Why the Shift?? - Page 8

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

.

Agreed my husband yesterday also argued with me on this

He said maybe there is some word in Shakuni's description which means limp as well as something else

Despite my telling him multiple times that limping is completely Gufi Paintal's invention he was finding it hard to believe

Even the kind of dice they use (rectangular shaped) seems to me some creativity to differentiate from today's dice. Those dice can practically land only on the longer face owing to the laws of physics, only four faces, hence we can't get a Pau Barah there.

But we can't deny that BRC Shakuni was still much better than the Shakunis of later adaptations

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I happen to think that Krishna was nowhere near Hastinapur, since he was in the middle of his war against Shalva, who may have been avenging Sishupala's death (as per the ACK Krishna and Sishupala). I think in reality, Draupadi's sari may have completely come off, or Dushashan may have stopped at the point where the sari was pinned to the pettiskirt, since it wouldn't come off, and that later Vyasa changed it to save Draupadi's name from embarrassment.

Krishna didn't save her, she was saved by her Dharma according to the epic. Yes she could have completely got exposed(though I believe not) but she was only in one cloth so pettiskirt thing isn't possible

I do think what HearMeRoar said could be the truth. The information that Krishna is alive would have made them take this decision

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

Originally posted by: surabhi01

General it is believed when a evil person killed by good person it is called vadh and also it is also called sanghaar

Like durga ne mahishasur ka vadh kiya ya sanghar kiya

Bheem ne jarasandh ka vadh kiya

Arjun ne jadrath ka vadh kiya

Anyway in kalyug most of things change

Jahan pur vadh , sanghaar use nahi karna chahjye wahan pur bh sanghar,vadh i use hota hai

If we say durga murder mahisasur it will look as if durga maa did crime / sin in killing mahisasur yahan muder लिखने pur alag hi sense hota hai

And if use durga maa slay / killed mahishasur then it will make another sense that durga maa give punishment to mahishasur

Use of words is very important in religious epic because of wrong use of word is disrespectful to certain character particularly in religious epic

So Dushashan's son was a good person, who killed the wicked Abhimanyu? That chapter is called 'Abhimanyu-vadh parva'. How about Shalya - was he a god when he did the vadh of Uttar?

Vadh/sanghar means kiliing either in battle, or executing after a judgement

Hatya means to murder - what you used the term 'khoon' as.

In English, there isn't an equivalent term for vadh/sanghar, and the term 'kill' is neutral in emotion: it does not distinguish b/w a legitimate killing, such as death in battle, an execution or a killing by a deity. In other words, kill may or may not be a crime. Murder always is, which is why it's equivalent of hatya

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

They might have wanted to portray Duryodhana as a claimant who was misguided and infused with negativity since childhood.

One person in itself can't be so much evil. Without Karna he wouldn't have been so much into it

I never say abhimanyu was wicked and dussasan is good person so here abhimanyu vadh is wrong word

Like it is wrong to say kans ne 6 sons ka vadh kiya. Correct word is kan se 6 son ki hatya kia

It is wrong to say bhakt prasann hue. Correct word is bhakt आनंदित hue

Prassann word is use for God. That God uski tapasya se prasann hue

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I happen to think that Krishna was nowhere near Hastinapur, since he was in the middle of his war against Shalva, who may have been avenging Sishupala's death (as per the ACK Krishna and Sishupala). I think in reality, Draupadi's sari may have completely come off, or Dushashan may have stopped at the point where the sari was pinned to the pettiskirt, since it wouldn't come off, and that later Vyasa changed it to save Draupadi's name from embarrassment.

Krishna was in Dwaraka, battling Salwa. I'm talking about how Kauravas wouldn't have wanted Krishna alive after dice hall. Because he didn't care much for rules and would surely have declared war. He was a bigger threat to them than Yudhishtira and his mute followers. I find it hard to believe the simultaneous attacks were coincidental.

Panchali being made naked is very much mentioned later on. I'll see if I can find citation. While her calling for Krishna is omitted by CE within scene, it is mentioned by Krishna. It could have been a distraught woman calling, but it could also have been a threat. My feeling is that Kuru court worried quite a bit about Krishna's anger. Then, the jackal thing.

Abhimanyu/Uttar Vadh is the word used by Vyas not by us.

Even the Vedas mention Mandhaata Vadh in Lavnasur battle

Kans killed the 6 kids when they weren't in a situation to defend themselves, he didn't kill them in a battle or got them executed for some crime

Why will drapaudi be embarrassed ?? She did nothing wrong. On contray it was kuru courts embarrassment it was dushashan duryodhan Karan moment of embarrassment. It was "dharmraj" yudhishtra and his so called mighty brothers s moment of embarrassment. It was the "great" bhism s moment of embarrassment. It was kuru King dritrashtra s moment of embarrassment. It is they who did wrong they who should ought to be "embarrassed" and not drapaudi.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Why will drapaudi be embarrassed ?? She did nothing wrong. On contray it was kuru courts embarrassment it was dushashan duryodhan Karan moment of embarrassment. It was "dharmraj" yudhishtra and his so called mighty brothers s moment of embarrassment. It was the "great" bhism s moment of embarrassment. It was kuru King dritrashtra s moment of embarrassment. It is they who did wrong they who should ought to be "embarrassed" and not drapaudi.

True. But it would've been a huge deal back then.