Why the Shift?? - Page 6

Actually brc Mahabharata did not change story much in his serial. Only few things he has changed

But he didn't not show many things in Mahabharata

Like conversation between markandya and yudhistar

There was another parikshit ruler of ayodhya

Conversation between satyabhama and draupdi

Yudhistar saving bheem from serpent as serpent coiled bheem

Many things are missing in brc Mahabharata

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I have faced this. Yesterday I told my husband about how the Dice Hall aftermath was the heroic activities of Draupadi and these TV shows turn it to the narration of Draupadi a damsel in distress needing Krishna's help to save herself.

And hubby responded that you mean to say that all the TV shows are wrong and only you have got it correct

While Panchali did make good arguments, Suyodhana did make the foolish mistake of offering to take one of the brothers' words, and Arjuna did speak up, IMO, none of that freed her ON ITS OWN.

If your notice, Dhritharashtra was gung ho about it until the jackals howled. Gandhari was present in court and didn't say a word until the jackals howled. This even AFTER Suyodhana made that offer, and Arjuna spoke up.

Now, Hastinapuri was located in Kurujangala. I assume jackals howling were not uncommon. So why did it become a bad omen that day?

One of the things you see in text is jackals being used to indicate spies.

Tracking forward a bit, we know Krishna was fending off an attack by Salwa, Kamsa's half brother. In that episode, Salwa made it very clear his interest was in Krishna, not Dwaraka or any of the other Yadavas.

The following is extrapolation on my part, but I do thing this is likely what happened.

It is improbable that both events, dice hall qnd the attack on Krishna, which happened at the same time to be coincidence. My feeling is that the conspirators meant Krishna to die. In his absence, it would be difficult for Panchal alone to do much for the enslaved. The jackal/spy likely delivered news that Krishna remained alive and well.

Krishna being still around, combined with the political conundrum Panchali and Arjuna placed the Kurus in thanks to Suyodhana's idiocy, made the risk vs. benefit ratio tilt on the side of freeing them. The 2nd dice game was a clever work around to that where Pandava/Panchali slavery was not an issue, so no one would have a reason to attack as gaming was completely legal at the time.

Here is jain Mahabharata version

http://www.agamdhara.com/others/jain-mahabharat-ep1/

http://hi.encyclopediaofjainism.com/index.php/जैन_महाभारत_पढ़ें

In javanese version Mahabharata it is written that draupdi only married to yudhistar

And gandhari was jealous of pandav .she was main antagonist as she was love in with pandu

In gandhari swayamvar

Gandhari was in love with pandu but instead she married dhrithrashtra to whom she didn't love. So out of protest she blind fold herself

In kmg version it is influenced by neelkanth commentary in Mahabharata

http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/608/608_c_minkowski.htm

Kmg use two source to transalate Mahabharata

One is burdwan edition and another is bombay edition that is neelkanth edition

https://fr-fr.facebook.com/MahabharatKiGalatiyan/posts/the-kmg-burdwan-edition-by-anshuman-roy-the-burdwan-bengali-edition-was-indeeed-/638263766286509/

Burdwan edition was work of poet kashiram and he take great liberty in removing and adding stories in Mahabharata

In kmg transalation. In first half of Mahabharata transalation kmg use Bengal. Edition that is kashiram edition and in second half of transalation he use bombay edition that is neelkanth edition

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Back to the topic.

I think Karna's popular characterization owes a lot to modern day political atmosphere. An abandoned, low-caste warrior rising beyond the narrow restrictions imposed upon him by the virtue of birth sounds fascinating and inspirational. It's a contemporary thing. That's where modern Karna's whole appeal lies.

Shakuni, on the other hand, is vilified to save Karna I think. Tv serials refuse to show Karna's active participation in Duryodhana's schemes. Someone has to fill that gap.

Why not fill that gap by showing Duryodhan himself as initiating the hatred? Particularly since he stood to be the sole beneficiary if the Pandavas were successfully eliminated! His father was blind, so he was the de-facto king of Hastinapur. In fact, nowhere in the MB does it actually say that Dhritarashtra was ever crowned king: he was more of a 'Rajpita', if that thing could exist

Originally posted by: surabhi01

I don't know why I get irrelevant answer

I am asking exact meaning of formally relate to shakuni

" Shakuni formally gave gandhari to dhrithrashtra

Because formal have many meanings, official , detached, aloof , reserved, good manner, rules

So which meaning of formal will fix here

But I am getting answers that vyas did not write in this language

I am not asking in which language ved vyas write Mahabharata

And I don't know how is not make sense if want meaning of word

Exact meaning of word and exact use of language is very important particular mythology epic

Because wrong meaning and wrong word can give wrong information

Like we say Krishna ne kans ka vadh kiya . We don't say Krishna ne kans ka khoon kiya

Both khoon and vadh meaning to kill but appropriate word is vadh related to God

Even we don't say in bhagwan ki katha ki woh mar gaya , mar gayi

Mar gaya mar gayi is not appropriate word when someone dies in religious epic

Appropriate uski mrityu hui usne apna deh tyaga

Anyway I am stopping my argument here

Vadh means either killed in battle, or executed. It has nothing to do w/ who does the killing. Like Abhimanyu vadh doesn't mean that Dushashan's son was a god.

Khoon means murdered i.e. illegitimately killed, where the victim was not prepared for it. In fact, you're now mixing Hindi and Hindustani, since Khoon is more the latter than the former

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Why not fill that gap by showing Duryodhan himself as initiating the hatred? Particularly since he stood to be the sole beneficiary if the Pandavas were successfully eliminated! His father was blind, so he was the de-facto king of Hastinapur. In fact, nowhere in the MB does it actually say that Dhritarashtra was ever crowned king: he was more of a 'Rajpita', if that thing could exist

Because Gufi Paintal did a great job. 😆 I mean, to this day, audience thinks original Shakuni walked with a limp.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I have faced this. Yesterday I told my husband about how the Dice Hall aftermath was the heroic activities of Draupadi and these TV shows turn it to the narration of Draupadi a damsel in distress needing Krishna's help to save herself.

And hubby responded that you mean to say that all the TV shows are wrong and only you have got it correct

You should have said yes. And then referred him to KMG

Besides, even the TV shows show different things. Like Suryaputra Karna showed Karna saving Draupadi from being raped by Sishupala. None of the other serials showed it. So which one is wrong, according to him?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Vadh means either killed in battle, or executed. It has nothing to do w/ who does the killing. Like Abhimanyu vadh doesn't mean that Dushashan's son was a god.

Khoon means murdered i.e. illegitimately killed, where the victim was not prepared gfor it. In fact, you're now mixing Hindi and Hindustani, since Khoon is more the latter than the former

I think she meant we don't use the word Hatya and use the word Vadh for Kamsa

The difference between Vadh and Hatya is exactly the same as your explained. Vadh is killing in a battle like Abhimanyu, Drona, Ghatochkat or Shalya and Karna, Hayta is killing illegally at times the other party is not expecting like Prativindhya, if fact I call the killing of all Uppandavas as Hatya

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes he lost that battle with Bheem and had to hence accept Yudhishtir as his emperor. An emperor had a power/right to summon any king for his military or monetary support if there was a war/need, (although there had been instances when they refused to do so and later got punished by the emperor many at times the annexation of the whole kingdom.)

But the kingdom in itself remained to king(not emperor) the emperor didn't ask for a portion of their revenue, nor could they officially decide the foreign policy for those kingdoms. It was a strange arrangement that can not be explained taking the present day systems into consideration

Ok I understood what you meant but he was imparted those education because of his talent since he was very good at it, Better than 95% of the princes there, I doubt his brothers matched his skills

Yeah, he was Yudhisthir's vassal, but once Indraprastha was won by the Kauravas in the dice game, he was either free from Yudhisthir, or he was now a vassal of Duryodhan. I think it was more the former, since he told both Krishna and Kunti how he owed Duryodhan a debt of gratitude. If it was that he was Hastinapur's vassal, he would have said so clearly.

'Conquest' in a Rajasuya yagna simply made that kingdom follow the 'foreign policy' of the 'master' kingdom. Like when Jarasandha declared war on Mathura, then his vassals - Paundrak, Shalva, Rukmi, Sishupala, Dantavatra, et al all joined him and participated in those invasions. When Bhima visited Chedi during his Rajasuya campaign, Sishupala welcomed him, since Bhima had killed his master Jarasandha, and in fact took part in a few military conquests for Bhima near his kingdom. Similarly, had Yudhisthir retained Indraprastha and then gone to war w/ Hastinapur, Karna would have been obligated to fight on his side. Which would have looked strange, given that he was sitting alongside Duryodhan and openly insulting Draupadi to please him