Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Adhya

@Agni_Jytsona

Sparkler

+ 17

Posted: 6 years ago

#181

how is jaya by devdutt patnik?

Quote

Adhya

@Agni_Jytsona

Sparkler

+ 17

Posted: 6 years ago

#182

ok now do not kill me for this but am i the only one who feels that karansagni is turning out be yet another mill n boons romance with mix of saas-bahu drama

(cant discuss it in the main forum you know why 😆) this is strictly my opnion and is not meant to hurt the sentiments of any person living or dead 🤣

Quote

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

amritat

@amritat

Sparkler

Posted: 6 years ago

#183

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever
how is jaya by devdutt patnik?

It is like capsule. Looks very beautiful and artistic from the outside. But bitter inside.

People can write watever they want in fiction, but DP mixes up canon text, folktales and his imagination - and presents everything in the garb of "non-fiction".

Quote

amritat

@amritat

Sparkler

Posted: 6 years ago

#184

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever
ok now do not kill me for this but am i the only one who feels that karansagni is turning out be yet another mill n boons romance with mix of saas-bahu drama
(cant discuss it in the main forum you know why 😆) this is strictly my opnion and is not meant to hurt the sentiments of any person living or dead 🤣

Wait till Draupadi enters.

Then it will become mills and boons + saas-bahu saga + kabhi sautan kabhi saheli.

From what I saw in the promos and heard from others, Tejaswi is looking gorgeous and acting really well as Uruvi (I like Tejaswi from her previous shows). But Uruvi seems to be omniscient, ominpotent types with every skill under the sun, right from cooking to fighting to healing to driving chariots...😆

Arjun's actor is good. But Ashim (no offence to anyone) seems to be an absolute mismatch. I hear, the CVs are making Ashim's Karna as poor, as beggarly, as bechara as possible to make him a "tragic hero".

Gone are the days when Karna used to be a proud, dynamic and handsome anti-hero, endowed with a razor sharp-tongue and a tragic backdrop. Sigh!

Quote

Adhya

@Agni_Jytsona

Sparkler

+ 17

Posted: 6 years ago

#185

Originally posted by: amritat

Wait till Draupadi enters.

Then it will become mills and boons + saas-bahu saga + kabhi sautan kabhi saheli.

From what I saw in the promos and heard from others, Tejaswi is looking gorgeous and acting really well as Uruvi (I like Tejaswi from her previous shows). But Uruvi seems to be omniscient, ominpotent types with every skill under the sun, right from cooking to fighting to healing to driving chariots...😆

Arjun's actor is good. But Ashim (no offence to anyone) seems to be an absolute mismatch. I hear, the CVs are making Ashim's Karna as poor, as beggarly, as bechara as possible to make him a "tragic hero".

Gone are the days when Karna used to be a proud, dynamic and handsome anti-hero, endowed with a razor sharp-tongue and a tragic backdrop. Sigh!

yes teju kinshuk and sayantani are doing good job but aashim come acrosss expressionless most of the time i miss aham 😭

they are showing karna to be this mahaan person i dont know how are they going to justify his later acts probably push everything to duri 😆

Quote

amritat

@amritat

Sparkler

Posted: 6 years ago

#186

Sayantani is a fantastic actress. She was fabulous even as Satyavati.

Quote

Adhya

@Agni_Jytsona

Sparkler

+ 17

Posted: 6 years ago

#187

kunti-drau , radha-urvi are going to be typical saas-bahu pair with arjun karan in between 🤣 i also feel that as this arjun is so in love with urvi he will participate in drau s swaymvar only to make urvi jealous 🤣

Quote

Brahmaputra

@Brahmaputra

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 6 years ago

#188

Originally posted by: riti4u
Amrita , I feel that Hinduism as a religion gives more respect to women that any other religion in the world. These Puranas are considered to be part of our religion. We worship Goddess where very few religions have that concept. We are the ones who believe that Lord Shiv is Shav without his Shakti. Still there lies paradox, we have rules and restrictions for women in our scriptures like Manusmriti.
But may be patriarchy changed the narrative to suits its ways..who knows.. May be during those yugas women were more liberated than they are even today..in ideas where these Puranas were born.

Indeed, it did. I have been reading Arthashastra, and here are some bits.

If a husband either is of bad character or is long gone abroad or has become a traitor to his king or is likely to endanger the life of his wife or has fallen from his caste or has lost virility, he may be abandoned by his wife.

Besides, Arthashastra mentions women were allowed to have property, especially in the form of ornaments. There was a limit to store cash, as in coins, but there was no limit to ornaments. And she was allowed to make use of it when need arrived.

Not just this, if a man was to marry, he should pay a certain amount to his 'father-in-law' to get a wife.

In calamities, disease and famine, in warding off dangers and in charitable acts, the husband, too, may make use of this property.

That was when husbands were allowed to touch wives' money. It goes on saying that it should be used with 'mutual consent'. That is, if wife denied, husband has no right to touch her money. Then rules for women remarrying are told. But women were not entitled to husbands' property. Nevertheless, there were regulations to use her money if she had kids, especially sons.

And see THIS. There WAS DIVORCE.

A woman, hating her husband, can not dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained. If a man, apprehending danger from his wife desires divorce, he shall return to her whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a woman, under the apprehension of danger from her husband, desires divorce, she shall forfeit her claim to her property.

This hardly looks like the picture of the women in Mahabharata. I am yet to find Arthashastra mentioning that a wife is husband's 'property' and she could own nothing. But only women were given punishments like whiplashes [I am still reading...]. If the punishment is money, men always had to pay double of what women paid. That is quite strange. Also, women were mostly restricted to their houses. Now, these might be the rules for common people, who knows. It is interesting, but difficult to read and understand.

Edited by Brahmaputra - 6 years ago

Quote

amritat

@amritat

Sparkler

Posted: 6 years ago

#189

Is it Arthashastra by Kautilya?

Quote

SweetRogue

@SweetRogue

Explorer

Posted: 6 years ago

#190

Isn't Arthashastra a much later composition?

Perhaps due to interpolations, but the society of Mbh times seems a bit wierd to me. I don't see any uniformity in the social customs at least from whatever I've read. Most things seemed to be at the whim of the most powerful people. For example no protest or reaction at all when Duryodhana made Karna, a percieved social outcast, king. Or no reaction from anybody to the Polyandry of Draupadi, except much later.

Quote

1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30

Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 19

Related Topics

Explore Topics