Yes.
Aesop's fables has got god more similarities. I agree with TKSji's opinion:
I am very thrilled by Sangomsji's intellectual arguments, which shake the very core of our (mis) understanding about religion.
I do not believe that Ramayana is Historical or religious document. It is Novel based on historical locations. There might be some moral values which were appropriate for that place and time. Some of those values have some meaning even today.
Many reputed scholars have opined in the past that most probably Valmiki (whosoever he might have been) composed the story of Rama in Sanskrit and that too in a poetical metre "anuShTup" which was new at that time of Valmiki. This Ramacharitham or story of Rama was subsequently grabbed by our religionists (read, brahmin scholars) and they added the bAlakANDa and uttarakANDa according to their own imaginations with a view to making Rama look like divine and they succesfully brainwashed our vast millions of gullible, illiterate people into believing what they wanted, viz., Rama was an avatar of Vishnu.
I believe that most probably, the abovesaid adaptation exercise happened after the time of Ashoka and the acme of buddhism because
यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४
yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |
stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra vidhhi |
tasmāddhi yaḥ śaṅkyatamaḥ prajānām |
na nāsti kenābhimukho budhaḥ syāt 2-109-34
Here, Rama tells jAbAli, a nastika, after hearing his arguments as to why Rama should ascend the throne and not go forward to fulfil the promise made by his father, Dasaratha, to Kaikeyi. The verse clearly means that a buddhist should be treated on par with a thief (yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |). However our clever translators find out convoluted methods of translating this so that the aforesaid simple and clear meaning does not circulate. One such can be found here.
Hence, Valmiki Ramayana as we know it today, has been given its present contours only after Ashoka's time, although we cannot definitely say whether or not some folk tale on one Rama existed from time immemorial and people shared it by word of mouth or folk songs, etc.
However, there are irrefutable internal evidences in the present forms of the Valmiki Ramayana — the Bombay and the Bengal text to show that VR has been altered very much. (It is likely that the scribes who were charged with these projects did not compare notes and nobody cared to ensure that the whole humungous poem was brilliantly uniform, without incongruities.)
My limited effort, in this thread, was only to show that Rama does not come out as a maryAdApuruSha for us in this 21st. century A.D., to follow completely. For instance, from the modern, feminist pov there is this:
Sita warns Rama that he will be blamed in all ages for his rejection of his ‘lawfulloyal wife’ which is mentioned in K.SrinivasaIyengar’s ‘‘Sitayana:Sita’s Fire’’ as,
‘ will in all future time set the patternof vulgar, selfish, prideful,one-sided, pitiless desecrationofsupportless womankind’.(Sitayana:Sita’s Fire,p.171)
Secondly, we have a much respected character from itihasa, Yudhishtira who has said, unequivocally,
तर्कोऽप्रतिष्ठ: श्रुतयॊ विभिन्नाःनैकोऋषिर्यस्यवचः प्रमाणम्धर्मस्य तत्वं निहितं गुहायाम्महाजनॊ यॆनगतस्सपन्थाः
tarko:'pratiṣṭha: śrutayo vibhinnāḥnaikoṛṣiryasyavacaḥ pramāṇamdharmasya tatvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyāmmahājano yenagatassapanthāḥ
(Logic cannot apply to it - Dharma -, the vedas have differibg views on it, there is no single rishi who is the authority on Dharma; the way of Dharma is really secret and unknowable; we can only follow the great persons in our lives.)
Rama could very well have been the example to be followed in those olden days of Valmiki, but it is worth studying VR in depth and finding out how far Rama conforms to an ideal man for today.
