I was soo intrigued by the stories when i was a kid , but due some reasons i never thought about it , And i think the stories will help me guide through life ,

And i am not much of a book guy i have never read a book but comics yea.. soo here's the question what is the best and accurate depiction of the epic..?

And since i am not much of a book guy do you guys know any comic kinda depiction of the epic

Does Mahabharata advocates Casteism based on birth? Question - Beginner Here are some verses which I have doubts with-

Mahabharata udyoga parva ch 29- Lord Krishna says that Shudra shouldnt study Vedas.

But then how can he become a brahmin if he wants to become one?

Then, Mahabharata anusasana parva ch 29-

“Bhishma said, ‘For the Kshatriya, O delighter of the Kurus, two wiveshave been ordained. The Kshatriya may take a third wife from the Sudraorder. Such practice prevails, it is true, but it is not sanctioned bythe scriptures. Even this should be the order, O Yudhisthira, of thespouses of a Kshatriya. The property of a Kshatriya should, O king, bedivided into eight shares. The son of the Kshatriya wife shall take fourof such shares of the paternal property. The son of the Vaisya wife shalltake three of such shares. The remaining one or the eighth share shall betaken by the son of the Sudra wife. The son of the Sudra wife, however,shall take only when the father gives but not otherwise. For the Vaisyaonly one wife has been ordained. A second wife is taken from the Sudraorder. The practice prevails, it is true, but it is not sanctioned by thescriptures. If a Vaisya has two wives, one of whom is a Vaisya and theother a Sudra, there is a difference between them in respect of status.The wealth of a Vaisya, O chief of Bharata’s race, should be divided Intofive portions. I shall now speak of the sons of a Vaisya by a wife of hisown order and by one belonging to the inferior order, as also of themanner in which, O king his wealth is to be distributed among thosechildren. The son born of the Vaisya wife shall take four of such sharesof his father’s wealth. The fifth share, O Bharata, has been said tobelong to the son born of the Sudra wife. Such a son, however, shall takewhen the father gives. He should not take anything unless the fathergives it to him. The son that is begotten on a Sudra wife by persons ofthe three higher orders should always be regarded as disentitled to anyshare of the sire’s wealth. The Sudra should have only one wife takenfrom his own order. He can under no circumstances, take any other spouse.Even if he happens to have a century of sons by such a spouse, all ofthem share equally the wealth that he may leave behind. As regards allthe orders, the children born of the spouse taken from the husband’s ownorder shall, it has been laid down, share equally the father’s wealth.The eldest son’s share shall be greater than that of every other son, forhe shall take one share more than each of his brothers, consisting of thebest things of his father. Even this is the law of inheritance, O son ofPritha, as declared by the Self-born himself. Amongst children all bornof the spouse taken from the husband’s own order, there is anotherdistinction, O king! In marrying, the elder ones should always precedethe younger ones. The spouses being all equal in respect of their orderof birth, and the children also being all equal in respect of the statusof their mothers, the son that is first-born shall take one share morethan each of his other brothers. The son that comes next in point of ageshall take a share that is next in value, while the son that is youngestshall take the share that belongs to the youngest.[297] Thus amongspouses of all orders, they that belong to the same order with thehusband are regarded as the first. Even this is what was declared by thegreat Rishi Kasyapa the son of Marichi.’

Read more https://spiritualworld.co.in/dharmic-granth/mahabharat-english/mahabharat-in-english-anusasana-parva/mahabharat-english-book-13-chapter-47/

Pls, help me figure it out.

I know this name is not that trending anymore and kids these days have name like Aditya, Rohan and so on. But I have noticed the name Shishupal was very common in our parents' generation. Every friend of mine has an uncle or something like that with this name. The thing is the meaning of this name is very good indeed but if we look in mahabharata, shishupal was not a good man. He insulted Lord Krishna in front of many people and was later killed by Lord Krishna himself. I would consider dying at the hands of lord krishna to be a very auspicious thing. But as a parent I wouldn't want to name my kid that knowing this context. I mean no disrespect to anyone. Just curious and wanted to know the views of people.

If you’re interested in watching the entire Mahabharat in short with animated AI characters, check out this series for a captivating retelling.

https://youtu.be/0MEIXCMsSE8?si=9E2sYecCeeg8a_QT

Who is considered to be the best foot soldier who fought either by pandava or kaurava side like not the ones who rode the chariot

Karna fans I would like to know the civil point of view of what you guys think about draupadi's humiliation and do you guys think that his reaction was justified?? Please tell me your side of story

A question popped in my head today, I've been listening to Gita and came across this part where Shree Krishna mentions that this 'gyaan' is not supposed to be read by anyone and is secretive, people have to go through a lot of exercises to reach this understanding and knowledge given in Gita by Krishna himself. Saying he gives that because Arjuna needs this knowledge to fight the necessary war. As we all know, the almighty knows everything everywhere everyone, would he have not known the Sanjay would be describing the same secretive knowledge to Dritrashtra? And later would he noted by Vyas, and get passed on as a book? If he did, was it on purpose? If not, how does it work? (I might have gotten some facts wrong, correct me if so)

I'm starting the Mahabharata for research purposes as well as personal interest. What should i read first?

There are so many translations ans versions of the text that it is impossible to figure out.

Need something which is unbiased and would ease you in the world without overwhelming. Are modern translations honest to the source matrial or should i go for the original text? If any.

Later i would like to divulge into the finer details of the story or read another version or take on the same.

Why is Krishna called 'Bhagavān' and Shiva 'Īśvara' in Mahabharata? Does it imply something?

You can see this in Mahabharata. When Krishna is about to say something Vyasa Ji wrote 'Bhagavān Uvāca' whereas for Shiva he wrote 'Īśvara Uvāca'.

I bought the Mahabharata book set written by Bibek Debroy last year and now I want to sell them. I started with the Gita Press Gorakhpur books recently and personally, I found the latter ones to be easier and comfortable.

So I am planning to sell Bibek Debroy books and get the Gita Press books.

Please msg me if anyone's interested.

As far as I know, (and I don't know everything), was Eklavya in the story only to show how insecure Arjuna's character was? What happened to him later on? And what can we learn from his character? Also, is there any mention about him getting moksha?

From what I've heard, all the warriors in Kurukshetra went to heaven, including Duryodhana, Dushashana, etc. The reason being stated is that they had to face their karma in war itself. If that theory really holds, is there any point of doing good karma? Considering Pandavas trying to do good deeds and Kauravas being on the wrong side, to compensate for their Karma, Kauravas had to fight the battle (which they induced) and Pandavas joined forcefully, ending with same fate. Is it justifiable? (Please let me know if I got any facts wrong)

What are their specific strengths?

Imagine a brother going through this, his recently married sister finds out that the husband is blind, she turns blind by choice and have ti live that way the rest of her life. Later on, due to unfortunate events, him and his brothers and his father, are thrown into cells and are not treated ethically. All the brothers have to die and Shakuni has to survive (even eat their organs), and had to see his father die as well. Anybody with this trauma would live for revenge undoubtedly. At some extent, it starts to sound reasonable why he did the wrongful things to the whole clan. Do you think it can be justified? (Please correct me if I got any facts wrong)

All new posts are being removed by the AutoModerator, and unfortunately I don't have permissions as a moderator right now to fix the AutoMod config.

So if your post is removed, send me a message and I will approve it ASAP.

The other moderators on this subreddit are inactive, so in the meantime I am trying to fix that situation by being focused on moderating so that I can become "active" and add new moderators.

After about a week of my moderating here, my status should change to "Active" and I can begin fixing the problems that exist.

So please bear with me as I'm trying the best I can :-)

As we all know from the epic story of Mahabharat coming to an end with Pandavas and Draupadi dying through the mountain. Only Yudhisthira makes it till the end as said that he was the most righteous and dharmic person. Everybody else had sinned in their natures, example Bheema was controlled by Gluttony and Anger, Arjuna by Insecurity, Nakula by Pride, etc. But Yudhisthira didn't commit any such sins, hence he could make it to heaven. On the contrary, we see one of the major events happening in Mahabharat is the game of luck where Pandavas lose everything including their Kingdom and wife as well. As much as the brothers were part of it, Yudhisthira was the one who played the game and made all the decisions. While narrating Gita, Krishna mentions that Gambling is one of the greatest sins one could commit. Not only did Yudhisthira like playing games, he also risked all he had in the act, sounds like gambling to me. Was there a loophole he got through? How does it work? Could use some insight if anybody got any theories.

I was reading bori mahabharata and there was a chapter about chaya and shani .

This speaks of chaya cursing yama but every other media has shown that shani got cursed instead? Is it another popular folktale or another case of indian serials stuffing drama in?

In the Adiparva there are stories about Aruni and two of his other colleagues. There are also accounts of Dhritrashtra’s Regrets (तदा नाशंसे विजयाय सञ्जय ) They ,to me, clearly seem out of the context for the Adiparva and it’s highly possible that interpolated. And surprisingly they have been adopted by the most authentic Bhandarkar edition. Why was so? Why did those researchers conclude those as the part of the original Mahabharata?