Mahabharat Retelecast Discussion Thread 7 - Page 102

When Sakha met Sakhi🥳

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDOjE0FJAQ3/?igshid=1lczl2uwur2es

Oo someone had visited the temple where the ArDi scene was shot..

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDObdHunPi4/?igshid=1x2zppk6y8s

Reasons for why Mahabharata is history

1) List of kings and dynasties-- The dynasties mentioned in Mahabharata are all ancient dynasties and the text does give an unbroken lineage of kings from Mahabharata era to known common era for major kingdoms

2) Multiple accounts of the event-- If Mahabharata was a fiction there could not have been multiple accounts of it from different writers like we have Vaishampayan Mahabharata, Jaimini Bharat, Harivamsapuram and Sreemad Bhagwatam

3) Useless characters-- Anyone who writes fiction only would mention about the major characters or minor characters of the story. Mahabharata on the other hand details about even the people who have no use in the story. For example why on this earth would Mahabharata mention the details of Tripura Naresh? He wasn't at all important in Mahabharata. His only role is lose out to Arjun n Karna in their respective expeditions. Yet we are even told the name of his grandfather. Who writes such a novel with such useless characters? It would serve no purpose except irritating the reader. Aside Tripura wasn't even an important kingdom of ancient India to actually mention it for some benefit (it's not even a part of ancient Indian 16 Janpad) Yet the details have been given? What benefit of it excluding to narrate a historical account?

Aside why make the story so complicated to distribute multiple states into two parts with one side supporting Kauravas n other Pandavas (like Shalya supported Kauravas and other part of Madra supported Pandavas. Same for Mahadh and Shibbi)

How would that affect the story in any manner?

4) Mention in other texts-- Mahabharata is mentioned and referenced in other ancient texts including the Sangam literature. Sangam isn't even a Sansksrit text it's Tamil and was compiled in regions around 1500+ km from supposed area of Mahabharata complication at nearly the same time when earliest Mahabharata texts were being complied. If Mahabharata was fiction this was completely Impossible

5) Changed society -- Mahabharata tells us of an era which is very different from what we have seen later including the times of 6th centuryBCE. We have people who condemned war, slavery was abolished, this is completely different from the Bharat of Mahabharata. Now the epic wouldn't have been accepted as our Itihas unless it represented a time when Indian society was as is mentioned there. The war definitely changed the mindset of the people. They realised the futility of the war and issues of slavery. The Bharat society changed after the war, probably that's why it's called an era (Yugas) changing war

6) Discoveries-- most of the cities mentioned in Mahabharata are there, drowned Dwarika is found too just as was mentioned in the epic

There is no evidence against Mahabharata though.

Most historians agree to the historicity of Mahabharata only issue they have is about the timing of the war. We have dates from 8th century BCE to 16th century BCE

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

Coz magic doesn't exist. By adding all the mystical element the author has taken creative liberty. Also I haven't exactly read anything that says Pandavs or Hastinapur existed. Where is it documented?

If it were a biography then yes it would be more reliable.

I don't mean to offend anyone. Just my inference.

Mystical elements do get added up as the stories progress, definitely that wasn't true and no historian states it to be true. That would be like saying that since Alexander couldn't be the son of Zues, hence he was a fictional character.

Both Hastinapur n Indraprasth did exist in ancient India.

It's not a biography but historical account of the war.

It was always taught in Itihaas section not in Dharmashastra or Sahitya section of Gurukul.

I have listed the reason below. And not just me, majority historians believe in it's historicity

What an author chooses to write about in his novel is his discretion. It's not evidence in my view. I already said that it's an account of the happening of that era. But the characters could be fictional inspired by real people.

Waise did Dwarika drown around same time line of MB? Did it drown due to a 'curse' or was it a natural calamity? There are tons of question.

If it was history there wouldn't be 1000 different interpretation and folklores right? History is documented. Alexander existed. Ashoka existed.

I am a student of science and I do not believe in magic. But I respect our culture and hence put faith in the teaching of the epic.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I have listed the reason below. And not just me, majority historians believe in it's historicity

I do plan to read up kmg hopefully soon. I am very interested in some of the aspects of MB and want to know more about it.

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

What an author chooses to write about in his novel is his discretion. It's not evidence in my view. I already said that it's an account of the happening of that era. But the characters could be fictional inspired by real people.

Waise did Dwarika drown around same time line of MB? Did it drown due to a 'curse' or was it a natural calamity? There are tons of question.

If it was history there wouldn't be 1000 different interpretation and folklores right? History is documented. Alexander existed. Ashoka existed.

I am a student of science and I do not believe in magic. But I respect our culture and hence put faith in the teaching of the epic.

Authors inputs is just one proof that I gave, there are other points which I have mentioned too.

Yes history is documented so is Mahabharata, at multiple places. There are 1000 different interpretations of history itself not in fiction. You would hear a lot of folklores about Ashoka as well as Alexander (including the famous Roxanne tying Rakhee to Porus), but wouldn't hear folklores about Harry Potter. We have confusion about the historicity of Jodha but not for Hemoine

other proof is that novel or fiction have fixed heroes and villians but in history they depend on your affliation. Ghaznavi for example is a villian in India but hero in Pakistan. Same is with Mahabharata

Duryodhan for example isn't a villian in Oriya Mahabharata, the people respect him there (despite Orissa being the land of Krishna n Jagganath) why would they care for Duryodhan? The epic doesn't mention that Bhanumati was from Kalinga! They take it because she was from there

Yes Dwarika drowned around same time but just by coincidence not any curse.

I don't believe in magical elements too, you might have seen my interaction with Deepika too, but just because mystical elements weren't there doesn't mean war didn't happen

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

I do plan to read up kmg hopefully soon. I am very interested in some of the aspects of MB and want to know more about it.

Read AL Basham the wonder that was India. Although he gives it a time around 1000BCE

Anyhow most of the historians do believe Mahabharata to be a historical event the differences is on the consensus of date

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Authors inputs is just one proof that I gave, there are other points which I have mentioned too.

I didn't refer to the other points coz I am still struggling to find a connect in the Magadh kingdom😆 Tbh I don't have time to read at present due to studies and hence I didn't counter other points at this stage.

Yes history is documented so is Mahabharata, at multiple places. There are 1000 different interpretations of history itself not in fiction. You would hear a lot of folklores about Ashoka as well as Alexander (including the famous Roxanne tying Rakhee to Porus), but wouldn't hear folklores about Harry Potter. We have confusion about the historicity of Jodha but not for Hemoine

I haven't heard about or read such folklores on Ashok/Alexander

other proof is that novel or fiction have fixed heroes and villians but in history they depend on your affliation. Ghaznavi for example is a villian in India but hero in Pakistan. Same is with Mahabharata.

But he did invade India. Thats documented. It's not debated. Whether his actions make him a hero or villain is for the reader to interpret.

Duryodhan for example isn't a villian in Oriya Mahabharata, the people respect him there (despite Orissa being the land of Krishna n Jagganath) why would they care for Duryodhan? The epic doesn't mention that Bhanumati was from Kalinga! They take it because she was from there

Not aware about this, so I can't comment

Yes Dwarika drowned around same time but just by coincidence not any curse.

I don't believe in magical elements too, you might have seen my interaction with Deepika too, but just because mystical elements weren't there doesn't mean war didn't happen

You are missing my point. I am not debating war, location, etc. I am debating the characters of the novel. The Pandavs, The Kauravs, The Yadavs.

Amish has written a novel Suheldev. It's based on actual events not all of which is attributable to the hero apparently. So there is fiction in built. That was my limited context.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Read AL Basham the wonder that was India. Although he gives it a time around 1000BCE

Anyhow most of the historians do believe Mahabharata to be a historical event the differences is on the consensus of date

@ bold- this is also in the sacred texts link?