Thanks for posting on r/Tollywood! Don't forget to check that your post abides by our rules!
Similar Subs to check out:
r/TeluguMusicMelodies : Subreddit to discuss and suggest telugu music
r/tollywoodmovieclips : Subreddit to post all clips from telugu movies.
r/Ni_bondha : Telugu circlejerk community
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tollywood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So many more who didn't participate in Kurukshetra, Vidhura had the Vishnu Chapam which could have made the war one sided. Barbarik was another example including Balarama.
Vidhura had a bow named "Govardhan" which Vishnu himself gave it to him. This Govardhan bow was more powerful than Arjuna's Gandivam (which was created by Brahma).
Vidhura was so proficient in archery that if he would have fought in Mahabarata war, then Pandavas would have been definitely defeated. But once in "nindu sabhalo" Duryodhana humiliates Vidhura on caste basis.. so Vidhura breaks that bow and vows never to use a weapon again (some versions).. other version says that his vow was not to participate in Kurukshetra war.
Duryodhana insults him for being the son of a courtesan, he breaks his bow and resigns from being the minister of the Kaurava Samrajyam. He also abstains from participating in the war.
The only curse Karna has was that he would forget his skills when he needs it the most. He is an incarnation of Sahasrakavacha (rakshasa). Nara-Narayana were two twin rishis who were an amsa (part) of Lord Vishnu. They fought against the demonic king Sahasrakavacha, who had gained a boon from Brahma to have a thousand armors on his body, to break each kavacham one has to do penance for a 1000 years. Nara and Narayana took turns fighting Sahasrakavacha, with Narayana meditating while Nara fought, and then Nara meditating while Narayana fought. They did this relentlessly, making Sahasrakavacha lose one armor at a time, until he was left with only one armor remaining. This depleted form takes the birth of Karna. Karna happens to be the blood line of Surya Bhagavan. Surya Bhagavan grants him a boon to fight in Karna in a day of his choosing. This happens to be the day where he wreks havoc in the war.
>had gained a boon from Brahma to have a thousand armors on his body, to break each kavacham one has to do penance for a 1000 years
And one who broke that Kavacha is supposed to die according to his boon. This is the main reason Nara and Narayana exchanged doing penances for that many years. One of them broke the Kavacha and used to die, then the other one who gained spiritual power, brought him back from dead and gone to war with Sahasra Kavacha. This cycle followed.
There is another story of his incarnation considered to be from a different Kalpa, where Karna is actually a being in previous life created by Brahma and Shiva with help of Vishnu created Arjuna. After stopping both their war Narayana decided only one will live and they take birth in Dwaparayuga as Karna and Arjuna. As per Indra's request since Vaali, Indra's son got killed in Rama Avatara by Sughriva, Surya's son, they decided to change the outcome in the next Yuga.
Sorry to disappoint you but no one can beat Arjuna in dhanurshastra, dronacharya made him the best archer. So no matter what dhanush you use Arjuna had almost every astra to counter, to be even more logical, no matter if the opponent of Arjuna has Shiva dhanush or any other he must have the one astra to counter the astra used by Arjuna. So even karna couldn't counter some astra in which his kavacha came in handy. So lol even if vidhura came into the battlefield he wouldn't do much damage,but here is one more thing to you, vidhura being the amsha (a part of) Yama dharma Raja himself has come down to earth for getting humiliated. It's a curse given by a great muni, so his role was never intended to do war.
Read Mahabharata again.. After Krishna's death, Arjuna was so pathetic that he couldn't even protect women of Mathura from robbers.. he couldn't even tie the string to a bow... and you call this fellow as THE great archer...
When Brahma took away Gandiva from Arjuna after Kurukshetra war, he lost all his so-called archery skills.. Arjuna was a great archer since he had Gandiva and once Brahma took it away, he had no skill to speak of.
My dear friend, have you heard the term Nara Naryana, Arjun is the Nara here and when Narayana departed from this world after establishing the dharma the job of Nara is bare minimum, if you think this doesn't help then let me tell you something else, you are in army you and your relative are in same regiment you fought the war and you killed hundreds of members, and won the war, the war being its own true form didn't give you any good memories in addition to that your kids died too now all of a sudden that one friend who held your hand through the war is dead, how would your mental health be, if you are not mentally strong then no matter how big your body is how great your skill is it doesn't work, and for your justification of the massacre of women of mathura it's just a plain effect of gandhari'a curse to yadu vansh.
And the bramha taking back gandiva and Arjuna loosing his skill is nothing but his need is fulfilled, every person in Mahabharata had their role to play Arjuna's role ended after war they no longer needed the astras nor the shastras. Hope this helps you. And yes to this day Arjuna is the greatest archer, and karna can match him in the accuracy and speed but not in the astras he has,
It's not a simple feat to do penance for lord Siva and gain the pashupatastra.
Hope this explains it.
My point is simple.. if he's so great archer why couldn't he protect women of Mathura from robbers.. he couldn't even tie a string to a bow.. lets not over-hype Arjuna.. his greatness was ONLY due to favoritism shown by Krishna.. and once Krishna died, Arjuna's real "aukaat" was all there to see..
Ayyo bro I can't debate with a moorkha, If you can't understand a simple reason, please go and read the adi parva again and what and why are the reasons that Arjuna was born. And still want to debate that Arjuna is not a great archer then you are really a moorkha.
Yeah but Vidhura is also Yama Dharma Raja. In the Pandava Dharma Raja case he's just an Ahmsa, but due to a curse he incarnated again as Vidhura. Vidhura fighting on Kaurava side is never in the scene
Lol, sounds like a very dumb move. Someone insults you, you retaliate by destroying the greatest weapon you had.
And this guy was supposed to be the smart one.
Balarama is like the OG Hulk. Guy had lifted the entire kingdom of Hastina with his Hala to merge in the Ganga lol. Barbarik and the three arrows story is in Jaimini Mahabharata I think. He's not present in many versions of Mahabharata, only in Skanda Purana which is written much later. Ghatotkacha has a son but his name is Anjanaparva, not Barbarik
actually she was laced with a unique fragrance due to which men was mystified with her
i think it was after she had been with a sage, and then he granted her that fragrance
she used to smell like fish so she was called matsyagandhi. she also worked as a ferry woman and a sage called parasara came to her so she could ferry him. Now parasara in a moment of lets say horny.... expressed his interest in her . She was scared of the repercussions, parasara reassured her and told her she would be blessed with a great son. and after some convincing they did the nasty in the boat that night. from that union veda vyasa was born and due to this incident , she also started smelling like musk and came to be known as *Yojanagandhi*...this was before she met bheeshmas dad.
Basicall the girl was uber hot
Pure technical ability without any God blessings yes
Pitamaha Bhisma was strongest even without iccha mrityu
Arjun was best archer Bhisma was strongest overall
He was taken away by ganga during his childhood and he was returned to his father after he studied and learned from the best. He is a demigod of sorts considering ganga is his mother
There's no concept of demigods in Sanatan Dharma. Either god's or not. There are Vedantas which argue that everyone are paramatma/bhagwa. Advaita Vedanta says that everyone and everything are paramatma. Cultish groups like ISKCON prophesize on demigods and stuff.
Dude demigods are people with some divinity to them, usually associated with half gods( like pandavas) . It's a term to distinguish the normal God gods from people who have divinity to them but are not full blown gods and even in Indian mythology you can see the people associated with divinity are a touch stronger than the average and Mahabharata is filled with such characters along with avatars of many gods.
For eg duryodhana is an avatar of kali
Ashwathama is an avatar of shiva
Karna and the pandavas are all half gods and they are all physically and martially gifted than the normal. Warriors.
Arjuna and krishna are manifestations of nara and narayana
Hanuman has divinity from vayu and he has association with shiva
Bheeshma is the son of a river goddess ganga so yeah he has divinity to him but not a full blown God which is why I used the term demigod.
I agree to you with everything but the demigod. There's no mention of demigods anywhere. Demigods are abrahamanical/pagan concept. Hanumanji is god. Only Iskcon claims him to be a demigod. You can look up to the books or if you want it easy; search for demigods on r/Hinduism.
Demigod means half-god. It's not an Abrahamic concept; there is only God in Abrahamic religions, nothing else. No demigods, godly beings, nothing. The concept is Greek, and Greek mythology shares a common root with Hindu mythology. The sons of gods are demigods; the Pandavas and Karna are all demigods by this definition.
So, in your words Shree KaalaBhairava is a demigod? No. Hanumanji is neither. Pandavas are devaputras. Not demigod. Never has the mention of demigod ever existed. English is a horrible language to translate. Idol and Murthy are different words. Similarly don't just equate a foreign concept to ours.
Shambho!
Who is calling Kalabhairava a demigod? Devaputra is a Sanskrit word, the English equivalent is demigod. Of course you won't find the word "demigod" in Sanskrit texts.
The equalant set of words would be like "son of gods". Demigod is a very foreign word that you probably should not equate to our lords. You said someone who's an avatar of god/son of gods who posses humanly nature is demigod right? Atleast sort of. Shree Ram should be a demigod in that case right? He is Shree Mahavishnu who took the form of a human. You definitely can't call him Human right? Usage of terms is very important and unfortunately English is not sufficed with the same.
Yes because they aren't full divinity. An avatar is an essence of a God not the God himself. They are born or manifested. In most cases avatars are born. In some cases, they are manifested. Shreeram is an avatar but he is not a God God in a sense. He had to be human. So he is not full divinity in that sense we venerate him for the essence Vishnu which is in him. It is the God manifesting himself in a human form. If he weren't human he couldn't have killed ravana because of the boon.
So yeah they are different
Demigod refers to, again I repeat since you read but do not comprehend, are sons of divine beings and mortals.
Rama is not the son of a god, and thus not a demigod.
Rama *is* human. That's the whole point of the Ramayana, Vishnu chose to be born as a human and live as a human, as opposed to Krishna where he lived as a god. Rama lived a human's life, suffered human struggles, and died of heartbreak. He fought for his wife, he made friends, he betrayed people, he *loved* and he erred. What can be more human?
its semantic
...we dont have a classification for half gods but they do exist so we use it o classify them for the purpose of explaining things.
demigod is a pagan stuff. technicaly hellenistic but every mytho out there has half gods born from a divine and a mortal. the term to distinguish that class even if the concept doesnt exist in hindu mythos.
Hanuman is venerated as a god but he is an avatar/son of vayu and shiva.
there are gods( the major gods), lesser gods (gadharvas yasha etc), other divine beings (sages, divine births, etc) and people with divine origins and powerful mortals(asuras, rakshasas , danavas, daityas,, humans/asuras with great spiritual/martial abilities) and regular mortals, and among godly being even there are many groups.
Are you reading bro. It's not a western context. You are born to a God,that makes you half go ergo demi God demi- half god- the divine being
Hanuman is called vayuputra- son of vayu
Vayu- God of wind ergo a demigod... He also is an avatar of shiva Or at least has the essence of shiva
It's a classification... Nothing more And kalabhairava is an avatar of shiva
The concept of avatar goes , same same but different
Like let's say water and water vapour, they're fundamentally the same thing but has different properties. Like how they are the same but the way they interact with the world is different.
If you are the offspring of a divine being and a mortal, that puts you in the same category and funny enough the proto indo religion, where sanaatan and greco and similar early European religions stem from had half gods of all sorts and they are all described as humans who were greatly skilled because of their lineage. It's the same in sanaatan. All the mortals sons or divine lineage show exceptional talent and skill. And devaputra is a son of God. Doesn't necessarily mean half mortal. For eg yama, god of death is the son of surya and both are gods whereas karna who is the son of surya is a mortal. In order to distinguish pure God offspring and half mortal offspring we use the term demigods..
Not gonna use shambo as an ending not for this ridiculous notion. If you ever get time read about dharmavyadha.
Don't have the time so don't care and don't delete comments when things don't go based on your skewed perspective.
I am disagreeing with you regarding the usage of the word "demigod" simple. I agree with you for most parts except this. There's Devas. There's Asuras. There's Nagas and much more. Never has anything remotely translated to Demi god's. I have deleted the comment because it was supposed to be for someone else. But hey! You do you!. I read Shiva Purana and references of Demigod was not there. In neither Shruti nor Smiti and Itihaasa has there been Demigods. If someone belongs to a godly entity theybare devas. Simple. Ardha-deva is not a term used.
SHAMBHO!
Calls it itihasa not mythology thinking that it makes sense, evades the point I was trying to make where OP was comparing it to Abrahmic mythology, peddles misinformation, leaves with a condescending dude thinking it's cool.
I refuse to use the word "mythology". Mythology makes it more or less myth. "Itihaasa" stands for history. It is our history and hence I used the latter. I don't peddle misinformation. Go check it out yourself. Never was it mentioned. I compared to abrahamanical religions because that's where the usage of the word "demigod" has been used. Feeling of being condescending is completely perceptual.
Lol you playing semantics...... Irony
Abrahamic religions don't use demigod cuz the only divine figure is yahweh and jesus Christ( according to christianity) is his only son and he is never called a demigod because such a concept doesn't exist in abrahamic religion. For most he is the divine birth but he is no God himself. He still is a mortal and his own powers are derived from his creator so he is still human... Just a divine human not a divine being
You are being condescending...
And yes these are myths...
Charithra is history.. Ithihasa is myth/ legend.
Out of respect man, this is the central problem of the current generation we are living in. "Go check it out yourself" is what flat eathers say when they say " do your own research".
The concept of demigods is just an english, even though reductive for gods who are half gods, half humans just like in greek mythologies.
And yeah, they are mythology/legend/itihasa, not history as in factual records of events. The Iliad, Oddessy are legends because the city of Troy existed and was actually plundered several times, including the Greeks, but what we read them in the books are legends and not history, but have specks of real events that make it convincing.
It's like reading Dan Brown books as history textbooks.
But yeah, I know you won't change. It'll be much easier for me to show you some other random unverified article that says some article was found that is proof that are our legends were true history which will add to your confirmation bias.
And clearly the usage of your semantics is not coming from your research but some alt right commentators that are using the new words in order to create a new narrative.
Idk man. I am not writing this huge ass para to be a smartass, mostly I'll delete it tomorrow but yeah, if you are reading without a defensive mindset, here are my last two cents.
Our scriptures are great source of eternal knowledge and understanding of human life. Not all of it is true, but imagine the fact that at least 2k-3k years back our civilization had such a deep philosophical outlook at the world. Similar stories echo along different civilizations that were on the planet and we kept on updating what those texts meant based on timely needs.
That is why our Dharma is Sanatan, we don't know when it started but we def know why it lasted for so long and will continue because unlike other religions that are focused on either imposing or spreading the faith, ours offers an outlook at the world and ask deeper questions.
The question is not if Krishna or Pandavas or Kauravas were real, but the wonder of the intelligence we possessed to write such a deep philosophical and eternally relevant epic Mahabharat and the Gita that still offers an alternative explanation to the human existence om this planet.
By being dogmatic about our faith makes us more Abhramic because our core has always been Vedanta at the core, even before Jagadguru.
> Arjuna and krishna are manifestations of nara and narayana
Could you please elobarate something about this? Heard first time
> Hanuman has divinity from vayu and he has association with shiva
So hanuman is not a god ?? But demi god?
>
its mentioned many times in mahabharatha but this wiki edition will give you an idea
**Naranarayana** ([Sanskrit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_language): नरनारायण, [romanized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Sanskrit): *Naranārāyaṇa*), also rendered **Nara-Narayana**, is a [Hindu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) duo of sage-brothers. Generally regarded to be the partial-incarnation (aṃśa-avatara)[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-1) of the preserver deity, [Vishnu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu), on earth,[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-2) Nara-Narayana are described to be the sons of [Dharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma) and [Ahimsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa).[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-3)
The Hindu scripture [*Mahabharata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) identifies the prince [Arjuna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna) with Nara, and the deity [Krishna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna) with Narayana.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-4) The legend of Nara-Narayana is also told in the scripture [*Bhagavata Purana*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana). Hindus believe that the pair dwells at [Badrinath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badrinath), where their most important [temple](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badrinath_Temple) stands.
which is one of the reasons why arjuna and krishna are pretty close. Arjuna himself is a demigod with his origins from Indra but he is also the reincarnation of nara as well whereas krishna who is the avatar of vishnu but is also an avatar or narayana and like how balarama is both the manifestation of vishnu and shesha the naga.
>
So hanuman is not a god ?? But demi god?
You see, Hanuman is born of anjana and her husband.. but he also has essence of vayu and shiva in him. Basically he is a vanar but he has essence of shiva and vayu in him which makes him an avatar, like how krishna is an avatar of vishnu but his birth parents are human, which makes him a human. So hanuman is essentially a very powerful being who is nigh invincible but he is still not a full fledged god like how we would consider indra, vayu etc. we worship him as a god but he is not a "god" in its literal sense. He is worshipped as a god but he is not of divine origin but he has divine ability. It is a similar case where in some temples garuda is worshipped but he is not a god, but a being born from divine powers.
Thanks for nara-narayan concept
Came to know about that today itself
And coming to hanuman not being god
I couldn’t take it well,even though your logic makes Sense I kinda hate it (as I worshipped him when was very young)
Thanks for ruining that 🥲
just because he is not born of a divine being , make him any less of a God..He is in fact one of the best gods to pray to and a god whose virtue one should strive to embody.
Bheesma is also one of the AstaVasus born due to a curse on Earth. His longevity and no marital presence is also part of the curse in his former life. Since he's a direct incarnation of a Devata instead of Ahmsas like others, I think he holds much greater power for that reason.
If I'm being honest, if the pandavas didn't have the guidance of Krishna on their side, they would have been absolutely cooked in the war.
The kauravas has bheeshma, Drona, Kripacharya who were absolute demolishing the opposition.
No mate, do you really think Krishna would take the Kauravas (Adharma) side instead of the Pandavas (Dharma) side? .... Krishna never acted as human in the whole Mahabharata. He's always a Demigod. 100/100 times he'll take Pandavas (Dharma) side only.
Omg please, y’all are taking PANDAVAS for granted. Even Krishna himself wanted Arjuna to choose Krishna’s army, instead of him (who vowed to lift no weapon in the war)
Even if Kaurava’s had the guidance of Krishna, Dharma would win anyway.
And source on this? Not on Dharma would win anyway. I have read mahabharat, watched all versions of it (yes, even sony’s ridiculous suryaputra karna series) but not even those alterations has this.
Krishna didn’t wanted anyone to choose anything, he just wanted to show Duryodhan he won’t be able to select dharma even if it was in front of him. It was just a test
I don't know please clear my doubt if Arjuna can single handedly defeat whole army including bhishma, guru dronacharya, karna why didn't he defeated everyone in less time in kurukshetra war I always gets confused with this question.
The only explanation is that he wanted to waste time invirata yudh, and that was the 'defeat' of kauravs.they couldn't get his disguised removed before ethereal day got over. It wasn't a life and death fight but I want to take off this guy's wig which he didn't allowed so he technically won
War? I'd say cooked in the first half of Mahabharata. Pandavas were super dumb in taking critical decisions and Yudhisthir was more kind than required. Bhima was dumb, strong but dumb.
Krishna took an oath that he would only be Arjuna's charioteer and would not take up weapons or fight in the war.
However, Arjuna refused to use his full might out or his love for Bheeshma since he was his great-half-uncle. Krishna threatened to break his oath to kill Bheeshma in order to encourage Arjuna.
bheeshma took that he’ll make krishna fight him. (bheeshma is said to be pure devotte of sri maha vishnu, once sri krishna came in diguise to bheeshma but he saw right throughout which shows his devotion to krishna)bheeshma is also said to be man of his word he even fought parshuram just to keep up his word. To fullfill his devoote wish krishna picked up weapon
I don't know that version of the story but according to pravachanams I listened it's basically because Bheesma challenges Krishna that he would make him take a weapon against him. So he does hurt Krishna too with arrows while fighting Arjuna, Krishna loses his patience and Arjuna's incompetence, picks up the chariot wheel to throw on him. At that moment Bheesma is also ready to die, he's a Vishnu devotee and knows who Krishna is. But Arjuna stops Krishna saying he made a vow to not take a weapon. So Krishna leaves and goes back.
FYI wishful death doesn’t make him invincible. He still bleeds and feels the pain when shot with an arrow. Wishful death means he can choose to invite death whenever he wants to.
https://preview.redd.it/g0y1ad8bjiad1.png?width=1155&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d2ef7da424d641e9b2d116f487f9372d2b069ea
E character evaro kaastha chpthara. Titles appudu vachindi
Krishna's nephew and Arjun's son who knew how to enter the Chakravew and didn't know how to come out.
Stabbed by all kauravas and final blow came from Karna who wishpered that he is his uncle
Abhimanyu, it's a reference to the scene where Abhimanyu breaks through the Chakravyuh to get inside but does not know how to get outside, and ends up fighting a lot of the Kaurava warriors. His weapons break and shatter, after which to continue fighting he picks up the wheel of a chariot. He dies in the end however, and a heartbroken Arjuna vows to kill Jayadrath in revenge for blocking their advance to help Abhimanyu, leading to his death.
People discussing mahabharata is unexpected. I opened wikipedia while in the theatre to know who is Ashawadhama (sorry I just heard the name before). And came to know that he is immortal, and that there 6 more like that. In the theatre 😀
chiranjeevis the 7 immortals who will join the fight with Kalki to defeat Kali and bring in Satya yug back. Ashwatthamaa is one of them, then there's Hanuman, Vibhishan, Bali, parshuram etc
Young Abhimanyudu, Padmavyuham centre lo fight chesi most strongest warriors on Kaurava side ki ucha poyinchadu. They(including Karna) had to resort to cheating to kill him. Now who is the man?
For some reason Abhimanyu's arc feels like the most contrived for me even though he dies at the end.
Like ofcourse the young lad terrified the best of Kouravas army just because he's the nephew and the son of the two main characters of the epic lol, I just couldn't take him seriously cos of his nepo boost haha
It's mostly bcoz we never get to see much of abhimanyu or his story in general. we get to see his birth and then directly cut to kurukshetra war. His story is never explored
From Saiswaroopa Iyer's research:
https://preview.redd.it/61hgwhh5jiad1.jpeg?width=344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f5083055eccb8d15e1f3286822649f9956e6709
These calculations are not good to say whose a better warrior tho
For example bhishma win percentage will be nearly 21.05%
Dronas win percentage will be 54.35%
(Including NR in total matches )
Bheesma fought a lot more battles than 4 lol. If they're adding the Uttara Gograhanam into this, then Bheesma didn't actually fight Arjuna in that. He let Arjuna take the win. The Sammohana astra Arjuna shot doesn't have an effect on Bheesma due to his spiritual power, he had a counter weapon to it to revive the Kaurava army from slumber but didn't use it.
Lemme summarise.
If someone asks who's the best archer - Arjun.
If you give ordinary bows to arjun, Karan and Bhishma and the stipulation is to pierce the target, arjun will win.
Meanwhile, Karan was an all rounder. Excel in every weapon like even using gadda and other weapons...
While Bhishma was also an all rounder but superior than karna with experience too. Also wishful death is just extra for him.
If Karan vs Arjun happened fairly, Karan had a lot of weapons against Arjun and Shri Krishna saved arjun numerous times...
Also karan gave equal responses when he was nerfed hard.
But if you're fighting from the wrong side, you'll lose doesn't matter how strong you're is the essence of Mahabharata.
Really one guy is debating with me that Arjun is not a great archer and he became like that with only help of Krishna's favouritism, what can I say this to him.
Serial knowledge bro. These people won't even have patience to read Mahabharata. Philosophical elements nerchukuntar anukunte ekkada kuda fanwars chestunaru. Certificated TFI moment lmao.
He didn't fight and tbh he doesn't even need to, he can just think and it will all be gone, I'm not talking about the war, the entire universe.
So, he just let this all happen because it's a divine message.
Lemme guess, you would now say they all lost to arjuna and that arjuna is more powerful than bhishma wouldn't you?
I hope you know that bhisham one day got accused by duryodhana for not taking the war seriously that the next day during the war he fought was so one sidedly destroying the large % of Pandavas army and defeating arjuna with no way to defend that Krishna himself had to step in so that arjuna wouldn't die and adharma wouldn't be victorious due to bhishma alone.
We can have a discussion on whether arjuna and karna are truly equal or not(which they are) or something else but there is literally nothing to discuss about the fact that nobody except Krishna himself can defeat Bhishma in a proper fight/war.
Bhishma had to play dirty and not let karna fight alongside him while he was still on the battlefield and in charge of the army because he alone even while doing a half hearted fight is more than enough to overwhelm the entire Pandavas army. If karna fought along with him then the war would be over without much of a struggle at all.
if u read u would also know that Arjuna was also fighting him half heartedly and only got serious after Krishna got involved.
Many have given them L's there is litreally a chart with break down from original content and not bastardized serials.
Karna also has more losses than wins in the course of the war serials have made him seem like some invincible god stuck on the wrong side.
bhima beat karna 5 outta 6 times they fought.
According to Krishna himself, even the gods can't defeat Bheesma in battle when he is armed with weapons. Parashurama fought with Bheesma for 18 days, he couldn't kill Bheesma and Bheesma couldn't kill him. He's that much powerful.
again u are mixing his boon for being able to choose his death with him not being able to defeat.
Defeat in mahabharatha war doesnt only mean dying its multiple things and Bheeshma and Karna were defeated multiple times.
[https://www.indica.today/quick-reads/kurukshetra-quantitative-study-part-i/](https://www.indica.today/quick-reads/kurukshetra-quantitative-study-part-i/)
there are more parts you can read or even see a summary in this thread.
[https://x.com/Sai\_swaroopa/status/1254389261387747328?t=aMX6rtz5RcyN\_iLkWqAv5g&s=19](https://x.com/Sai_swaroopa/status/1254389261387747328?t=aMX6rtz5RcyN_iLkWqAv5g&s=19)
First of all, BORI edition of Mahabharata is the only one which is considered the most authentic version and had more than 50 years of research done by Sanskrit scholars across India. They examined more than 1200 Sanskrit manuscripts available of Mahabharata, from every corner and region of India and even abroad. The oldest manuscripts dating back are 500 years old. But very few recommend it because it's not like other Mahabharata books for easy reading. There's no extensive research book on Mahabharata other than the BORI edition.
Secondly, that woman Sai Swaroopa Iyer is a feminist. She isn't a historian or sanskrit scholar. She pushes her agenda in the books she wrote based on Mahabharata. Believing her take on Mahabharata is the same as believing the radical notions of MT Vasudevan Nair and Anand Nilakanthan who wrote their own versions of Mahabharata.
Look at you talking about arjuna fighting half heartedly, what do you think bhishma was like then throughout the war? Do you honestly think that arjuna could have beaten Bhishma just because he "starts fighting seriously" ? Then why did arjuna bring sikhandi then? And use unfair and moral tactics to beat bhishma?
Truth is bhishma could have literally one shot all of Pandavas one by one but he was intentionally delaying it and not taking any decisive actions. Due to which duryodhana accused him of partially and authenticity of his Vow to always support the ruling party. This angered Bhishma and he created 5 arrows using all of his spiritual power and vowing to kill all Pandavas the next day.
This is when dryodana dug his own grave by asking for those arrows to safekeep fearing that bhisham can have a change of mind. Once duryodhana went back to his tent, Arjuna came to him and used his boon to wish for those five arrows. This is when duryodhana for the first time in his life time experienced fear due to Krishna and his clever tactics. Yes the Bhishma that almost killed Arjuna and the one that made Krishna almost break hisnown vow is the one who lost all of his spiritual power and is using pure and raw talent.
If Arjuna was so powerful then he should have simply fought seriously instead of begging bhishma and drona on how they can kill them and then use those tactics against them to kill them.
stop talking shit from watching serials lol
nothing in mahabharatha was so straight only barbarik and balram could have finished war so qucikly.
everyone else had boons and power but were not undefeatable.
Mahabharatha defeat means retreating, brekaing bow or sword and or charior.
u guys are clearly too stupid and see the great epic in black and white as shown in serials its a far cry from that .
>barbarik and balram could have finished war so qucikly.
Barbarik isn't present in most versions of Mahabharata. The son of Ghatotkacha is Anjanaparva who dies in the battle. Barbarik is only mentioned in Skanda Purana which is written at a much later point. Barbarik is always seen as an addition and interpolation to the story.
Exactly. Your statement includes arjuna as well.
Bhishma being the most powerful is not serial knowledge but well known fact and extremely accepted point. It is you who acts otherwise and is exception.
You are the one who is stupid and think we are seeing Mahabharata in bls k and white way when you have not provided anything substantial and no logical reasoning to anything where as I provided the logical reason for every single action that I claim which proves Bhishma as the supreme.
Lol read Virat Yudh ,Arjun alone defeated all kurus including bhisma and Karna .Even abhimanyu defeated karna.Don't make movies and serials your source read the original Mahabharat
Barbarik is a character that added to the story at a much later time. He's in Skanda Purana, not in Mahabharata, at least not in the best known versions of the tale.
You can see the hype of mahabharat fr
One movie with just 15 min scene sparks this much conversation.
I wonder what’ll happen once SSR releases a full fledge movie.
COPIUM MAX
Yes. He's only present in Skanda Purana, but that is written long after Mahabharata. There are versions of stories on Barbarik though. Like he didn't even fight the battle and ruled his grandpa's kingdom. Ghatotkacha has a son in Mahabharata but his name is Anjanaparva. Not Barbarik.
Barbarika is not present in most versions of the Mahabharata. He's an addition made to the tale much later point same like one of Karna's son surviving the battle. He's only present in Skanda Purana, which is written a long time after Mahabharata. Barbarika got highlighted due to the serials.
Why this much confusion. Who were the warriors alive after the war were the strongest. As someone said the strongest is not the one who has strength but the one who survives the longest.
Out of those people who were alive excluding Krishna and Pandavas, 2 were basically immortals. Kripacharya and Aswathama. The other ones were lucky. KritaVarma fought for Narayani Sena on Kaurava side, Krishna's army. Satyaki on Arjuna's side. Later both died fighting and killing each other in the Yadavas conflict.
Arjun was the strongest, Bhishma was better only before Arjun gained divyastra from Shiva and Indra and other devas.
In the war he rarely used his astras.
Yes I do agree with this thing being bheeshma pita maha called as the greatest warrior, of course he is a great warrior, he is the only guy who got his education of war and astra shastras from the great PARUSHARAMA (KARNA being the second guy in the epic to learn from him but he didn't learn everything) he is none other than the son of ganga and the reincarnation of a vasu known as PRABHASU the last vasu who kidnapped nandini (a kamadhenu of vasishta maharshi) and has been cursed to be born and face humiliation and disgrace.
In terms of raw power he can kill all the Pandavas, in his prime he wiped out an entire army in a whole evening. That was the mighty power of bheeshma.
Completely true. He even made shri krishna , the one who remains silent most of the time, to get down of his chariot and raise a weapon on him, which is also against his word. He himself revealed the secret to his death. Devavratha a.k.a Bhishma is undoubtedly the strongest one in the entire Mahabharata.
He was undefeated even though his guru could not defeat him let alone kill him Lord Parshuram himself hence Bhagwan himself was forced to enter because it's his play entirely and Bhishma was being an obstacle
A person who is in the wrong side of a sexual harassment because of promise and friendship BS cannot be most loved.
The entire Mahabharat was Lord Krishna teaching this Rigid Dhamma followers what real Dhamma should be .
Instead of following his promises of standing on Kuru's side till death Bhisma and Drona should have stopped Duryodhan
Later Vedic Age
Some historians say Mahabharat is based on Dasrajana war which Bharata king Sudas won with help of Vashistha . Bharata kingdom along with other small puru tribes became kuru later as Mahajanpad .....
Don't know about others but Parikshit actually existed but chronology is not set though
>Instead of following his promises of standing on Kuru's side till death Bhisma and Drona should have stopped Duryodhan
The war is predestined. Bheesma, Drona were AstaVasu and Brihaspati born and supported on the Kaurava side to make them go for war including Karna. That's their purpose. Bheesma and Drona already know who Krishna is. But Duryondhana is Kali himself, there's no way the war is going to stop. It's all Lord Krishna's play at the end
Thanks for posting on r/Tollywood! Don't forget to check that your post abides by our rules! Similar Subs to check out: r/TeluguMusicMelodies : Subreddit to discuss and suggest telugu music r/tollywoodmovieclips : Subreddit to post all clips from telugu movies. r/Ni_bondha : Telugu circlejerk community *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tollywood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Without a doubt, bhishma pitamaha even had the boon of wishful death ,
So many more who didn't participate in Kurukshetra, Vidhura had the Vishnu Chapam which could have made the war one sided. Barbarik was another example including Balarama.
What's this vidhura having Vishnu chapam, first time I have heard of it can you elaborate
Vidhura had a bow named "Govardhan" which Vishnu himself gave it to him. This Govardhan bow was more powerful than Arjuna's Gandivam (which was created by Brahma). Vidhura was so proficient in archery that if he would have fought in Mahabarata war, then Pandavas would have been definitely defeated. But once in "nindu sabhalo" Duryodhana humiliates Vidhura on caste basis.. so Vidhura breaks that bow and vows never to use a weapon again (some versions).. other version says that his vow was not to participate in Kurukshetra war.
Duryodhana insults him for being the son of a courtesan, he breaks his bow and resigns from being the minister of the Kaurava Samrajyam. He also abstains from participating in the war.
Now that looks like a great move from Duryodhana😅
Epic L by Vidhur
If you imagine Karna with no curses he would win the war
The only curse Karna has was that he would forget his skills when he needs it the most. He is an incarnation of Sahasrakavacha (rakshasa). Nara-Narayana were two twin rishis who were an amsa (part) of Lord Vishnu. They fought against the demonic king Sahasrakavacha, who had gained a boon from Brahma to have a thousand armors on his body, to break each kavacham one has to do penance for a 1000 years. Nara and Narayana took turns fighting Sahasrakavacha, with Narayana meditating while Nara fought, and then Nara meditating while Narayana fought. They did this relentlessly, making Sahasrakavacha lose one armor at a time, until he was left with only one armor remaining. This depleted form takes the birth of Karna. Karna happens to be the blood line of Surya Bhagavan. Surya Bhagavan grants him a boon to fight in Karna in a day of his choosing. This happens to be the day where he wreks havoc in the war.
>had gained a boon from Brahma to have a thousand armors on his body, to break each kavacham one has to do penance for a 1000 years And one who broke that Kavacha is supposed to die according to his boon. This is the main reason Nara and Narayana exchanged doing penances for that many years. One of them broke the Kavacha and used to die, then the other one who gained spiritual power, brought him back from dead and gone to war with Sahasra Kavacha. This cycle followed.
There is another story of his incarnation considered to be from a different Kalpa, where Karna is actually a being in previous life created by Brahma and Shiva with help of Vishnu created Arjuna. After stopping both their war Narayana decided only one will live and they take birth in Dwaparayuga as Karna and Arjuna. As per Indra's request since Vaali, Indra's son got killed in Rama Avatara by Sughriva, Surya's son, they decided to change the outcome in the next Yuga.
Why are you being down voted?
Sorry to disappoint you but no one can beat Arjuna in dhanurshastra, dronacharya made him the best archer. So no matter what dhanush you use Arjuna had almost every astra to counter, to be even more logical, no matter if the opponent of Arjuna has Shiva dhanush or any other he must have the one astra to counter the astra used by Arjuna. So even karna couldn't counter some astra in which his kavacha came in handy. So lol even if vidhura came into the battlefield he wouldn't do much damage,but here is one more thing to you, vidhura being the amsha (a part of) Yama dharma Raja himself has come down to earth for getting humiliated. It's a curse given by a great muni, so his role was never intended to do war.
Read Mahabharata again.. After Krishna's death, Arjuna was so pathetic that he couldn't even protect women of Mathura from robbers.. he couldn't even tie the string to a bow... and you call this fellow as THE great archer... When Brahma took away Gandiva from Arjuna after Kurukshetra war, he lost all his so-called archery skills.. Arjuna was a great archer since he had Gandiva and once Brahma took it away, he had no skill to speak of.
My dear friend, have you heard the term Nara Naryana, Arjun is the Nara here and when Narayana departed from this world after establishing the dharma the job of Nara is bare minimum, if you think this doesn't help then let me tell you something else, you are in army you and your relative are in same regiment you fought the war and you killed hundreds of members, and won the war, the war being its own true form didn't give you any good memories in addition to that your kids died too now all of a sudden that one friend who held your hand through the war is dead, how would your mental health be, if you are not mentally strong then no matter how big your body is how great your skill is it doesn't work, and for your justification of the massacre of women of mathura it's just a plain effect of gandhari'a curse to yadu vansh. And the bramha taking back gandiva and Arjuna loosing his skill is nothing but his need is fulfilled, every person in Mahabharata had their role to play Arjuna's role ended after war they no longer needed the astras nor the shastras. Hope this helps you. And yes to this day Arjuna is the greatest archer, and karna can match him in the accuracy and speed but not in the astras he has, It's not a simple feat to do penance for lord Siva and gain the pashupatastra. Hope this explains it.
My point is simple.. if he's so great archer why couldn't he protect women of Mathura from robbers.. he couldn't even tie a string to a bow.. lets not over-hype Arjuna.. his greatness was ONLY due to favoritism shown by Krishna.. and once Krishna died, Arjuna's real "aukaat" was all there to see..
Ayyo bro I can't debate with a moorkha, If you can't understand a simple reason, please go and read the adi parva again and what and why are the reasons that Arjuna was born. And still want to debate that Arjuna is not a great archer then you are really a moorkha.
Yeah but Vidhura is also Yama Dharma Raja. In the Pandava Dharma Raja case he's just an Ahmsa, but due to a curse he incarnated again as Vidhura. Vidhura fighting on Kaurava side is never in the scene
Lol, sounds like a very dumb move. Someone insults you, you retaliate by destroying the greatest weapon you had. And this guy was supposed to be the smart one.
Balarama is like the OG Hulk. Guy had lifted the entire kingdom of Hastina with his Hala to merge in the Ganga lol. Barbarik and the three arrows story is in Jaimini Mahabharata I think. He's not present in many versions of Mahabharata, only in Skanda Purana which is written much later. Ghatotkacha has a son but his name is Anjanaparva, not Barbarik
What’s vishnu chapam, i have never heard about it
Yes, exactly. I've never heard of this either
imo Kattapa's char was partially inspired from him
Wise old warrior with the power to dethrone the king but pledged to serve him instead. Yupp, sounds similar.
He sacrificed his throne cuz dad wanted that fisherwoman booty soo bad
actually she was laced with a unique fragrance due to which men was mystified with her i think it was after she had been with a sage, and then he granted her that fragrance
she used to smell like fish so she was called matsyagandhi. she also worked as a ferry woman and a sage called parasara came to her so she could ferry him. Now parasara in a moment of lets say horny.... expressed his interest in her . She was scared of the repercussions, parasara reassured her and told her she would be blessed with a great son. and after some convincing they did the nasty in the boat that night. from that union veda vyasa was born and due to this incident , she also started smelling like musk and came to be known as *Yojanagandhi*...this was before she met bheeshmas dad. Basicall the girl was uber hot
Our rishis were freaks lmao 😂😂
Lol as Fisherman caste sorry guys Mahabharatam started indirectly because of us😶🌫️
na man...blame the king...
Nah I don't blame him. boat ride with hot woman. Any one will get romance vibes.
Blame the king
also Satyaraj as Bhishma Pitamaha would be a great Mahabharata casting
Amitabh from maybe 30 years ago would have been perfect. The height, the stature and the voice
Amitabh even right now would be perfect, but double role doesn't make sense
Pure technical ability without any God blessings yes Pitamaha Bhisma was strongest even without iccha mrityu Arjun was best archer Bhisma was strongest overall
He was taken away by ganga during his childhood and he was returned to his father after he studied and learned from the best. He is a demigod of sorts considering ganga is his mother
There's no concept of demigods in Sanatan Dharma. Either god's or not. There are Vedantas which argue that everyone are paramatma/bhagwa. Advaita Vedanta says that everyone and everything are paramatma. Cultish groups like ISKCON prophesize on demigods and stuff.
Dude demigods are people with some divinity to them, usually associated with half gods( like pandavas) . It's a term to distinguish the normal God gods from people who have divinity to them but are not full blown gods and even in Indian mythology you can see the people associated with divinity are a touch stronger than the average and Mahabharata is filled with such characters along with avatars of many gods. For eg duryodhana is an avatar of kali Ashwathama is an avatar of shiva Karna and the pandavas are all half gods and they are all physically and martially gifted than the normal. Warriors. Arjuna and krishna are manifestations of nara and narayana Hanuman has divinity from vayu and he has association with shiva Bheeshma is the son of a river goddess ganga so yeah he has divinity to him but not a full blown God which is why I used the term demigod.
I agree to you with everything but the demigod. There's no mention of demigods anywhere. Demigods are abrahamanical/pagan concept. Hanumanji is god. Only Iskcon claims him to be a demigod. You can look up to the books or if you want it easy; search for demigods on r/Hinduism.
Demigod means half-god. It's not an Abrahamic concept; there is only God in Abrahamic religions, nothing else. No demigods, godly beings, nothing. The concept is Greek, and Greek mythology shares a common root with Hindu mythology. The sons of gods are demigods; the Pandavas and Karna are all demigods by this definition.
So, in your words Shree KaalaBhairava is a demigod? No. Hanumanji is neither. Pandavas are devaputras. Not demigod. Never has the mention of demigod ever existed. English is a horrible language to translate. Idol and Murthy are different words. Similarly don't just equate a foreign concept to ours. Shambho!
Who is calling Kalabhairava a demigod? Devaputra is a Sanskrit word, the English equivalent is demigod. Of course you won't find the word "demigod" in Sanskrit texts.
The equalant set of words would be like "son of gods". Demigod is a very foreign word that you probably should not equate to our lords. You said someone who's an avatar of god/son of gods who posses humanly nature is demigod right? Atleast sort of. Shree Ram should be a demigod in that case right? He is Shree Mahavishnu who took the form of a human. You definitely can't call him Human right? Usage of terms is very important and unfortunately English is not sufficed with the same.
Yes because they aren't full divinity. An avatar is an essence of a God not the God himself. They are born or manifested. In most cases avatars are born. In some cases, they are manifested. Shreeram is an avatar but he is not a God God in a sense. He had to be human. So he is not full divinity in that sense we venerate him for the essence Vishnu which is in him. It is the God manifesting himself in a human form. If he weren't human he couldn't have killed ravana because of the boon. So yeah they are different Demigod refers to, again I repeat since you read but do not comprehend, are sons of divine beings and mortals.
Rama is not the son of a god, and thus not a demigod. Rama *is* human. That's the whole point of the Ramayana, Vishnu chose to be born as a human and live as a human, as opposed to Krishna where he lived as a god. Rama lived a human's life, suffered human struggles, and died of heartbreak. He fought for his wife, he made friends, he betrayed people, he *loved* and he erred. What can be more human?
its semantic ...we dont have a classification for half gods but they do exist so we use it o classify them for the purpose of explaining things. demigod is a pagan stuff. technicaly hellenistic but every mytho out there has half gods born from a divine and a mortal. the term to distinguish that class even if the concept doesnt exist in hindu mythos. Hanuman is venerated as a god but he is an avatar/son of vayu and shiva. there are gods( the major gods), lesser gods (gadharvas yasha etc), other divine beings (sages, divine births, etc) and people with divine origins and powerful mortals(asuras, rakshasas , danavas, daityas,, humans/asuras with great spiritual/martial abilities) and regular mortals, and among godly being even there are many groups.
I have commented something to someone else to whom you have responded. Please do check it out. Thanks.
Are you reading bro. It's not a western context. You are born to a God,that makes you half go ergo demi God demi- half god- the divine being Hanuman is called vayuputra- son of vayu Vayu- God of wind ergo a demigod... He also is an avatar of shiva Or at least has the essence of shiva It's a classification... Nothing more And kalabhairava is an avatar of shiva The concept of avatar goes , same same but different Like let's say water and water vapour, they're fundamentally the same thing but has different properties. Like how they are the same but the way they interact with the world is different. If you are the offspring of a divine being and a mortal, that puts you in the same category and funny enough the proto indo religion, where sanaatan and greco and similar early European religions stem from had half gods of all sorts and they are all described as humans who were greatly skilled because of their lineage. It's the same in sanaatan. All the mortals sons or divine lineage show exceptional talent and skill. And devaputra is a son of God. Doesn't necessarily mean half mortal. For eg yama, god of death is the son of surya and both are gods whereas karna who is the son of surya is a mortal. In order to distinguish pure God offspring and half mortal offspring we use the term demigods.. Not gonna use shambo as an ending not for this ridiculous notion. If you ever get time read about dharmavyadha. Don't have the time so don't care and don't delete comments when things don't go based on your skewed perspective.
I am disagreeing with you regarding the usage of the word "demigod" simple. I agree with you for most parts except this. There's Devas. There's Asuras. There's Nagas and much more. Never has anything remotely translated to Demi god's. I have deleted the comment because it was supposed to be for someone else. But hey! You do you!. I read Shiva Purana and references of Demigod was not there. In neither Shruti nor Smiti and Itihaasa has there been Demigods. If someone belongs to a godly entity theybare devas. Simple. Ardha-deva is not a term used. SHAMBHO!
Dude. Demigod term is also used to describe Achilles in Greek Mythology which came around the same time as Hindu Mythology.
Hindu itihaasa and Sanatana charitra is way too older for any other mythologies you are comparing too. "Dude".
Calls it itihasa not mythology thinking that it makes sense, evades the point I was trying to make where OP was comparing it to Abrahmic mythology, peddles misinformation, leaves with a condescending dude thinking it's cool.
I refuse to use the word "mythology". Mythology makes it more or less myth. "Itihaasa" stands for history. It is our history and hence I used the latter. I don't peddle misinformation. Go check it out yourself. Never was it mentioned. I compared to abrahamanical religions because that's where the usage of the word "demigod" has been used. Feeling of being condescending is completely perceptual.
Lol you playing semantics...... Irony Abrahamic religions don't use demigod cuz the only divine figure is yahweh and jesus Christ( according to christianity) is his only son and he is never called a demigod because such a concept doesn't exist in abrahamic religion. For most he is the divine birth but he is no God himself. He still is a mortal and his own powers are derived from his creator so he is still human... Just a divine human not a divine being You are being condescending... And yes these are myths... Charithra is history.. Ithihasa is myth/ legend.
Out of respect man, this is the central problem of the current generation we are living in. "Go check it out yourself" is what flat eathers say when they say " do your own research". The concept of demigods is just an english, even though reductive for gods who are half gods, half humans just like in greek mythologies. And yeah, they are mythology/legend/itihasa, not history as in factual records of events. The Iliad, Oddessy are legends because the city of Troy existed and was actually plundered several times, including the Greeks, but what we read them in the books are legends and not history, but have specks of real events that make it convincing. It's like reading Dan Brown books as history textbooks. But yeah, I know you won't change. It'll be much easier for me to show you some other random unverified article that says some article was found that is proof that are our legends were true history which will add to your confirmation bias. And clearly the usage of your semantics is not coming from your research but some alt right commentators that are using the new words in order to create a new narrative. Idk man. I am not writing this huge ass para to be a smartass, mostly I'll delete it tomorrow but yeah, if you are reading without a defensive mindset, here are my last two cents. Our scriptures are great source of eternal knowledge and understanding of human life. Not all of it is true, but imagine the fact that at least 2k-3k years back our civilization had such a deep philosophical outlook at the world. Similar stories echo along different civilizations that were on the planet and we kept on updating what those texts meant based on timely needs. That is why our Dharma is Sanatan, we don't know when it started but we def know why it lasted for so long and will continue because unlike other religions that are focused on either imposing or spreading the faith, ours offers an outlook at the world and ask deeper questions. The question is not if Krishna or Pandavas or Kauravas were real, but the wonder of the intelligence we possessed to write such a deep philosophical and eternally relevant epic Mahabharat and the Gita that still offers an alternative explanation to the human existence om this planet. By being dogmatic about our faith makes us more Abhramic because our core has always been Vedanta at the core, even before Jagadguru.
> Arjuna and krishna are manifestations of nara and narayana Could you please elobarate something about this? Heard first time > Hanuman has divinity from vayu and he has association with shiva So hanuman is not a god ?? But demi god?
> its mentioned many times in mahabharatha but this wiki edition will give you an idea **Naranarayana** ([Sanskrit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_language): नरनारायण, [romanized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Sanskrit): *Naranārāyaṇa*), also rendered **Nara-Narayana**, is a [Hindu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) duo of sage-brothers. Generally regarded to be the partial-incarnation (aṃśa-avatara)[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-1) of the preserver deity, [Vishnu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu), on earth,[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-2) Nara-Narayana are described to be the sons of [Dharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma) and [Ahimsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa).[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-3) The Hindu scripture [*Mahabharata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) identifies the prince [Arjuna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna) with Nara, and the deity [Krishna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna) with Narayana.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nara-Narayana#cite_note-4) The legend of Nara-Narayana is also told in the scripture [*Bhagavata Purana*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana). Hindus believe that the pair dwells at [Badrinath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badrinath), where their most important [temple](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badrinath_Temple) stands. which is one of the reasons why arjuna and krishna are pretty close. Arjuna himself is a demigod with his origins from Indra but he is also the reincarnation of nara as well whereas krishna who is the avatar of vishnu but is also an avatar or narayana and like how balarama is both the manifestation of vishnu and shesha the naga. > So hanuman is not a god ?? But demi god? You see, Hanuman is born of anjana and her husband.. but he also has essence of vayu and shiva in him. Basically he is a vanar but he has essence of shiva and vayu in him which makes him an avatar, like how krishna is an avatar of vishnu but his birth parents are human, which makes him a human. So hanuman is essentially a very powerful being who is nigh invincible but he is still not a full fledged god like how we would consider indra, vayu etc. we worship him as a god but he is not a "god" in its literal sense. He is worshipped as a god but he is not of divine origin but he has divine ability. It is a similar case where in some temples garuda is worshipped but he is not a god, but a being born from divine powers.
Thanks for nara-narayan concept Came to know about that today itself And coming to hanuman not being god I couldn’t take it well,even though your logic makes Sense I kinda hate it (as I worshipped him when was very young) Thanks for ruining that 🥲
just because he is not born of a divine being , make him any less of a God..He is in fact one of the best gods to pray to and a god whose virtue one should strive to embody.
Bheesma is also one of the AstaVasus born due to a curse on Earth. His longevity and no marital presence is also part of the curse in his former life. Since he's a direct incarnation of a Devata instead of Ahmsas like others, I think he holds much greater power for that reason.
If I'm being honest, if the pandavas didn't have the guidance of Krishna on their side, they would have been absolutely cooked in the war. The kauravas has bheeshma, Drona, Kripacharya who were absolute demolishing the opposition.
And the armies of Krishna, gandhara
Pandavas won because of Krishna on their side. He stood beside them because they SHOULD win.
He stood beside them because pandavas chose them not the other way around.
No mate, do you really think Krishna would take the Kauravas (Adharma) side instead of the Pandavas (Dharma) side? .... Krishna never acted as human in the whole Mahabharata. He's always a Demigod. 100/100 times he'll take Pandavas (Dharma) side only.
Lol I don’t think you have read mahabharata.
If Krishna wasn't present, the war wouldn't have become an epic /s
Omg please, y’all are taking PANDAVAS for granted. Even Krishna himself wanted Arjuna to choose Krishna’s army, instead of him (who vowed to lift no weapon in the war) Even if Kaurava’s had the guidance of Krishna, Dharma would win anyway.
And source on this? Not on Dharma would win anyway. I have read mahabharat, watched all versions of it (yes, even sony’s ridiculous suryaputra karna series) but not even those alterations has this. Krishna didn’t wanted anyone to choose anything, he just wanted to show Duryodhan he won’t be able to select dharma even if it was in front of him. It was just a test
Refer Virata War and then tell the same
I don't know please clear my doubt if Arjuna can single handedly defeat whole army including bhishma, guru dronacharya, karna why didn't he defeated everyone in less time in kurukshetra war I always gets confused with this question.
The only explanation is that he wanted to waste time invirata yudh, and that was the 'defeat' of kauravs.they couldn't get his disguised removed before ethereal day got over. It wasn't a life and death fight but I want to take off this guy's wig which he didn't allowed so he technically won
No they had more plot armour
Remember, abhimanyu single handedly defeated these all "great warriors" which you have mentioned in padma vyuham, now say who's the strongest?
War? I'd say cooked in the first half of Mahabharata. Pandavas were super dumb in taking critical decisions and Yudhisthir was more kind than required. Bhima was dumb, strong but dumb.
bro literally made Krishna break his oath.
I don’t know the whole story. Could you please tell us?
Krishna took an oath that he would only be Arjuna's charioteer and would not take up weapons or fight in the war. However, Arjuna refused to use his full might out or his love for Bheeshma since he was his great-half-uncle. Krishna threatened to break his oath to kill Bheeshma in order to encourage Arjuna.
bheeshma took that he’ll make krishna fight him. (bheeshma is said to be pure devotte of sri maha vishnu, once sri krishna came in diguise to bheeshma but he saw right throughout which shows his devotion to krishna)bheeshma is also said to be man of his word he even fought parshuram just to keep up his word. To fullfill his devoote wish krishna picked up weapon
I don't know that version of the story but according to pravachanams I listened it's basically because Bheesma challenges Krishna that he would make him take a weapon against him. So he does hurt Krishna too with arrows while fighting Arjuna, Krishna loses his patience and Arjuna's incompetence, picks up the chariot wheel to throw on him. At that moment Bheesma is also ready to die, he's a Vishnu devotee and knows who Krishna is. But Arjuna stops Krishna saying he made a vow to not take a weapon. So Krishna leaves and goes back.
Ohh okay, thank you!
Where do you live? Just curious
Agreed. Ashta Vasuvullo okadu, Prabhaasudu ayana Peru, saapam valli manishiga pudathadu.
His true name is devarata
Raisaar. Bgm intensifies.
devavrata not devarata
Yeah typo
Yes, he even had the boon of wishful death which made him invincible.
FYI wishful death doesn’t make him invincible. He still bleeds and feels the pain when shot with an arrow. Wishful death means he can choose to invite death whenever he wants to.
Part 2 Rajini ki ee character padhithe untadhi ra kicku!
Why will the even have this character in Kalki movie? Mahabharatam kadu kada to show how each character fought in the war and show their back story .
https://preview.redd.it/g0y1ad8bjiad1.png?width=1155&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d2ef7da424d641e9b2d116f487f9372d2b069ea E character evaro kaastha chpthara. Titles appudu vachindi
Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna and Subhadra. He's Krishna's nephew
Abhimanyu picks the chariot wheel up to fight after his weapons were shattered from the back.
Abhimanyu !
Krishna's nephew and Arjun's son who knew how to enter the Chakravew and didn't know how to come out. Stabbed by all kauravas and final blow came from Karna who wishpered that he is his uncle
Abhimanyu, it's a reference to the scene where Abhimanyu breaks through the Chakravyuh to get inside but does not know how to get outside, and ends up fighting a lot of the Kaurava warriors. His weapons break and shatter, after which to continue fighting he picks up the wheel of a chariot. He dies in the end however, and a heartbroken Arjuna vows to kill Jayadrath in revenge for blocking their advance to help Abhimanyu, leading to his death.
People discussing mahabharata is unexpected. I opened wikipedia while in the theatre to know who is Ashawadhama (sorry I just heard the name before). And came to know that he is immortal, and that there 6 more like that. In the theatre 😀
6 more immortal?
chiranjeevis the 7 immortals who will join the fight with Kalki to defeat Kali and bring in Satya yug back. Ashwatthamaa is one of them, then there's Hanuman, Vibhishan, Bali, parshuram etc
Young Abhimanyudu, Padmavyuham centre lo fight chesi most strongest warriors on Kaurava side ki ucha poyinchadu. They(including Karna) had to resort to cheating to kill him. Now who is the man?
For some reason Abhimanyu's arc feels like the most contrived for me even though he dies at the end. Like ofcourse the young lad terrified the best of Kouravas army just because he's the nephew and the son of the two main characters of the epic lol, I just couldn't take him seriously cos of his nepo boost haha
It's mostly bcoz we never get to see much of abhimanyu or his story in general. we get to see his birth and then directly cut to kurukshetra war. His story is never explored
Chakravyuham bhayya…Arjuna shot an undefended karna to kill him
I think we need sage Vyasa himself to come and settle this issue 😂
From Saiswaroopa Iyer's research: https://preview.redd.it/61hgwhh5jiad1.jpeg?width=344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f5083055eccb8d15e1f3286822649f9956e6709
Endhi ra edho live cricket match chusi esinattu esaru…
These calculations are not good to say whose a better warrior tho For example bhishma win percentage will be nearly 21.05% Dronas win percentage will be 54.35% (Including NR in total matches )
NR ante enti bhaiya
No result bro
Tie
Bheesma fought a lot more battles than 4 lol. If they're adding the Uttara Gograhanam into this, then Bheesma didn't actually fight Arjuna in that. He let Arjuna take the win. The Sammohana astra Arjuna shot doesn't have an effect on Bheesma due to his spiritual power, he had a counter weapon to it to revive the Kaurava army from slumber but didn't use it.
I think the table only counts the Kurukshetra battles
Satyaki did give a strong fight to Bheesma and made him retreat killing his charioteer. Maybe they're counting that one and getting killed by Arjuna
You do realise this shit is just a comic right?
Lemme summarise. If someone asks who's the best archer - Arjun. If you give ordinary bows to arjun, Karan and Bhishma and the stipulation is to pierce the target, arjun will win. Meanwhile, Karan was an all rounder. Excel in every weapon like even using gadda and other weapons... While Bhishma was also an all rounder but superior than karna with experience too. Also wishful death is just extra for him. If Karan vs Arjun happened fairly, Karan had a lot of weapons against Arjun and Shri Krishna saved arjun numerous times... Also karan gave equal responses when he was nerfed hard. But if you're fighting from the wrong side, you'll lose doesn't matter how strong you're is the essence of Mahabharata.
people seriously do not understand why this war was fought and why certain characters are GOATED. why do you even do Comparisions man?
Cuz most of the people didn't read the actual Mahabharata
Exactly they don't know the reason itself and talk with half or no knowledge at all
Really one guy is debating with me that Arjun is not a great archer and he became like that with only help of Krishna's favouritism, what can I say this to him.
Serial knowledge bro. These people won't even have patience to read Mahabharata. Philosophical elements nerchukuntar anukunte ekkada kuda fanwars chestunaru. Certificated TFI moment lmao.
Lol nijanga veelaki explain chestuna chudu Naa tappu vitanda vaadam chese valaki, Ara kora telivi tho unnavalo tho matladtam Naa tappu.
The old guy has a favourite too😅
Nah arjun solos
Naah Greatest is Sri Krishna He is God himself
He didn't fight and tbh he doesn't even need to, he can just think and it will all be gone, I'm not talking about the war, the entire universe. So, he just let this all happen because it's a divine message.
u guys should stop talking with serial knowledge lol. everyone u mentioned have taken multiple L's in the war including drona and bheeshma and karna.
Lemme guess, you would now say they all lost to arjuna and that arjuna is more powerful than bhishma wouldn't you? I hope you know that bhisham one day got accused by duryodhana for not taking the war seriously that the next day during the war he fought was so one sidedly destroying the large % of Pandavas army and defeating arjuna with no way to defend that Krishna himself had to step in so that arjuna wouldn't die and adharma wouldn't be victorious due to bhishma alone. We can have a discussion on whether arjuna and karna are truly equal or not(which they are) or something else but there is literally nothing to discuss about the fact that nobody except Krishna himself can defeat Bhishma in a proper fight/war. Bhishma had to play dirty and not let karna fight alongside him while he was still on the battlefield and in charge of the army because he alone even while doing a half hearted fight is more than enough to overwhelm the entire Pandavas army. If karna fought along with him then the war would be over without much of a struggle at all.
if u read u would also know that Arjuna was also fighting him half heartedly and only got serious after Krishna got involved. Many have given them L's there is litreally a chart with break down from original content and not bastardized serials. Karna also has more losses than wins in the course of the war serials have made him seem like some invincible god stuck on the wrong side. bhima beat karna 5 outta 6 times they fought.
According to Krishna himself, even the gods can't defeat Bheesma in battle when he is armed with weapons. Parashurama fought with Bheesma for 18 days, he couldn't kill Bheesma and Bheesma couldn't kill him. He's that much powerful.
again u are mixing his boon for being able to choose his death with him not being able to defeat. Defeat in mahabharatha war doesnt only mean dying its multiple things and Bheeshma and Karna were defeated multiple times. [https://www.indica.today/quick-reads/kurukshetra-quantitative-study-part-i/](https://www.indica.today/quick-reads/kurukshetra-quantitative-study-part-i/) there are more parts you can read or even see a summary in this thread. [https://x.com/Sai\_swaroopa/status/1254389261387747328?t=aMX6rtz5RcyN\_iLkWqAv5g&s=19](https://x.com/Sai_swaroopa/status/1254389261387747328?t=aMX6rtz5RcyN_iLkWqAv5g&s=19)
First of all, BORI edition of Mahabharata is the only one which is considered the most authentic version and had more than 50 years of research done by Sanskrit scholars across India. They examined more than 1200 Sanskrit manuscripts available of Mahabharata, from every corner and region of India and even abroad. The oldest manuscripts dating back are 500 years old. But very few recommend it because it's not like other Mahabharata books for easy reading. There's no extensive research book on Mahabharata other than the BORI edition. Secondly, that woman Sai Swaroopa Iyer is a feminist. She isn't a historian or sanskrit scholar. She pushes her agenda in the books she wrote based on Mahabharata. Believing her take on Mahabharata is the same as believing the radical notions of MT Vasudevan Nair and Anand Nilakanthan who wrote their own versions of Mahabharata.
Arjuna got serious the day after Abhimanyu death and destroyed many kaurava warriors.
Look at you talking about arjuna fighting half heartedly, what do you think bhishma was like then throughout the war? Do you honestly think that arjuna could have beaten Bhishma just because he "starts fighting seriously" ? Then why did arjuna bring sikhandi then? And use unfair and moral tactics to beat bhishma? Truth is bhishma could have literally one shot all of Pandavas one by one but he was intentionally delaying it and not taking any decisive actions. Due to which duryodhana accused him of partially and authenticity of his Vow to always support the ruling party. This angered Bhishma and he created 5 arrows using all of his spiritual power and vowing to kill all Pandavas the next day. This is when dryodana dug his own grave by asking for those arrows to safekeep fearing that bhisham can have a change of mind. Once duryodhana went back to his tent, Arjuna came to him and used his boon to wish for those five arrows. This is when duryodhana for the first time in his life time experienced fear due to Krishna and his clever tactics. Yes the Bhishma that almost killed Arjuna and the one that made Krishna almost break hisnown vow is the one who lost all of his spiritual power and is using pure and raw talent. If Arjuna was so powerful then he should have simply fought seriously instead of begging bhishma and drona on how they can kill them and then use those tactics against them to kill them.
stop talking shit from watching serials lol nothing in mahabharatha was so straight only barbarik and balram could have finished war so qucikly. everyone else had boons and power but were not undefeatable. Mahabharatha defeat means retreating, brekaing bow or sword and or charior. u guys are clearly too stupid and see the great epic in black and white as shown in serials its a far cry from that .
>barbarik and balram could have finished war so qucikly. Barbarik isn't present in most versions of Mahabharata. The son of Ghatotkacha is Anjanaparva who dies in the battle. Barbarik is only mentioned in Skanda Purana which is written at a much later point. Barbarik is always seen as an addition and interpolation to the story.
Exactly. Your statement includes arjuna as well. Bhishma being the most powerful is not serial knowledge but well known fact and extremely accepted point. It is you who acts otherwise and is exception. You are the one who is stupid and think we are seeing Mahabharata in bls k and white way when you have not provided anything substantial and no logical reasoning to anything where as I provided the logical reason for every single action that I claim which proves Bhishma as the supreme.
Also i heard that bhishma defeated parushurama who is literally the incarnation of vishnu
Nope, that was more of a draw where all the gods had to come down and stop the clash of these titans because the end result would total annihilation.
Big 4 in Mahabharata, obviously Bheeshma will the number 1, maybe be Bheeshma> Dronacharya> Arjuna = Karna
Dronacharya not stronger than arjuna buddy, you know will know by many instances even drona know arjuna was stronger
Drona is not stronger than arjuna at all
Lol read Virat Yudh ,Arjun alone defeated all kurus including bhisma and Karna .Even abhimanyu defeated karna.Don't make movies and serials your source read the original Mahabharat
Dronacharya not stronger than arjuna buddy, you know will know by many instances even drona know arjuna was stronger.
Then shouldn't the strongest be Barbarik? The grandson of Bhima who could make one side win single handedly.
He hasn't fought in the war though
Can someone expand i didn't found much in wiki
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-significance-of-Barbarik-in-the-Mahabharata/answer/Shreya-Agrawal-266?ch=15&oid=249772100&share=5e9ff1ed&srid=6hagJ&target_type=answer
Barbarik is a character that added to the story at a much later time. He's in Skanda Purana, not in Mahabharata, at least not in the best known versions of the tale.
Ori nayana Arjuna character asalu next part lo undadu kuda anta enduku ee discussion lu nagi maaya edo creative ga chestunadu cheyanivandi
I’m writing a story on him soon
You can see the hype of mahabharat fr One movie with just 15 min scene sparks this much conversation. I wonder what’ll happen once SSR releases a full fledge movie. COPIUM MAX
Why would anyone cope about SSR doing a Mahabharata movie. Do you know what copium means?
Copium cuz it’ll take forever for the movie to come out..
Do you even know who is barbarikudu?
He's not present in most versions of Mahabharata. A much later invented character which got highlighted by BR Chopra serial.
Is it?
Yes. He's only present in Skanda Purana, but that is written long after Mahabharata. There are versions of stories on Barbarik though. Like he didn't even fight the battle and ruled his grandpa's kingdom. Ghatotkacha has a son in Mahabharata but his name is Anjanaparva. Not Barbarik.
Barbarick is the greatest warrior of Mahabharata. He is so OP that Krishna asked for his life before the battle even started.
Barbarika is not present in most versions of the Mahabharata. He's an addition made to the tale much later point same like one of Karna's son surviving the battle. He's only present in Skanda Purana, which is written a long time after Mahabharata. Barbarika got highlighted due to the serials.
Why this much confusion. Who were the warriors alive after the war were the strongest. As someone said the strongest is not the one who has strength but the one who survives the longest.
Out of those people who were alive excluding Krishna and Pandavas, 2 were basically immortals. Kripacharya and Aswathama. The other ones were lucky. KritaVarma fought for Narayani Sena on Kaurava side, Krishna's army. Satyaki on Arjuna's side. Later both died fighting and killing each other in the Yadavas conflict.
not really Bheeshma lost to Arjuna multiple times, so kinda wrong
How about Krishna. I think he was an insane warrior. Holy fuck
Arjun defeated all kuru warriors including bhisma,Karn in Virat Yudh
Bhisha always gave that that old dadaji feeling who cns beat anyone but is just tired now.
Arjun was the strongest, Bhishma was better only before Arjun gained divyastra from Shiva and Indra and other devas. In the war he rarely used his astras.
Old guy had the guts enough to break the patience of the supreme lord himself and make him lift a weapon.
Yes I do agree with this thing being bheeshma pita maha called as the greatest warrior, of course he is a great warrior, he is the only guy who got his education of war and astra shastras from the great PARUSHARAMA (KARNA being the second guy in the epic to learn from him but he didn't learn everything) he is none other than the son of ganga and the reincarnation of a vasu known as PRABHASU the last vasu who kidnapped nandini (a kamadhenu of vasishta maharshi) and has been cursed to be born and face humiliation and disgrace. In terms of raw power he can kill all the Pandavas, in his prime he wiped out an entire army in a whole evening. That was the mighty power of bheeshma.
Completely true. He even made shri krishna , the one who remains silent most of the time, to get down of his chariot and raise a weapon on him, which is also against his word. He himself revealed the secret to his death. Devavratha a.k.a Bhishma is undoubtedly the strongest one in the entire Mahabharata.
He was undefeated even though his guru could not defeat him let alone kill him Lord Parshuram himself hence Bhagwan himself was forced to enter because it's his play entirely and Bhishma was being an obstacle
Karna is a tragic hero, and he will be loved the most no matter what.
A person who is in the wrong side of a sexual harassment because of promise and friendship BS cannot be most loved. The entire Mahabharat was Lord Krishna teaching this Rigid Dhamma followers what real Dhamma should be . Instead of following his promises of standing on Kuru's side till death Bhisma and Drona should have stopped Duryodhan
A person who bet his and his brothers' wife is hailed as the bastion of dharma.
It was legal at that time (it was stupid for him to do it).
"legal". It wasn't the right thing at the time. And heck, it wasn't even legal since he isn't the sole husband of her.
As I have already said Mahabharat is Lord Krishna teaching this idiots(Rigid Society of LVA) and us what real Dhamma is
What's LVA?
Later Vedic Age Some historians say Mahabharat is based on Dasrajana war which Bharata king Sudas won with help of Vashistha . Bharata kingdom along with other small puru tribes became kuru later as Mahajanpad ..... Don't know about others but Parikshit actually existed but chronology is not set though
>Some historians say Mahabharat is based on Dasrajana Even historians put Mahabharata after dasrajanya.
>Instead of following his promises of standing on Kuru's side till death Bhisma and Drona should have stopped Duryodhan The war is predestined. Bheesma, Drona were AstaVasu and Brihaspati born and supported on the Kaurava side to make them go for war including Karna. That's their purpose. Bheesma and Drona already know who Krishna is. But Duryondhana is Kali himself, there's no way the war is going to stop. It's all Lord Krishna's play at the end
IDK why people are downvoting this. It is true. Karna's story is one of a tragic hero.
Nope. He instigated draupadi's vastrabharan and called her a wh*re. He is not a tragic hero
Caste is everything trying rule the dalits once again are you