Unluckiest Character in Mahabharat? - Page 9

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Actually my personal favourite character is Arjun, and that's because I find him very relatable and human. (All of the characters have human traits in them of course, just Arjun seems more relatable though he is a hero). But that does not mean I judge him from today's terms. If we look at some things they did, they're wrong today. But what is important is, why they did it and what intentions they bore.

That's the thesis anti thesis difference between Arjun/Yudhishthir and Karna/Duryodhan. All made mistakes but if we look at the intentions, their reasons and most importantly their characterization, we know why the difference.

Today there's a trend of celebrating Duryodhan, Karna and their likes while picking faults of Pandavas. I am not saying all Pandavs were flawless, but the very fact that we have to cherry pick their flaws and dig for good traits in others prove that this culture of celebrating them is faulty. 😆

See Mahabharata is a very humanly epic unlike Ramayana where everyone is better than best. Even bad characters have great qualities. They have 60% bad qualities and 40% good qualities and forget about the good characters, you can't find iota of mistake in them.

Mahabharata is different

Here the good people have 70% good qualities and 30% while the bad ones (including Duryodhan) have 80% bad and 20% good qualities. This makes the epic more reliable and relatable to me than Ramayana

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

See Mahabharata is a very humanly epic unlike Ramayana where everyone is better than best. Even bad characters have great qualities. They have 60% bad qualities and 40% good qualities and forget about the good characters, you can't find iota of mistake in them.

Mahabharata is different

Here the good people have 70% good qualities and 30% while the bad ones (including Duryodhan) have 80% bad and 20% good qualities. This makes the epic more reliable and relatable to me than Ramayana

Totally agreed! Ramayan is too divine. Everything is outside of mortal world, everyone has some kind of divinity associated and none seem relatable and natural. In MB, even Duryodhan or Karna will have grey shades, so does Arjun, Yudhishthir etc who are heroes apparently. IMO, Mahabharat is a story of all themes. Not a single theme is missing here. It's a story of politics, while it is also a story of emotions. Some things characters do are relatable and understandable.

Ramayan characters are very one dimensional where Ram is God and Sita is goddess while Davan and co are "rakshas".

The main significance of Ramayan is the study of race and ethnicity, or social culture that it provides. This Aryan narrative of calling the Dravidians as RAKSHAS gives alot of insight on race and ethnicity. IMO, that's the fascinating bit in Ramayan while I find everything about Mahabharat fascinating.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Totally agreed! Ramayan is too divine. Everything is outside of mortal world, everyone has some kind of divinity associated and none seem relatable and natural. In MB, even Duryodhan or Karna will have grey shades, so does Arjun, Yudhishthir etc who are heroes apparently. IMO, Mahabharat is a story of all themes. Not a single theme is missing here. It's a story of politics, while it is also a story of emotions. Some things characters do are relatable and understandable.

Ramayan characters are very one dimensional where Ram is God and Sita is goddess while Davan and co are "rakshas".

The main significance of Ramayan is the study of race and ethnicity, or social culture that it provides. This Aryan narrative of calling the Dravidians as RAKSHAS gives alot of insight on race and ethnicity. IMO, that's the fascinating bit in Ramayan while I find everything about Mahabharat fascinating.

I don't think Rakshas were the Dravidian since they were also found in North India (like Ghatochkat) aside they are related to Yakshas. I think they are some North Indian tribe which were originally in good terms with the Aryans and later got against them.

Dravidians were most probably either the Daityas or the Danavs who later got completely imbibed into the Hindu culture (even Dravidians dislike Ravan and worship Ram) hence they were given the same origin as the Devas-- Kashyap Muni.

Completely my thinking basis whatever I have read

About the topic I feel bad for everyone at least once in the epic with the only exclusion of Dusshashan.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

See Mahabharata is a very humanly epic unlike Ramayana where everyone is better than best. Even bad characters have great qualities. They have 60% bad qualities and 40% good qualities and forget about the good characters, you can't find iota of mistake in them.

Mahabharata is different

Here the good people have 70% good qualities and 30% while the bad ones (including Duryodhan) have 80% bad and 20% good qualities. This makes the epic more reliable and relatable to me than Ramayana

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I don't think Rakshas were the Dravidian since they were also found in North India (like Ghatochkat) aside they are related to Yakshas. I think they are some North Indian tribe which were originally in good terms with the Aryans and later got against them.

Dravidians were most probably either the Daityas or the Danavs who later got completely imbibed into the Hindu culture (even Dravidians dislike Ravan and worship Ram) hence they were given the same origin as the Devas-- Kashyap Muni.

Completely my thinking basis whatever I have read

Yea could be. Basically non Aryan groups I believe. The insight on communities and race is deep in Ramayan.

Amba...talk about getting screwed three times over.

Ofcourse from main characters, there's Draupadi, Karna