I was watching a movie on the epic 'Mahabharata' a few minutes back. Watching the movie being centrally based on the character of Krishna, my atheist mind started running. I loved the serial on the epic (B R Chopra wala) a lot during my childhood days, but since then many questions have raised in my mind regarding the happenings in the story.
Being an epic, the writer Vedvyas has given equal footage and screen space to both Gods and Men, even to such an extent that the main character is an incarnation of Vishnu and some others are son of Gods (much like the epic Iliad). Many people claim that Mahabharata is not a story after all and happened actually during some 5K BC or something. Then how come the people in Mahabharata were so advanced during that time. The kind of material used in Mahabharata suggests that the people were way ahead of their time and that does not seem to be correct, considering the time period. If the setup was say 1K BC, then why is it considered an epic and why no concrete historical evidence exists. Also if this would have been the case, then we could have seen the God angle in other stories of the same time like that of Asoka.
This makes me question the authenticity of the epic. What if Krishna was actually not some incarnation and was actually a ruthless king and a great manipulator. Its a known fact that history has been manipulated a lot by powerful kings, so that it suits them. What if Krishna was such a character, who hired a guy named Vedvyas to write a grand story about him being some incarnation of God. What if the kurukhestra battle was much lesser in proportion and was actually fought between 2 brother clans over a piece of land, without the Dharm and Satya angle in it. What if Duryondhan was actually a nice guy and Pandavs turned him into a monster after they won the Kurukhestra war.
These are just questions, which no one can answer in this world for sure.
Being an epic, the writer Vedvyas has given equal footage and screen space to both Gods and Men, even to such an extent that the main character is an incarnation of Vishnu and some others are son of Gods (much like the epic Iliad). Many people claim that Mahabharata is not a story after all and happened actually during some 5K BC or something. Then how come the people in Mahabharata were so advanced during that time. The kind of material used in Mahabharata suggests that the people were way ahead of their time and that does not seem to be correct, considering the time period. If the setup was say 1K BC, then why is it considered an epic and why no concrete historical evidence exists. Also if this would have been the case, then we could have seen the God angle in other stories of the same time like that of Asoka.
This makes me question the authenticity of the epic. What if Krishna was actually not some incarnation and was actually a ruthless king and a great manipulator. Its a known fact that history has been manipulated a lot by powerful kings, so that it suits them. What if Krishna was such a character, who hired a guy named Vedvyas to write a grand story about him being some incarnation of God. What if the kurukhestra battle was much lesser in proportion and was actually fought between 2 brother clans over a piece of land, without the Dharm and Satya angle in it. What if Duryondhan was actually a nice guy and Pandavs turned him into a monster after they won the Kurukhestra war.
These are just questions, which no one can answer in this world for sure.
3 comments:
Does it really matter? Point is it still remains a gr8 inspiration to people. The Bhagvad Gita and its teaching find relevance even today in every aspect of life. So even if the whole story seems fictional, how does it really matter? :-)
These are just thoughts which I'm sure many wud agree with ;-)
P.S.: I'm a believer so maybe u know...
i am not questioning the bhagwat gita, but what about the mahabharata itself??? its more of a good story than actually teaching us anything
Read somewhere that there were entire families (caste system zindabad) who did "touch-ups" on vedvyasa's epic as per the current ruler's dictat. So to B's question, manipulation is a distinct possibility and to D's line of thought, I tend to concur albeit reservedly.
Post a Comment