B R Chopra portrayal of Karna with reference to KMG - Page 3

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

So you are here too.🤗 Now I am relaxed as I am not required to come again and again to reply in this thread since you are here for me. I have the license and luxury to disappear again.😆 Your replies will be almost what my replies can be. 😛 I suppose now you can bring somebody else too in the forum with you to be your partner in every action.😃 😉 J/k.😆 But I would love to see that.

I'm happy to see you too. 🤗 Haha, I definitely cannot replace you in the forum as your vast knowledge far precedes mine. 😃 So you'd better not leave. 😆

Btw, I agree with you. Poor Shakuni is portrayed far more negative by the media than he really was, whereas Karna is completely whitewashed. Duryodhan is more or less portrayed correctly, but the other two are shown extreme. There should be a balance between them. Shakuni was not all evil. It's hard to empathize with his character as shown by the media, but in the epic one tends to feel sorry for him.

Somehow, logic seems to take a back seat when it comes to analyzing characters ill spoken of by either Krishna or Arjun. So let's take some of the assumptions on pg 1:

Vrish-

The question here is not whether Karna was, by nature, 'evil' or not.

Our grouse is the way TV serials and social media have projected him as an innocent victim of fate, showing a distorted version of his childhood and education (or his struggle for it) in an attempt to whip up the sympathy factor.

The fact is - and we all know it - Karna did not struggle for martial education. He was only denied the knowledge of the Brahmashira.

But which serial has had the guts to show this as per the epic? Every serial or book (even Ramesh Menon) wants us to believe that he was denied martial education because of his caste.

Which is certainly not true.

And every serial or book wrings the caste angle totally out of proportion. They want us to believe that Sutas were some lowly oppressed caste and Karna's aspiration for marital education was a kind of fight for justice / equality.

Nonsense

WIll the same serials dare to show that Keechak too was a Suta who became the commander of the Matsya forces? If the Sutas were indeed a lowly oppressed class, how could he have become so overnight- without any prior military training?

By extension, Prince Uttar and Princess Uttara too were half- Sutas. And Parikshit too had Suta blood running in him.

Sutas were neither as lowly nor as oppressed as the serials have tried to portray.

And Karna approaching Parashurama is another incident conveniently tweaked by serials to portray Parashurama as a fire breathing villian and Karna as an innocent lamb. For the life of me, I cannot understand why no one has grasped the enormity of Kanra's mistake here.

Considering how sacrosanct Guru Shishya relationships were in those days (they still are today - even Novac Djokovic dedicated his Wimbledon win to his first tennis teacher) it is unfathomable how Karna could lie so glibly to someone he hoped would be his guru.

The serials / books have made it seem that Karna was forced to 'lie' about his caste because no teacher would teach him archery based on his caste.

ANd Karna donating his K-K to Indra is another incident which the serials have always liked to hype. After Parashurama and the brahmin's curse, Karna knew his brahmastra would be of no use and he would die when he was helpless and defenceless. Of what use would be his K-K then? Karna got Indra's weapon in return for his now- redundant K -K.

The whole point is how the serials have distorted various facts associated with Karna to portray him as some sort of a Dwapara Yuga Dalit figure.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Incidentally, wondering whether a similar thread on Arjun or Krishna would even be entertained? B'cos usually, those would go under the rules as walking on religious sentiments.

Ok, was just going through the passages in detail, and - You know Sanskrit?! Wow thats seriously awesome!

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Surya

I could do one, highlighting Krishna's less charitable activities:

• Being a non-combatant in a dharamyudh, when there are adversaries such as Ashwatthama, Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa & Karna
• His uncharitable comments about Ghatotkacha after the latter was killed, and praising Karna instead
• Revealing to Karna his secret just before the war, rather than early on, such as after the Varnavarta incident, when Karna would have had more leeway in joining the Pandavas, or at least not taking part in Duryodhan's plots against them
• His taking only the Pandavas aside, and leaving the entire army in the camp to be massacred by Ashwatthama, instead of going on a search & destroy mission against him after defeating Duryodhan

Just the top 4 I could think about at the moment.

Originally posted by: varaali

Vrish-

The question here is not whether Karna was, by nature, 'evil' or not.

Our grouse is the way TV serials and social media have projected him as an innocent victim of fate, showing a distorted version of his childhood and education (or his struggle for it) in an attempt to whip up the sympathy factor.

The fact is - and we all know it - Karna did not struggle for martial education. He was only denied the knowledge of the Brahmashira.

But which serial has had the guts to show this as per the epic? Every serial or book (even Ramesh Menon) wants us to believe that he was denied martial education because of his caste.

Which is certainly not true.

And every serial or book wrings the caste angle totally out of proportion. They want us to believe that Sutas were some lowly oppressed caste and Karna's aspiration for marital education was a kind of fight for justice / equality.

Nonsense

WIll the same serials dare to show that Keechak too was a Suta who became the commander of the Matsya forces? If the Sutas were indeed a lowly oppressed class, how could he have become so overnight- without any prior military training?

By extension, Prince Uttar and Princess Uttara too were half- Sutas. And Parikshit too had Suta blood running in him.

Sutas were neither as lowly nor as oppressed as the serials have tried to portray.

And Karna approaching Parashurama is another incident conveniently tweaked by serials to portray Parashurama as a fire breathing villian and Karna as an innocent lamb. For the life of me, I cannot understand why no one has grasped the enormity of Kanra's mistake here.

Considering how sacrosanct Guru Shishya relationships were in those days (they still are today - even Novac Djokovic dedicated his win to his first teacher) it is unfathomable how Karna could lie so glibly to someone he hoped would be his guru.

The serials / books have made it seem that Karna was forced to 'lie' about his caste because no teacher would teach him archery based on his caste.

ANd Karna donating his K-K to Indra is another incident which the serials have always liked to hype. After Parashurama and the brahmin's curse, Karna knew his brahmastra would be of no use and he would die when he was helpless and defenceless. Of what use would be his K-K then? Karna got Indra's weapon in return for his now- redundant K -K.

The whole point is how the serials have distorted various facts associated with Karna to portray him as some sort of a Dwapara Yuga Dalit figure.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Ok, was just going through the passages in detail, and - You know Sanskrit?! Wow thats seriously awesome!

(BTW, Which is Loot Vibhakti? And Upayunjmahe is Atmanepadi right?)

And where do you get the missing verses from?

Learning lots from this thread!

@ red bold : I think Shivang means 'Lut Lakara" not loot vibhakti . Lut Lakaraka is a.k.a Anadyatana Bhavishyat kaalaha. indicating Immediate future.

You would be knowing about " Lrit Lakaraha" - the normal future tense indicated by words like "gamishyati, vadishyati ...etc". This indicates anytime in future

But to indicate the immediate future the "lut lakara" is used. Lut lakara takes the "ta" pratyaya in prataham purusha, ekavachana. For instance "gamishyati" would become "ganta" in Lut Lakara, bhavishyati would become "bhavita"...etc

Gottit ?

@ Shivang: Tense (Kaal) is indicated through Lakara in Sanskrit - not Vibhakti.