The point of this post is to prove that curses do not have the power to change an outcome, reality or to affect a characters life. That curses were just words uttered out of frustration but no curse actually works. I will focus on 4 curses and explain how exactly they each failed.
Example 1 is from the ramayana era
Kuber cursed Ravan;
[Start]
Vaisravana cursed him, saying "This chariot shall never carry thee; it shall bear him who will slay thee in battle! And as thou hast insulted me, thy elder brother, thou shalt soon die!"
[End]
He overcame/counters the curse:
"Reaching his brother's house and entering the inner apartment, Kumbhakarna saw his worried brother sitting in Pushpaka, a self-moving aerial car."
Ravan mastered pushpakha;
Quote 1: "Then you promptly emplane this sky-flying chariot which is yoked with ghost-faced mules and adorned with gems along with me." Quote 2: Tataka's son Maareecha said "All right" to Ravana, and then both Ravana and Maareecha mounted the chariot as they would emplane an aircraft and swiftly journeyed from the surroundings of Maareecha's hermitage
Logic - the curse failed as Ravan ended up riding this vimana either way. Yes it did carry his killer (Rama son of Dashrath) later, but Kuber said that it would NEVER carry Ravan, yet it still clearly did.
2nd incident.
This depends on if the Punjiksthala crime happened first or if the rape of Rambha happened before, either way the result is the same that a curse failed. Cause Ravan just went onto commit the same crime he was cursed for earlier.
Shree Ravana speaks with MahaParshva [begin] "From today onwards, if you revel with any other woman forcibly, your head then undoubtedly will break asunder into a hundred pieces. Fearing the curse given in this manner by Brahama, I am not violently making Sita the daughter of Videha, to mount on my beautiful bed forcibly." {enD}
What did hanutati observe?
Passage; "Hanuma best among Vanaras, tiger among Vanaras, moving about saw Rakshas women, those who were sleeping near to Ravana."
Logic - Most likely they were not his daughter's but if they are not spouses they would be his daughter's if they are spouses then that means either they gave him consent or he raped them cause the curse of Brahma did not work.
Secondary curse that ravan faces;
"Since, despite your lack of love for him, he ravished you thus brutally, O Blessed One, on this account he will never be able to approach another youthful woman unless she shares his love; if, carried away by lust, he does violence to any woman who does not love him, his head will split into seven pieces."
How my point has been proven?
Answer - the curse of rambha's mate (nalkuver) proves my point because both of them negate the other, if brahma cursed ravan (due to rape of punjiksthala) that means the curse of nalkuver failed cause ravan rapes punjiksthala right afterwards. If the ramba incident happened after punjiksthala then again my point is proven cause that shows the curse of brahma failed to protect Rambha or harm Ravan.
Only way the curses could make sense is if nalkuvera's curse was only if Ravan targeted younger woman, so possibly punjiksthala was a elderly female. Other than that i dont see anyway it could make sense or my claims could be proven wrong.
=
Example 3 - Gautam's curse on Indra fails it was during the pre ramayana era.
[Quote]
The well-behaved Gautama furiously spoke these words on seeing the ill-behaved Thousand-eyed Indra who is donning the guise of a saint "Oh, dirty-minded Indra, taking hold of my form you have effectuated this unacceptable deed, whereby you shall become infecund." Thus, Gautama cursed Indra. When that great-souled sage Gautama spoke that way with rancour, the testicles of the cursed Thousand-eyed Indra fell down onto ground at that very moment.
Logic: the word 'infecund' means sterile, basically unable to impregnate a woman, yet Indra was the biological father of arjuna & vali. I assume the curse happened after the birth of Jayanta (his other son) but clearly indra had at minimum three sons together.
Indra became a daddy again; "Kunti, thus addressed by her lord, invoked Sakra (the king of the gods) who thereupon came unto her and begat him that was afterwards called Arjuna. And as soon as this child was born, an incorporeal voice, loud and deep as that of the clouds and."
Logic - obviously gautams curse failed.
=
Example four.
Background - Its well known that fans of chutiya karna try to bring up parshuram's curse as an excuse for why fudhu karna failed in one battle in his life.
Quote for the curse;
"Since thou art not a Brahmana, truly this Brahma weapon shall not, up to the time of thy death, dwell in thee when thou shalt be engaged with a warrior equal to thyself!" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a003.htm
Evidence that it failed:
"Steadying himself by a powerful effort he invoked the brahmastra." https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08090.htm
"Karna, invoking the brahmastra, showered his shafts upon Dhananjaya and once more made an effort to extricate his chariot" https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08091.htm
Logic - this clearly supports my theory/claim that curses dont actually work they never become true.
.png)
Hopefully most people that read this get it now that curses fail more often than not. I agree their are rare cases where curses could work but most of the time they failed.
