Was the Mahabharata real? - Page 9

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Kali? Where is it mentioned can you let me know learning so many new things from you all

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.

I don't say the battle didn't take place, it most likely did because there was rule of Kings and they fought wars to strengthen their Kingdom and get more power, it's very normal

My point was that Mahabharata is focused on characters of one lineage, it does not say anything about condition of people who lived there, How was the war and Yudhishtira good for the people? Wasn't it just about claims of two princes on one crown which led to war? Why would God involve himself in it?

Originally posted by: sonnet11

To humne kaunsa Egyptians ka kuch record kiya hai😆. Definitely, they too must have had their share of catastrophic wars. Just because they didn't record it, I don't think we should give our judgements. Also, it is a very ancient time we are talking about. Recently some excavations regarding Mahabharat which match certain details in the text are discovered and the suggested time of those remains is much older than the hitherto supposed 950 BCE.

Wars and conflicts are always disastrous, my friend. And war/battles/power-struggle are a common but bitter truth of this world. They have been there since stone age.

I would say, our archaelogists should resume their work.

Egyptian records are from around 3000 BC to around 1st century BC

They recorded who in Mesopotamia ascended the throne.

Archeological excavation is a must

The problem is that extremist liberals occupy higher positions in most of the media outlets, they control narratives and today the war is won on narrative. You'd see they would go by their ideology of being liberal and letting people believe what they want to instead of banging their heads with stupid ideology, if one goes away from their prescribed idea of Feminism, acceptance , secularism, they are Sexist, Racist and Communal.

They believe in shunning people rather than accepting them, since they are deep rooted in popular culture, they go with the 'IT'.

Dwaraka exists. And i think bhagat gita is real too. Because apart from Krishna narrating it to arjuna on battlefield the other krishnaa had also repeated same things in different conversations with yudhishtra. So i take these two krishnas as mere mortals who believe preached and practised in the power of humanity and human s ability to do the right thing. For me that sums up geeta

Plus if we believe in divinity then i would say. Sree and Narayan took human forms as Govind and panchali to teach what the same thing.

If the outside sources mention it, well and good. If they don't, I would never deny my own history/mythology. Even now we have enough evidences of its existence and I'd love more of them.

Also, Egypt and Mesopotamia were immediate neighbours.

Heliodorus Pillar BC 115 to 80ish was installed by the Greeks as their commander revered Krishna.

Hercules is supposed to be Balram.

India did have connections with ancient Greece as evidenced by Kal-Yavana or black Greek, Krishna's cousin who was the son of a rishi and an apsara (I take it to mean white woman).

I believe CHinese mythology also has some references but will need to post citations.

Ancient Egypt doesn't feature in MBh or Vedic litt, but blue lotus, which was likely the perfume Panchali used, was Egyptian in origin.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Like Harry Potter was written by one person, later people joined in with their numerous theories and functioning of that universe, you'd see these people telling the original author how her new book "Cursed child" has a few portion which do not go with rules of world of magic, people keep adding new and new angles to this story, there are fan fictions and fan theories like Mahabharata,

The difference is that we know the world of magic is not real also the name and work for the author is documented

Lonar lake for example, we know that it was created by an asteroid collision but people saw it and made a story about Lord Vishnu killing a giant 'Lonasur'

What makes Mahabharata different from Harry Potter and Lonar Lake theory is wide spread acceptance of this epic, it's a household name, they worship Krushna who is a part of this story. Writer was only one but fan fictions and opinions of storyteller have created this humongous Epic

There might be something real like family dispute and battles, but it's absolutely just a story

Yes, but Mahabharata is an epic which shapes Indian society even today. In case of the other books, these are not sources to study a certain period. This is the difference. HP is fantasy and it does not describe a particular age and its people. Mahabharata could include many real events because history at that period is mostly lost. This is the reason for the difference.

Originally posted by: sonnet11

Property disputes do happen so that wasn't a big deal.. but but but it is a HUGE deal when an entire populace gets involved in it or rather is forced to get involved into it and this happens when a property dispute takes the form of a civil war and this happens because the 'property dispute' is for the throne of the Kingdom. Kingship knows no kinship. But hey! People in great numbers lose their lives in this 'property dispute' and so, it is unethical to say that it is not a big deal. That way, India's partition was a 'property dispute' too and so, by some people's definition, not a big deal? And J&K ? Not a big deal? 😳

Mahabharat war was a BIG deal because people lost their lives unless losing lives in battles/wars/conflicts/riots is not a big deal.

Yes.

In addition, we must also remember that the world back then was not as big as the world today so what we are calling huge as per THOSE STANDARDS are not the same as what we consider huge today. World War was something we say HUGE today, but the Crusades are also described as huge as per there standards. In reality, Crusades were not even half as big as World Wars were.

So by huge, we must remember to see the wars as per those standards as huge. Tbh, it was just an Indian war. At that time, there were no states countries or boundaries. There were dynasties and families. How huge can a war involving Indian dynasties and kingdoms be? At most, it can be equal to European civil wars. How much do we document about those wars even?

I am not saying this is a clear proof of the Mahabharata was real. But I am only saying this should not be the only reason so assume it was simply a property dispute. That's all.

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?

This is because the story is a narration. Think about it. If you are talking about Gandhi to Gopal Krishna Gandhi today, you would not be elaborating on people and Indians in general. You would focus on what he did. Similarly, Janamejaya would definitely not be interested in those things.

Besides, this is a tale told through generations. It's not documented history so it cannot be read the way we study history today.