Mahabharata Ramayana and their authenticity_ Discussion

Hi all first of all sorry for making this post, this might hurt the sentiments of all, yet making it was necessary as per me

What do you think about the authenticity of Mahabharata.

The epic states that war was so great that nearly the people of the entire earth had been affected by it either directly or indirectly. There were kings from across the globe participating in the war, if this was was so huge, why didn't it find any mention in the books or records of other nations.

Egyptians for example were great in keeping records, they have noted down every minutest of details. Their record book does mention the name of king of as Mesopotamia who ascended the throne, so it seems highly improbable that they would have missed out such an important war?

However as Pro said in the other thread that might be Illiad and Oddessy are adaptations of Mahabharata (or as she said Ved Vyas ji got inspired by these two epics) and could have been the Greeks noting down the instances of Mahabharata.

About Ramayana well SriLankan history does mention a mighty king named Ravan around the third millennium before common era, but they don't have records of anyone from India defeating him nor there are records of his brother succeeding him. It wasn't till recent past that SriLanka had accepted their relation with the epic and as many said they might have accepted it now just to promote tourism.

South Korean royal family although do trace back to the lineage of Ram stating that a legendary ancestor of the royal family was a descandant of SriRam, she had come from Ayodhya and the then king married her. Theirs was the best era in South Korean legend. The South Korean government is constructing a huge statue of hers in Ayodhya, but that's it they say her to be the descandant after many generations, they personally have no records if Ram actually did what we know or he was already a legendary ancestor of this princess.

So my question is that can we in such situation be certain about the authenticity of the epics? These are both such important happenings of history, so why aren't they mentioned by anyone else around the globe. What could be the proofs for the authenticity of these. Would like to seek for your opinions.

Really want to discuss on these points and facts

Would request you to try and avoid personal prejudice and not get the emotions affect the discussions,

Personally I like to believe we have traces of the same story in the myths and history of every culture in the globe.

The story might not be exactly same, but the little points where they meet, like the similarity of the purpose of Iliad's Helen and MB's Draupadi, or lets say Achilles' and Krishna's heels!

These points make me wonder if indeed it's one story modified to glorify the different Kings participating in the same battle!

FP

If you read the books on Indian history by Dr RC Majumdar, the first book 'The Vedic Age' includes both the Ramayan and the Mahabharat as historic, but here is how it treats it.

It removes all the supernatural parts of the story, like the devas requesting Narayan to be born on earth to kill Ravan, Hanuman flying across to Lanka to find Sita, Hanuman flying and bringing w/ him the entire mountain, Sita splitting the earth when she took her final vows to rejoin Bhumi Devi... Rather, it summarizes the history as Rama being born, brought up, marrying Sita, being exiled, building a causeway across the Palk Straits to Lanka, killing Ravan, returning to Ayodhya... It then mentions Shatrughan going to war w/ Lavanasur and killing him, becoming ruler of Mathura, then it describes Bharat conquering Gandhara and installing his sons at Takshashila and Pushkalavati, Lakshman's sons being crowned kings at Karupadadesh. It mentions that Rama exiled Sita following discontent in his kingdom over her, and crowning Kush his successor and giving Luv another kingdom. It then mentions how the Druyhus ultimately ousted Shatrughan's descendants, how Bharat's descendants too were ousted, and how there are no records of what happened to Lakshman's descendants or to Luvs. It then goes on to describe how Kush's marriage to a Naga princess, and how his dynasty continued

For the Mahabharat too, it describes the war almost like in the epic, how all the descendants of Yayati were wiped out except Krishna and the Pandavas, and how they were succeeded by Vajra and Parikshit in Mathura and Hastinapur. Incidentally, it's in this book that it describes how different descendants of the Pandavas switched the capital b/w Hastinapur and Indraprastha, thereby addressing the discussion in a Mahabharat thread about whether Vajra was left in charge of Indraprastha

So bottom line answer to your question is - yes, both Ramayan and Mahabharat are historical. However, in history books, one can't put in descriptions of divine events: they have to be excluded. For instance, Krishna's war w/ Narakasura would just mention him going there and killing him, but it wouldn't describe him riding on Garuda w/ Satyabhama, the 5 obstacles he met along the way including the 4 headed asura Mura, Bhumi Devi appealing to him to spare Bhagadatta and so on