B R Chopra portrayal of Karna with reference to KMG

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#61

Originally posted by: Medha.S
Yeah??? -- but the citation from Karna parva is the citation which proves that Karna was friends or at least some kind of ally not of equal status pre-gurukul.

Circular use of Rangbhoomi dialogues! Funnily, argument 'contradicts' itself.😆

First, overreach of the argument. Rangbhoomi dialogue- stretched to maximum limit of assumptions in correlating it to completely 'unrelated' incidents of the childhood- is here employed to deny those events. Verily, those childhood events precede the said dialogue! By all logic, if a said conversation is 'not fitting' with a previous narration, then, if anything becomes contradictory and thereby refutable, it is that later dialogue and not vice a versa!😲 (and mind you, I am not even alleging misfit, in fact it meshes with a far simpler interpretation but that shall come later😊) But still, checking further for objectivity's sake ; the preceding events are not an isolate mention, Vyas in his trademark style repeats them at various places. After which, this whole assumption 'they first befriended at Rangbhoomi' is just that, a personal assumption without a logical base. Interestingly, on convenience, the same assumptions merrily accept Drona's refusal to teach Brahm Vidya to Karna on 'discrimination ground (all important sufferance)' before he went to Parshuram for the purpose.😲! ...And please not another round of more cotton balls- 'at Gurukul they did not meet or befriend nor 'earlier '! (The desired interpretation of one dialogue would now come into further conflict with several more mentions- the overreach.)😕

Now assumptions other side; why can't we interpret/'assume' the said dialogue in much more meshing logic? Let's check the details; Two of them stare at a competition. The participating prince knew his opponent to be preceptor declared champion and favourite to win. His cohort has decided to gate crash the event. The convention is going to be broken. And he hastens to counter the convention. He quickly BESTOWS a whole kingdom!!! And what were they saying to each other? Exchange/renewal of friendship wows. Why should they not? Why would they not? The 'strangers' argument is not making sense or logic. Here I would love our Sanskrit literates to throw more light on the full meaning of the Sanskrit text. In any case it can not make earlier mentions disappear.

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#62

Originally posted by: varaali
Now this thread too has been distorted into a open warfare b/w Karna supporters and non supporters. I don't think this is what either Shivang or Semanti wanted int he first place.
Let us accept that it is never possible to get a satisfactory answer to "was Karna evil / bad / notorious notorious ?"

Nor it is necessary.

For someone who wants to treat MB as a research work - and not- as a means of entertainment, Karna is just among the several characters in the epic as complex or multi dimensional as any other.

Shivang's whole idea (if anyone has bothered to read his second post) is how the serials, films and books have distorted the facts and presented Karna as a tragic figure, victim of circumstances.

The serials, books and films have conveniently skipped some instances in his life, twisted some others and blown a few out of proportion to present us with a "Society-Victimized Poor Karna "

The whole thrust of this thread is not to arrive at a conclusion on Karna's character (it is neither possible nor necessary) but to place the Karna - as depicted in serials and films- in perspective.

WHat we feel is that Karna is certainly not as tragic a character as the serials have made him put to be. He is not a innocent victim of circumstances as the serials have made him out to be.

In several cases he is responsible for his own actions and hence for the results he had to bear.

once can say that this thread is about the Filmy Karna Vs Book Karna

well like watcher said we are just trying to discuss the points that TM has raised regarding karna using KMG some of them are false some contradictory and some are true as well

Regarding star plus's mahabharat definitely his character has been distorted and white washed a lot

And as for other media yes i do agree his image as a tragic hero is exaggerated .I mean yes i do think is life was tragic because he never got his true place in his true family but i don't think his death was tragic he had made mistakes and his death was karma for his mistakes

Yes unfair means were used for his death but then he was also unfair to panadavs in his life and arjuna just returned the favour and i dont blame arjuna for that at all and generally media tones down the extent of his mistakes which makes it seem that his life was very tragic which isnt the case i agree with that

so trying to be unbiased if he is criticized for his mistakes he should also be appreciated for his good deeds making it seem that even his good deeds were done with an evil intention is being very biased

and regarding exaggerated images in media whose image isn't exaggerated if i can i would want to list how the images of other character's are also exaggerated in media its not only karna

panadavs righteousness is exaggerated,dury's evilness is exaggerated ,karna's tragedy is exaggerated so its not only karna whose image is exaggerated its almost all famous characters.

This because many people don't care to actually read the epic and just believe what TV adaptations show and since its TV show which requires drama everything becomes exaggerated

in any case my point is yes i do agree karna''s sufferings or tragedy is definitely exaggerated but same is the case with many other character's

Quote

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

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#63

Originally posted by: shindes
Now you are really distorting facts. Kindly provide reference .

i think it was brahmashira only

brahmastra is refereed to as brahamstra in KMG but brahamshira is refereed to as brahma weapon

This is the citation from pashuram's curse

Since thou hast, from avarice of weapons, behaved here with falsehood, therefore, O wretch, this Brahma weapon shalt not dwell in thy remembrance

and the citation of when he actually forgets

Indeed, O foremost of men, when the hour of Karna's death came, the high brahmastra that the illustrious Bhargava had imparted unto him, escaped from his memory

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#64

I am not sure why rangbhoomi citation cant be used to refute the claim that karna and dury were friends from before

i am not saying that they hadn't met at all they might have met but saying that they were best friends is a clear assumptions since its against what the rangbhoomi citation says

what does over use of a citation means i have no idea?Rangbhoomi citation is part of KMg in which both dury and karna say that they long for each other's friendship and are eager to be friend's which clearly means that they weren't friends from before.They don't at all say lets renew our friendship.what is illogical is converting the word eagerness to be friends with renewal😆.Renewal and eagerness don't mean the same thing

and not only dury and karna what about reaction of other people why does the entire assembly wonder who he is .If he is dury's best friend shouldn't panadavs and drona know who he is already why should the entire assembly wonder who he is.Not only dury but no one else in assembly seems to recognize him

still not sure why this citation cant be used just because it goes against the claim that karna and dury were friends from before

i am not denying that there arent citations that claim they were friends in gurukul there are but rangbhoomi citation cant be ignored as well just because it contradicts with the former

that is why logical interpretation would be that they had met in gurukul or knew each other but their association was neither long nor strong enough to be friends

Edited by Sabhayata - 11 years ago

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#65

and why KMG even CE(critical edition) states the same thing in rangbhoomi.even CE doesn't say anything about renewal of friendship

this is what CE by bibek debroy says

This is after karna has display's his skllls

Karna replied,You have said it and that alone is enough. O descendant of the Bharata lineage! I only desire your friendship. And I desire to have a duel with Partha

This is after karna has become king of anga

When the cries of Victory had died down, the bull among kings told the Kourava,²⁵What can I give you that is comparable to your gift of this kingdom? O king! O tiger among kings! Tell me and I will do your bidding. Suyodhana²⁶replied,I wish for your eternal friendship

again the same thing why will dury wish for his friendship if they were best friends since childhood and why will karna desire his friendship .This happens in front of every one shouldn't they already know karna and dury are best of friends

Also only after adiratha came did bhima realize that karna is a sut putra and went on to humiliate him.If dury and karna were best friends since childhood wouldn't bhima know who karna is why only after seeing adiratha did he realize karna is a sutputra

At that moment, Adhiratha entered the arena, swaying on his feet and supporting himself on a staff. He was trembling and perspiring and his upper garments were in disarray. On seeing him, Karna discarded his bow. Out of regard for his father, he bowed down his head, still wet with water from the coronation. The charioteer quickly covered his feet with the end of his garment and addressed Karna, who had been crowned with success, as his son. Trembling with affection, he kissed him on the head and wet with his tears the head that was already damp with water from the instatement as the king of Anga. When Pandava Bhimasena saw him, he deduced that he²⁷was a charioteer's son and jeeringly said

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#66

Thank god! At least possibility of previous 'acquaintance', if not 'best of friend', is acknowledged. Their previous concurrence is no longer tossed altogether.😆After which, what importance does a narrative exclamation at reintroduction of a key character take over his previous relative anonymity? How is 'general public' to recognise an adult returning after many years of absence? How are all supposed to know a charioteer's son?

- Regarding, 'renewal' as in sense of 'reaffirmation'- as my other word 'exchange' is conveniently missed.😕 Interesting words in their exchange: 'only' from K and from D 'eternal' friendship, as something continuous?!😆

- But if 'best of friendship' is so much nettling, their concurrence and converged interests (their shared 'jealousy') are enough for the purpose- poisoning.

- What does CE say about Krishna's report card?!😆

- Last, 'overreach' = use beyond its 'capacity'.

But I must cease. No unlimited time...

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#67

I think the topic "Karna" is jinxed.

Quote

Semanti Chakraborty

@DharmaPriyaa

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#68

Ok, here is the citation from Aadi parva (rangbhoomi):

"Vaisampayana continued, 'When the spectators, with eyes expanded with wonder, made way for that subjugator of hostile cities, Karna, that hero with his natural mail and face brightened with ear-rings, took up his bow and girded on his sword, and then entered the spacious lists, like a walking cliff. That far-famed destroyer of hostile hosts, the large-eyed Karna, was born of Pritha in her maidenhood. He was a portion of the hot-beamed Sun and his energy and prowess were like unto those of the lion, or the bull, or the leader of a herd of elephants. In splendour he resembled the Sun, in loveliness the Moon, and in energy the fire. Begotten by the Sun himself, he was tall in stature like a golden palm tree, and, endued with the vigour of youth, he was capable of slaying a lion. Handsome in features, he was possessed of countless accomplishments. The mighty-armed warrior, eyeing all around the arena, bowed indifferently to Drona and Kripa. And the entire assembly, motionless and with steadfast gaze, thought, 'Who is he?' And they became agitated in their curiosity to know the warrior.

And here is the citation from Shaanti parva (Narad's words):

Thus addressed by Rama, Karna came away, having duty taken his leave. Arriving then before Duryodhana, he informed him, saying, 'I have mastered all weapons!'"

Narada said, 'Having thus obtained weapons from him of Bhrigu's race, Karna began to pass his days in great joy, in the company of Duryodhana, O bull of Bharata's race!

Now please try to think this. Is Narad lying here? Lord Krishna is also lying? And whatever Duryodhan said in rangbhoomi was truth only? 😲 Sorry, I can't take every words uttered by Duryodhan as Ved vakya 🤢 He was not always truthful like Yudhishthir so I can't see any reason why he can't lie to satisfy his selfishness. I think the whole Karna Duryodhan friendship in front of everyone in rangbhoomi was nothing but a pure pre-planned drama. See the Shaati parva citation, Narad said that Karna met Duryodhan just after he returned from Parshuram, & spent his days with him. What does that mean? I think then Duryodhan wanted a way to show everyone that Arjun was inferior to Karna (as it was necessary for his claim on HP throne where Arjun's valor & Bhim's power were his main problem), so he set this plan with Karna that he should be present at rangbhoomi just after Arjun completes his tasks. See what a dramatic timing Karna used to enter, I do not think it was accidental.

Now the another question is: why was everyone surprised to see Karna, right? My answer is: he studied in Dron & Krip's Gurukul at childhood. Then he left Gurukul to visit Parshuram. After a long years Dron, Krip & Pandavas met him so could not recognize as an adult. But Duryodhan definitely recognized him as he met Karna just few days before, but pretended like he did not. Because he had to establish a friendship drama at that public place. And yes, Pandavas did not know him as a suta putra, this shows how Karna suppressed his identity in Gurukul. Dron probably knew his caste (so he denied to give Brahmastra), Duryodhan as well, but probably he did not talk much with enemy Pandavas out of hatred so how could they know what was his caste?

Edited by Urmila11 - 11 years ago

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#69

Originally posted by: smrth
Thank god! At least possibility of previous 'acquaintance', if not 'best of friend', is acknowledged. Their previous concurrence is no longer tossed altogether.😆After which, what importance does a narrative exclamation at reintroduction of a key character take over his previous relative anonymity? How is 'general public' to recognise an adult returning after many years of absence? How are all supposed to know a charioteer's son?
- Regarding, 'renewal' as in sense of 'reaffirmation'- as my other word 'exchange' is conveniently missed.😕 Interesting words in their exchange: 'only' from K and from D 'eternal' friendship, as something continuous?!😆
- But if 'best of friendship' is so much nettling, their concurrence and converged interests (their shared 'jealousy') are enough for the purpose- poisoning.
- What does CE say about Krishna's report card?!😆
- Last, 'overreach' = use beyond its 'capacity'.
But I must cease. No unlimited time...

Karna and dury meeting once atleast during gurukul was never dismissed.If any one cared to read my full analysis rather than going by their preconceived notions they would have realized that😆

i dont believe in disregarding one citation for the sake of other's.I have always said keeping both citations in mind they might have met during gurukul but association wasn't long enough to be termed as friendship and hence the rangbhomi citation will also make sense.I hope my point is clear now

of course reactions at karna's reintroduction at rangbhoomi matters because TM here claimed that karna and dury were friends since childhood and more which isn't true or let me say is contradictory

karna and dury say alot more than eternal and none of their words indicate towards renewal or reaffirmation both indicate towards starting a friendship in both KMG and CE

regarding their converged interests definitely dury befriended karna that time since he found a competitor for arjuna his intentions at that time weren't noble i agree with that as well

kishna ji's report card about karna in CE says the same thing as KMG

i know overreach means😆 but what does overuse of citation means.Citation can be used to prove a point or to refute it that is what TM has done in the thread as well.Overuse of citation makes no sense whatsoever😆

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#70

Originally posted by: Urmila11
Ok, here is the citation from Aadi parva (rangbhoomi):

"Vaisampayana continued, 'When the spectators, with eyes expanded with wonder, made way for that subjugator of hostile cities, Karna, that hero with his natural mail and face brightened with ear-rings, took up his bow and girded on his sword, and then entered the spacious lists, like a walking cliff. That far-famed destroyer of hostile hosts, the large-eyed Karna, was born of Pritha in her maidenhood. He was a portion of the hot-beamed Sun and his energy and prowess were like unto those of the lion, or the bull, or the leader of a herd of elephants. In splendour he resembled the Sun, in loveliness the Moon, and in energy the fire. Begotten by the Sun himself, he was tall in stature like a golden palm tree, and, endued with the vigour of youth, he was capable of slaying a lion. Handsome in features, he was possessed of countless accomplishments. The mighty-armed warrior, eyeing all around the arena, bowed indifferently to Drona and Kripa. And the entire assembly, motionless and with steadfast gaze, thought, 'Who is he?' And they became agitated in their curiosity to know the warrior.

And here is the citation from Shaanti parva (Narad's words):

Thus addressed by Rama, Karna came away, having duty taken his leave. Arriving then before Duryodhana, he informed him, saying, 'I have mastered all weapons!'"
Narada said, 'Having thus obtained weapons from him of Bhrigu's race, Karna began to pass his days in great joy, in the company of Duryodhana, O bull of Bharata's race!
Now please try to think this. Is Narad lying here? Lord Krishna is also lying? And whatever Duryodhan said in rangbhoomi was truth only? 😲 Sorry, I can't take every words uttered by Duryodhan as Ved vakya 🤢 He was not always truthful like Yudhishthir so I can't see any reason why he can't lie to satisfy his selfishness. I think the whole Karna Duryodhan friendship in front of everyone in rangbhoomi was nothing but a pure pre-planned drama. See the Shaati parva citation, Narad said that Karna met Duryodhan just after he returned from Parshuram, & spent his days with him. What does that mean? I think then Duryodhan wanted a way to show everyone that Arjun was inferior to Karna (as it was necessary for his claim on HP throne where Arjun's valor & Bhim's power were his main problem), so he set this plan with Karna that he should be present at rangbhoomi just after Arjun completes his tasks. See what a dramatic timing Karna used to enter, I do not think it was accidental.
Now the another question is: why was everyone surprised to see Karna, right? My answer is: he studied in Dron & Krip's Gurukul at childhood. Then he left Gurukul to visit Parshuram. After a long years Dron, Krip & Pandavas met him so could not recognize as an adult. But Duryodhan definitely recognized him as he met Karna just few days before, but pretended like he did not. Because he had to establish a friendship drama at that public place. And yes, Pandavas did not know him as a suta putra, this shows how Karna suppressed his identity in Gurukul. Dron probably knew his caste (so he denied to give Brahmastra), Duryodhan as well, but probably he did not talk much with enemy Pandavas out of hatred so how could they know what was his caste?