Saif : " we will justify abduction of Sita and war with ram" - Page 8

Originally posted by: surajhere

But how do you know the oldest version itself does not have additions like Uttara Kand and Shambuk Vadh ? Additions are not made on whims and fancy, they are made with a purpose. This applies to new 'additions' you have mentioned as well as to the old.

for the last time those are not additions those dialogues are not part of any scripture see this what i mean when i talk about people blindly beileving anything and everything tv shows give

as i said common sense ask us to stick to the oldest scripture not oldest tv show we cannot debate on things we have not been discovered yet that just stupidity we can only debate on what we have and the oldest of all the scriptures is the canon

none of the text has drau s those dialogues and oldest on ramayan does not has uttar kand so those things are not cannon

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

What is the original text of the Mahabharata? Is the original text still available somewhere today that we can verify what exactly was and was not in the original?

The Abrahamic religions which are the youngest in the world are mired in so much dispute in the authenticity of both scripture and dogma - how can we ascertain the exact nature of a story centuries older? Shouldn't we just accept that these are interpretative in nature and there are multiple versions instead of one absolute truth?

Debates and conflicts still exist with scholars and readers putting forth varying POVs. But, one just can't accept random folklores.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

There are a few key differences though. Helen of Troy is not portrayed with the same chastity as Sita. There are many versions of the Trojan war ranging from Helen willingly eloping with Paris of her own free to being violently raped by Paris. Even though Iliad paints it as an abduction there are a lot of romanticizations of Paris and Helen being in love and the Trojan war being a war for love. Sappho wrote about their romance in her poetry and most modern-day adaptations of Helen and the fall of Troy choose the romance angle.

Sita never gets the agency or desirability that Helen does. There have been attempts to give her a Helen of Troy treatment - but because Ram and Sita are so revered in Hinduism, Sita especially is a bastion of fidelity and chastity, it becomes tricky to deviate from the popular plot.

A romance between Sita and Ravan would definitely "justify abduction." But hoo boy they better not be even touching that angle. The world is already one great big giant dumpster fire. This would be dropping a 55-gallon drum of fuel into it.

I like your comparison of Ramayana with Illiad. Helen certainly had more agency than Sita. Though they both had divine mothers,they never inherited any extra powers. Another difference is that Greeks were looking for an excuse to loot Troy. Rama never had any plans for bringing down Lanka. And the Greek states allied to bring back Helen. Poor Rama never had the backing of Ayodhya. He had to find new allies. I hope they don't plan to exclude Gods the way they did with Troy (2004).

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

What is the original text of the Mahabharata? Is the original text still available somewhere today that we can verify what exactly was and was not in the original?

The Abrahamic religions which are the youngest in the world are mired in so much dispute in the authenticity of both scripture and dogma - how can we ascertain the exact nature of a story centuries older? Shouldn't we just accept that these are interpretative in nature and there are multiple versions instead of one absolute truth?

If the question is serious and not sarcasm, here is a simplified version:

Mahabharata (MBh) was handed orally from generation to generation, as were Ramayana, vedas, puranas, etc.

Even the oral version was not authentic Vyasa version because Vyasa dictated the poem (with all its hyperbole and metaphors) to 4 people - including his son and disciples.

Out of the versions, what we have in complete form is only the Suka version. Parts of Jaimini version are also around.

Suka version was narrated by Ugrasravas Sauti to the rishis in the forest at their conclave.

So what we have is actually narration (Ugrasravas Sauti) of a narration (Suka) of a narration (Vyasa) of events the purported chronicler was only partial witness to.

From there, it continued in its oral transmission mode until about the Gupta age when it began to recorded in written form.

By this time, it had altered considerably. How do we know this? Because the written versions discovered have been in Panini Sanskrit. He lived between 6th and 4th century BCE, a few centuries after Iron Age when MBh would've happened.

Things continued to change. How do we know this? Because mentions of MBh in texts of the time show us a diff picture. For ex, Arthashastra (Chanakya, 3rd C CE) mentions Vyasa being attacked by Yadavas, something not seen in canon MBh.

Regional versions abounded. In an attempt to make some sense of it all, BORI collected manuscripts from all over north India. Of the 1600 plus manuscripts collected, the Kashmiri version (Sharda script) and Nepali versions were considered the most authentic because there was less historic evidence of invaders inserting their point of view into the story. One version that was not included was Razm Nama, the version ordered into creation by Akbar. Which is a pity, IMO, as it might've shown us which interpolations came after.

Southern recension has its own critical edition. There are non Indian versions as well which were not included - Indonesian and Persian. The oldest existing manuscript was found in China (Spitzer manuscript).

The northern recension CE - ie, the BORI CE - was curated after study of 1600+ manuscripts. Their method of study has been well documented in a Prologmena. If you're interested, here is the link:

http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Suk933__Sukthankar_ProlegomenaMBh1.pdf

So you're absolutely right in saying we don't have an *authentic* version.

But when out of 1600+ versions, the sexual assault on a woman (on more than one, actually) is documented, when some famous verses like "suthaputra" comment (in all but 4) and "andhe ka putra" comment (in 100% of the manuscripts) are missing, chances are those were interpolations FROM THE TIME MBH BEGAN TO BE DOCUMENTED.

Then, there is the matter of linguistic analysis. Panini Sanskrit also continued to evolve as language does. Verses seen in newer lingo are appropriately considered likely interpolation.

The literature itself has been analyzed by multiple scholars and non-scholars. Take the Bhagavad Gita. Iravati Karwe opined that only first 4 chapters are authentic. Why? Because that part actually sounds like a conversation between friends while the rest is clearly a discourse between God and devotee.

So even without an authentic Vyasa version, MBh text has been studied to a great extent to dismiss some things as interpolation.

That being said, my peeve is not with prior interpolations. They're done, somehow now a part of the work. Also, interpolations do have their value. 3-fold actually, in showing the changes in Indian civilization. 1) Literary evolution 2) Linguistic evolution 3) Sociopolitical evolution.

I'm upset about what message these shows are conveying. Let's face it: India is a movie-mad country. Our actors are called heroes.

When a powerful woman is sexually assaulted deliberately to rip away her power, it is still assault. When a supposedly lower caste person (Karna was a suta, not a shudra or lower caste; Eklavya was a Yadava and Krishna's 1st cousin to boot; Ravan was a brahmana) does something inexcusable such as wanton murder or sexual assault, it is highly irresponsible to find reasons to blame the victim.

When a popular actor justifies such unconscionable conduct, the mango people buy it. The production houses know this, too. They still go ahead and do it because they know it will make them 2 extra bucks.

So a Karna (known as suta - son of a brahmana father and kshatriya mother) becomes rejected by an upper caste Panchali whose sexual assault is then justified on screen. A Sita becomes the victim in a tussle between men, but this gets justified in the hearts of the masses. An Eklavya (a Yadava adopted by a Nishada KING) can steal military secrets from Hastinapuri and his minimal punishment (current nations usually hand out capital punishment to spies) becomes a crime against humanity.

Somehow, the female characters (Panchali, Kunti) are usually at the receiving end of such interpolations, and the rapists/kidnappers/tyrants (Karna, Ravana) are the ones who get whitewashed. Even when non-villains are involved, women get the short end of the stick.

1. In the critical edition of MBh, KRISHNA is one of the people who laugh at Suyodhana for falling into the pool. Somehow, Panchali gets the blame. The sentence 'andhe ka putra" is not there in canon text in any version. It started in a 20th century play, IIRC where, again, male Krishna says it. Once again, blame transfers to female Krishna.

2. Canon text says Panchali rescued herself in dice hall. Modern interps show Krishna sending a sari from above.

3. Pandu is said to have raped Madri before he died. But shows portray her seducing him to his death.

4. Surya rapes Kunti in Vyasa's words (as we know it); this gets changed to a magic baby.

5. Balram rapes Yamuna... so on and so forth.

Anyway, I've said more than I intended to. The prologmena is a good read if you're interested in such things.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

.

Yudi is very much the protagonist and panchali. I don't like him but that just the truth. It was their jaya their win yudi krishna Krishnaa duo duryodhan are some of the key players arjuna bheem karna come only after them it was yudi panchali s jaya. Vyasa s jaya is about them and duryodhan s ajaya

The only reason vaishampany s narrative slightly more tilted towards arjuna is because. It is his grandson who is listening to the story.

Storywise yudi and panchali will always take over arjuna

Even according to political settings of those times yudi and panchali comes before arjuna

Panchali deserved that yudi didn't. But that just that it.

Arjuna is not the protagonist. Yudi and panchali and krishna are

No. It's certainly is not the truth. It might be your opinion, not the truth.

Yudhishthira was a politically important figure, because he was the eldest brother & the potential King. But that does not make him the protagonist. He was the face of the Dharma camp & that's it. Yudhishthira, apart from being the flag bearer of Dharma, had very little role to play in the overall story.

And Arjuna was not just the 3rd Pandava brother who happened to be an excellent warrior. There is a backstory about who Arjuna actually is. Arjuna was Nara, the human part of Narayana. Nara - Narayana together had this joint mission of eradicating Adharma & establishing Dharma on earth. In Mahabharata Krishna & Arjuna are not two separate entities. They had spiritual connection & both of them were made for the same mission. In no way Arjuna is a secondary character. Whether you like it or not, almost ALL the important events of the story revolve around or are accomplished by the Krishna- Arjuna duo. Vyasa's Jaya was about Dharma's win over Adharma & the Krishna - Arjuna duo had achieved that feat. Without either of them, the Mahabharata wouldn't be the Mahabharata we know today.

Shri Krishna was the main driving force & Arjuna was his companion & his primary tool. Why do you think Arjuna was blessed with excellent warrior skills & the Devas showered their blessings on him? Because he was sent to earth for a mission to achieve & he was blessed with such skills & prowess because he needed them to achieve it.

The whole Mahabharata was Krishna's grand scheme & Arjuna was his primary tool. This also explains why Krishna pushed for Arjuna - Subhadra union. It was his aim all along to make Subhadra's descendent the heir to the throne. If Yudhishthira had featured anywhere in his scheme, he would have aimed for a Subhadra - Yudhishthira union. I do not dislike Yudhishthira, but I think his importance in the whole set of events is being overestimated here. Apart from the dice hall events, none of his actions were of such importance that could influence the story. And not to mention he was not very self reliable either. All his royal duties/ accomplishments relied heavily on Arjuna & Bheema.

In the light of the whole Dharma vs Adharma battle & the Nara - Narayana pairing up as Arjuna & Krishna, Yudhishthira's character has very little weightage in the whole scheme, nowhere enough to pass off as the protagonist.

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

No. It's certainly is not the truth.

@LW, I loathe Yudhishtira, but he is the main protag of MBh. Take him away, there is no story. Same for Suyodhana. That's not the case with anyone else. If Arjuna weren't there, swayamvara would've been something else, but it would've happened. Actually, even if Panchali weren't there, Kuru-Panchal alliance would've happened another way. Subhadra haran was instigated by Krishna, but it could've been any Pandava involved. The only place Arjuna and only Arjuna could've done the deed was the war.

It's not a matter of opinion, either. Plot is there for all to study.

Without Harry Potter and Voldemort, there is no Harry Potter series. This makes them the protag and antag.

Nar/Narayan etc are philosophical interps. Protag and antag are decided by the plot and vice versa.

Literary analysis of MBh says Yudhishthira is the main protag. Without him, there would've been no tussle over throne to begin with. Story ends right there. If he dies at some point... no need for lac house, no need for swayamvara, Kuru-Panchal alliance would likely have been with Suyodhana, there would've been no dice hall, there would've been no exile, there would've been no war, there would've been no Mahabharata.

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

No. It's certainly is not the truth. It might be your opinion, not the truth.

Yudhishthira was a politically important figure, because he was the eldest brother & the potential King. But that does not make him the protagonist. He was the face of the Dharma camp & that's it. Yudhishthira, apart from being the flag bearer of Dharma, had very little role to play in the overall story.

And Arjuna was not just the 3rd Pandava brother who happened to be an excellent warrior. There is a backstory about who Arjuna actually is. Arjuna was Nara, the human part of Narayana. Nara - Narayana together had this joint mission of eradicating Adharma & establishing Dharma on earth. In Mahabharata Krishna & Arjuna are not two separate entity. They had spiritual connection & both of them were made for the same mission by Lord Vishnu. In no way Arjuna is a secondary character. Whether you like it or not, almost ALL the important events of the story revolve around or are accomplished by the Krishna- Arjuna duo. Vyasa's Jaya was about Dharma's win over Adharma & the Krishna - Arjuna duo had achieved that feat.

Shri Krishna was the main driving force & Arjuna was his companion & his primary tool. Why do you think Arjuna was blessed with excellent warrior skills & the Devas showered their blessings on him? Because he was sent to earth for a mission to achieve & he was blessed with such skills & prowess because he needed them to achieve it.

The whole Mahabharata was Krishna's grand scheme & Arjuna was his primary tool. This also explains why Krishna pushed for Arjuna - Subhadra union. It was his aim all along to make Subhadra's descendent the heir to the throne. If Yudhishthira had featured anywhere in his scheme, he would have aimed for a Subhadra - Yudhishthira union. I do not dislike Yudhishthira, but I just don't understand his importance in the whole set of events. Apart from the dice hall events, none of his actions were of any importance that could influence the story. And not to mention he was not very self reliable either. All his royal duties/ accomplishments relied heavily on Arjuna & Bheema.

In the light of the whole Dharma vs Adharma narration & the Nara - Narayana pairing up as Arjuna & Krishna, Yudhishthira's character has very little weightage in the whole scheme, nowhere enough to pass off as the protagonist.

one sentence - janemya was listening to the story so ofcourse his grandfather gets to be nar

vyasa had two protagonist yudi and panchali and no that s not opnion that just a simple fact i dont even like yudi to give him such high position

only two people whose divinity s believable are krishna and panchali

arjuna was as human as any of his brothers

subdhara s marriage hardly does anything in larger scheme of plan so her being married to arjun or to nakul or sahadev does not matter

the person whose alliance actually mattered was panchali and her marriage was always intended for yudi which everyone from drapaud to krishna to ved vyas made sure happened when he planted the seeds of polygamy even before swamyvaar that alliance changed the course of things that alliance gave pandavas standing to come out of hidng and panchal was the major army fighting for pandavas

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@LW, I loathe Yudhishtira, but he is the main protag of MBh. Take him away, there is no story. Same for Suyodhana. That's not the case with anyone else. If Arjuna weren't there, swayamvara would've been something else, but it would've happened. Actually, even if Panchali weren't there, Kuru-Panchal alliance would've happened another way.

It's not a matter of opinion, either. Plot is there for all to study.

Without Harry Potter and Voldemort, there is no Harry Potter series. This makes them the protag and antag.

Nar/Narayan etc are philosophical interps. Protag and antag are decided by the plot and vice versa.

Yudhishthira & Duryodhana are hardly analogous to Harry Potter & Voldemort.P Pandavas& Kouravs collectively yes, but not just them.

And Nara - Narayana is not just interpretation. There's clear mentions about Arjuna being Nara & Krishna being Nara Narayana.

Krishna himself had explained to Arjuna about this in Vana Parva

You are mine and I am yours. All that is mine is yours too. He who hates you also hates me. He who follows you also follows me. O invincible one! You are Nara and I am Hari Narayana. We are the rishis Nara and Narayana, born from that world in this world. O Partha! O descendant of the Bharata lineage! You are no other than I. I am no other than you. O bull among the Bharata lineage! No one can know any difference that exists between us.”

Even Vyasa himself, Bhisma, Parashuram & Lord Shiva have mentioned this. It is not any "interpretation".

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

one sentence - janemya was listening to the story so ofcourse his grandfather gets to be nar

vyasa had two protagonist yudi and panchali and no that s not opnion that just a simple fact i dont even like yudi to give him such high position

only two people whose divinity s believable are krishna and panchali

arjuna was as human as any of his brothers

subdhara s marriage hardly does anything in larger scheme of plan so her being married to arjun or to nakul or sahadev does not matter

the person whose alliance actually mattered was panchali and her marriage was always intended for yudi which everyone from drapaud to krishna to ved vyas made sure happened when he planted the seeds of polygamy even before swamyvaar that alliance changed the course of things that alliance gave pandavas standing to come out of hidng and panchal was the major army fighting for pandavas

You very probably do not see Mahabharata the same way as me if you think Subhadra's marriage was not of any importance or Arjuna simply "gets to be Nara" to his descendant. 😆

So of course our opinions differ. It's okay. Peace. This thread is not the place to continue this argument anyway.

I have seen people going Karna vs Arjuna all the time....& my belief has always been it was the Krishna - Arjuna duo. The Nara - Narayana pair. And I still stand firm on it. This argument about Yudhishthira was a new experience to me.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@LW, I loathe Yudhishtira, but he is the main protag of MBh. Take him away, there is no story. Same for Suyodhana. That's not the case with anyone else. If Arjuna weren't there, swayamvara would've been something else, but it would've happened. Actually, even if Panchali weren't there, Kuru-Panchal alliance would've happened another way. Subhadra haran was instigated by Krishna, but it could've been any Pandava involved. The only place Arjuna and only Arjuna could've done the deed was the war.

It's not a matter of opinion, either. Plot is there for all to study.

Without Harry Potter and Voldemort, there is no Harry Potter series. This makes them the protag and antag.

Nar/Narayan etc are philosophical interps. Protag and antag are decided by the plot and vice versa.

Literary analysis of MBh says Yudhishthira is the main protag. Without him, there would've been no tussle over throne to begin with. Story ends right there. If he dies at some point... no need for lac house, no need for swayamvara, Kuru-Panchal alliance would likely have been with Suyodhana, there would've been no dice hall, there would've been no exile, there would've been no war, there would've been no Mahabharata.

Hmmm about panchali not being there then also they would have choosen/adopted an intelligent girl who can help them in this plan and she would have been named panchali panchala s princess. So yes panchali still would have been there.