Off shoot from the other thread.
What are these two epics about? Are they easily accessible for someone who knows nothing of Hindu culture?
Very brief summaries:
The Mahabharata is about a war in India between two branches of a family who are struggling to win control of a kingdom which they both have a claim to.
The Ramayana is about a prince named Rama. He leaves his homeland due to a family disagreement and spend fourteen years wandering around before returning home to become king.
They’re both very long. I’ve taken two runs at the Ramayana, but couldn’t finish it.
I once caught part of a series on PBS about the Mahabharata that was amazing. I would love to be able to see the entire thing.
My earliest memories of Ramayana is to sit on my dad’s lap, while he told me stories from Mahabharata 
It was also very relaxing, knowing that generations before my dad have done so : Ramayana / Mahabharata are stories that have been passed down in the oral tradition (like the Iliad) for 2000 years or more.
Ramayana, because it is from a different time - is more idealistic. Its about whats a good king, a good son, a good wife, … Ram-ayana is the joining of two words in Sanskrit meaning Ram (the dark one ) and ayana meaning journey. So its the story of Ram - born to a king with 3 wives. One of his wives, who is also a warrior in her own rights, has her heart poisoned by her maid (very Shakespearean sort of) and wants Ram (the son from the eldest wife) to be exiled for 14 years.
Thus begins Ram’s journey, into the forest. His wife is abducted by the Villian (who also is very erudite but has fallen into a bad state) Ravana, who lives in an Island (Sri Lanka perhaps). Then Ram wages war to free his wife with the help of an army of monkeys.
Ram returns back after exile …
Mahabharata is a more involved epic with lots of interesting characters. Lust, Sexuality (including homosexuality), war, trickery, … a lot of human issues are talked about through stories. The Adult Krishna is a prominent part of this story.
The highlight of Mahabharata is the Bhagwad Gita. The premise of Gita is that a warrior (an archer on a chariot) has lost all motivation and doesn’t want to fight anymore because his opponents are his own flesh and blood. So his charioteer, Krishna, talks about life and its objectives and why he should do his job…
I found the Mahabharata to be somewhat of a slog. Epic and fascinating and crammed full of stuff, but dense and long.
I thought Ramayana was much more fun.
There’s always the TV series of the Ramayana.
Over the course of 18 months in 1987 and 1988, Sagar’s telling of the epic through 78 weekly 45-minute episodes – broadcast on Sunday mornings on India’s only TV channel, Doordarshan – became the most successful TV show in Indian history, with popular episodes watched by a staggering 80 million to 100 million people, an eighth of the population.
Trains would stop at stations, buses would stop and passengers would disembark to find a roadside place with a TV.
I’m not sure where you can get it with English subtitles.
It was shown on TV here with subtitles, so versions must exist.
Also note that there are multiple remakes of both epics.
What is your opinion of “Sita Sings the Blues”?
Looks like a movie I’d have enjoyed more, during my college days with a touch of THC. Sort of like that movie with Ben Affleck/Matt Demon - was that Dogma ?
I just skipped through the movie and the only thing that bothers me is - “White people doing what White people think is the “stereotypical Indian accent””. That makes it like a Minstrel show - Minstrel show - Wikipedia
Other than that, I think Nina Paley has put in a lot of effort in the movie.
Thanks, am77494. I didn’t realize that the accents were faked, knowing a total of two Hindu Indians. My professor sounded more English than Indian, come to think of it.
As a child, I always preferred the Mahabharata, as it is full of so many stories within the stories. Plus, the many more heroes, villains and neutrals, and their interactions were so interesting to me. I found the Ramayana to be much more simple and straightforward.
One of my uncles in India had a small role in the Ramayana TV series, so he became somewhat of a local hero in the small village that my family is from. But we had 1 tv back then, and family night involved watching the tv series, and I was not a fan.
These couple of threads may spur me to re-read these epics, as I am interested in what I think of them as an adult vs. when I was a child.
Are you talking about the scenes where characters are talking about the myths the movie is exploring? Because the actors doing those scenes are Aseem Chhabra, Bhavana Nagulapally, and Manish Acharya. I’m assuming their Indian accents are authentic. I believe all of the voice actors in the movie (with the exception of Nina Paley who voiced her own character) were Indian.
I loved it too. It managed to do a lot with an obviously low budget. However, it condensed an epic story down to about 5 hours. So a lot was left out. I’ve also been told (and her parents are both from India and though born in Alabama she lived in India for over a decade and speaks fluent Hindi) they mispronounce a LOT of words. For example it isn’t Muh Hobb Huh Rot uh. It’s closer to Mah H’bart.
I still recommend it highly though. It’s fun, enthralling and makes you want to learn more.
ETA- It’s on Youtube! The Mahabharata (1989): All 3 Peter Brook TV Episodes in One 5 Hour Video! - YouTube
One male character in the Mahabharata, spends a year dressing and living as a woman.
In the Ramayan, before Ram goes into exile his subjects promise to wait for him. He says “Thank you. But all you men, all you women, all you children please do not wait for me.” When he returns, he find the hijras (who identify as a third gender) are still there. One of them explains “We are not men. We are not women. We are not children. So your command did not apply to us and we waited for you.” The king is very pleased at this and blesses the hijras with special duties and powers.
For more on hijras, is @Johanna still around? She would know a lot more.
It sounds like you’re referring to the pronunciation difference between Hindi and Sanskrit. The inherent short vowel [ɐ] which is always pronounced in Sanskrit and never pronounced in Hindi in non-initial unstressed open syllables. Sanskrit: [mɐɦaːbʱaːrɐt̪ɐ] (5 syllables). Hindi: [mɐɦaːbʱaːrt̪] (3 syllables).
Paul Brunton, a cheap Occidental imitation of a guru, wrote something similar in A Search in Secret India. He corrected the pronunciation of those who say “yoga,” because those in the know know that the true pronunciation is “yog.” It all depends on which language you’re using.
It cracks me up when they try to “correct” the Sanskrit pronunciation for being different from Hindi. Part of the confusion is that these words are written exactly the same way in both Sanskrit and Hindi, in the Devanagari alphabet. Sort of like in Greece they believe that Modern Greek pronunciation is “correct” for Ancient Greek. Well, it looks the same on paper.
I enjoy the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna, and hearing the variety of ways in which contemporary readers understand its import.
See folks? I told ya she was an expert!
There have been rumors of rare Johanna sightings in the wild. Since we went to the new platform last year, I’ve been spending 99.9% of my time reading and 0.1% posting.
Hijra is not synonymous with transgender. Hijra is a particular subculture and a closed society that requires initiation to join. Hinduism classifies hijras as tritya prakrti, ‘third gender’. Obviously, that doesn’t work for trans women, who are all about being women. In fact, there is a movement of trans people in India struggling to distinguish themselves from hijra and other “third gender” identities:
By contrast, this article, by someone advocating for hijra identity, is guilty of trans erasure. It tries to pretend that trans people don’t exist in India. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/23/why-terms-like-transgender-dont-work-for-indias-third-gender-communities/
As for trans men in India, there is no subculture/initiatory society for them corresponding to hijra. Why is that?
I was very impressed by Sita Sings the Blues and watched it twice. I was even more impressed by Seder Masochism, especially the parts about Goddess.
But then I was nauseated and repelled to learn that Nina Paley is a TERF. An outright hater of trans women. She’s dead to me now. She can be submerged under the Red Sea with Pharaoh as far as I’m concerned.