Im not sure ill be able to tackle all the points that you've put forward in your post
. Im trying to erect my standpoint on this view.
I completely agree with your view that Hinduism is in need of a change. But not with your definition of its perception and its age-long cliched methods to answer questions, by abstaining to answer them through highly non-common sensical jargon of higher truths and unquestionable axioms.
I definitely take the stand against viewing Hinduism as a religion which it definitely is not. Its a way of life, as is stressed regularly. Lets not get into the talk propogated by the right-wing fundamentalists regarding the corruption of the culture and tradition; as adapting to changes and assimilation of changes into itself has been one of the strong points of Hinduism.
Viewing epics as religious text is also something i wouldn't ascribe to. As told, epics are a human-centric pieces of literature handed down over the centuries. They are legends which may or might not be true. As for all the human characters in these epics that of Rama, Sita, Krishna,Yudhishtira etc are mired with their own faults and greatnesses.
Definitely as times change many parameters change on which we are looking or even percieving their characters.We dont look at the world at not what it actually is, but by actually what we are. Every one of us looks at the world through his own personal prism. Isnt it? So dont the epics make sense when seen in the context that they were written.
As for Yudhistira, when he utters the cry 'Aswatthaama Hathaha...[Kunjaraha]', his chariot falls to the ground [till then it moves a good one feet above the ground, placing him at a pedestal], as a punishment for having uttered a lie. And Yudhistira, goes to Hell after his death, for that one lie he spoke. I still dont know, but all the characters had their faults and negatives and were treated accordingly as normal humans. The reason in telling the epics was to take the positives. To conduct a life and learn from their mistakes.
Well, im not in an ability to comment on the character of Rama to send his pregnant wife to the jungle. As is the case of karma, many forces come into play here which would make the analysis of an episode a simple alienated method to do so.
As for the sympathising with the victimiser, lets get into more details, shall we? Who was the one to want to have the golden deer? Who was the one to cross the line, inspite of being asked not to? Prolly, my idea of professionalism have gone a step too far to equate both the cases. Yes, i do accept the point that maybe Rama going to jungle would have been a more noble gesture...but can a king forget his duty to his people for more personal reasons?
I still dont understand the episodic view that you say needs to be taken for the epic. How can a window shape your own world? Isnt it like shutting down one of your senses and understanding that all the perceptions that would be felt by that sense dont exist? For a blind, colors dont exist, if an episodic quality is the way to percieve the epics.
Every event that happens isnt just an episodic cause-and-effect relationship, isnt it? The riots of 1984 against Sikhs were in effect in retaliation to the assassination of Mrs.Gandhi by her bodyguards. But why was that? Because she had desanctified their Holy Shrine when Sant Bhindranwala and his consorts were killed during 'Operation Bluestar'. And why was that? Wasnt she the one who actually gave oil to the fire to the movement begun by Bhindranwala as a method to subjugate against Sant Longowal and Mr Parkash Singh Badal?
History or epics are not disconnected pieces of literature. They are lessons that need to be learnt from them.This is where the essense has been lost.