Jaya CC#1 Members Only (Notes on Pg#12,19)Please Vote Pg 135 - Page 27

Created

Last reply

Replies

1.1k

Views

39.6k

Users

17

Likes

1.1k

Frequent Posters

amritat thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: AnuMP

CBD is an awesome author.

But I will never agree that she portrayed Panchali accurately. Her Panchali is an educated woman but unable to see beyond her own self centered needs. She made Panchali MUCH worse than the already interpolated epic.

In the epic with its 66-92% interpolations, Panchali still comes across as a scholar even as early as the DS. In the exile, she says what amounts to the core of Gita.

CBD's Panchali is nothing of the sort. She is a moony teenager. Mooning after the wrong guy to be sure. But no different than the 100s of Panchalis in the ArDi FFs.

Epic Panchali talked a few times at length and EACH time her POV wins. In the DS, NO ONE came to her help. As you said, in the CE, she doesn't even call on G for help. She gets out of it ON HER OWN and get the Pandavas out of it.

CBD's Panchali kept angsting over Karna's behavior.

Epic Panchali's talk to G in Kamyaka vana brings him around to HER POV. Krishna and the Panchal gang are ready to war right then and there after she finishes her speech, IIRC. Epic Panchali didn't spend her time fainting over what Arjun would do to Karna. She gave a speech that contained the crux of Gita, BEFORE the actual Gita gyan.

CBD's Panchali was tutored by G during the Durvasa visit on forgiveness. Gimme a break, this woman who forgave time and time again, had to be tutored?😲

Epic Panchali, plotted Keechak's execution. She didn't spend her time giggling with G at the wedding reception.

CBD's Panchali is NOTHING at all like the original. She is an AWESOME writer, but her Panchali is an ordinary woman caught up in extraordinary circumstances.

Epic Panchali was an EXTRAORDINARY woman, with a highly developed intellect, a spine of steel, immutable principles, and an outstanding Empress.

What insecurities are weaknesses are we talking about here? I haven't seen any.



I agree completely...
Chitra Banerjee is an awesome writer...n may I say it, she's better than KUS in terms of WRITING...
She has given a few distortions here n there but more or less stuck to the epic...

And I agree that she has made Draupadi a somewat childish character who throws utensils at her husbands, n feels jealous of Subhadra, even when she loves Karna... 🤢
And I have said this before, in order to be neutral, she had gone overboard with Draupadi's tantrums n made her into one immature character...

But wat I appreciate about Chitra Banerjee is...she did not whitewash her just because she is the protagonist.
This is wat most Mahabharat authors have done...whitewashed the protagonist...
But Chitra Banerjee didnt go that route...She made her Draupadi realize her mistakes..
It is true that while going neutral she missed out on the regal aspects of Draupadi n reduced her to an ordinary woman...
But nonetheless, her way of bringing out Draupadi's emotions were very very touching...She made me cry for Draupadi without making her look like some saint...That is where her expertise lies...

Draupadi's portrayal was not good...She was reduced to a whiny child...but her emotions were brilliantly portrayed, especiallu when her children n Drishtadyumna died...And thats y I loved the book...ofcourse without... 😡 angle.
AnuMP thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
What mistakes of Panchali are we talking about?

Realize her mistake in rejecting Karna?! Good lord, after DS, she calls him a 'little man' in her convo with G! I don't see anywhere that she regretted it or even the manner of rejection! Realize her mistake in waging war? PLEASE! Panchali was in her 40s by then and had lived her life as an Empress and a Kshatriya woman. She knew very well people die in wars. She wasn't retarded to go into war without knowing that.

From what I have seen of Panchali in the actual epic, she went into everything with her eyes wide open and did what needed to be done, regardless of consequences. She talked Karmanyevadhikarasthe and did the same, before Arjun even got to hear of it. I don't know if Sutaputhra comment happened or not (likely not), but if it did, then she did it on purpose, knowing that it was needed. At that point, Karna's hurt feelings were not important. She went into war because it was her karma as Empress and as a human being. She does not say she regretted going to war, any place even after her children and brothers died. It was Yudhi who regretted, NEVER Panchali

CBD used Panchali's character as a plot device to portray the evils of war. If I see her as a totally new character, I liked the book. But CBD's Panchali was not Epic Panchali. CBD stuck to the scenes and events and gave them a different interpretation, so am willing to admit that she had some honesty there.

As to who is a better writer, that totally depends on what kind of characters we enjoy reading about. I just don't see Panchali as an ordinary woman, EVER! Forget the romance angle, that kind of mis-characterization really spoilt the book for me.

Panchali was all that - extraordinary Empress, skillful diplomat, learned scholar, able administrator, philosopher, ruthless negotiator, forgiving mother and yes, beautiful woman. She was not an ordinary woman for authors to sneer at, condescendingly, comfortable in their own superiority. To acknowledge that would take some humility and some self awareness, which most of them don't seem to posses.
Edited by AnuMP - 10 years ago
LiveYourDream thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
POI is one book I totally detested!
CBD might be a great writer but she has taken too many liberties with Draupadi's character to the extent of distorting it beyond recognition!
Other than coming up with the insane angle of Karna and Drau , she has made Drau into a whiny creature which she definitely was not. She has made Drau go on and on about how she caused the war when it is blatantly not true. Agreed she might be one of the reasons for the war but she did not cause it... That dubious distinction goes to the so called heroes of the epic!

It is really annoying when people who are in a position of influence so many others misinterpret the epic like this and lead so many readers astray.
amritat thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
POI has indeed used Draupadi to show the evils of war...and yes, it makes Draupadi admit that she was a Kritya too vehemently...This is a fact, I oppose...

But its a fact Draupadi was often too forthright...And thats her best as well as her worst quality...
And the consequences of being a forthright woman, at an age when women like Gandhari were considered 'ideal' have been shown by the author...Right or wrong...mistakes or no mistakes, that is upto our personal opinion...

And another thing...Draupadi's urge for war was not wrong...A woman who had been assaulted again n again would certainly want justice...But wat is revolution to some, is mass murder to many...
Billions of people had died...innocent people had given lives for 'Dharma Stapna'...So...I dont see the war just as a means to bring the rotten structure down...And I dont think Draupadi was the one who brought about every change because of her philosophy and intelligence...The war had far more political reasons that have been veiled under spiritual reasons...And the war was much bigger than just wat Draupadi wanted...
AnuMP thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
On the contrary, I would say the war was much more than what the Pandavas wanted. Pandavas, except Arjun, fought to get their power and land back, which are very material aims. Panchalu's aims were a little higher than that. Justice is always a higher aim.
I don't think Panchali ever 'admits' that forthrightness was a mistake. Indeed, her forthright arguments saved the Pandavas' skin

CBD did the same thing that every MB author does. Went for Panchali's throat to explain the war. The war was needed. Panchali was not wrong in wanting it and she never says it was wrong.

Panchali's was a willing sacrifice and she should be applauded for it.
amritat thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: AnuMP

On the contrary, I would say the war was much more than what the Pandavas wanted. Pandavas, except Arjun, fought to get their power and land back, which are very material aims. Panchalu's aims were a little higher than that. Justice is always a higher aim.

I don't think Panchali ever 'admits' that forthrightness was a mistake. Indeed, her forthright arguments saved the Pandavas' skin

CBD did the same thing that every MB author does. Went for Panchali's throat to explain the war. The war was needed. Panchali was not wrong in wanting it and she never says it was wrong.

Panchali's was a willing sacrifice and she should be applauded for it.


The war much than wat Draupadi or the Pandavas or even the Kauravas wanted...I think it involved a lot of other powers n conspiracies...all of which led to this war...

Draupadi never had to admit...Thats the author's interpretation...
Ved Vyas never mentioned explicitly wat the characters felt in their mind n heart...
And yes, Draupadi's forthright attitude saved the Pandavas...n that is y I said her forthrightness was her BEST as well as her worst quality...It made her different from every other woman...but also an object of criticism atleast in the Kaliyugi mindset...

Draupadi was NOT wrong...Didnt I say the same thing?

She should be applauded for the sacrifice...but should the mass destruction also be applauded?
I dont think so...n Draupadi urge for war can only be considered a 'sacrifice' if she did it for any revolutionary reason. But I still havent found an evidence for that...
Throughout the epic, she only urges for justice for herself n her family...not to bring down the system...
And when her children died, she did blame Yudisthir...didnt she?

But wat really makes me love her all the more is the way she handled her depressed husband n made him strong enough to rule again...She could handle any situation...

Chiillii thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Visit Streak 90 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago
Dear Anu
Let me start writing that scene...I'll need your advise on that. I'll ask you when I get there...I am still stuck in her intro...thank god I have a bit of time till it actually happens...I am trying to get her to be yagna seni...without her actually coming out of fire...who is doing hawt bro...pls let me know ..need to discuss this...

Indrajit bandhopadhyay has done a nice article on it...them coming out of fire being a charade...propaganda etc...

But That kind of fake and negative feel to her intro... So still thinking on what to do...

Meanwhile...I am reading all your arguments on what not to pot Ray her as...I lol keep all this in mind while writing...


AnuMP thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
In that 5 or 6 section Kamyaka vana convo with Yudhi, she urges ACTION, or KARMA. Not justice for JUST her family. This is the same Kaliyugi mindset you just mentioned. The woman who talked about KARMA and divinity and destiny, is not after petty aims. Somehow, we become reluctant to assign higher aims for her. She is not even after the result as she makes clear to Yudhi. She just wants to see them ACT for justice.

And JUSTICE is perhaps the only positive reason to wage war. Not power, not land, not all conspiracies in the world. There were lots of conspiracies going on. The Rishi gotras were battling for supremacy, Kauravas and Pandavas for land and power, Karna for fame. In the middle of all this, the one person fighting for justice was Panchali. Hers was the BIGGEST aim of all.

And why wouldn't she blame Yudhi or Pandavas or Kauravas? Their actions or inactions started it all.

Mass destruction is not to be applauded. But the masses supported subjugation of a large chunk of humanity. That mass had to come down. That would not happen without pain, blood and sacrifice. Panchali willingly gave it all. And that is her greatness.
Edited by AnuMP - 10 years ago
AnuMP thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
@Adi
I guess you could make it a rescue from fire or something. Or kind of a mystical atmosphere where the 2 walk out into the open when the sacrifice was going on. We can discuss flashbacks and whatnot, too

I don't agree with IB that she was Drupad's bio child. Drupad was just not that smart to think that far ahead. Plus how could he possibly know Panchali would grow up to be such a beauty, right at the moment of her birth?😲 Infants are kind of red and wrinkled and coated with secretions; not very pretty😆. Also Drupad clearly caused a famine as per Mallu versions in Northern Panchal which is what caused Dron to ask his students to invade since Dron's clan lived there. Drupad just did not have that kind of forethought

Anyways, we are way far away from it.

Brishti, where are you?😆 We need the Amba scenes
AnuMP thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

SECTION XXXII

"Draupadi said, 'I do not ever disregard or slander religion, O son of Pritha! Why should I disregard God, the lord of all creatures? Afflicted with woe, know me, O Bharata, to be only raving I will once more indulge in lamentations; listen to me with attention O persecutor of all enemies, every conscious creature should certainly act in this world. It is only the immobile, and not other creatures, that may live without acting. The calf, immediately after its birth, sucketh the mothers' teat. Persons feel pain in consequence of incantations performed with their statues. It seemeth, therefore, O Yudhishthira, that creatures derive the character of their lives from their acts of former lives. Amongst mobile creatures man differeth in this respect that he aspireth, O bull of the Bharata race, to affect his course of life in this and the other world by means of his acts. Impelled by the inspiration of a former life, all creatures visibly (reap) in this world the fruits of their acts. Indeed, all creatures live according to the inspiration of a former life, even the Creator and the Ordainer of the universe, like a crane that liveth on the water (untaught by any one.) If a creature acteth not, its course of life is impossible. In the case of a creature, therefore, there must be action and not inaction. Thou also shouldest act, and not incur censure by abandoning action. Cover thyself up, as with an armour, with action. There may or may not be even one in a thousand who truly knoweth the utility of acts or work. One must act for protecting as also increasing his wealth; for if without seeking to earn, one continueth to only spend, his wealth, even if it were a hoard huge as Himavat, would soon be exhausted. All the creatures in the world would have been exterminated, if there were no action. If also acts bore no fruits, creatures would never have multiplied. It is even seen that creatures sometimes perform acts that have no fruits, for without acts the course of life itself would be impossible. Those persons in the world who

p. 68

believe in destiny, and those again who believe in chance, are both the worst among men. Those only that believe in the efficacy of acts are laudable. He that lieth at ease, without activity, believing in destiny alone, is soon destroyed like an unburnt earthen pot in water. So also he that believeth in chance, i.e., sitteth inactive though capable of activity liveth not long, for his life is one of weakness and helplessness. If any person accidentally acquireth any wealth, it is said he deriveth it from chance, for no one's effort hath brought about the result. And, O son of Pritha, whatever of good fortune a person obtaineth in consequence of religious rites, that is called providential. The fruit, however that a person obtaineth by acting himself, and which is the direct result of those acts of his, is regarded as proof of personal ability. And, O best of men, know that the wealth one obtaineth spontaneously and without cause is said to be a spontaneous acquisition. Whatever is thus obtained by chance, by providential dispensation, spontaneously, of as the result of one's acts is, however, the consequence of the acts of a former life. And God, the Ordainer of the universe, judging according to the acts of former lives, distributeth among men their portions in this world. Whatever acts, good or bad, a person performeth, know that they are the result of God's, arrangements agreeably to the acts of a former life. This body is only the instruments in the hands of God, for doing the acts that are done. Itself, inert, it doth as God urgeth it to do. O son of Kunti, it is the Supreme Lord of all who maketh all creatures do what they do. The creatures themselves are inert. O hero, man, having first settled some purpose in his mind, accomplisheth it, himself working with the aid of his intelligence. We, therefore, say that man is himself the cause (of what he doeth). O bull among men, it is impossible to number the acts of men, for mansions and towns are the result of man's acts. Intelligent men know, by help of their intellect, that oil may be had from sesame, curds from milk, and that food may be cooked by means of igniting fuel. They know also the means for accomplishing all these. And knowing them, they afterwards set themselves, with proper appliances, to accomplish them. And creatures support their lives by the results achieved in these directions by their own acts. If a work is executed by a skilled workman, it is executed well. From differences (in characteristics), another work may be said to be that of an unskilful hand. If a person were not, in the matter of his acts, himself the cause thereof, then sacrifices would not bear any fruits in his case nor would any body be a disciple or a master. It is because a person is himself the cause of his work that he is applauded when he achieved success. So the doer is censured if he faileth. If a man were not himself the cause of his acts, how would all this be justified? Some say that everything is the result of Providential dispensation; others again, that this is not so, but that everything which is supposed to be the

p. 69

result of destiny or chance is the result of the good or the bad acts of former lives. It is seen, possessions are obtained from chance, as also from destiny Something being from destiny and something from chance, something is obtained by exertion. In the acquisition of his objects, there is no fourth cause in the case of man. Thus say those that are acquainted with truth and skilled in knowledge. If, however, God himself were not the giver of good and bad fruits, then amongst creatures there would not be any that was miserable. If the effect of former acts be a myth, then all purposes for which man would work should be successful. They, therefore, that regard the three alone (mentioned above) as the doors of all success and failure in the world, (without regarding the acts of former life), are dull and inert like the body itself. For all this, however, a person should act. This is the conclusion of Manu himself. The person that doth not act, certainly succumbeth, O Yudhishthira. The man of action in this world generally meeteth with success. The idle, however, never achieveth success. If success, becometh impossible, then should one seek to remove the difficulties that bar his way to success. And, O king, if a person worketh (hard), his debt (to the gods) is cancelled (whether he achieveth success or not). The person that is idle and lieth at his length, is overcome by adversity; while he that is active and skillful is sure to reap success and enjoy prosperity. Intelligent persons engaged in acts with confidence in themselves regard all who are diffident as doubting and unsuccessful. The confident and faithful, however, are regarded by them as successful. And this moment misery hath overtaken us. If, however, thou betakest to action, that misery will certainly be removed. If thou meetest failure, then that will furnish a proof unto thee and Vrikodara and Vivatsu and the twins (that ye are unable to snatch the kingdom from the foe). The acts of others, it is seen, are crowned with success. It is probable that ours also will be successful. How can one know beforehand what the consequence will be? Having exerted thyself thou wilt know what the fruit of thy exertion will be. The tiller tilleth with the plough the soil and soweth the seeds thereon. He then sitteth silent, for the clouds (after that) are the cause that would help the seeds to grow into plants. If however, the clouds favour him not, the tiller is absolved from all blame. He sayeth unto himself, 'What others do, I have done. If, notwithstanding this, I meet with failure, no blame can attach to me.' Thinking so, he containeth himself and never indulgeth in self-reproach. O Bharata, no one should despair saying, 'Oh, I am acting, yet success is not mine! For there are two other causes, besides exertion, towards success. Whether there be success or failure, there should be no despair, for success in acts dependeth upon the union; of many circumstances. If one important element is wanting, success doth not become commensurate, or doth not come at all. If however, no exertion is made, there can be no success. Nor is there anything to applaud in the absence of all exertion. The

p. 70

intelligent, aided by their intelligence, and according to their full might bring place, time, means, auspicious rites, for the acquisition of prosperity. With carefulness and vigilance should one set himself to work, his chief guide being his prowess. In the union of qualities necessary for success in work, prowess seemeth to be the chief. When the man of intelligence seeth his enemy superior to him in many qualities, he should seek the accomplishment of his purposes by means, of the arts of conciliation and proper appliances. He should also wish evil unto his foe and his banishment. Without speaking of mortal man, if his foe were even the ocean or the hills, he should be guided by such motives. A person by his activity in searching for the holes of his enemies, dischargeth his debt to himself as also to his friends. No man should ever disparage himself for the man that disparageth himself never earneth high prosperity. O Bharata, success in this world is attainable on such conditions! In fact, success in the World is said to depend on acting according to time and circumstances. My father formerly kept a learned Brahmana with him. O bull of the Bharata race, he said all this unto my father. Indeed, these instructions as to duty, uttered by Vrihaspati himself, were first taught to my brothers. It was from them that I heard these afterwards while in my father's house. And, O Yudhishthira, while at intervals of business, I went out (of the inner apartments) and sat on the lap of my father, that learned Brahmana used to recite unto me these truths, sweetly consoling me therewith!"

Related Topics

Chat Clubs thumbnail

Posted by: SriRani · 4 years ago

Members Only - SSR Case Discussion Thread Hello Everyone, This chat club made for discussion related to SSR. This chat club remains for invited...

Expand â–¼
Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".