Problem: The opening shot of the movie shows Kunti praying for Lord Krishna's protection for the Pandavas . Lord Krishna consoles Kunti and promises to ever protect the Pandavas and guide them through troubles and problems that may occur in life . The sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra progeny break into an argument . When Duryodhana insults the Pandavas as '' dependents '' , Bheema counters by saying that , the Kauravas are the progeny of a widow . Duryodhana asks Veda Vyasa for an explanation . He is then told that , since his mother , Gandhari had an astrological defect , she is first married of to a goat and then married to his father . Duryodhana gains animosity towards the kingdom of Gandhara where the king , the father of his mother Gandhari , rules . He attacks Gandhara and lays waste of the whole kingdom . He them imprisons the royal family in his prison . He gives them only one rice grain per prisoner . The king of Gandhara then stops everyone from grabbing the little food that is provided . He says that instead of everyone dying , they could keep at least one of their princes alive . He chooses Sakuni to be alive . Sakuni takes an oath that he will do everything he can to destroy the entire Kaurava clan . He makes magic dice from his father's spinal cord . The magic dice show exactly the number that he would want . Duryodhana takes pity on the lone prisoner , Sakuni after the rest of the Gandhara royal family dies in prison out of starvation . Sakuni joins the evil of coterie of Duryodhana , Karna and Dushyasana .

Question: "Who attacked the kingdom of Gandhara?"

Answer: "Sakuni"
Answer: no

Problem: The Golden Heian Era: The geomancers in 794 decided that Heian-kyo (modern Kyoto) would be an auspicious site for the imperial family. It was indeeduntil 1869. Grants of tax-free land over the years had been made to Buddhist temples and members of the court aristocracy. The most powerful families thus carved out for themselves whole regions that were to become the fiefdoms of Japanese feudalism. By the end of the eighth century the clans had created a hierarchy of shiki, or rights, from the highest to the lowest ranks of society. The aristocrat or court patron lent his prestige to a powerful provincial proprietor, who employed a competent estate-manager to oversee smallholders, who in turn worked their farms with dependent laborers. This elaborate structure of interdependent rights and obligations was to serve Japanese society right into the 20th century. Meanwhile, Heian court life blossomed in an effusion of aesthetic expression. Princes and princesses judged the merits of birds, insects, flowers, roots, or seashells. Literary party games held in ornate palace gardens required each guest to compose a small poem as his wine cup floated toward him along a miniature winding channel of water. Expeditions were organized to the best viewing points for the first spring cherry blossoms, and special pavilions were built to watch the rising of the full moon. Every gesture, from the most banal opening of an umbrella to the sublimest act of lovemaking, had its appropriate ceremonial. Conversation often took the form of elegant exchanges of improvised verse. The changing role of Chinese culture in Japanese life was epitomized in the language itself. In the absence of an indigenous alphabet, Japanese scholars had with the greatest difficulty tried to adapt the complex ideograms of monosyllabic Chinese to the essentially polysyllabic Japanese. Thus developed the katakana system used as a vehicle for writing Buddhist names and concepts. After rival Fujiwara factions had been struggling for years to gain control of the imperial throne, they turned to the Taira and Minamoto armies in 1156 to wage the four-year war that heralded the end of the golden age of the Heian court. The Taira, controlling the region along the Inland Sea, defeated the Minamoto armies based in the Kanto province east of the capital.

Question: "When was the end Heian-kyo as a site for the imperial family?"

Answer: "1869"
Answer: yes

Problem: Tocqueville asserted that the values that had triumphed in the North and were present in the South had begun to suffocate old-world ethics and social arrangements. Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings. This was a contrast to the general aristocratic pattern in which only the eldest child, usually a man, inherited the estate, which had the effect of keeping large estates intact from generation to generation. In America, in contrast, landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child by the action of primogeniture, which meant that as time went by, large estates became broken up within a few generations which, in turn, made the children more equal overall. It was not always a negative development, according to Joshua Kaplan's interpretation of Tocqueville, since bonds of affection and shared experience between children often replaced the more formal relation between the eldest child and the siblings, characteristic of the previous aristocratic pattern. Overall, in the new democracies, hereditary fortunes became exceedingly difficult to secure and more people were forced to struggle for their own living. This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries. Despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt.

Question: "How were the American lower class's views of wealth and fine possessions different from those of the European lower class?"

Answer: "European lower class people had no belief that they could gain wealth, whereas Americans believed they could if they worked hard"
Answer:
yes