Nice replies, guys!π
You're right that the Mahabharat characters are very hard to understand. Also, they had their faults like humans today. Yudhithir's fault was that one half-lie he told Dronacharya and also his addiction to gambling, Bheema's was quick anger that made him prone ot hasty actions, Arjun's was pride, and Nakul and Sahadev's....well, I don't remember but I do know they had their faults.
On the other hand, Ramayan characters were based on idealism. Everything they did was aimed towards perfection and teaching humanity. I think this is why many people prefer Ramayan, because we all desire idealism when living in this Kali Yug where everything and everyone is imperfect already. The ideal characters of Ramayan give us hope and strength to overcome our obstacles.
On the other hand, Mahabharat is great for learning how to achieve our goals in the right manner while at the same time not giving in to others' wills. It teaches us how to deal with an imperfect society, and how to get closer to God despite being surrounded by sinners.
So both Ramayan and Mahabharat are best in their own ways, but yes....like the others here, I also prefer the Ramayan a bit more because of the idealism in it.π³ I have always been an idealist since young, and cannot stand imperfection when I see no reason for it....guess that's one of my own biggest imperfection/fault.βΊοΈ
When reading fiction these days, western critics criticize a story based on whether the characters have enough faults or not, and I have never understand that because for me, it is the exact opposite.π It seems as if western society today actually values character flaws and imperfections, and the ones who are 'ideal' are called 'mary sues' or 'gary sues' or whatnot. For me, my favorite characters are the ones displaying ideal characteristics, and unfortunately, those characters are ones whom western society today dislikes.π It's the Prabhaav of Kali Yug, I suppose.
comment:
p_commentcount