 on to the mythology. So, we know that Iliad was written by Homer, right? A blind guy. He wrote that there are 14,000 horses. But since we know that he could not have seen it for himself, we believe that there's some sort of historical, you know, storytelling going on there. Would you say, but nowadays all the scriptures, religious scriptures are taken as gospel? So, should we also believe that there is myth-making in Ramayana, in Mahabharata, and that taking them as gospel rather than just work of literature is wrong? I don't see anybody taking Ramayana and Mahabharata as a gospel. There are certain factions which are… No, no. They cannot, because they'll get freaked out with confusion. Because there are all kinds of people in Mahabharata, the best sort of man, the worst sort of man, in between every kind of man and woman. Is there, oh, hundred thousand characters? How can you make a gospel out of it? So, you said storytelling. I don't know if you've seen the byline of youth and truth, not the seriousness of gospel, but the playfulness of gossip, because gossip has always been reliable. No, at any time in history, nobody went by the official version. Whatever the official version came, people asked around with their friends and relatives what happened. When five people said five different things, people learned out of their wisdom to extract some truth out of the gossip. But people always relied more on the gossip than the official version, isn't it so? It's not just today, always. However, given that this gossip can lead to a transformation of this truth to an extent where it's lost forever, do you think that's troubling? See, first of all, your questioning, did it actually happen, right? So, we are saying that the same argument which you have given is the argument which is usually used these days to say that buildings which were constructed by the Mughals were actually not Mughal structures. Oh, okay. I get the point. However, that's gossip being misinterpreted completely. Now, say if you come further south, people are questioning whether Rama existed or not, okay? This is just a question of poor memory. When the entire nation has been talking about it for thousands of years, now the problem is your trust in printed word is more than the spoken word, that is the whole problem. But you must understand this is a oral culture. We always transmitted most significant things orally. You may think it's insignificant because it's not written, but anybody can write it down. People have written it down now, now it's a printed word, but now somebody questions did Rama exist or not? Not in one place, in entire culture, when everybody is talking about the same story with minor variations here and there, it could not have been just made up by all the people. So I guess his point was also by bringing in the Iliad example, the same that the war on Troy did happen. But the fact that Homer says that fourteen thousand horses were there is clearly not truth. Maybe not. Maybe Rama did exist, but other facts which are… other things… See, we are… after all Indians, we invented zero. We have certain freedom in using number of zeros. We're taking liberty with that. See, whether six, seven thousand years ago, whether hundred thousand men fought or ten thousand men fought doesn't make a difference. The way the story is said in this country is not for its facts, but for its truth. You're trying to bring out a certain truth. The fact of it whether hundred thousand men fought, ten thousand men fought, what does it matter, you don't have to manage that war today, it's over. So the important thing is what is there for me to learn from that, all right? If… if that's a question mark, we can go ahead with that. I guess that was his point itself that when you look at religious texts, as you would learn from… See, don't call them religious texts. This is nation's history. So let's say if you look at another piece of literature, you would derive learnings from it. Literature is different, history is different. Literature… literature can be fiction. History is written in a dialectical way so that it's always relevant for you. I am saying six thousand years ago whether a man existed or not, what's my problem? Unless he has something to contribute to my life today, isn't it? However if history has been written and the facts of the history are not clear. See, this is what I'm saying. The fact is like this. Suppose six thousand years ago, Rama had a wife whose name was not Sita, what's my problem? We are not questioning whether the name was… Not only the name. I'm saying, okay, he was not… his father's name was not that. It was something else. He was somebody else. What does it matter to me? Yeah, even questioning the sequence of events over here. You can. See, sequence of events also you can question. But what I'm asking is, a six thousand-year-old Rama, if it got little mixed up, it is not your problem. The problem is just this, is there something for us to get from that? That's all the thing is. Now why we are worshiping Rama in this country is, he's not a super success. He is a serial disaster if you look at it. Yes. Even today he's having real estate issues, that's why you brought this up. But it is not today alone, it's not today alone. Right from the beginning of his life, he's in trouble and trouble and trouble and trouble. See, he's a rightfully a king. He's coronated at the age of seventeen or eighteen. He marries a princess and within one or two years he's sent to the forest. They didn't go to the jungle for picnic. As some of the television serials are showing Rama Sita doing all that. No, it is a, it is a like, you know, throwing him out of the kingdom from his power and everything that itself would have shattered a man, but he settled down there. But Rama is also an insecure person who when Sita came back to him, first she sat through the fire. We will, we will come there. Don't talk. First let's kidnap her, no. See, now you're changing. See, now you're changing the sequence of things. First let's kidnap her, all right? Now these Sri Lankan people come and kidnap his wife and go away. After all, after all he is a king. If somebody steals his wife and takes her away some three thousand kilometers down south, there's no GPS to even find out where is Sri Lanka, all right? At a time like that, being a king, he could have found a local solution. There would be any number of women to marry the man. He's a king, but he goes in search of her, not with a big army, just him and his brother, like ordinary people. If a man has to walk three thousand kilometers down south, not knowing where she is, whether she's alive or dead or what's happened, then she must mean so much to him. Yes or no? Otherwise why would a man walk that distance? Now he goes there, he forms a tamil army, don't forget this. And then there is a fight, kills hundreds of people, burns down a beautiful city, gets back his wife, comes and settles down. Before this I will tell you, he goes for a year of penance in Himalayas. His brother asks, are you crazy? This man stole your wife and now you're doing penance for his death. He said, he had ten basic qualities, Ravana. Killing those nine, which were horrendous qualities, I... no penance for me, no repentance for that. But he was also a great devotee and I killed that also. So one year of penance the man goes for. This is not a... And then he settles down and his wife is pregnant, you must understand for a king, his wife is pregnant means it's not just about a child, it's a progeny for his empire and there are many things involved. No sonogram, so he doesn't know whether it's a girl or a boy or boys or girls or anything. But once again a political situation evolves where he has to send his wife to the forest which you are saying is insecurity. Not that part. So we can even begin from the first point in which after he rescues Sita, Sita has to sit through a fire to prove that she is pure. For whom? So that other people will accept her because Rama cared about how people saw him. Rama, when he came back, a random Dhobi in your kingdom said that Sita, I am not like Ram who will keep a woman in my house, who might have a child which is not mine. For this Rama sends away Sita again to the forest. That that is the insecurity you're talking about. At any point Rama wanted his people to love him. No, no, let's come to this properly. Today in our country there are many kinds of things. I'm asking you, do you want a leader for this nation who puts the people of this nation above his own family and his personal love? I'm asking you. Or do you want a Dhritrashtra at any cost my son? You want a man who puts the citizens of this country above his family. This is not just another woman for him. He went and fought a battle for her, walked 3,000 kilometers. This is not just another woman, he's living for her. But still he sends her back to the jungle when she's pregnant, knowing fully well that it could be his future for this kingdom. And he's putting, see this is not just about Adobe. This is what you're mistake, you're taking these things literally. When Adobe said what it is being said is ordinary people are talking like this. Ordinary people have no trust in the king that he's, he's just brought some woman from somewhere and he's made her our queen. Because queen is seen as a mother to the nation. We don't want such a woman as our mother, that's what they're saying. She went and lived with some man somewhere. This is what the people of those times are saying. So if the king says, I don't care what you think, I love my wife and keep her, that would be not a good king, not a good administrator. So he's putting his people above somebody that he loves very, very dearly and she's pregnant. It's not a small thing for him, it means a world. But still he sends her to the jungle. This should be bowed down to, this is why we bow down to the man. No, please say it. No, no, no, no, no, no, why he has something to say, please. So there are different types of responsibilities of you as a person. As a king, there are different responsibilities and as a human, as a family member, you have different responsibilities. Now you can't just throw away your wife and send her to a jungle. It's, it's like just objectifying her. It's not treating her like another human who's pregnant, who will need different things and have promised her different things. Well, then you're against Gautam Buddha, you're against Rama, everybody. But you need to understand this in the right context. That is, if this woman didn't mean anything to her, he wouldn't have traveled down to Sri Lanka, fought a battle and brought her back, isn't it? It was his pride about what? How can you? His pride you could have got, he could have got a hundred wives around him, if he wished, but he went for this person who means so much to him. Moving on... No, no, you must see the words that he's uttered. You must see the words he uttered about Sita, what she means to him, how he cried to Lakshmana and what he said. Actions are way more important. Why are you reading all these evil intentions in his mind? That he did not express anywhere. He did not express... With our words, we can say anything. See, as far as you are concerned, you know only what you read. You don't know anything else about his life, not either me or you, all right? So, from what you read, nowhere does it say that he was insecure. No way does it say he went for his pride. No way does it say that... No, no, everywhere it says very clearly. Let me tell you, the reason why he's worshipped today is, though life threw disasters after disasters at him, the man never became resentful, never became hateful, never became angry. He did not become a recluse either. He went about fulfilling every duty that he has to do with a personal pain and grief that he is carrying all his life. The man went about doing the best he can do for his prajna of the day. If this is being accused of being as pride and this...