let's discuss the biggest epic ever: MAHABHARAT - Page 3

The Mahabharata as it stands today is a mythological Epic. The characters and events are not real but myths.

However, that does not mean that the entire work is mere fabric of imagination or that there is no truth to it. Most mythological tales do have their roots in real stories. The Mahabharata is the world's oldest epic. It dates so far back in history that it is difficult to ascertain the accurate origins. Most likely as in with many myths it probably started out with historical narratives. Back in the day court historians would embellish tales to create heroes and villains. As time passes embellishments get more fantastical, sometimes two or more narratives get meshed together. A lot of the Mahabharata is factual like the historic places, the kingdoms and geographies. As Genie said many places have been found.

Mahabharata is somewhat similar to Iliad and Odysseus. Homer's works are fantastical tales with Gods, heroes, unreal creatures like sirens etc. However, the world knows that the Trojan war did take place. The ruins of Troy have been found. The war has been written of in many histories. Since the Mahabharata is significantly older, it is harder to discover the histories. Even Troy was not found till 1992 or something.

Another thing to note is that even something mundane can be written in a fantastical manner. "Our enemies have tamed the sky. They soar high on massive winged dragons, breathing fire, unfurling a furious scourge of fire and brimstone on the land below. They descended in stealth in the dark of the night and by the crack of dawn, all that is left is black dust of civilization razed to the ground. Nothing can stop the wrath of these beasts. The dragons would soon spell doom and bring our mighty empire crashing down to its knees". That is just a hyper-imaginative version of the firebombing of Dresden in WWII.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The Mahabharata as it stands today is a mythological Epic. The characters and events are not real but myths.

However, that does not mean that the entire work is mere fabric of imagination or that there is no truth to it. Most mythological tales do have their roots in real stories. The Mahabharata is the world's oldest epic. It dates so far back in history that it is difficult to ascertain the accurate origins. Most likely as in with many myths it probably started out with historical narratives. Back in the day court historians would embellish tales to create heroes and villains. As time passes embellishments get more fantastical, sometimes two or more narratives get meshed together. A lot of the Mahabharata is factual like the historic places, the kingdoms and geographies. As Genie said many places have been found.

Mahabharata is somewhat similar to Iliad and Odysseus. Homer's works are fantastical tales with Gods, heroes, unreal creatures like sirens etc. However, the world knows that the Trojan war did take place. The ruins of Troy have been found. The war has been written of in many histories. Since the Mahabharata is significantly older, it is harder to discover the histories. Even Troy was not found till 1992 or something.

Another thing to note is that even something mundane can be written in a fantastical manner. "Our enemies have tamed the sky. They soar high on massive winged dragons, breathing fire, unfurling a furious scourge of fire and brimstone on the land below. They descended in stealth in the dark of the night and by the crack of dawn, all that is left is black dust of civilization razed to the ground. Nothing can stop the wrath of these beasts. The dragons would soon spell doom and bring our mighty empire crashing down to its knees". That is just a hyper-imaginative version of the firebombing of Dresden in WWII.

Originally posted by: mr.ass

not myths but exaggerated historical facts.. same as ramayana... ravana never had 10 heads LOL

Originally posted by: LeadNitrate

zephs, btw I realised, there is serious logical phallacy in your argument.

You say Krishna is God and then you say he is sycophant to his family#

How is it posssible

Are but aren't gods known to be weird in that sense.. always running to save devas from asuras..

I don't understand why was Indra not dethroned over centuries with his never changing attitude ( no matter which era) 😆

How, he, who is one of the Holy trio, be partial to one set of mortals over others? Filial , familial bonding means nothing to him

:) the problem is.. those mortals are never mortals..even they end up being sons/daughter/avtars of some dev or some connection or the other..

Its one political playground.. u were right in the beginning 😊

So being a God, if he chooses a side, that should mean that side had something going for them?

Because , them despite being family, were not forgiven for their dyut sabha failure by him

T, i am confused over one thing.. people accept grey shades logic for pandavas ( for that matter any hero in any story) .. but then why do we outright condemn the so called villain of the story.. instead of giving him a benefit of doubt.. using the same scale of grey shades.. trying to analyze the good and bad.. a lot of people outright call that side 'EVIL'..

But i have to give it to Vyasa.. the issues raised in this story are valid even today - women abuse, teen pregnancy, scienctific advancements, pol science...

I think i view it as this one big throne war.. and there was one main actor all along.. our trio... else maybe if bhism wasn't stupid enough to get his father married..we wouldn't have had pandavas and kauravas to begin with 😃

or better if they had stopped ganga from killing the first born itself

Originally posted by: enigmatic_zephy

Are but aren't gods known to be weird in that sense.. always running to save devas from asuras..

But aren't these the same Gods who give all the "vardaan" and power to the asuras at the first place. Take Shiva and Brahma , they give out whatever the asuras ask. The problem is they are never content with what they have and they misuse the power , hence God in the form of Vishnu arrives to restore the balance.

I don't understand why was Indra not dethroned over centuries with his never changing attitude ( no matter which era) 😆

He has been dethroned , replaced and punished equally. They have a system which replaces Indra after a set number of years. He has lost his kingdom multiple times . So its not like one guy ruling the fort.

How, he, who is one of the Holy trio, be partial to one set of mortals over others? Filial , familial bonding means nothing to him

:) the problem is.. those mortals are never mortals..even they end up being sons/daughter/avtars of some dev or some connection or the other..

Aren't we all part of one energy source. As far as the tales are concerned , its simply because these are the popular ones. I am sure there are enough texts which we don't bother reading.

T, i am confused over one thing.. people accept grey shades logic for pandavas ( for that matter any hero in any story) .. but then why do we outright condemn the so called villain of the story.. instead of giving him a benefit of doubt.. using the same scale of grey shades.. trying to analyze the good and bad.. a lot of people outright call that side 'EVIL'..

Take this , there is no hero in MB including Pandavas. Nor is there a villain . Infact I personally feel people outright reject Pandavas as some privileged lords and consider them white , hence the pedestal when nowhere in any text it is mentioned as such. There is never a discourse on the humane side of Pandavas - why? why the vanilla treatment. Perhaps its because we don't think it is possible to stuck to our morals even when so much wrong is happening. Hence say a Karna waverring from righteousness appeals more.

Tv translations and recent books , love to polarize it because they sell it as just a "good" vs evil battle.

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Like I mentioned, Krishna himself states that the to defeat evil, at times it becomes essential to flirt with the darkness . To decide on right side of dharma , we have to resort towards the intent , not wartime actions. He concedes and accepts of using "adharma" ways during war to achieve and establish the righteousness . The end justifies the means. During war (adharma) the means won't be counted for - its the pre-war actions and intent of the moment , that matters.

He might be God's avtaar but at that time he was human with better perspective of things , he had to abide by the nature rules that he has created. This MB was not about him but about the humans and how they control their emotions. Like every other person, Krishna too paid the price of his unfair tactics in the war, his whole sect was destroyed. but he accepted it because he knew war of MB was important. He inspite of being God himself , had to face the wheels of justice.

Lets discuss the treacherous actions too, it would be interesting to see Krishna's roadmap.

Though interesting to see , Krishna's wartime strategy is usually highly ranked , pretty much there with Kautilya and SunTzu. Like they say war itself is wrong and hence we cannot have a normal course of dharma applied to it.

Originally posted by: charminggenie