Ancient India’s battle of ideas: Yudhisthira & Arjuna are ideal kings. Don’t be like Ashoka

45 thoughts on “Ancient India’s battle of ideas: Yudhisthira & Arjuna are ideal kings. Don’t be like Ashoka”

1. The print is milking chaddis lol (like godi media )

2. Same thing My frnd was arguing with me by compating ram and budhha …fiction vs real 😂

3. I am giving thumbs down for this.

4. Ashoka was real though

5. 🔥🔥

6. Where is bhraminism coming here , in this analysis???????? Why. Bhrahmins are to perform the role of an advisor to the king only, read and reflect on the scriptures, and explain the same to people for uplift end of the society, and not sitting in any position of executive, or trading etc.
   About Yudhisthira, Arjuna and Ashoka are the speakers interpretations.
   I don’t have to go to Harvard etc for Jnyanam about Bharat. Thanks,ksrao

7. Where does print find these tools ? Like kaniseety

8. that was an interesting way of looking at it. i think this perspective has its motives and assumptions behind it (from the left) but interesting nevertheless. also from the comments got to learn about charles ellen's view that ashoka likely adopted buddhism before the kalinga war.

9. These intellectuals are BRITISH SLAVES, i reality. They quote from, Brtiish versions of history. Britishers made bloody Institutes like Oxford, Cambridge to justify their colonisising brutality, Genocide, loot and scoot. We have this pathetic disease of subservient mentality.
   Btw, Ashoka made the killings of Kalinga after converting to BUDDHISM

10. Asoka could not have ruled his vast empire for a single day without following Raja/Kshatriya Dharma established by "Brahmanical system". Because without using force, you can't rule vast empires. But using force is against core Buddha philosophy? You again see this moral divergence.

11. The irony of a colonial and neo colonial financed and backed institution telling the colonised that their ancient past was biased and “violent” is unmatched mediocrity and funny . Do yourself a f our and actually read these texts and learn about your culture.

12. Complete Cognitive dissonance here. If the presenter is a historian, then he should be knowing that violence was ALWAYS followed by ASHOKA even before the kalinga war. It is only the war that was able to create enough mental trauma to change his stance.
    The whole idea that it was due to conscience is idiotic, if anyone knew even the basics of psychology. Where was this conscience when he was killing his half brothers and many more wars?
    In contrast, the examples of Yudisthira & Arjuna are ethical dilemmas driven by a normal conscience.

13. In a nutshell, this post is trying to say that the Mahabharata's moral ambuguity faced by Arjuna & Yudhishthira is a creation of the Brahmanas as a reaction to Ashoka's perceived moral conflict & change of heart post Kalinga war. This post says his actions & policies of peace as a Buddhist post Kalinga War were seen by the Brahmanas as fatal to their Varna System & their influence over the kings, and hence they created a similar ambuguity in the epic Mahabharata, but here they ensured that the King's moral dilemma is extinguished after counselling by the brahmana. The author insinuates that this action retains the influence of the Brahmana in society. He conveniently ignores the actions of Ashoka before the war, & the circumstances of how he became king after the death of his brothers. He also conveniently keeps out the philosophy of the Gita & Mahabharata where statecraft becomes a duty & any action to be taken for that must not lead to moral dilemma.

    Such venom, to unnecessarily create animosity in the public by making ambiguous interpretations in a mass/public news outlet.

14. Huh? What randomness was that

15. 👎👎Same old left wing b.s but in a more polite way , (( over idealistic chaps like this guy Ashoka the great , make a Ukraine out of their country )) but yes to dumb idealistic people they sound very appealing

16. This guy's idiotic article about no temples before 250AD r something,has already been discredited as false,now he's here again,spewing idiocy😂😂😂😂

17. You entirely missed the point of mahabharata if you think any king in mahabharata were ideal. I could be wrong as i am not learned as you.

18. Buddha is so powerful that every country which turned Buddhist from Hindu later was converted to Islam. Bamiyan Buddha is never coming back but see there is grand temple in Ayodhya even after 500 years.

19. Buddha's path can't bring any good in this world or the world to come after this. Buddha stole ideas of karma, rebirth, reincarnation, liberation from Hinduism which were already existing at the time Buddha's teachings came into existence.

20. Fake Buddha can't get Bamiyan statues rebuilt. Ram's temple in Ayodhya has been rebuilt. Buddha has no power.

21. When ever someone starts w oxford/cambridge quote, i insantly lose interest. But the funny part is this guy tries to emulate what he thinks is queens english 😂😂😂😂

22. The chronology narrated here is questionable: Mahabharet happened / written after Ashoka. Is this correct?

23. lot of speculation conjectures to grab some media spot, without any evidence. anyone can write anything. Mahabharatha happened many many centuries before Ashoka, whose history itself is being re-written. of course, the author and media knows they can say or write anything about their target here as there is no push back. imagine them writing about other cultures ? never

24. Where are you going to Mahabharata and Ashok,
    what about Islamic invaders like Gaznavi,Gowri , Nadir Shah, Babar…there was no remorse to them….And Currently ISIS, Talibans….

25. A lot of gibberish best described as venomous revisionism.

26. This video is nothing but a propaganda. They cannot accept a real hero like Ashoka who is a real world example and son of Indian soil. Rather than they are trying to glorify unreal characters from the mythologies like Mahabharata 😅😅😅

27. Sir are you communist? if you are than I think you know how it has failed worldwide… Ashoka may have given up war or expansion but he never gave up his dharma he always maintained an army, cruel punishment still continued if he gave up his army chera pandya and cholas would have expanded but they did not. Yes he was liberal but dhammas clearly asks everyone to respect the brahmana… I think you got your facts wrong… Or maybe communist history all wrong

28. Thank you, sir, for the Christian sermon. Undoubtedly, upcoming sermons may delve into figures like Moses, deemed by some as the original Jihadi, the Christian crusaders who committed civilian massacres in the name of religion, and Muslim Jihadis whose pursuit of non-believer deaths persists. By the way, the example of Arjuna is not accurate; Arjuna was no stranger to taking lives, and Krishna merely urged him not to be hypocritical when confronted with his own relatives.

29. what are your views on violence done during barka eid killing silent animals ? is it violence or may be not !
    i am seeing series of such videos on channels like wire..print..etc..etc…specific targeting hindus and sanatan.
    this attempt is futile…crores invaders and systematic effort of decades thru academia bollywood etc demeaning hindus did not work !
    👎👎
    would you mind having similiar analysis on religious killings done by christians and islamists…the 2 biggest…perhaps not by virtue of secularism !!!

30. Who is this chapri?? abruptly selecting quotes from epics without reading what circumstances led to those quotes…do this chapri know that ashoka still maintained huge army even after the kalinga war.. And he warned the tribals of violence if they dnt follow the central rule

31. brahmins are the curse for our nation and society.

32. Why are you comparing mythology men with a real figure…? Is there any proof of Mahabharata or these men…? Don't say it is written in our scriptures which we don't know at what time they written…😅😅😅

33. This lecture assumes a priori that the life of an ascetic/hermit/renunciate is the default "peaceful" state that every human must aspire to. This is a fallacy because both "peace" and "violence" are an inevitable and inseparable facet of existence. Everyone and everything's existence is both creative and destructive from moment to moment – be it the smallest sub-atomic particles or the largest structures in the cosmos (morphing from one particle to another is a violent process that is both simultaneously creative and destructive, and in deep space stars and black holes are gobbling material from other stars and black holes — so there's violence at all levels of existence, helping to create, destroy, regulate as necessary). Creation involves destruction, and in destruction there is also creation taking place.

    What we deem as a "normal" or "good" existence is also immensely violent toward other humans, species, ecosystems, be they living or non-living. Our desire for resources – food, energy, manufacturing, drilling, mining, consumerism, diamonds/jewelry/fashion etc. drives conflicts between people, causes genocides elsewhere, destroys ecosystems, wastes resources such as water, and wipes out other species. Even a hermit's survival and sustenance is underpinned by violence, as he/she relies on certain basic infrastructure designed by nature or by nature's agents, wrought on by violence in either case. But this is all OK. No matter what we do, this equilibrium would hold. Action or Inaction will lead to the same overall equilibrium.

    If we live like a hermit/renunciate, then we will be accused of indifference; of not using our faculties to help ourselves and others, accused of not protecting them from violence and the hardships of life. If we do interfere in the world's affairs, then we will be accused of bias and not understanding context, and causing a chain reaction of violence. Either way, there would be violence.
    
    Which is why in the Gita, Arjuna is made aware of his delusion that if he abstains from war there will be no violence, which is a fallacy, as there's always violence at every level of existence, because of your action or inaction. Krishna was not expressly opposed to Arjuna not fighting, rather he wanted Arjuna to confront his rationale and re-think his decision in light of these insights.

    You can think of the divine/nature/consciousness/God (whatever label you wish to apply) as the number 0 manifested as infinity (as positive & negative numbers – so-called "good" and "bad") & thereby remaining in equilibrium (moksha). This is consistent with Einstein's E = M equation. 0 is both NOTHING and EVERYTHING (infinity) simultaneously. The divine is both the hunter and the hunted. It is both the victor and the vanquished. Triumph & Disaster – the two impostors (lila). By manifesting as everything including their opposites – experiencing reality through myriad forms and from every perspective/vantage point (lila), the divine remains in a non-judgmental equilibrium state, unperturbed, like the 0. However, for it to be in equilibrium, it MUST manifest as everything, including the not-so-pleasant states of existence. You cannot have roses and not have thorns.

    When a state of existence reaches a certain extreme tipping point, there is no option but to veer to the other extreme. The further back you pull the bowstring, the farther the arrow lands.
    Extreme violence will drive someone to seek extreme peace (just as extreme greed will drive someone toward extreme fear). Extreme peace will lead to circumstances that will invariably drive someone (in this life or the next) to indulge in extreme violence. Our universe/region of space-time (part of the eternal multiverse) is itself born from a seeming state of extreme peace leading to a burst of activity (violence) that was bubbling underneath.

34. Emperor Asoka united india

    Mahabharata has 0 evidence 😂

35. Well

    Asoka uniyed india

    In the fake stories of brahmanical system, ram krishna also conquered neighboring states,

36. Ashoka didn't get remorseful after the war of Kalinga, but his army is devastated during the Kalinga War though he emerged victorious because of a immense army and vast resources he cannot fund and muster an army for battle anymore then he devised the dharmashoka myth to hide his inability to wage any war and save his face.

    This is the best propaganda ever produced on the face of the earth and pathetically still believed today.

37. Yudhisthir was a gambler. We don't want any king like him. Moreover we prefer Democracy more than a King.

38. Sorbo Dharma Porityajya Atmachaitany Sharanang Vrajo. Follow only your Vivek Chaitanya and Do your Duty. Which is the actual Dharma. Vinasayacha Dushkritam . We don't need western countries narratives for our civilization. Ram Narayan Ram.

39. What this wok is going to teach about our great epic… Who doesn't even able to pick up the correct pronunciation…"Mahabharat", "Arjun" and Yudhishthir. These are the generation and people responsible for the defamation of Indian Heritage and culture. What a shame😢

40. I will retract my paid subscription, thanks for opening my eyes print media

41. Food for thought.

42. I request print and so called historians just read commests ….you be better educated on history ….😂😂😂😂😂

43. So many people having no idea about indian history getting offended due to their religion and abusing the famous historians.

44. The last sentence is questionable. After the war Ashoka didnt abandon his duties. He continued to rule(sometimes even used violence to maintain the empire), although according to his new Constitution based on Buddhism, not Brahminical order

45. Is it correct to compare two mythical imaginary kings to a real king? It would have been better to compare Yudishtra and Arjuna to Rama as both are mythical figures.

Comments are closed.