Originally posted by: rachel490
I think most of the stories in any epic have both the sides and kinda depends on how we take it. It also depends on how the author has translated it from original language sanskrit(?). Sometimes translator itself try to inject his own ideas too.
JMHO
You are absolutely right, Raj (?) Translations are usually not the only problem, because the concept can still be maintained within languages even though certain wording and writing style are likely to change. The tone of the concept is what matters. Most versions of the Mahabharat, whether they are merely versions or translations, have been through a constantly dynamic process. Another problem with an epic like the Mahabharat is that for the longest time it was verbally recited. "Original" version basically does not exist. Also, it has to be taken into account that it was written in verse-form, not text...while it wasnt originally intended to depict Krishna in his divine form (He was treated as a human in the original verses), over a period of time, his divinity became the focus of the epic.
It has been often argued in literature on Mahabharat and the Gita, that certain 'divinity endowing" verses were added on by devotees in the 15th/16th centuries, when faith was recognized as being important for the unity of a nation that was being invaded by other cultures. People who until then treated Ramayana, Mahabharat, etc. as being guidebooks to lifestyles needed something more solid in order to enhance their identities from a religious perspective. Hinduism was not a formal religion until about the 16th century, when other religions were already well defined. The lack of any formal religion in the south asian continent indicated that the person was belonging to hinduism (also known as Hindutva at the time). Because up until the 16th century, Hindu meant 'belonging to Hinda-pradesh'. Hinda-pradesh being derived from the Sindhu river in the northern area of the indian subcontinent.
Thus, any of these epics - mahabharat, ramayana, etc. were supposed to be guidelines and the dominating literature of the times. While Ramayana indicated an 'ideal' for all - brother, mother, wife, man, devotee, etc. Mahabharat focused on the gray shades within every individual. The failings of mankind are the crux of Mahabharat...its purpose is to teach morals by taking the path of penalty.
If any of you are interested in discussing a particular character in mahabharat in more detail, please let me know...i would be more than willing to discuss what it takes.
Taking this in the context of Astitva...the reason why it leaves a distaste in my mouth at times is that they show Simran to be 'doodh ki dhuli hui' or ideal at all times...whereas they show everyone else to be a mixture of good and evil or purely 'evil'. Now that Simran is blind, the Yash character seems to be bringing out the worst in her - in terms of dependency issues.
anyways, please let me know if you would not like this topic continued and i will stop 😊
Cricket
