hey can anyone solve this mistry how 100 kaurabs were born from the same mom and dad in mahabharat? Is it possible to have 100 kids in one life time,,i thought it takes atleast 9 months before a girl gets pregnant and she delivers a baby alive..

if i am mathematically correct age difference between duryodhan and his youngest bro should have been atleast 90 years even if his mom had been getting pregnant incessantly,,and in the war with pandaws and allies duryodhan should have been there with a walking stick while his youngest bro still in diaper and wanting to play all those wonderful toys,,,

so mahabharat does not make sense to me,,anyway if any of it is true then I would say dhritarastra is great,,,u sure make a match with Ron Jeremy...

Furious bro...first i was'nt there but i wish during the rein of great war of mahabharata. I was telling you guys what i saw and my analysis. Dude, if u thankful , i will come down to your bar and join you for jack daniel coke. If u r being sarcastic then i will buy bottle of veve cliquoe...promise.
I am giving u that for your amazing great sense of humour. It is quit surprising to see someone like you..hahahahhahhahaha anyways fun...i love that chinese actor..he is talented...what the fu..k is name?

Oh john aka gothalo....thank u re....la la welcome

Yudisthir was man with moral values but he was not flexible..I think if u have to be good king then u have to be flexible..ppl who live in there own moral values are stub born and perfectionist..This kind of ppl suffer in life because they can be broken easily..they see one way. He was talented and smart but his values was too bad. If he wanted he could have stop the war easily. The way he gambled the wife dropati, was not fare..it is disrespect for women. He is not satyabadi...at all. Why the heck was that when he was forced by krishna to say....aswathama was dead .infact elephant name aswastham was dead. The biggest dick head in mahabharat is krishna...he is chatur siyal...if he wanted everything should have been well. The blame goes to sakuni for no reason now

cooketa....have u heard practise makes perfect....if our ancestors has been having sex in dark room with lights off. what the heck is wrong to have sex being blind fold and blind. It is like same....has your mum seen your dad naked..answer is no. .but they still find the place and u r born. I am sure my mum and dad hasnot seem them naked either. By the way which gal in the world not like to be blindfolded and to have sex.

Gandhari started blind folded sex....dude

moneyminded, no need to bring my parents into this ok? I am offended

sorry to bring your parents.....dude..didnot mean to hurt you. I am telling truth dude. sorry..

It is written in several places in the Mahabharata that it is an "itihas" which exclusively means, "Thus occurred". The Aryan people to categorize "ancient" and "recent" events specifically coined the words "Puraana" and "Itihas". Both the words denote history that has occurred at different times.

It is mentioned in the Mahabharata (Adi parva, Adhyaya 62) that the annals of the Bharata-Dynasty are recorded in the work.

It has been clearly stated in the Adi parva, Bhishmaparva etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a "mahakavya" or "katha".

It would be absurd to say that the Mahabharata is not an "itihas" due to its poetic nature. It was a custom in those days to write everything in poetic form.

Veda Vyasa had decided to write down the "itihas" even before the initiation of the Mahabharata War. Therefore during the course of the War, Vyasa meticulously noted all the possible details. If it were a work of fiction, why would a person like Vyasa want to fill his work with such minute and unnecessary details?

A number of dynasties with their long lineage of kings have been presented in this work. More than 50 kings from King Barhi to Maharaja Pandu have been recorded. Additional information about the King, his wife, his scions, his relations, etc. have been accounted in great detail. If it were just fiction, only 4-5 kings would have sufficed to build the story on. Why such mind-boggling details?

The dynasties recorded in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata concur without a difference. Even the relationships between different kings and their dynasties in both the great "epics" match with each other. If both were mere "epics" written by two entirely different people at two different times, would everything match, even as regards the minor details?

Many events mentioned in the Ramayana and Mahabharata are the same. Eg.: The mother of (latter) King Sagar was poisoned by his step-mother so that her child would be aborted. But the child was born nevertheless, who was therefore named Sagar.

The cities established by certain kings have been noted in detail.

All the characters in the "epic" are well portrayed. Every single facet of their character and important events in their life were recorded. Are such detailed accounts important in a "Maha-kavya"?

The weapons mentioned in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are somewhat the same. In fact, some weapons in the Ramayana are not mentioned in the latter "epic" Mahabharata. (eg. Soorya'stra, Yamya'stra, Shoolva'stra..etc.) [The mentioned weapons may have disappeared in the era between the two events taking place].

The Greek historian Megasthenes has stated that Chandragupta Maurya was the 138 King in the lineage of Lord Krishna. This means that Lord Krishna did exist in the bygone era and that Mahabharata did really occur.

Archaeological excavations have discovered the submerged city of Dwarka. This is the same Dwarka as mentioned in the Mahabharata.
[It has been reckoned that the city of Dwarka became submerged between 2000-3000 B.C.]

The astronomical recordings in the Mahabharata "epic" and other scriptures (Bhagavatam), give the correct positions of the planets and stars during that time. A work of fiction would not use such astrological detail.

It is written in several places in the Mahabharata that it is an "itihas" which exclusively means, "Thus occurred". The Aryan people to categorize "ancient" and "recent" events specifically coined the words "Puraana" and "Itihas". Both the words denote history that has occurred at different times.

It is mentioned in the Mahabharata (Adi parva, Adhyaya 62) that the annals of the Bharata-Dynasty are recorded in the work.

It has been clearly stated in the Adi parva, Bhishmaparva etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a "mahakavya" or "katha".

Moneyminded, you presented a great work of plagiarism. Do you not have your own idea? At least mention the source of the article.

Moneyminded, if you didnt really mean to offend me, i guess we are still cool. :)

Hahahaha Moneyminded bhai, one should always put a reference note if one posts other people's work. For example, yours is a copy paste from

http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2003/01/018.html

Hoina ra?

Narisaunu hai! No big deal.

In my view, Mahabharat isn't that old, probably around 1500 years old. Its an exaggerated version of the reality. That's what it is. Its neo-Hinduism stuff, not the old Hindu stuff. I mean, the old day-Hindus were writing upanishads and stuff trying to understand the nature and the self. They didn't have time for all this story. So it has to be new, not from the time of the Vedas and the Upanishads. The epic is a link between the old Hindu society/thinking and the new thinking. So instead of seeing it as something that really happened and that it has to do something with God, see it as something that lets us understand the Hindu society in transition. Its a link to understand the old Hindu world and the New Hindu world.

also, I think, the geeta was added later to Mahabharat. The original version has to be short, not 100,000 verses and without the geeta.

Why? What is the basis of your assertion?

My basis of assertion:

Mahabharata is like the Bible. Who here can claim to have seen the original version of Mahabharata? Anyone? It was written, rewritten and in the process of writing/rewriting people added their own views/things. It certainly didn't happen in Dwapar Yug, nor Vyasa wrote it and had exclusive copy right for it. Someone in Northern India or Nepal wrote it, it became popular and the people in this region started adding things to it. For example, the oldest copy of Mahabharata was in Nepal, at Bir Pustakalaya, Ghantaghar ko.. during the 60s it was loaned to the Bhandarkar Research Institute of Pune, India, from where it never came back. The Mahabharata we saw on TV was based on the Bhandarkar Institute's Mahabharata, which happens to be the Nepali version of Mahabharata. And I don't think the Mahabharata we had at Bir Pustakalaya, which I haven't see myslelf, was 1500 years old. It wa sprobably 700-800 years old, and 1500 to 700 eyars time, you have 800 years gap and in the 800 years gap, people altered it by adding their own stuff.. and its probably then it became 100000 verses epic. And its probably then, people added the Geeta to it. If it was old, then the people we would have had people who wrote the upanishads discussing and writing multiple views on the geeta too, hoina? So, both Mahabharata and geeta have to be new, when the old philosophical reasoning school of hindusim had died out and more deuta believing school had taken over.

then the people we would have had people who wrote the upanishads discussing and writing multiple views on the geeta too, hoina? So, both Mahabharata and geeta have to be new, when the old philosophical reasoning school of hindusim had died out and more deuta believing school had taken over. =

then we would have had people who wrote the upanishads discussing and writing multiple views on the geeta too, hoina? So, both Mahabharata and geeta have to be new, when the old philosophical reasoning school of hindusim had died out and more deuta believing school had taken over.

Thanks for your explanation. That was what I was looking for. Good job.

I'm kinda dissapointed that moneyminded's posting was a cut and paste. I was beginning to think very highly of him. Oh well the bubble had to be burst.

Your assertion of old hinduism vs. new hinduism is very interesting. From what I understand of so called "old" hindu philosophy, it seems remarkably similar to what I know from Buddhism. Both emphasize the ultimate void - "sunyata" in former, "nirvana" in latter. However, buddhism has the tilt towards "atheistic" flavor (with assertions that soul and god does not exist), I wonder what upanishad's say in this regard.

also, people are misinterpreting Hindusim when they tend to base their faith on epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana. Hindusim is very symbolic and very adaptive to the changing circumstances. For example, the Hindus used all these stories/gods to udnerstand the creation. Gods are codes, once you crack the code, all makes sense.

here's an example:

Matysa Kurma Barahascha, Nrisimho Bamanastatha
Rama Ramayo Ramascha, Buddha Kalki Tathai Vacha

What is it if not explaining evolution?

Also Ganesha,

Who what is ganesha? He is the symbolic representation of the body controlling the mind.

Prathamam Shailaputrim Cha, Dwitiyam Brahma Charini
Tritiyam Chandra Ghante Ti, Kusmande Ti Chaturthakam

This is explaining a women's life- from the time of her birth to death.

Hinduism is still evolving. Anyone can come up with any version of god and add it to the Hindu pantheon of deities. Who is Santoshi Mata? It originated in the 60s 70s and is now one of the Hindu dieties.

Also, the Hindus interaction with Christ:

Yisa Putram Cha Mam Biddhi, Kumari Garbha Sambhavam. (the son of god born of(f) Virgin Mary).- Bhavisya Purana.

So, Hindusim is amazing! K garnu, aru nai field rojiyo.. comparative religion rojnu parne raicha.

Hya mula haru.....sabai jana PHD haru..First, i am saying that is my work and i do lot of research on this thing but my mind is boggling with diff facts. Yes, i do go to net and look for facts about hinduism and epics. If i was able to write that...ghata, i will be here. I could have wrote my own book and be discussing somewhere in convention. Tehi ali ali knowladge bhara taa bigriyo ne..ke mahabahart ra ramayan analysis baneko 3 barsa ko research ho ra. It will take a long and i will be still learning when i will be bed of death. In terms of bilbography, my deepest apolozies...ke garne ama bau le tamij sikayena...maaf pau hajur....bubble bhutyo re....la la ramrai ho. If u listen to my concept of human life and mahabharata u will go nuts.
hahahahhahhahaha

cool kt i am cool with you....i know i am nuts to bring my parents as well....

I figure out now why my nepali frens tell me i should not marry nepali gals.

sorry first line should be that is not my work

it is not my work...above link is real one given by riten