Was the Mahabharata real? - Page 5

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Well, I am doubtful whether this whole thing was just overglorified or did such a war really did take place. But if we consider it to be completely a personal property dispute then how come all kingdoms were involved as per mentioned in the epic. 

That's the point if it was just a property dispute, this seems way too an exaggeration

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

The problem is, the Westerners do not give evidence of witnessing this like they do for Chandra Gupta Maurya or the Gupta kings. Sadly, Indians still depend on the Western view point for their own ancient history. 😆

Seriously! If Westners don't talk about us, how can we be real? 😆

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

.

Westerns are very less biased when compared to other communities, they don't feel shy accepting that Noah's worldwide flood never happened or that majority of the Old testament prophets are not historical. Therefore I think their views are more authentic for sure. 

But then how do we get their nod for historicity if they aren't researching here. That needs to be done

During the British rule, extensive research by the Westerners did reveal a lot about Indian history such as Ashokan pillars and inscriptions. But back in the Later Vedic Age, there was no Megasthenes who came to India and wrote about the kings which is an important source of history today. Thats the problem here. It's because Indian civilization traces origin much before European races came up. 

Was it like a 2-3-4-5 BHK house dispute? 😆It was a dispute for a Kingdom. Not just a property dispute. During Mughal period, every generation after Akbar had this dispute. Aurangzeb, Dara Shukoh, Murad and Shuja were also then fighting just a property dispute. The thing is MB is a civil war amongst cousins. The weapons couldn't be so lethal during that age. But, on no account was it a mere house-dispute. Of course, there are exaggerations in the present form of the epic but let's not understate it also. 

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That's the point if it was just a property dispute, this seems way too an exaggeration

Also, if it's true the use of weapons like Brahmastra or Pashupatastra which can cause mass destruction, there must be some evidence of that. I am not sure anyone actually used these weapons, but if the Sudarshan Chakra existed or the weapons were UNUSED, where are they and where is the evidence of the destruction they caused. 

Originally posted by: sonnet11

Was it like a 2-3-4-5 BHK house dispute? 😆It was a dispute for a Kingdom. Not just a property dispute. During Mughal period, every generation after Akbar had this dispute. Aurangzeb, Dara Shukoh, Murad and Shuja were also then fighting just a property dispute. The thing is MB is a civil war amongst cousins. The weapons couldn't be so lethal during that age. But, on no account was it a mere house-dispute. Of course, there are exaggerations in the present form of the epic but let's not understate it also. 

All kingdoms of Bharatvarsh was involved if we go by the text. Again, i repeat we cannot know the importance of this war because there aren't accounts about this. But mentions of the great war do exist. 

A Greek scholar also compared Krishna with Hercules. 

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Also, if it's true the use of weapons like Brahmastra or Pashupatastra which can cause mass destruction, there must be some evidence of that. I am not sure anyone actually used these weapons, but if the Sudarshan Chakra existed or the weapons were UNUSED, where are they and where is the evidence of the destruction they caused. 

I don't think these weapons were so lethal. These are exaggerations for sure. If they had really nice weapons then this means that those were great only according to that era and not on par with present standards. 

Originally posted by: sonnet11

Was it like a 2-3-4-5 BHK house dispute? 😆It was a dispute for a Kingdom. Not just a property dispute. During Mughal period, every generation after Akbar had this dispute. Aurangzeb, Dara Shukoh, Murad and Shuja were also then fighting just a property dispute. The thing is MB is a civil war amongst cousins. The weapons couldn't be so lethal during that age. But, on no account was it a mere house-dispute. Of course, there are exaggerations in the present form of the epic but let's not understate it also. 

That's the point the dispute for a kingdom has been n very common, so if this was just one of those wouldn't have been so important. Property disputes do happen so that wasn't a big deal

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

During the British rule, extensive research by the Westerners did reveal a lot about Indian history such as Ashokan pillars and inscriptions. But back in the Later Vedic Age, there was no Megasthenes who came to India and wrote about the kings which is an important source of history today. Thats the problem here. It's because Indian civilization traces origin much before European races came up. 

That's for sure but generally the historians can not take the accounts from a country to be the history till someone from other country narrates it

But then now we have more technology than early twentieth century so definitely now excavation is easy and if done we might find some great details

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

So why isn't the BJP government continuing it? They are supposed Hindu party