Try to add the full story of yayati and puru not just add a silly little comment, also better to mention that the puru sacrifice of youth was a temporary thing and not permanent also the moral of the story is very important, not some sarcastic comment.

@@RamamurthySB doesn't matter if it's a temporary thing. The whole world is temporary the whole life is temporary. What matters is the sacrifice and it's a sacrifice he did while others did not. Abhimanyu after his death went back to heaven and became Jayanta again. Does that mean his sacrifice in the Kurukshetra war means nothing?

​@@uselesshero.officialhaha philosophy saying temporary everything is temporary, I can also say nothing is a sacrifice nothing is a lust everything karma and karmaphala would you accept it, in purus situation the chain of which can be traced as causes are , a woman's jealousy, parents meddling in a couples marriage, a man's insatiable Desire etc. if you know the story you can understand these points.

@@RamamurthySB you can say that Sacrifice is nothing or lust is nothing but you have to accept that the former is a positive Karma and the latter is a negative Karna. So...

​@@uselesshero.official I don't think our human mind can even comprehend what is a right karma and what is a wrong karma , that is why humanity is never at peace, karma is good when it is according to Dharma like , like telling truth is a good karma as you have pointed out but Dharma says if that truth is in possing harm to any other being then lying is shown at a better position than truth. Karma is simple but karma following the path of Dharma is what all the fuss gets confusing, and I don't think the primitive mind of human is evolved to even comprehend that let alone to judge.

Such a biased view. Even I have read story in Mahabharata. If Devayani and Yadu were that arrogant to Lord Vishnu wouldn't have appeared in his lineage. If Yayati didn't had any feelings for Devayani he shouldn't have given any children to her. Sharmistha's other sons too refused to give their youth. Ultimately not even puru aided him to attain moksha it was Devayani's Madhavi the daughter of Yayati restored his virtues. Cheating should never be justified even if it's Puranas.

@@ganashreem8390 Biased? Absolutely not! I am just calling a spade a spade. I am not making up stories to protect anyone. I just gave an insight of this story from Vyasa Mahabharata line by line. You cannot apply modern values of having only one wife and call all the men of the past scums. Mankind keeps evolving and does what feels right according to the times they live in. When monarchy was practiced all over the world several kings had to marry multiple wives for diplomatic reasons and that is a well known fact. When you read such stories the only thing that you should do is to grab the essence of his teachings is essential for today's context by observing the behaviour of each character. There may be several versions of the Mahabharata but if you don't understand the teachings of the sages and how to apply them in modern days context what is the use of reading all that in the first place? If Devayani truly did nothing wrong why would Vyasa who taught us that Dharma always wins give her a bad ending? Everybody is thinking as though this story is about a man who cheated on his wife behind her back, the wife lived in misery, the greedy women who cheated with her friend's husband became the Queen mother and God forgave the lustful man and was unfair to the innocent wife. If you tell such stories to people what on earth is the takeaway? The sages are not jobless to tell people such crap! People would jump to conclusions that the Mahabharata is useless without learning the true teachings of the sages if you tell the story in such a manner. If you ask me why Krishna took birth in the Yadu clan gracing Devayani it may be because of several other factors. By that logic, Kamsa was Krishna's uncle. Does that mean that Kamsa who killed Krishna's brothers a good person? Why did he choose such a man to be his uncle then? Regarding the story, I still stand by my words that Devayani's behaviour was indeed improper. She WAS that arrogant. If she truly treated Sharmishtha like her sister, why would she have her as a slave? She cornered Yayati to marry her because how dare he look at Sharmishtha when the great daughter of Shukracharya was in front of his eyes! Shukracharya would have requested Yayati not to have other wives if he truly did not want his daughter to share a husband. Instead he told him that he can have any other woman except Sharmishtha. Why would he say that if not for her incitement? How can you justify all of Devayani's actions? Doesn't all this seem improper to you at all? Yayati made excuses not to marry her saying that it was improper for a Kshatriya to marry a Brahmin indirectly conveying that Sharmishtha was compatible to be his wife but ended up marrying her because Shukracharya would have cursed him if he rejected his daughter and he also had children with her for the same reason living in constant fear of what may go wrong if she gets angry and not because he was truly into her. One tear from Devayani's eyes and it's game over for Yayati! That is how his situation was. That is why Sharmishtha also compared him with Shiva who has poison in his throat realising that he had pain in his heart of not being able to obtain her as his wife. When it comes to Sharmishtha please understand that the life as someone's slave is miserable and in many instances they would feel extremely lonely and depressed in addition to their hard life doing work for their masters. Not just that, all the women in the palace were treated like the property of the king and were forbidden from seeing other men. She must have felt lonely in the palace after losing everything, wanted someone to be there for her now that she had to stay there throughout her life and did not even have the choice to be free. In that situation perhaps she had no choice but to have kids with him to take care of her when she got older because she may not have been allowed to visit her family or friends. We cannot call her characterless just because she wanted to fulfill this one desire of hers. This is why I told earlier that we cannot judge her harshly and not because I feel that cheating with a friend's husband is acceptable. She had no freedom and truly had no choice but to ask Yayati. Yayati understood her situation and that Devayani would not even let her go no matter what and the terrible consequences of what would happen if she did because of which Vyasa did not say that he was wrong for granting her children even though cheating is wrong by itself. In Sanatana Dharma the intention behind one's actions is more important than the action itself and that is what I was trying to convey. The shastras are very reasonable in their teachings. For instance if a woman is forced into prostitution because of poverty the shastras won't call her a sinner or a lowly lustful woman because she sacrificed herself for the well being of her family. God won't punish such a person regardless of how the society views them because in his eyes she performed a small Adharma to accomplish a bigger Dharma of saving the lives of her family members providing them food to eat. He will not tell you that prostitution is wrong no matter what the situation is and punish the woman. Even though the entire world may look down upon her she is still pure in the eyes of god because your heart is more important than your body for him. On the other hand, the lustful men who obtain her services will not be spared because they are there to satisfy their bodies there when they may already have wives of their own. Even though something may be wrong in 99% of the time, that same thing may be the right thing to do in certain instances and that is something Dharma accepts. That is why Vyasa was not harsh on him because he just did his duty as a king in this CONTEXT. That doesn't mean that Sanatana Dharma does not punish men who cheat on their wives! Cheating is unacceptable but they made an exception for that in this situation taking several factors into account. This is not me telling my opinion that Yayati was right but this is how the sages see it. If the sages and elders who always taught us that the ideal examples for every couple are Sita and Rama, Vasishta and Arundathi, Kardama and Devahuti etc say that Yayati's actions are acceptable in this instance there must be a valid reason for that. Yayati did take back his old age when he finished all his duties and thereby also getting punished for his action as well. Yama will not let people of lightly if they committed a sin. If someone did something wrong they have no choice but to bear the fruits of their bad deeds. Yayati still went through his punishment before going to heaven for disobeying his words. So people should not say that he was not punished and that they can cheat on their partners and get away with it. People's characters are not black and white. It consists of different shades of grey. I feel that people should understand the whole picture before judging all the characters and their actions. All that I am trying to say is that Dharma is not a rigid rule book. It is something that keeps constantly changing according to the situation and God is the only person who knows whether an action is right or wrong. Everybody made mistakes in this story but the only person who did not regret anything that she did was Devayani unlike others. You have to read Mahabharata line by line observing the tone of each speaker and the context of the story in order to understand the behaviour of each person and to understand the life lessons that Vyasa wanted us to learn. The takeaway of this entire story that I learnt from my guru is to stay humble and not look down upon others because the nature of arrogance is such that it turns a person blind to the suffering of others and that it is something that increases regardless of whether your ego gets satisfied or whether it gets hurt. People would go to any extent to satisfy their ego which would cause their downfall. Devayani's actions are a live example of that. Her ego was satisfied when she made Sharmishtha her slave, then became even bigger when she became a queen because she gained power and did not feel guilty for what she did to Sharmishtha even once during the entire time not realising that ego is something that turned her into a monster. When her father cursed her husband she felt happy again because it satisfied her ego that got hurt without realising that even she would suffer if he suffers. God had to give her a tight slap to bring her back to her senses by giving Sharmishtha the respect she deserved. It was because Devayani was really egoistic that God punished her. Why would she have a bad ending if she followed Dharma? That's all from my side. If I am wrong in understanding this story please feel free to correct me but do tell me where I went wrong and why and what Vyasa wanted us to learn when he told this story if I misunderstood the actions of all the characters. I would also like to understand a few things from your perspective: 1. What is the key takeaway in the version of the story that you read? 2. What did Vyasa want mankind to learn when he told this story and how it is relevant to the modern times because there may be something that I don't know as well. 3. If you say that Devayani was a good person, then how was she a good person? 4. What was the mistake that Sharmishta made if any? 5. If it was Devayani's daughter that gave him moksha how did that happen and if puru did not take his old age then why did he give the kingdom to Puru and not Yadu because both of them were wrong after all? 6. What did her daughter get because of her sacrifice? I have heard of the story of Madhavi and Galava before but I am not aware of this.

@@ganashreem8390 Biased? Absolutely not! I am just calling a spade a spade. I am not making up stories to slander Devayani. I firmly stand by my words that she was indeed THAT arrogant and that is what led to her downfall. Krishna's leelas are complex and there are several different factors that influence his leelas. If you apply the logic of only good people becoming his relatives, Kamsa must also be a good person then. Why did he choose an evil man like Kamsa to be his uncle then? With respect to the story Yayati was forced to marry her only because he feared Shukracharya. That is also why he had children with her even though he was not into her. Do you really think that he could have refused to sleep with her? She would have gone to her father to cry her heart out and Shukracharya would have cursed him for that if he did that. Sharmishta's sons were also cursed for their behaviour but this story has nothing to do with moksha. It is just that he selected an heir to his kingdom based on the test. Yayati did go through Shukracharya's punishment before going to heaven. It is not that he got away with what he did just like that.

@@itsgvs833 I feel it's biased. Just like you have your theory on the story I have also read Mahabharata with authentic Kmg version only I feel the different way. I ain't saying Sharmishtha shameless either the problem was Yayati but Sharmishtha wasn't as good as you wrote neither Devayani was that arrogant as you said. This is my side of view. Hope you understand. Perception named thing differs from person to person. Have a great day ahead

@@itsgvs833 upto Devayani's arrogance making Sharmishtha as her maid servant. Further at the second meet of Yayati and Devayani, yayati recognised Devayani and was curious about sharmishtaa who don't look like a slave serving Devyani. Hence he did enquired to introduce both. Devayani did not cornered Sharmishtha infact she did introduced her as Daughter of Danava Raja vrishaparva. Here also there is no mark of Yayati falling for Sharmishtha. Further conversations goes on between Devayani and Yayati when she proposed him. He considers himself to be unfit for holding her hand as he haven't gained that much pride as a king to have the daughter of Shukracharya. He praising Devayani's beauty side by side explains his worry of Shukra not accepting the wedding. Devayani then gets her father there and explained the desire. Shukra happily accepted and both married. The very same Ved vyas won't mention he lived with Devyani happily with joy and bliss if it was a forced marriage. Sharmistha who was kept away in the garden of Ashoka was feeling terribly sad as she hasn't given birth to any child at her seasons whereas devayani has one. The virtuous man who she saw then is Yayati and requested for a child. Yayati refused and they have debate on it. They have children. Coming why Vedvyas showed this story. He shouldn't hide it either it's the tale about how Chandravansha flourished and multiplied in every direction he has to say it how the way it is. To explain the lineage. This what I feel the spot where you have mistaken. Purely my perception on this story. Thanks for reading whole. (I wrote with soo much patience ಥ⁠‿⁠ಥ) Again have a great day phew ✨

@@sumeeet_chandel This video is nonsense. It doesn't teach you what Veda Vyasa wanted mankind to learn and rather gives a wrong impression to people that a lustful man and a cheating woman was unpunished and that an innocent wife lost everything unfairly. You have to read the story from the real source line by line to understand what actually happened, the tone in which each person spoke, what was at the back of each person's mind etc. The Mahabharata that teaches us about the victory of Dharma has no reason to praise lustful men. I request you to kindly read the other comment that I made on this video to get a better idea of what I am saying and why.

It is all karma no luck 😂

No he wasn't lucky at all. He was a man who stood by his Dharma not crossing the line when he was forbidden from being with the love of his life because of Devayani and Shukracharya, granting Sharmishtha children to fulfill his duty as a king despite knowing the wrath of Shukracharya. He would have slept to his heart's content behind Devayani's back with several women or married other women if he had been lustful because he was the king after all. Why grant children only to Sharmishtha when he had the power to summon several women to serve him in bed? The sages have no reason to glorify lustful men. They have misinterpreted a story that is intended to teach people that people who hurt others to satisfy their ego will not go unpunished. The sages are not jobless to tell people useless stories.

Lol! Our sages will not tell people useless stories of lustful people going unpunished. The intention of our sages telling this story was to give people a demo of how a person with an arrogant heart goes to any extent to satisfy their ego without regard to a person's feelings. They have completely misinterpreted the story and given people a wrong impression that lustful men go unpunished and that people can go to heaven just by doing tapasya and that a wife who was cheated on lived in misery for the rest of her life losing everything. If that guy played with billions of girls as you said, there is no way that a person with a lustful mind does such penance because their minds will always be attached to lust. They tried to tell the world that a woman who forced her friend to be her slave, grabbed the man who fell in love with her, took her as a slave to serve both of them while denying them to be with each other taking advantage of the power that her father had just to satisfy her damn ego will not go unpunished in the eyes of God. This story is supposed to teach others that if they hurt others to satisfy their ego karma will hit back. Keep something in mind, god always keeps punya and paapam into account no matter how much tapasya a person does. When a person like Ramana Maharshi had to suffer from disease because of past karma, why would God turn a blind eye if he had been such a lustful person?

Bruh Yayati was an Asura king and his son was Yadu and even Shri Krishna's parents were descendant of them ie the Yadav as. They were definitely Aryan as well.

​@@uselesshero.official Yayati was a chandravamshi king. Chandra although a deva, is a neutral god & also son of brahma. Yayati married shukracharya & asura king daughters, he was the ruler of the earth.

utter nonsense fix your ignorance or your own karma may ruin you

Okay but what does that have to do anything with the video

​@@user-em9qu1qb1j yes exactly!!! What connection does it have?

Lol read the Vedas , Upanishad’s , itihaasas and puranas then you will know the purity in Hinduism

Lol Christianity says thou shall not kill how many Christians and following this they are not even following they own religion eating beef and idk what more how they are better....?

Yayati did penance for his sins and attained heaven just like repentance in Christianity.