As I grew up, I noticed discrepancies in stories forming basis of my relgion..

U r only 19! And u say u have gone thru all that???? Ok holy saint be prepared for a few salvos :-) Starting with how do u justify claims of Yudhistir and his bros to the throne? Pandu raj left the throne irresponsibly for personal grief in sharp contrast to Ram who left personal life for the benefit of kingdom. Either Ram was right or Pandu Raj was right, ur time starts now. :-) Second if Dhritarashtra was not capable of managing the kingdom according to Vidur, then how did he allow Pandu raj to hand over the kingdom to the blind man? After all, Bharat the great was not considering it in terms of genetically inherited kingdom. Oh I could point so many. And not only in this religion. In others as well that I have had some opportunity to get familiar with. Because of this, I believe the entire Mahabharata is written to make people interested in a smaller part of it called Geeta which otherwise would be as dry as math text.

well..yudhishtira could claim his kingdom coz his father pandu was the king..only that pandu left kingdom in command of dhrithraashtra.dhritharashtra since was a blind wasn't considered fit ruling the kingdom... so isn't it obvious that dhritharaashtra ruled in mercy of pandu.so yudhishtira claimed kingdom.. i dont know in what sense u compared pandu n rama,sooryavamsha n chandravamsha...rama had not gone through pattabhishekam when he was asked to leave.so the point of leaving kingdom for a sake doesn't arise..n pandu was right indeed..if he is mentally upset,he deffo can't be a good ruler.. in sooryavamsham,king aja was in depression of loosing his wife..he then gave up the command for years until he came out of depression... i dont see any catch in your post...

how did pandu allow means,bhishma was der..bhishma took prathigya that he wont rule kingdom..but he did interfer in things and was all capable of handling any situations..so its just that dhritharaashtra was kept on throne..but responsibilities on bhishma himself.. genes was not an issue in bharatha's case..he could definitely take over as a king as pattabhisheka karya wasnt done to rama..but it was just a moral dignity of bharatha that he ruled keeping padukas of rama on throne... morally, dhritharaashtra was supposed to do the same..but he didn't..

Thank you! I believe that there is one God who we all live under and love, I don't understand why religion has to seperate people. God is about love and we are all his creations. I think he would want us all to get along and to share the earth he created in harmony.

I wish they would let us question, view it with logics, and accept something that books said are right as wrong. And that they would allow us to love people who are not from our faith with as much brotherhood as those from our faith. I wish they would dissociate the essence of the religion from the stories that surround it. Why must these illogical barriers exist? What purpose do they serve in present context when everybody needs to unite? I am glad u feel like me ladym33. Makes me feel so sane. It is a bit lonely in this corner. When u believe in god, are afraid to embrace other religion because u expect inconsistencies there as well, and u can see what many others are too busy to notice in ur own religion. Thanks a lot. It made me feel really good.

I agree god is there. It is the stories woven around god that are inconsistent. And that bugs me because many a times they are not logical, and the so called priests do not offer any logical and acceptable explanations to it.

For your age, your depth is shocking and yet delightful. I am just getting a feeling that I am in the company of somebody who is going to be recognized for generations here onwards. :) Perception it is indeed. :) Everything is right and everything is wrong. It depends upon context, time, and a few other factors. You know hora, scriptures only indicate what could be honorable and what people would appreciate and what could be good for many. Choice is ours. We are under no obligation to follow what scriptures suggest. We need to develop our own road map and leave it to posterity for deciding whether we were worth appreciating.

i know how you feel. triumphant and proud of your ability to identify the anomalies of some religious books which somehow others failed to see. trust me, life is much more than what you read and see. i let time be your guide. good luck.

Hi Sunny - No - I dont feel proud and triumphant. As I c it, when I was young, i was told to obey my elders and trust them, which I did. Like the young cubs of lions dont go on hunt, I too was shielded from somethings. Now - as grown up - I find what the society and law says is right in practical life is not what is right in my scriptures. How can I then emulate characters from my scriptures or follow their example? Is it wrong to want to acknowledge and remove this contradiction? Is it wrong to discard ideas that are no longer working in relation to time, context, and awareness. Should religion be static like a pond that gathers the dirt or dynamic like a stream that periodically renews and is fresh and vibrant? When I watch television serials, or movies, I am able to spot illogics. Likewise - if ever I discuss my religion with anybody - they too would spot these inconsistencies. They may be too polite to comment, but they are under no obligation to bend to guidance of my parent, are they? And then, if they laugh, would that make me proud, or triumphant or would that make me vulnerable? But I too will be able to notice discrepancies in their religion. Am I to point them to them if such things happen? Is that the solution u r offering? But - conversion is definitely out. It is like doing graduation several times in different streams. I would still be only a graduate. I agree the language in which my holy books are written is no longer in use, so getting the exact meaning is difficult. But attributing some depth to it based on personal interpretation is like using a whole lot of cryptic words like astrologers/fortune tellers, and effectively saying nothing. I am not very intelligent so I prefer simple language that I understand and not something that is presented in a convoluted way, and subjective way. Even these are acceptable - if they are logical and truly good for everybody. I could also give subjective interpretations - for example in our epic - Bhishma and Karna are worth a lot of respect - even though Karna lied to Parashuram, and did not defy Duryodhana against Draupadi vastraharan, and Abhimanyu vadh. This to me meant - my religion wants me to look for good in another person and understand the reasons they could have (obliged to Duryodhan) and consider them as good even if they are on wrong side and have sided wrong. That - is deep. And if I accept Duryodhan's bad qualifications as truly bad - then Arjun also displayed the same characteristic - isn't it? He wanted to be the best archer, so he made Dronacharya ask Eklavya for the thumb - instead of practicing and improving himself to that level. From yesterday the chief minister of my state went missing - and if he is not found for next 10 years, would the party accept him back in his post - on his return? I liked the 19 year old Shravan (1st post) trying to clear my doubts - and he did have some good points - especially the four stages of human mind was really enlightening. I have to go thru them. U cant ask me to forego questioning when the scriptures allow me to rationalise. After all - closing mind and not questioning is no way to progress and develop the inner me. If I do so - I will be frequently angry with god as I would not understand his reasoning. I feel using the words proud and triumphant without really knowing what is on the mind of another - is far too hasty. I will need a more patient teacher and therefore - I must decline ur offer to be my guru.

Content is Pandu didnt return after Yudhistir's birth to claim the throne. Need to know why his wife did. :-)