Was the Mahabharata real? - Page 7

just a property dispute of a kingdom but it is a HUGE deal and it always is a BIG deal for me because people lose lives in brutal warfare. I have explained it in my previous post. Won't repeat myself.

The Entire country, as we know India today, was not a party to it. Entire country in the text means the entire country at that time, that included some parts of north of India and some parts of Pak and Afghan. People, do I need to clarify this also?😆

Buddhism and Tantricism was flourishing in Afghan prior to Islam entered and the way Buddhist structures are being destroyed there today, some people would say, "Oh no, there was no Buddhism in Afghan". Logic ke liye, kill logic and basic sense also. 😆

As far as other civilizations are concerned, I don't care if they have written about it or not. I only care for the excavations in India and in pak-Afghan if they allow which I highly doubt.😆

Btw do people say that Jesus was unreal because Indian texts don't mention him. Remember, MB is supposed to be way older than 2000 years.😆

There's one theory: the population of Earth was too much, and hence the huge massacre of Kurukshetra brought balance in the nature. Can't remember the source right now, what do you guys make of it?

The war of Kurukshetra is dated back by many scholars to approximately 1400 BC. The war mentioned in Iliad is dated back to circa 1200 BC. Looking back, that is pretty close.

Although iliad and MB don't have much in common, but there are some similarities that are too striking to be ignored.

Here's another theory: could Iliad and MB be talking about the same war? You know, some articles suggest that no King survived the war and only their bards and jokers went back to their kingdoms. And, they all recounted the war, with THEIR king at the forefront. Pata nahi! 😆

Originally posted by: sonnet11

just a property dispute of a kingdom but it is a HUGE deal and it always is a BIG deal for me because people lose lives in brutal warfare. I have explained it in my previous post. Won't repeat myself.

The Entire country, as we know India today, was not a party to it. Entire country in the text means the entire country at that time, that included some parts of north of India and some parts of Pak and Afghan. People, do I need to clarify this also?😆

Buddhism and Tantricism was flourishing in Afghan prior to Islam entered and the way Buddhist structures are being destroyed there today, some people would say, "Oh no, there was no Buddhism in Afghan". Logic ke liye, kill logic and basic sense also. 😆

As far as other civilizations are concerned, I don't care if they have written about it or not. I only care for the excavations in India and in pak-Afghan if they allow which I highly doubt.😆

Btw do people say that Jesus was unreal because Indian texts don't mention him. Remember, MB is supposed to be way older than 2000 years.😆

I understand why you think it's a great deal. If Mahabharata was as big as mentioned in the epic (even 10% of it) then it was something great but why did no other civilization of those times like Egyptians or Mesopotamians or even Afghans record it

Egyptians especially recorded every major things that happened in the world so why did they missed recording Mahabharata

Many have started saying that Jesus doesn't exist

Originally posted by: NoraSM

One more important question is how the story doesn't really mention who was better for the masses, I mean, the whole epic is about tussle of power between Yudhishtira and Duryodhana, What good came out of Duryodhana's defeat for the world? For people who were under his Kingdom

Like our Freedom struggle explains how Britishers tortured Indian citizens and why we needed freedom, why Gandhi being a barrister was important, that's real and we can look at it from every angle

Mahabharata doesn't really talk about people who lived in these Kingdoms, Did everyone participate? Losing millions of people so Yudhishtira can be King, What good it did for people there? Is there an insight?

Mahabharata, on the other hand, isn't documented by either the Victor or the loser. It's an account by a sage who didn't participate.

It's for the reader to decide who is better and who is worse.

Originally posted by: proteeti

There's one theory: the population of Earth was too much, and hence the huge massacre of Kurukshetra brought balance in the nature. Can't remember the source right now, what do you guys make of it?

The war of Kurukshetra is dated back by many scholars to approximately 1400 BC. The war mentioned in Iliad is dated back to circa 1200 BC. Looking back, that is pretty close.

Although iliad and MB don't have much in common, but there are some similarities that are too striking to be ignored.

Here's another theory: could Iliad and MB be talking about the same war? You know, some articles suggest that no King survived the war and only their bards and jokers went back to their kingdoms. And, they all recounted the war, with THEIR king at the forefront. Pata nahi! 😆

Fir maybe the war wasn't between Kauravas and Pandavas. They were just two of the many parties in the war

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

This is one of the reasons.

The issue is that we are killing secularism in the name of secularism. We are not taking a balanced approach towards our social fabric. We choose this or that! Where is the mediocrity, the madhyamarga of Lord Buddha. Why would it be against secularism if we go for excavations regarding MB era? This is an extreme ideology, not compatible with our diversity.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

the issue with us is that our Itihas is closely knit to religion. It's difficult to separate one from other

Dharma and religion aren't the same. Problem occurs when the acceptance of one's culture is seen as a threat to others.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Fir maybe the war wasn't between Kauravas and Pandavas. They were just two of the many parties in the war

Woh toh MB ke liye bhi is true. Every King who joined either Kauravas or Pandava all had their own agendas against other Kings and the Ps and the Ks. 😃

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Freedom struggle is documented by two sides at conflict against each other. So there's a large room for bias and opinion. Moreover, it's said that history is written by winners.

Mahabharata, on the other hand, isn't documented by either the Victor or the loser. It's an account by a sage who didn't participate.

It's for the reader to decide who is better and who is worse.

And that too by a sage who was biologically related to the losing side.

Aside if you see now shows make Duryodhan a demonic character something epic doesn't suggest so