B R Chopra portrayal of Karna with reference to KMG - Page 20

Originally posted by: Urmila11

I have seen in MB forum that even Ashwaththama's unforgivable crime is being supported by many well read members there. They say that he was never a bad guy but committed some 'mistake' on that day only. OK, nice again.

😲

Here's my waste of time too...

I don't know if this point has come before...but if you take into consideration Krishna's dialogues in the whole epic, weighing them against the circumstances they were spoken, there are several several instances where it is clear that Krishna doesn't mean what he is actually saying - or what his words are implying.

Krishna's "praise" of Karna to Arjuna - as smrth pointed out falls in this category.

Another case which comes to mind immediately is during the Bhima - Duryodhana solo combat when - on asked by Arjuna, who is the better of the two- Krishna lambasts Yudi and calls him a fool for nearly throwing away a hard won victory.

The obvious conclusion we derive from this dialogue of Krishna is that Krishna himself calls Yudi a fool.

But is there more to this dialogue than what meets the eye? Are these words of Krishna hiding another meaning within them?

Even before the battle Vyasa had blessed Yudhishthira that where there is Dharma there is Krishna and where there is krishna there is Vijay (victory). Yudi had surrendered to Krishna for the bottom of his heart. While this is not apparent during the 18 war days, the stuti that he sings to Krishna (after they arrive at their camp on the 18th night ) expresses his gratitude most eloquently.

So, as far as Yudi is concerned, even if Duryodhana had picked Sahadeva as his antagonist, Krishna would have ensured that victory was his. Yudi was certainly no fool.

So why did Krishna keep saying Yudi was a fool to allow Dury a one - one- duel with Bhima? Answer is : to keep Arjuna tensed. To ensure that he comes up with a ploy to defeat Duryodhana.

Of course there are places where krishna is dead serious and means every word of what he says. E.g when he assures Draupadi, in the forest, that the widows of those who dared molest here will weep just as she wept that day.

You cannot assume what Krishna's words imply at different point of time, ,air talks and assumptions wont be considered as a solid proof. I am sure no-one is qualified enough to find out when Krishna's means his dialogues and when he does not.

These assumptions and Hawa-mahal talks does not tell when Krishna is serious and when he is bluffing. Differentiating between the serious Krishna and bluffing Krishna is a very hard job to do. Maybe 'someone' is neglecting everything as per his / her own wish because it does not suit his school of thought. It does not work this way.

Apparently the ' two waste of time people ' are so productive that all they do is write before wasting their time, I mean a person who knows he is wasting his / her time and still proceeds to do so, Indians have a word for that.

Please accept that you cannot argue further since your air talk is not being accepted instead of writing ' Here is my waste of time ' .

Who is to decide what is "solid proof" and what is not?

I can translate and understand the epic in my own way - just as KMG did. Because it does not suit your train of thought, I need not abandon it.

What I have written above is my perspective, which incidentally - is not based just on KMG.

You may disagree with my perspective...there are / will be others who agree with me.

Translations by well versed and world renowned scholars will be considered as a solid proof viz., Kmg and CE rather than assumptions or personal perspective's

Please stop fighting... let's keep this forum fightproof...😊

I guess we all have a certain image of our favourite characters in our minds, which we dont want to malign.
And we interpret the controversial parts in ways that will keep that image intact. So, i guess there is no point arguing any more...
And smrth...I agree with u. Everyone, starting from Lord Krishna to Abhimanyu is bashed in defence of Karna by many people, if not all.
The reasoning is quite simple n implied.

This is what Lord Krishna says to Yudhi in Shalya parva about Shalya prowess and calls him superior to karna and bheeshma and says only Yudhi is powerful enough to kill him.. Its confusing.

Cotswolds

Shalya never did put up a fight to back this statement did he?. Karna, on the other hand, did put up a fight to back the statement of Krishna.

I know there are several meaning to Krishna's words but using them to one's convenience is what I hate.