in Indian
History :Towards a Marxist Perception; Homo Hierarchus, p.300
[10] (Thapar) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, The Penguin
History of Early India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 101
[11] (Thapar) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin
History of Early India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 102
[12] (Thapar) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin
History of Early India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 103
[13] (Thapar) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Romila Thapar, the Penguin
History of Early India, Chapter 4: Towards Chiefdoms and Kingdoms. Pg: 103
[14] (Flood) A Comparative Study between the Ramayana and
the Mahabharata, Gavin Flood, Chapter 11: Dharma, pg:239
[15] (Sharma) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, R.S. Sharma, Rethinking India’s
Ancient Past, Chapter 8: Light on Sati System, pg: 112
[16] (Brockington) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, John Brockington, The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, Chapter 5: The Sanskrit Epics, pg:116
[17] (Goldman) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Mary Brockington, Husband or
Slave? Interpreting the Hero of the Mahabharata, pg:23
[18] (Goldman) A Comparative
Study between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Mary Brockington, Husband or Slave?
Interpreting the Hero of the Mahabharata, pg:23
No comments:
Post a Comment