B R Chopra portrayal of Karna with reference to KMG

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Cotswolds

@Cotswolds

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#121

Originally posted by: TheWatcher
Found one citation which says that only Duryodhana and Shakuni devised the means of Bhima's poisoning. This is Vaisampayana giving a very short overview of the epic, he stated that Duryodhana, Karna and Shakuni devised means of Pandavas exile, Note that it was exile not Bhima's poisoning, In-fact, Karna is not at all mentioned in Bhima's poisoning here.

"...Then the wicked Duryodhana, guided by the counsels of Sakuni (his maternal uncle), persecuted the Pandavas in various ways for the acquirement of undisputed sovereignty. The wicked son of Dhritarashtra gave poison to Bhima, but Bhima of the stomach of the wolf digested the poison with the food. Then the wretch again tied the sleeping Bhima on the margin of the Ganges and, casting him into the water, went away. But when Bhimasena of strong arms, the son of Kunti woke, he tore the strings with which he had been tied and came up, his pains all gone. And while asleep and in the water black snakes of virulent poison bit him in every part of his body..."

This citation is already being discussed and we have all agreed that Karna has no role in it. I am pasting my earlier post.. Pls check the bold one. We are talking about the other citation which happens immediate;y after (next chapter from where you picked up this citation) and now objection is raised that it was Gandhari Karna and not Radheya.

There are 2 attempts of poisoning on Bheema in Sambhav parva. First time Dury is shown to tie him and throw in river and he comes back stronger. Karna is NOT mentioned anywhere.

Then SOON AFTER, there is another incident when Dury again poisons Bheema but Yuyutsu informs the plot to Bhema but Bheema digests that poison due to his new strength. This incident is attributed to Dury again. But VERY next line says.. Dury, shakuni , karna did not give up even though plan was foiled. This is quite clear that Karna was party to it .

Quote

Dr Sweety Shinde

@DrShindeSweety

Explorer

Posted: 11 years ago

#122

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

First of all, Abhimanyu was not 16 years old when he fought, he was 33+ years. Refer this thread - Was Abhimanyu really 16 years old

And secondly, no-one finished their' graduation at the age of 15, their formal training lasted till they were 25+, after that, they can either stop their training or pursue further training. Like Karna did with Parshurama, and Arjuna did all his life.

Dhritarashtra (just after Virat war) is said to have said 33 yrs have passed since Khandav; while in an earlier incident (just before Virat war), Arjun is said to have said 65 years have passed since he has held the Gandiva given to him at Khandav.

That's quite a glaring discrepancy, almost double the time period. Should we believe Dhri and Arjun are living in diff time & space zones?

Now please don't tell me Abhimanyu was 65 years old! If he was, why should his one and only son be born to him at age 65?

KMG seems to be overflowing with slips-of-tongue, much more than Kunti's in-famous 'Share the alms' one.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

TheWatcher

@TheWatcher

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#123

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

5. Karna went to fight against Drupad to give gurudakshina to Dron but he along with Kauravas returned with failure.

This point is false. It was Gandhari 's Karna not Radha's Karna, we had a very interesting discussion in the D &D thread of the Mahabharatav forum. Below is a short summary of it.

Drona only asked Kaurava and Pandavas for the Guru Dakshina, Karna is not a Kaurava or a Pandava. Before the education he only asks Kaurava and Pandavas for a thing they would do after their education.

"...And that first of archers, Drona, thereupon joyfully, accepted the Kauravas, viz., the sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra, as his pupils. And having accepted them all as his pupils, one day Drona called them apart and making them touch his feet, said to them with a swelling heart, 'I have in my heart a particular purpose. Promise me truly, ye sinless ones, that when ye have become skilled in arms, ye will accomplish it.'..."

After the education.

"...Vaisampayana continued, 'Beholding the Pandavas and the son of Dhritarashtra accomplished in arms, Drona thought the time had come when he could demand the preceptorial fee..."

[ Critical edition doesn't mention karna at all in drupad war.All critical edition says that drona asked for the fee and drupada was brought in front of him and that rjuna won that war.So the entire war with any mention of karna's name in any capacity is simply skipped in CE so if one goes purely by CE even the doubt or discussion about karna's participation doesn't arise.

Going by logic karna had defeated drupad during his digvijay In prowess drupada was no whereein comparison to karna so its very difficult to imagine he could have managed to defeat Karna. ] ( Credits- Sabhayata )

About Gandhari 's Karna being addressed as Mighty Karna during the war, even though he has no accomplishments. Even Vikarna has no accomplishments to be called a mighty warrior, I have enough citations where Vikarna is addressed as 'mighty' Vikarna.

Now there are three reasons regarding why the Karna (in Drupad war) mentioned is Gandhari's son and NOT Radha's son.

Karna's divine origin / alternate name is not mentioned in the Drupad war, hence it was Gandhari's son Karna rather than Suryaputra Karna.
Drona only asked the Pandava and Kaurava's for the Guru Dakshina, Karna was neither of them, it is specifically mentioned by Drona that only Pandava and Kaurava should capture Drupad. Karna was not a Pandava or a Kaurava - hence he it was Gandhari's son Karna rather than Radha's son
Karna defeated Drupad in his Digvijay, Drupad was no way comparable to Karna when it came to prowess, hence it was Gandhari's son Karna rather than Radha's son.

The final conclusion : By applying all the logic above, and keeping in mind the Critical Edition, Suryaputra Karna was not present in the Drupad war, it was Gandhari's Karna.

This is the reason CE ruled out the Drupad war, Karna is not mentioned in Drupada war in CE .

( With all due credits to Sabhayata and Cotswolds )

Edited by TheWatcher - 11 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#124

Originally posted by: varaali
@ red: Playing Mental gymnastics with Ganapati? Was Ganapati a third rate secretary / scribe / stenographer with whom Vyasa could take liberties? If Vyasa had indulged in what you term 'mental gymnastics' how long would it have take Ganesha to curse him - or - at the very least vanish, leaving Vyasa's work incomplete? In what way was Ganesha beholden to Vyasa that he was forced to put up with his 'mental gymnastics'?

You know the t&c of the agreement b/w Ganesh & Vyasa, don't you? Vyasa had to keep dictating w/o stopping, and Ganesh was to keep writing only stuff that he understood.

Vyasa put that latter condition in for a reason - to give himself breathing room to compose verses while Ganesh was thinking. Obviously, coming up w/ straight forward descriptions & names would pose no mental challenge to Ganesh, and Vyasa would have 'lost' the competition, as a result of running out of pre-composed verses. So Vyasa would deliberately throw curveballs - to use a baseball term here - in order to confound Ganesh, so that he himself would get the breathing room to compose as many verses as he could while Ganesh figured out.

So why should Ganesh curse or abandon him? This was like a game they had both agreed on, and Ganesh obviously appreciated the challenge. Vyasa would throw loops while dictating, and get the time to compose newer stuff. However, those loops, while ultimately figured out by Ganesh, threw us mortals into loops as well, which would explain

Contradictory things that appear in the epic (was Karna given the shakti voluntarily or did he ask for it?)
Illogical things that appear in the epic (e.g. Dhritarashtra knowing what transpired b/w Karna & Krishna/Kunti/Bheeshma, in that order)

That is a clearer explanation of why there are holes in the story, rather than the reason that over the ages transmission has introduced errors. Besides, if they have, it throws open the question - why are we citing Vyasa in the first place, if we don't know what he originally wrote? Either we have his definitive word, or we don't. If we do, then we need to answer why it's illogical & contradictory in places. If we don't, then we shouldn't be smacking others in the head saying that the media may say X, but Vyasa actually says Y and NOT X.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#125

Originally posted by: Cotswolds
This citation is already being discussed and we have all agreed that Karna has no role in it. I am pasting my earlier post.. Pls check the bold one. We are talking about the other citation which happens immediate;y after (next chapter from where you picked up this citation) and now objection is raised that it was Gandhari Karna and not Radheya.

There are 2 attempts of poisoning on Bheema in Sambhav parva. First time Dury is shown to tie him and throw in river and he comes back stronger. Karna is NOT mentioned anywhere.

Then SOON AFTER, there is another incident when Dury again poisons Bheema but Yuyutsu informs the plot to Bhema but Bheema digests that poison due to his new strength. This incident is attributed to Dury again. But VERY next line says.. Dury, shakuni , karna did not give up even though plan was foiled. This is quite clear that Karna was party to it .

Okay, what does CE say about the latter poisoning? And w/ such a passing reference, how can anyone be so sure that the person mentioned is Kunti's Karna and not Gandhari's?

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#126

Varaali, requesting you to give us anvaya translation of the following three...all from CE.

From Adivansavtarana subparva...

8 tato duryodhana krurah karna ca sahasaubalah

tesam nigrahanirvasan vividham te samacharan. (01055008) CE

From Sambhav subparva...

1 [vai]

pranadhikam bhimsena kratavidyam dhanajayam

duryodhano laksayitva paryatapyata durmatih. (01129001) CE

2 tato vaikartana karna sakunis chapi saubala

anekair abhyupyais tan jighamsanti sma pandavan. (01129002) CE

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#127

Originally posted by: smrth
Varaali, requesting you to give us anvaya translation of the following three...all from CE.
From Adivansavtarana subparva...

8 tato duryodhana krurah karna ca sahasaubalah
tesam nigrahanirvasan vividham te samacharan. (01055008) CE

From Sambhav subparva...

1 [vai]
pranadhikam bhimsena kratavidyam dhanajayam
duryodhano laksayitva paryatapyata durmatih. (01129001) CE

2 tato vaikartana karna sakunis chapi saubala
anekair abhyupyais tan jighamsanti sma pandavan. (01129002) CE

Smrth,

I am genuinely curious- if you could select exactly these three verses, do you still need my anvayakrama? 😛

Anyway- here's my attempt at translating the above verses.

From Adivansavtarana subparva...

8 tato duryodhana krurah karna ca sahasaubalah

tesam nigrahanirvasan vividham te samacharan. (01055008) CE

Tato Duryodhana - then Duryodhana

Krurah karna cha - And the cruel Karna

Saha Saubalah - Along with Saubala (Shakuni)

Tesham - (for) their (implying the Pandavas)

Nigraha - defeat / destruction

Nirvaasana - exile / banishment / sent away from home

vividham te samacharan - created many ideas / ways / means

FUll meaning: Then, Duryodhana and the cruel Karna along with Saulaba (Shakuni) thought of many ideas for the defeat and banishment of the Pandavas,

Edited by varaali - 11 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#128

Originally posted by: smrth
From Sambhav subparva...

1 [vai]
pranadhikam bhimsena kratavidyam dhanajayam
duryodhano laksayitva paryatapyata durmatih. (01129001) CE

2 tato vaikartana karna sakunis chapi saubala
anekair abhyupyais tan jighamsanti sma pandavan. (01129002) CE

Can I ask why you selected these two verses specifically ? Is it because in the KMG there is a long passage preceding this?

Any way here goes my attempt:

pranadhikam bhimsena kratavidyam dhanajayam duryodhano laksayitva paryatapyata durmatih. (01129001) CE

Praanaadhikam Bhima : Bhima with great energy

Krutavidyaam Dhananjayam : learned / intelligent Dhananjaya

Duryodhano - Duryodhana

laksayitva - became an object of

paryatapyata: feel pain / anxiety

durmatihi: Evil minded

Seeing the Mighty Bhima and the intelligent Dhananjaya, the evil minded Duryodhana became very anxious in mind.

2 tato vaikartana karna sakunis chapi saubala

anekair abhyupyais tan jighamsanti sma pandavan. (01129002) CE

tato vaikartana karna sakunis cha api saubala : Then Viakartana Karna and Saubala Shakuni (along with Duryodhana- this is implied from the previous verse)

anekair abhyupyais : (Devised) many means and ideas in order to

Jighaamsanti sma : destroy/ cause harm to the Pandavas.

FUll meaning: Then, along with Vaikartana Karna and Shakuni, (he) came up with many ideas /plans to destroy / harm the Pandavas.

I am still curious. You have obviously understood enough to sift out these two verses from the whole lot. Then why my explanation?

Edited by varaali - 11 years ago

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#129

Many thanks for your exertion Varaali. Request is genuine. While sensing Sanskrit at most basic level, your kind of aid is a great help...peeping from earning hours, will get back in the evening..meanwhile look at CE 001119042 when you have time. 😊