I do think that 18 akshaunis would have participated: what I dispute is the description of the magnitude of an akshauni. I believe the actual number of troops was far smaller. Also that it wasn't a fixed size, but would vary according to the kingdom: a Magadha akshauni would have been larger than a Gandhara akshauni
I think the serial's novelty has worn out, which is why people have disappeared. That, accompanied by the gradual reopening
What's the proof that Mahabharat actually happened? As far as I know, only the war seem to have some historical evidence.
Apart from that, what's the proof that everything that's there in the epic actually happened?
Originally posted by: CaptainSpark
What's the proof that Mahabharat actually happened? As far as I know, only the war seem to have some historical evidence.
Apart from that, what's the proof that everything that's there in the epic actually happened?
See there are a few proofs actually. I had been researching on the same and studying the works of different historians
1) The epic mentions the names of the kings across the country and that serves no purpose purpose excluding increasing the number of Shlokas. Why on the earth for example would a fictional writer take efforts to write that Chhitrayudh was the king Tripura kingdom which is kingdom at the foothills of Himalayas near Bang Desh was a Kshatriya king?? The only work in the epic he does it to lose to Sahdev during Yudhishtir's Rajsuya, attend the Rajsuya Yagya's closing ceremony and later again lose to Karna during his Digvijay Yatra? What change did it make to the fictional story (if we take it) that Vyasas were writing? Tripura wasn't even a very important kingdom in ancient Indian history nor is a part of the 16 Janpads of Bharat. Why take care of mentioning this detail if it wasn't for documentation of a real event?
That isn't how fictional stories are written.
2) The fictional stories have unanimous antagonists and protagonists, No group calls Harry Potter for example a villain or Lord Voltemor a hero, but the historical figures become antagonists or protagonists basis the affliction of people. Indians for example have Abdali or Ghaznavi as villains but they are heroes in Afghanistan. Same is the case in Mahabharata, the aren't unanimous protagonist/antagonist, Duryodhan becomes a defeated protagonist in Oriya Mahabharata (and don't forget Orrisais the state of Jagganath Krishna) probably because he was a loving husband to a Kalinga princess. There have been temples dedicated to Duryodhan even in ancient India. Aside how did Duryodhan being the husband of Kalinga princess become an acceptable fact in various Mahabharata accounts (regional ones) that isnt mentioned in the original book
3) The states like Magadh, Pandayas etc. have unbroken line of kings names documented from the king mentioned (in the epic) to rule there in Mahabharata era to early common era (till around 2nd century AD) that is just not possible in case the events were fictional
4) Kings like Cholas have their mentioned in their records about the happening of a war, why would they do that?? Mahabharata is clear that Cholas didn't even participate. Karnataka and Delhi are too far and has some basic language differences to have this narration by a rumour
5) Contary to the element of fiction, none of the characters think (or the authors think for them), its just a narration of how things happened.
6) If it was a fiction what was the reason to extend it till Swargarohan Parva?? It could have ended with the war, Yudhishtir becoming the king or at the Max the Rajsuya Yagya, what exactly did the authors of the epic aim to achieve by writing about Mausal Parva, and the abduction of women by Abheers when Arjun was returning?
7) Underground Dwarika found
The writing style doesn't match fiction, the historical records suggest war, unbroken chain of rulers in at least two states (which weren't completely related to the epic,) and the people choosing heroes by their affliction and not religious statements are very much a proof that Mahabharata is real.
Most of the historians (western) believe in its historicity of Mahabharata and have a near consensus on it(slight unacceptance always remain) have read multiple papers and majority believe that Mahabharata happened, ,(no such claim for Ramayana)
Rest there is definitely additions, the book Vyasji composed was only 6000 shloks, that of Vaishampayan was 10,000 shlokas, the one we have is 1,00,000 shlokas. Not sure when, but somewhere I read that Raja Bhoja mentioned the epic having 18000 shlokas at his fathers time and increasing to 25000 at his time. Till the time it wasnt written, it kept increasing.
Definitely not everything is true, definitely not everything means what it says(it being a poem) definitely not the statements are exact replica, but this is what we have nearest to the Itihas
^ Not quoting the whole thing.
Technically, I think at the beginning, there was just a narration of the war. Now sages and storytellers aka people like Astika Muni (sautis?) have added on more, some evidence might have been found through history and some might have been fragments of imagination. But scholars even today very clearly talks about the war being actually just a civil war between nomads which has become the great epic today. For all we know, the stories have undergone several changes.
Now coming to your points about why unimportant characters are included and writing styles. As a literature student I'll tell you this as a fact, you are somewhat comparing the writing of these texts to the modernist way of writing.
A work of fiction back then didn't include feelings of characters. We have no explanation of what Achilles is thinking. Even the pre Renaissance writings do not include "feelings" Or thoughts of characters. That's a modernist approach to prose. Also Mahabharat is a poem and not prose. Prose writing and the way we see literature today is not similar to back then. Secondly, the epic is in all probability a work of several authors and there are numerous versions of it. You never know who added what and what was REMOVED from the text. What we have today is an end result. Some of it is definitely historical but writing styles, the fact that characters included must have something to "do" are all later unwritten rules of literature and writing. Vyasa I, II or III were definitely not aware of these. 🙈
Now also, when you are narrating a story you don't always include feelings of characters involved. MB was a orally transmitted poem through bards to common people. And the writing down happened on the basis of that. At that time, i don't think the sautis included what the characters thought.
Moreover, I am sure the sages wanted to pass it off as history and so did Brahmins. Look at all Puranic literature. Mahabharat too gives Brahmins a special position and also is a Vaishnava epic. So technically, I don't think people involved in it's creation wanted u to think it's anything but the Gospel truth.
I will be the happiest if Mahabharat is truth. Also, not completely disregarding your reasonings. Some of it definitely could have been true. But the glorification, the clear development of character (through actions and narration) that have taken place cannot be history, it's definitely the magic of words and literature.
Nevertheless I would like to believe it's the truth because there's nothing more fascinating than Mahabharat and Ramayan!
RE: Dwaraka excavation and Ram Setu - very very little here to use as evidence. A proper research and excavation need to be done to use this as a reference.
Sati peeths are also found all over India. We cannot say those are all as per Shiva's tandava story and say that it was all true. We unfortunately have very little out here
There is a difference between RamSetu and Dwarika.
Ramsetu need not be a manmade thing, Dwarika on the other hand is a human made city. If you deny the excavation results and the various mentions what exactly is the proof of any historical event. How, for example you know that someone called Buddha ever existed, some king named Bimbisar ruled Magadh, Akbar was a king of India. Only the excavation results and mentions could be the proof.
And writing styles might change but still mentioning unimportant characters seems to serve no purpose. Why was naming Tripura Naresh (who did nothing but lost to various people) more required than naming Dusshashan's son who actually killed Abhimanyu
I am not going by Puranik narrative anywhere that it happened in 3000BCE, would have done that if i wanted to believe Mahabharata is true
Despite willing to believe that Ramayana is true, I can not be sure about its historicity nothing proves that and Iwould therefore never claim so
By the way, the usage of the word "Gospel truth" seemed very ironic here.
If you wanted to say that whatever written Mahabharata need not be 100% true and used the word Gospel truth to denote that then that means you are saying Gospel is 100% true, so indirectly we are saying that a world wide flood, earth being populated twice by incest relations and virgin birth are all true, but we can't be sure that there was a huge war in India which engulfed nearly the entire country
This level of indoctrination we have😆ðŸ˜
Yes,ASI says that ram-setu is not man-made while dwarka pieces are.But about ramayan's authenticity then it is clear as in Mahabharat rishi markandaya tells yudhishthir about ramayan.Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
Despite willing to believe that Ramayana is true, I can not be sure about its historicity nothing proves that and Iwould therefore never claim so
Originally posted by: Horizon566
Yes,ASI says that ram-setu is not man-made while dwarka pieces are.But about ramayan's authenticity then it is clear as in Mahabharat rishi markandaya tells yudhishthir about ramayan.
Ramayana could have been a story considered to be true back then as well. They would have believed it more than us
Even today we use the words like yugas back Ram ji did so etc. is called upon in common discussion. Rishi Markenday might have told Yudhishtir the story which was known in the elite circles back then having seen Yudhishtir disheartened.
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
By the way, the usage of the word "Gospel truth" seemed very ironic here.
If you wanted to say that whatever written Mahabharata need not be 100% true and used the word Gospel truth to denote that then that means you are saying Gospel is 100% true, so indirectly we are saying that a world wide flood, earth being populated twice by incest relations and virgin birth are all true, but we can't be sure that there was a huge war in India which engulfed nearly the entire country
This level of indoctrination we have😆ðŸ˜
Gospel doesn't mean entire Bible. It only means message of Christ. Yeah, people use it to mean Bible, but it is inaccurate. And I assume the Jewish people would strongly object to their stories being called gospel.😆
comment:
p_commentcount