Although Ramayan and Mahabharat are historical, are they most likely paraboles which have spiritual meanings attached to them? (A ‘parabole’ is a ‘casting/setting side by side’—using Latin-derived morphs an ‘apposition’ or ‘adjacency’. In rhetoric, it is a comparison, which sets two terms side-by-side; later it denotes a fiction which is ‘set beside’ and parallels (‘lies next to’) reality.) P.S. A humble request can people please not edit my question as it chances the meaning? I meant parabole and not parable. Thank you.

  • 4
    Both historical and metaphor.
    – The Destroyer
    Nov 11 '17 at 16:34
  • Yes. Each Story in our Scriptures are like parables. Like, Krishna preaching Arjuna on Kurukshetra can be understood as God telling the soul what to do in this illusionary world. Durga killed Mahishasura is like divinity which takes over the bad qualities. All Scriptures have divine meaning associated.
    – user9392
    Nov 11 '17 at 16:40
  • 100 percent history.
    – Rama27
    Nov 11 '17 at 17:02
  • @NogShine Yes. I am sorry. Even I was feeling it is completely inappropriate to used a word like ignorant, but seeing people downvote without even reading the question, I did that. Would check it next time onwards. Thanks for your words. ;)
    – user9392
    Nov 11 '17 at 17:22
  • This brings me to a related question as to why all intelligent people unquestioningly believe that Sita was abandoned based on rumours and Vanavas is punishement? Entire story is a parabole with double layered meanings.Even in their real life they were rulers not village fools to obey 'mere' servants like dhobi and Manthara. Nov 14 '17 at 17:41

Swami Vivekananda explained the life cycle of people by giving the example of Ramayana.

Complete Works/Volume 5/Sayings and Utterances:

Shri Râma was the Paramâtman and that Sitâ was the Jivâtman, and each man's or woman's body was the Lanka (Ceylon). The Jivatman which was enclosed in the body, or captured in the island of Lankâ, always desired to be in affinity with the Paramatman, or Shri Rama. But the Râkshasas would not allow it, and Rakshasas represented certain traits of character. For instance, Vibhishana represented Sattva Guna; Râvana, Rajas; and Kumbhakarna, Tamas. Sattva Guna means goodness; Rajas means lust and passions, and Tamas darkness, stupor, avarice, malice, and its concomitants. These Gunas keep back Sita, or Jivatman, which is in the body, or Lanka, from joining Paramatman, or Rama. Sita, thus imprisoned and trying to unite with her Lord, receives a visit from Hanumân, the Guru or divine teacher, who shows her the Lord's ring, which is Brahma-Jnâna, the supreme wisdom that destroys all illusions; and thus Sita finds the way to be at one with Shri Rama, or, in other words, the Jivatman finds itself one with the Paramatman.


This question's answer might not have citations or quotations. It is purely based on the belief of the individual. Although the stories had Avatars as protagonists, they calculated their life perfectly according to Dharmic standards and actions which would leave a meaningful imprint or lessons for people to follow. An avatar's actions are termed Leelas. Leelas have multiple spiritual meanings attached to them, for any type of Sadhaka. But considering the literal aspect, it wouldn't be a harm to believe either. Personally I believe they did happen.

  • Dude, sleep fgs!
    – user9969
    Nov 11 '17 at 16:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .