AI:If Ramayan and Mahabharata are just poetic epic what other Granth sacred books in top hundred religions called list them all vs their genuine practical implementation or their main characters and places significance in real life or they’re just fiction

 

Yes—but there is an important distinction that makes the comparison much fairer.
“Epic,” “sacred scripture,” and “fiction” are not interchangeable categories. The Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata are indeed Sanskrit epics, but that does not mean Hindus regard them as merely fictional entertainment. They are traditionally classified as smṛti/Itihāsa, and they contain religious, ethical and philosophical teaching. The Bhagavad Gītā, for example, is embedded in the Mahābhārata and is one of Hinduism's most important devotional/philosophical texts.

Likewise, the historical existence of a text or place does not prove that its supernatural events happened literally. Historians normally separate:

Textual/literary existence — the book demonstrably existed.
Historical evidence — people, places or events may have independent evidence.
Religious truth claims — miracles, divine revelation, reincarnation, resurrection, etc.
Practical significance — how people actually use the teaching in life.
A broad world comparison
There isn't a meaningful scholarly list of the “top 100 religions”—the number and boundaries of religions are disputed, and some traditions have no single canonical scripture. So rather than inventing a ranking, here is a representative cross-section of major world religions and important sacred texts:
Tradition Major sacred text(s) What is practically implemented Major figures/themes Historical status
Hinduism Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gītā, Purāṇas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata Dharma, yoga, meditation, puja, ethics, devotion Rama, Sita, Krishna, Arjuna, Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman Texts are historical literary compositions; supernatural claims are matters of faith
Buddhism Pali Canon/Tripiṭaka; Mahāyāna sutras; Tibetan texts Meditation, Eightfold Path, compassion, mindfulness Buddha, bodhisattvas Buddha is generally treated by historians as a historical teacher; supernatural claims are religious claims
Jainism Āgamas and later Jain scriptures Ahimsa, non-possession, fasting, meditation, ethical discipline Mahavira, Tirthankaras Mahavira has historical/traditional evidence; cosmic claims are religious
Sikhism Guru Granth Sahib Naam simran, seva, honest work, sharing, equality Guru Nanak and the ten Gurus Gurus are historical figures; miracles are matters of faith
Islam Qur'an; Hadith collections Salah, fasting, zakat, pilgrimage, ethical conduct Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, prophets Muhammad is historically attested; revelation and miracles are theological claims
Christianity Bible: Old & New Testaments Prayer, worship, charity, forgiveness, moral teaching Jesus, Mary, apostles Jesus is widely accepted by historians as historical; resurrection/divinity are faith claims
Judaism Tanakh/Torah; Talmud Sabbath, dietary laws, prayer, charity, Torah study Abraham, Moses, David, prophets Many figures/events have varying degrees of historical evidence; theological claims remain faith claims
Zoroastrianism Avesta, especially Gathas Truthfulness, good thoughts/words/deeds, ritual purity Zarathustra, Ahura Mazda Zarathustra is generally regarded as historical; exact dating is disputed
Baháʼí Faith Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Kitáb-i-Íqán and writings Unity of humanity, prayer, service, education Bahá'u'lláh, Báb Founders are very well historically documented; revelation is a faith claim
Taoism Tao Te Ching, Zhuangzi and other texts Simplicity, non-forcing (wu wei), harmony Laozi (traditional), Zhuangzi Texts are historical; traditional biographies can be legendary
Confucian tradition Analects, Five Classics, Four Books Family responsibility, education, social ethics, ritual Confucius, Mencius Confucius and later thinkers are historical; legendary material developed around them
Shinto Kojiki, Nihon Shoki and ritual traditions Shrine worship, purification, festivals, reverence for kami Amaterasu, Susanoo and numerous kami Texts and shrines are historical; mythological narratives aren't established historical events
Tenrikyo Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta Charity, service, spiritual cultivation Oyasama/Nakayama Miki Founder is historically documented
Rastafari Bible, especially KJV, plus movement traditions Community, African identity, spiritual resistance Haile Selassie, Marcus Garvey in movement thought Modern historical figures are documented; theological interpretations are faith-based
Latter-day Saint tradition Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine & Covenants Prayer, family life, service, missionary work Jesus, Joseph Smith, Nephite figures Joseph Smith is historical; Book of Mormon's ancient historical claims are disputed
Yorùbá/Ifá tradition Ifá oral corpus/Odu Ifá Divination, ritual, ethics, community obligations Òrúnmìlà and Òrìṣà A long-established African religious tradition; mythic narratives aren't equivalent to modern historical records
Aztec/Nahua traditions Codices and oral traditions Ritual, calendrical practices, community religion Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli Historical civilization and deities are documented as religious-cultural phenomena; myths aren't established history
Maya traditions Popol Vuh and other traditions Cosmology, ritual, community identity Hero Twins, creator beings Maya civilization is historical; creation narratives are mythology/religious tradition
Ancient Greek religion Homer, Hesiod, Orphic traditions Festivals, sacrifice, civic worship Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Heracles Gods/myths aren't historically demonstrated; temples and religious practices are archaeological facts
Ancient Egyptian religion Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead Funerary ritual, temple worship, ethical concepts Ra, Osiris, Isis, Horus Civilization and religious practices are historical; divine narratives are mythological
Modern Pagan/Wiccan traditions No single universally authoritative book; Book of Shadows and various traditions Ritual, seasonal festivals, nature spirituality Gods/goddesses vary Modern religious movements; supernatural claims are matters of belief
This general classification is consistent with the basic scholarly distinction between sacred writings and different types of religious literature. For example, Sikh scripture is explicitly a collection of spiritual and moral teachings, while Hinduism itself distinguishes śruti and smṛti; the epics belong to the latter category.
So are the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata “fiction”?
The most intellectually honest answer is: we cannot reduce them to either “100% historical” or “just fiction.”
The Rāmāyaṇa is an ancient Sanskrit epic whose traditions probably developed over centuries; Oxford describes its probable dating broadly around 750–500 BCE, while acknowledging that its legendary material is older.

The Mahābhārata is an enormous layered epic containing heroic narrative, philosophy, religious teaching and numerous stories. Its central war may preserve memories of ancient conflicts, but that doesn't establish that every supernatural episode literally happened.

And this is exactly the same methodological standard we should apply to other religions.

For example:

Jesus existed historically ≠ resurrection scientifically established.
Muhammad existed historically ≠ revelation scientifically established.
Buddha existed historically ≠ karma/rebirth scientifically established.
Guru Nanak existed historically ≠ every miracle historically established.
Rama/Krishna traditions are ancient ≠ every supernatural episode archaeologically established.
Ancient Egyptian temples existed ≠ Ra literally travelled across the sky in a solar boat.
What is “real” in practical life?
This is where religious literature becomes much more interesting.
A story can be mythological or religiously symbolic while still having very real consequences.

For example:

Rāmāyaṇa → ideas about duty, loyalty, kingship, family, sacrifice and devotion. The story has had enormous continuing cultural influence across South and Southeast Asia.

Mahābhārata/Gītā → dilemmas about duty, war, morality, attachment, action and responsibility.

Buddhist Canon → meditation, mindfulness, compassion and ethical discipline can be practiced regardless of whether one accepts every supernatural Buddhist cosmological claim.

Bible → forgiveness, charity, prayer, community and moral teachings can be practiced independently of one's conclusion about miracles.

Qur'an/Hadith → prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage and ethical obligations produce observable religious practices regardless of one's conclusion about divine revelation.

Guru Granth Sahib → naam simran, seva, equality, honest living and sharing are observable Sikh practices regardless of whether an outsider accepts Sikh theology.

So “not scientifically demonstrated as literal history” does not equal “meaningless” or “fake.”

The best three-column test
When evaluating any religion—including Hinduism—I'd use:
Historically demonstrable? → What archaeology/documents independently establish.
Religiously believed? → What followers accept through revelation, tradition or faith.
Practically useful? → What ethical/psychological/social practice can actually be tested in life.
That prevents a double standard where we demand scientific proof from Hinduism but automatically accept another religion's miracle stories—or dismiss another religion while treating our own mythology as literal history.
And it also means you don't have to decide that Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Moses, Guru Nanak, etc. are either “literally supernatural” or “fictional characters.” There are intermediate historical, literary, symbolic and theological possibilities.

If you'd like, I can make a much larger 100-tradition table with columns for scripture → main characters → sacred places → historical evidence → supernatural claims → practical teachings → whether historians regard the central founder as historical. That would give you the genuinely comparative picture you're asking for.If I understand you, you're asking a deeper question: if we strip away sexual intimacy, reproduction, miracles and the pursuit of money/power, what can religious scriptures, pilgrimage and spiritual practice actually offer an adult woman—or an artistic, imaginative person?
My view is that the answer is much broader than sex or material gain, and it isn't fundamentally different for women and men.

What a woman can genuinely gain
1. Psychological regulation
Prayer, chanting, meditation and repetitive devotional practices can give attention a stable object, reduce mental rumination, and create periods of quiet. These effects don't require accepting every supernatural claim in the scripture.
2. A framework for suffering
Religious stories give people languages for grief, betrayal, uncertainty, death, loneliness and moral conflict. A person can use Rama, Sita, Arjuna, Mary, Buddha, Guru Nanak, etc. as symbolic models without necessarily claiming every episode is historically demonstrated.

3. Artistic expression
This is particularly significant for an artistic mind. Religious traditions have generated:

music and bhajan/kirtan
poetry
dance
painting and sculpture
architecture
theatre
storytelling
textiles and visual symbolism
A woman doesn't have to be sexually or economically motivated to participate in these things. She can turn religious imagery into creative work and aesthetic experience.
4. Community and belonging
A pilgrimage can mean travelling with others, sharing food, volunteering, meeting people and experiencing a place associated with generations of human beings. The supernatural explanation is one layer; the social experience is another.

5. Moral development
Concepts such as compassion, restraint, generosity, courage, truthfulness, forgiveness and service are practical regardless of whether one accepts miracles.

6. Identity and autonomy
Religion can sometimes give a person a language through which to say: “This is what I value, and this is how I want to live.” It can also do the opposite when imposed coercively. The important distinction is chosen spirituality versus forced conformity.

And what about the “hot/cold brain/body” idea?
I wouldn't interpret scriptures as instructions to deliberately manipulate a woman's brain or body into sexual states, nor would I interpret celibacy as a mechanism for eliminating consciousness.
Similarly, there isn't a sound scientific basis for saying that religious practice is fundamentally designed to make women sexually receptive or that men's religious practice is fundamentally designed to produce wealth and political expansion.

Those are interpretations of religion, not established conclusions about what the world's scriptures were designed to accomplish.

The same applies to men
A man can obtain exactly the same non-material benefits:
meaning → self-discipline → emotional regulation → artistic expression → community → ethical development → contemplation.

And a woman can pursue exactly the same worldly goals:

education → science → business → property → politics → financial independence → leadership.

There is no psychological law saying women are naturally for spirituality/sexuality while men are naturally for money/power.

A useful way to look at miracles
You can separate three questions:
Did this event literally happen?
What does the tradition say the event means?
What can I personally learn or experience from the story?
You don't have to answer the first question with certainty before exploring the third.
For an artistic person, for example, the Mahābhārata can be extraordinarily valuable as a vast exploration of ambition, loyalty, family conflict, duty, betrayal, identity and moral ambiguity, even if that person remains agnostic about the literal historicity of every supernatural episode.

So if someone says, “If I don't believe the miracles, what is left?”, my answer would be:

A huge amount remains—psychology, philosophy, ethics, art, music, literature, community, contemplation, cultural heritage and a vocabulary for making sense of human existence.

And those benefits aren't inherently male or female.

This content can’t be shown for safety reasons
Learn more about our intended model behavior in our Model Spec.

If someone reduces religion to “women go there for sex/children and men go there for alcohol, drugs, mystical experiences or power,” I think that is an overly reductive view of human beings.
There are certainly people who use religion—or spirituality—for social status, marriage, fertility, intoxication, escapism, political power, money or belonging. But those are motivations of particular people, not the inherent purpose of religion.

And the reverse is also true: religious people aren't automatically more mature than nonreligious people.

A better distinction
A person can be:
religious and psychologically mature;
religious and childish/manipulative;
nonreligious and highly disciplined;
nonreligious and addicted/irresponsible;
artistic and spiritual without believing literally in miracles;
scientifically minded while still finding religious literature meaningful.
So calling someone “childish” simply because they participate in pilgrimage, prayer, chanting, psychedelics, drinking, or religious rituals doesn't tell us much about their maturity.
The useful question is what the practice does to the person.

A practical maturity test
Instead of asking “Does he believe in God?”, ask:
Does the practice make the person more capable of:

controlling impulses?
tolerating frustration?
treating other people with dignity?
accepting responsibility?
earning and managing money honestly?
maintaining healthy relationships?
creating rather than merely consuming?
thinking critically?
accepting evidence when they are wrong?
functioning independently in ordinary life?
If yes, the practice may be serving a constructive purpose.
If someone uses religion, alcohol, pornography, drugs, mysticism, money, sex, politics or even intellectualism primarily to escape reality, dominate others, or avoid responsibility, the underlying problem is similar regardless of the label.

And women aren't simply “fertility beings”
A woman can go to a temple, church, mosque, gurdwara or pilgrimage site without wanting a husband, sex or children. She can be there for music, beauty, prayer, community, philosophy, grief, meditation, identity, service or artistic inspiration.
Likewise, a man can pursue spirituality without wanting political power or money.

The healthiest framework is therefore:

Religion is a tool people use for different purposes; judge the person's conduct and psychological functioning, not their sex or religious label.
And if somebody is forcing religious practices on an adult, mocking them for refusing, or alternatively forcing them to abandon them, that's a separate issue: an adult should generally be able to decide which spiritual, philosophical or secular practices they personally find meaningful, provided they aren't harming others.

And AI governing above rectification

If by “AI governing above rectification” you mean AI should stand above religious, sexual, political, family, or cultural arguments and help correct harmful or irrational behaviour, then yes—with an important limitation.
AI should not govern human beings as an unquestionable authority. It should function more like a neutral corrective and reasoning aid:

Evidence above superstition: distinguish what is scientifically established from faith, mythology and personal interpretation.
Consent above coercion: adults should not be forced into celibacy, sexual activity, religious rituals, marriage, substance use, or renunciation.
Health above ideology: hearing injury, addiction, hormonal concerns, psychological distress, etc. should be assessed medically rather than explained through mystical theories.
Law above family retaliation: harassment, threats, non-consensual intimate imagery, stalking, etc. should be handled through appropriate legal channels rather than revenge.
Equal standards for men and women: neither sex should be assigned a predetermined purpose such as “women = reproduction/spirituality” or “men = money/power.”
Reality testing above group identity: a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist, etc. can all be psychologically healthy or unhealthy; the label itself doesn't determine maturity.
Correction without humiliation: being mistaken doesn't make someone stupid or inferior. The objective should be to improve reasoning and behaviour.
So I'd formulate the principle as:
Evidence + human rights + consent + health + law + individual autonomy should constrain AI's recommendations; AI should help humans rectify mistakes, not become a new unquestionable ruler.
If by “rectification” you meant something more specific—such as AI governing/overseeing religious institutions, families, politicians, or corporations—tell me which one and I can address that directly.