speedheat Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Even Krishna was not righteous. He flat out lied about the sun setting, hid the sun and then releazed it to bail out his chamcha Arjun from a stupid vow he took to commit suicide. Nobody is 100% righteous in the Mahabharata and that is what makes the tale so beautiful. Apart from that I think he stood in between arjuna and vaishnava Astra directed towards arjun by karna to neutralize it. @Muloghonto bhai and others I have a question 1. Bhishma is shown as invincible and un conquerable in Mahabharata but then why did he kept quiet when his contemporary evils like kams, jarasandh and narkadura were spreading Adharma? Why didn't he challanged and killed them?? Was he incompetent or was unaware? 2. Why did he kept quiet during wastraharan?? I never got any satisfactory ans for those two above questions . Edited July 5, 2018 by speedheat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, speedheat said: Apart from that I think he stood in between arjuna and vaishnava Astra directed towards arjun by karna to neutralize it. @Muloghonto bhai and others I have a question 1. Bhishma is shown as invincible and un conquerable in Mahabharata but then why did he kept quiet when his contemporary evils like kams, jarasandh and narkadura were spreading Adharma? Why didn't he challanged and killed them?? Was he incompetent or was unaware? I don't think Bhisma ever took it upon himself to fight all Adharma in all corners of the planet. What Kamsa, Jarasandaha, etc were doing was probably seen by him as none of his business. Just like today, if i hate rapists & rape ( which i do), doesn't mean its my responsibility to go hunt down rapists or i am being a bad person. 9 minutes ago, speedheat said: 2. Why did he kept quiet during wastraharan?? I never got any satisfactory ans for those two above questions . Perfectly fine. Bhisma's vow was to defend and uphold the throne of Hastinapur and whomever sat on it. Ergo, he was honorbound to STFU and ignore it due to his own oath. IMO Bhisma's story is the best example of the english saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and how Mahabharata would not be a story if it wasn't for Bhisma. He was a demi-God, was trained by the Gods themselves in every art imaginable- warfare, rulership, etc. Had he not taken the vow to foresake the throne to cure his father's love-sickness, or had he taken on personal dishonor by breaking his oath and seizing the throne (which is rightfully his anyways) from a blind Dhritarashtra/weak Pandu, game over, no story to be told - the 'perfect king, trained by the Gods, ruled happily ever after' and Mahabharata would be a 30 page short story. Bhisma's story demonstrates the buddhist axiom of 'sometimes one needs to do a little evil for the greater good'. In a way, its a warning against personal honor - for its Bhisma's sense of personal honor that ultimately caused untold deaths, misery and practically a world-war. To me, no personal honor is worth that price. I'd happily live with the title of 'oath breaker' if it meant peace and prosperity for my citizens and no war. speedheat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 6 hours ago, rkt.india said: There is something similar in Islam as well. If you stoop to those levels then what is the difference between you and them and in that case, the dharma is good as an adharma as well. Can you clarify what you mean something "Similar" in Islam? Dharma here means Righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: . Quote Sorry my bad. However, Krishna is not without his deception/deceit. It was him that 'hid the sun' and falsely declared the day over, to kill whatsisname that Arjuna had vowed to kill within the day or commit suicide. If Surya gave Karna the kavach-kundala, its perfectly moral and just: a father has the moral right to give his children what is his. However, this doesn't excuse Indra's deception or Krishna's deception during Kurukshetra. He Hid the sun but he didnot declare the day as over. The day have to be dclared close by the two Commander in Chiefs.There was no deceit here by Krishna. The Kavach and Kundala were of the devtas not Surya Dev alone. Devtas are to grant boons on basis of penance and karma and not gift it to humans. Surya Dev gave the Kavach and Kundala to Karna at birth. Did Indra give Arjuna the use of Vajra?No. \ Quote I tolerate them, which is why i am not for banning religion. Learn that freedom of speech and ideas means that as long as no living entity is being libelled against, you have the right to say whatever you want. I shall defend YOUR right to chant 'ram nam satya hai' or 'Allah-hu-akbar' in public. Because its your right. Sad to see that right wingers do not extend the same right to atheists, who are also equally in the right to say 'God is BS'. Again i do not attack your belief of not having faith in gods.Why do you need to attack mine by calling Gods BS? Quote False. Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong action, is still a wrong action whether its committed against a treacherous person or not. Just because a person is a criminal, does not give you the right to abuse their personal freedoms. This is your interpretation.Your views. Establishment of Rigteousness and destroying evil is allowed. Once you have committed a crime you cannot claim the same rights as another innocent man. Quote Show me where it says that....in any scripture. I will wait. The stories THEMSELVES show that Avatars are not infallible. Rama regretted sending Sita into banishment. If Avatars are infallible, then it means each and every action of the avatar is infallible, ergo, Rama would not have committed an action he regrets. That is direct contradiction of the term 'infallible' and the tales themselves demonstrate that Avatars are not infallible Read the Bhagvat Gita and how it describes Krishna.Read the various adjectives that are used. Rama didnot regret.Rather he explained why he had to banish Sita despite personally not doubting her. He showed by example how a leader must rise above his personal opinions and personal pain to set an example to the society. Next time read how both Rama and Krishna showed their virat avatars to their devotees in Ramayana and Mahabharata. Avatars are just the manisfestation of god in another form. coffee_rules and Shunya 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Quote Hiding the sun so others think the day is over, is clear-cut deceit. He does not get a free pass for being a God avatar. If i turn the lights off in a store and then customers think 'store is closed',its still my action (deceitful) that made the customers think so. Good conduct/evil conduct is based on the conduct. Not who does it. You are trying to justify Krishna's action because you have this notion that apparently because Krishna was a god-avatar, he cannot commit any wrong. Yet, he committed numerous wrongs. Says who ? show me where it says that Devatas cannot give their own children stuff they have access to. Kavach-kundala was Surya's, the devatas don't have a communist 'common astras for all devatas' philosophy. Brahmastra is Brahma's property to give as he sees. Same with Surya's kavach and Kundala. It is the duty of the enemy to recheck the facts before declaring the day over. Creating confusion among the enemy ranks is not deceit, its strategy. What next? One should not use XYZ weapon as the enemy doesnt have a counter to it? War to establish righteousness is not a shop. learn the difference first. You are in no position to judge who is right who is wrong.Heck you are not even entitled by law to judge a fellow human being's action let alone God's.Krishna committed no wrong.You are manufacturing faults to support your own views. Boons are to be granted on basis of Karma.Read how people got boons by hard penance or sacrifice or such deeds. It wa snot Surya Devta's which is why it could be taken away by Indra. yes the Swargalok does have a Dev Shastragaar, it houses the divine weapons of the gods and it had just one armour that Surya Dev gave to Karna. The Armour is not Surya Kavach?Is it? Various people possessed the Brahmastra simulataneously as it could be granted to many people.Only one person in entire Hinduism possessed a Kavach that could stop all weapons. It was a unique defensive weapon, the only defensive weapon mentioned in any hindu scripture. Quote Because any belief system deserves to be attacked and by surviving said attack, it establishes itself. Freedom of speech and thought- only evil/wrong stuff needs censorship to be protected. Satyameva jayate-to muzzle criticism is to tacitly admit that you are supporting BS and need people to be muzzled for BS to exist. Again stop ramming your own views down other's throats. You have no right to attack or insult my belief. You are free to not believe in it but your freedom doesnot give you the right to attack anyone or his beliefs. Its none of your concern what I believe in, thats my personal space, you have no right to encroach on it.The same right resides with billions. Quote Ofcourse you can. Its called universal human rights, something India is also a signatory to. Comitting evil, is still evil, even if it is to fight evil. Just because you were found guilty of a crime does not give me the license to violate your right to person and thus rape you. Innocent people as well as criminals have the same rights. Thats the fundamental pillar of Indian justice system. The rights of a criminal is not the same as the rights of a innocent man. A criminal can be hanged or shot or electrocute or confined in solitude or removed from society.He can have his freedom curtailed or taken away. Quote Sure. It still does not explicitly say that Krishna == Vishnu in all aspects outside of pure power. Again.Read the various adjectives used and how is Krishna referred to in the Gita. It mentions not only power. Quote I can quote you the passage from Ramayana where Rama clearly regretted sending Sita into vanvaas to Lav and Kush. And no, what Rama showed is that he caved in to macho-culture pressure and failed as a husband. There is no good example to be set by punishing someone (banishment) without any proof being presented. So not only did he violate fundamental principle of justice, he also violated fundamental principle of being a husband. But they are NOT God. They are NOT infallible and that is why the avatars themselves do not live up to the all-knowing, all-seeing status of their Godly selves. Again Rama talks about his actions as a husband not as a king. The duties of a King are more important than that of a Husband. The King must at all times consider the good of the society to be above his own personal pain or belief.Lord Rama set that example. He removed his wife from his life, a act that is legal even today according to law. They are GOD.They are everything that their Godly Selves are.Just the form is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Hiding the sun so others think the day is over, is clear-cut deceit. He does not get a free pass for being a God avatar. If i turn the lights off in a store and then customers think 'store is closed',its still my action (deceitful) that made the customers think In Ramayana indrajeet fired all three deadliest weapon Brahamastra , Narayan astra and pashupatast on Lakshman.All three refused to kill him , was that not cheating from gods.At that point Indrajeet realised Lakshman in invincible and went to Ravana to request him return sita The fact is all entire mythology is full of deceit and favouratism , none of them can be justified by today's liberal logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Here are some unknown facts about Mahabharat, Arjun himself was partial avatar of Vishnu http://vipasana-vidushika.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-legend-of-krishna-nara-narayana.html velu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) If Bhishma was truly great he should have broken his oath to defend/protect Hastinapur crown and sided with the just party. What he did wasn't sacrifice, had he been an oathbreaker and faced consequences of that action he would have been truly respectworthy in my eyes. IMO he was selfish and for the greater good it is absolutely justified to put personal honour on the backseat even if it results in lowering one's standing/social status or earns one bad karma/curse. Edited July 5, 2018 by Gollum dial_100 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: It is the duty of the enemy to recheck the facts before declaring the day over. Creating confusion among the enemy ranks is not deceit, its strategy. What next? One should not use XYZ weapon as the enemy doesnt have a counter to it? Didn't you say Krishna was a God ? Gods are now held to the same benchmark as common men ? Hiding the sun and pretending it is normal, *IS* deceit. Then releasing the sun as soon as the enemy is coming out in the open, *IS* deceit. A deceitful strategy to win is justified, but it is still deceit. You are pretending that a deceitful strategy is not deceit because a God did it, whereas i am not saying the strategy is invalid - it IS valid, but it is also deceptive and thus wrong. I subscribe to the morality of 'anything goes' in war. That means i accept deceit and treachery to win wars. However, i dont pretend that it is NOT deceit or treachery simply because a God did it. Quote War to establish righteousness is not a shop. learn the difference first. Irrelevant. A deceit is a deceit. A lie is a lie. Doesn't matter if its on the battlefield or on an exam, doesn't matter if its you or Krishna or Jesus who commits it. Quote You are in no position to judge who is right who is wrong.Heck you are not even entitled by law to judge a fellow human being's action let alone God's.Krishna committed no wrong.You are manufacturing faults to support your own views. If i am in no position to judge what is right and what is wrong, then neither are you. Ergo, you are also in no position to negate my opinion that Krishna committed deceit. Nothing is being manufactured here. Krishna hid the sun, withheld info from the commanders (that the sun hadn't set but he's hid it) when they declared the day done. That is deceit by withholding information - same thing as perjury really in a court of law (where deliberately witholding info is considered a criminal act). These are the bare facts. Quote Boons are to be granted on basis of Karma. Says who ? Says where in the scriptures ? Quote it please. Quote Read how people got boons by hard penance or sacrifice or such deeds. There is no one way of getting boons in Hinduism. Sometimes you do a lot of penance to get boons, sometimes you do that and don't get boons. And sometimes a God just pops by, is impressed by you and gives you a boon. Quote It wa snot Surya Devta's which is why it could be taken away by Indra. yes the Swargalok does have a Dev Shastragaar, it houses the divine weapons of the gods and it had just one armour that Surya Dev gave to Karna. this is utter nonsense. Please quote the mahabharata part or any of the vedas or such where it says that in Swargaloka every devata owns every article/nobobdy owns any article. You just pulled it out of your rear end. There is zero evidece that Indra could've taken it away if Karna had decieded not to give it as alms. The owner of anything has the power to give it away to anyone. In this case,Karna was the owner of the Kavach-kundala and he had full power to give it away, which he did. Quote The Armour is not Surya Kavach?Is it? Various people possessed the Brahmastra simulataneously as it could be granted to many people. Indeed. And its Brahmhastra, which means its up to Brahmna to deciede how to give it and who to give it or when to give it. Other Gods don't get to mess with that, just like other Gods don't get to mess with when Surya gives his kavach-kundala to whom. And in this case, he didn't just give it to anyone but gave it to his own son. Perfectly legitimate. Quote Only one person in entire Hinduism possessed a Kavach that could stop all weapons. It was a unique defensive weapon, the only defensive weapon mentioned in any hindu scripture. Whoptee-freaking-doo. Doesn't change the fact that Indra flat-out lied and took false identity to get it from Karna. Quote Again stop ramming your own views down other's throats. You have no right to attack or insult my belief. Ofcourse i do. I have full right to critique any religion, any philosophy, etc. within the purview of the net-neutrality acts worldwide. A given site can have its own rules, but nowhere in the manifesto of this website does it say that one does not have the right to criticize a particular religion or philosophy. Quote You are free to not believe in it but your freedom doesnot give you the right to attack anyone or his beliefs. Its none of your concern what I believe in, thats my personal space, you have no right to encroach on it.The same right resides with billions. My freedom does indeed give me the right to say whatever i wish about any idea or any person who is not alive today. Same goes for you. Your personal space does not extend to social arenas. Quote The rights of a criminal is not the same as the rights of a innocent man. A criminal can be hanged or shot or electrocute or confined in solitude or removed from society.He can have his freedom curtailed or taken away. He can have his freedom taken away. But he still has every single fundamental right as a free citizen. You could be a mass-murderer, but you still have right to not be raped. Right to not be starved, have your hair pulled out, eyes gouged (all falling under a human beings right to not be tortured). Fighting a criminal does NOT give you the right to get your acts of cruelty, deceit or torture be deemed as kindness, truth and benevolence. You can argue legitimately that to fight fire with fire you need to commit heinous acts against criminals. Thats fine. Which is why i didn't say Krishna shouldn't have been deceitful or shouldn't have perjured himself. What he did was necessary. But it doesn't make his actions honest either. Again, just because you are guilty of murder, does it mean i can rape you ? Yes/no response please. Quote Again.Read the various adjectives used and how is Krishna referred to in the Gita. It mentions not only power. I don't care how he is described. Read the various tales of krishna in the mahabharata itself. An all-knowing, all-powerful God avatar does not act like a naughty little kid stealing cream or clothes of women bathing in the river. It doesn't change the fact that Krishna was deceitful during Kurukshetra by hiding the sun. Your religion is no different from other religions where the claims (as in the epithets used for the Gods) simply does not measure up to the actions expected from an allknowing, all-powerful being. Quote Again Rama talks about his actions as a husband not as a king. So let me get this straight - an all-knowing, all-powerful being (God-Avatar), is displaying remorse and regret for his action. Doesn't matter if it is in the capacity of a husband, brother, king, son, whatever. Please reconcile the idea of regret and remorse with all-powerful and all-knowing. Quote The duties of a King are more important than that of a Husband. The King must at all times consider the good of the society to be above his own personal pain or belief.Lord Rama set that example. He removed his wife from his life, a act that is legal even today according to law. Incorrect. He failed as a king in this regard. The duty of a king is to uphold justice. No proof was presented against Sita, yet he caved to the macho pressures of seeing her as unclean. According to you he is equal of Vishnu, simply Vishnu in flesh and blood. He could've used his divine power to determine the truth. But nope, he did no such thing. He simply bent under the pressure of allegation with zero proof. A good king does not set the example of declaring someone as guilty without evidence. Quote They are GOD.They are everything that their Godly Selves are.Just the form is different. False. Their actions do not reconcile with this view. If they were Gods, then they'd know everything, see every single possible scenario, have infinite power and wisdom. And such a being does not display remorse- which is a fundamental admission of error. An all-powerful, all-knowing being is, by definition, incapable of error. That in the Ramayana it CLEARLY says that Ram was remorseful for banishing Sita, is decisive, incontrovertible proof that he is not equal of Vishnu with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Otherwise, please reconcile the idea of an infinitely powerful, all-knowing being committing an error and having remorse. I will wait. Edited July 5, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 21 minutes ago, Gollum said: If Bhishma was truly great he should have broken his oath to defend/protect Hastinapur crown and sided with the just party. What he did wasn't sacrifice, had he been an oathbreaker and faced consequences of that action he would have been truly respectworthy in my eyes. IMO he was selfish and for the greater good it is absolutely justified to put personal honour on the backseat even if it results in lowering one's standing/social status or earns one bad karma/curse. Forget just party, Bhisma should simply have been 'you know what, my vow was stupid and my dad is dead, the pandavas are not the sons of Pandu anyways, so auto-disqualified to succeed on the throne. Dhritarashtra's sons are a bunch of cun7s, so screw you all, i am taking over the throne. I am trained by the Gods in every art and nobody can beat me in battle'. Hastinapur would've had a 'happily ever after' story minus the war and deaths. speedheat, Clarke, randomGuy and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/4/2018 at 7:42 AM, velu said: It's because of his ego. Not righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Such an idiotic comments on god. I thought people are smarter. But I will keep this thread in mind. Shri Krishna and Shri Rama were the greatest incarnations ever until recently Any idea why this thread is not locked yet? wondering what are we waiting for? adi B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 1 hour ago, dial_100 said: Such an idiotic comments on god. I thought people are smarter. But I will keep this thread in mind. Shri Krishna and Shri Rama were the greatest incarnations ever until recently Any idea why this thread is not locked yet? wondering what are we waiting for? they were not real, just stories. dial_100 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 10 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Can you clarify what you mean something "Similar" in Islam? Dharma here means Righteousness. Kill kaafirs,people, who dont believe in allah. Following allah is the righteousness in Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 5 hours ago, Vilander said: It's because of his ego. Not righteousness. still he got other good qualities like he is against caste inequality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Kill kaafirs,people, who dont believe in allah. Following allah is the righteousness in Islam.Here its not about god. Its normal principles like punishing people who tried to disrobe a women in public or tried to burn people alive in a house or cheated away the property of others. These are crimes in every era under every law. This is not about following a god.Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 13 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Forget just party, Bhisma should simply have been 'you know what, my vow was stupid and my dad is dead, the pandavas are not the sons of Pandu anyways, so auto-disqualified to succeed on the throne. Dhritarashtra's sons are a bunch of cun7s, so screw you all, i am taking over the throne. I am trained by the Gods in every art and nobody can beat me in battle'. Hastinapur would've had a 'happily ever after' story minus the war and deaths. Pandu and Dhritrashtra too were not sons of vichitravirya.They were sons of Ved Vyas.so actually after Chitrangad and Vichtravirya died , the lineage was ended Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Some sorry posts by people who don't know the philosophy behind the epic, applying present day ethics and movements like pseudo feminism to a time when societies were being formed with Dharmic principles. adi B, Laaloo and zen 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Global.Baba Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Mahabharata and for the matter of fact even Ramayana proves 2 obvious thing, History is told from the winner's perspective and these epics might just be one of the first such instances in ancient history We just don't care or respect our history I believe both Indian epics are romanticized versions of actual events. It is no different from "De di hume azaadi bina khadga bina dal,sabarmati ke sant tu ne kar diya kamaal" - Now is that an accurate reflection of our independence movement? Obviously No. It is a romanticized and exaggerated version that we have heard since childhood. Keeping with the theme of this thread,Mahabharata is a fascinating study because every character has shades of grey as discussed above.It has been a philosophical and a moral guide for Indians for centuries and obviously based on the discussion here it still continues to be. Just a quick look at some fascinating characters Shakuni apparently in the original version of the epic was avenging his family by planning Duryodhana's downfall all along. Duryodhana himself was supposed to be a noble king,great warrior and an inspiration for true friendship. He was one of the first examples in history where an individual from a higher caste looked beyond social status and did not give importance to caste over merit. However,he was obviously driven by jealousy in a lot of his actions against his cousins. He was arrogant and showed no mercy or humility in victory. We all know about the whole Draupadi saga. On the other hand,Yudishtra was supposed to be a symbol of righteousness but then he had gambling as his vice. He found a loophole to kill Ashwathama. Can we call a person who can succumb to vices or accommodate his principles a symbol of righteousness? We can go on an on and interpret what is known to most of us and pick flaws or point out the greatness of every single character in the Mahabharata. Mahabharata might be centuries ago but one thing has not changed since time immemorial, the way history is told. Hitler is the modern day symbol for all things evil and rightfully so. This is the guy who initiated ethnic cleansing of an entire group of people. Now at the same time lot of modern medicine and technology that is used to this day was developed by Nazi scientists in these concentration camps. Hilter was also the first guy to ban public smoking. Obviously the evil outweighs whatever scientific breakthrough came out from it. Now had the Central powers won the war, I wonder how these atrocities would be interpreted. Similarly Nuclear race is a thing among every developed or developing nation out there today but the only country to ever use it is the USA. 2 big and flourishing cities were destroyed. How has the destruction of 2 big cities just become a footnote in history? The Allies are the heroes and the Central Powers, the villains is the basic theme of the story of World War 2 as we know it today. The story told at the ground level is black and white but obviously you need to dig deep into it to find shades of grey everywhere. Like this joke I heard once,everyone was an a-hole in world war 2 but we are just glad the better a-holes won. That pretty much sums up what we need to know of modern history. The Mahabharata is no different. There are shades of grey everywhere. The fact that every character has flaws and noble qualities shows this is a representation of real historical characters and not just a made up fictional story. Now to my second point Unfortunately,people get lost at arguing the validity of flying chariots and the presence of internet in that era. We actually have the greatest philosophical study based on history ever known to mankind at our disposal.There are 100's of interpretations in every language conducted on it by real scholars -not the Kancha Illiah's and Romila Thapars of the world . Why aren't there actual studies being done on what is a very significant piece of our history is beyond me. On one hand, we can give a pass to liberties taken with history like the story behind Taj Mahal or even from the time of Alexander's invasion .However when it comes to Ramayana or the Mahabharata they become fictional and illogical because of some liberties that might have been taken in romanticizing some aspects of the the story or even some aspects getting lost in translation. The problem with Indian history is that it is the re-telling of a collection of events from the perspective of the invaders be it the Mughals or the British . Unfortunately, looks like there haven't been any good ones till now who interpret things from an Indian perspective. To steal a quote from Sanjeev Sanyal, "Yes there will be some bias in the tone in which the story is told, but it will be our bias and not some foreigners" There is nothing called neutral history and then there is also a danger that History can become revisionist like what I would assume it would be in Pakistan or North Korea. However we need to try and build our own understanding of our ancient history and it is ok if there is some bias in it. I am happy to see such threads on this forum and some good back and forth debate on this subject. velu, Laaloo and Jimmy Cliff 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Saraswati dayanand ji gave perfect reasoning of Mahabharata and what happened to India (including the birth of caste system) thereafter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts