Please try to answer - Page 7

Originally posted by: wayward

Sorry for replying so late.

what you are telling is even 1 percent true then toh it would have been very embarrassing specially when he lost to Karn, this also proves that he was bit insecure and yes, he was also a gambler or to frame it better he had a habit of gambling because a person who has this habit can only think that he can fix everything alright even after losing everything.

accha, one more question, do you believe in the divinity factor of MB? What's your opinion about the divine Krishna? Do you believe that Krishna saved Draupadi or do you believe this to be an interpolation?

Originally posted by: IWasHareeshFan

Sorry for replying so late.

what you are telling is even 1 percent true then toh it would have been very embarrassing specially when he lost to Karn, this also proves that he was bit insecure and yes, he was also a gambler or to frame it better he had a habit of gambling because a person who has this habit can only think that he can fix everything alright even after losing everything.

Whatever I am saying however, is my interpretation only, based on the actual text.

accha, one more question, do you believe in the divinity factor of MB? What's your opinion about the divine Krishna? Do you believe that Krishna saved Draupadi or do you believe this to be an interpolation?

I prefer to keep my faith and analytics separate. IMO, both readings of MB, with and without magic, are equally valid.

For most of what I post online, (nowadays I prefer to keep my religious inclinations to myself) I use the non-magic interpretation.

Following that, I read that in the actual Sanskrit text Krishna isn't mentioned (haven't verified this), and he gets involved in the translation only. In the text it's actually dharma, who offers cloth to Drau. Now, this dharma could be anyone, Yudi (though probably Yudi's bio-dad was not involved in this part), the brothers, Vidur, or any of the elders, or even Vikarna. Anyone who became the personification of dharma at that point. It could be that when Dushy got physical in public, that guy (whoever it was) probably then had enough of the fiasco and stepped in.

Originally posted by: wayward

Actually most of us are trying to do that only in order to make people believe that whatever happened is not just a myth, it is possible and in order to do that many of us are trying to explain the text through the rational POV, however I fail to keep my believes aside, but I am still trying.

accha I have read that even Bori has mentioned that the saree kept on increasing and increasing, it also later mentioned that she prayed to Krishna I am not sure though as I have read KMG only.

btw it (the Sanskrit text) says that her Dharma saved her, I think that dharma was not Yudi because no one even hints about that later, I also think that non of the pandavs could protect her.

May be koi force hogi, whatever one wants to believe, we say in Hindi naa ki "zaroor usne koi punnya kiye honge ki itni badi museebat tal gai" so we basically mean that ki kuch good deeds honge that God saved that person. So we can also believe that because of her dharma she got saved by who ever we wanna believe.

but I was asking about your beliefe only, what you believe, what do you think, whether Krishna was a God or a human.

Which is your favorite character in MB?

Originally posted by: IWasHareeshFan

Actually most of us are trying to do that only in order to make people believe

That's perfectly ok to be in the middle of your own journey with MB, it's just important to remember to enjoy all the twists and turns!

accha I have read that even Bori has mentioned that the saree kept on increasing and increasing,

Yeah, Drau prayed to Krishna, but there's no evidence of Krishna actually dropping in. Krishna also apologizes later for not being there for Drau so there's that. The saree I personally interpret it as a metaphor for many people coming in with extra cloth pieces to help her, but it's also fun to revel in the magic and the poetic justice at times.

btw it (the Sanskrit text) says that her Dharma saved her,

Yeah, maybe it was some other person present in the sabha...could be the servants/soldiers also right? Or another interpretation I read was that the Kaurava women maybe came in as the dharma to protect Drau.

So we can also believe that because of her dharma she got saved by who ever we wanna believe.

Yes!

but I was asking about your beliefe only, what you believe, what do you think, whether Krishna was a God or a human.

Personally, from a belief standpoint I do believe Krishna to be a god, but he's also so much more than that. I have a very special place in my heart for the human Krishna, imo he's as important as the god that he's made into.

I feel like from a text standpoint, he was meant to be a human only, and was deified much later (or merged with pre-existing deities, as is evident from the old coins and stuff referencing other less-known 'versions' of Krishna).

Bankim Chandra believed the Krishna of Gokul/Mathura and the Krishna of Dwarka to be two separate people whose stories got merged later (he says this citing striking differences in their personalities, but I do personally like to disagree on this point).

Originally posted by: IWasHareeshFan

Which is your favorite character in MB?

For the sake of continuity, I must say Krishna. But honestly, he's one of the most complex grey-shaded characters I've ever read, and I love him soo much for it!

But, aside from the main bunch, I really admire the characters of Kunti (for her resilience, and calm and cunning intellect), Bheeshma (for the sheer angst!), and Shikhandi (well, their story is one of a kind and ends in such bitter, undeserved tragedy!)

nice to here your opinion

Actually I love to read MB with divine element and yes, I believe Krishna to be a God, but at the same time I would love to imagine him like a human too, I mean you can feel for him in both the ways.

Yes, I have also heard the theory of women saving Draupadi, although I love to believe in Krishna wala theory but even if it is true then I would be happpier to know this, how beautiful this scene will be, so many women standing for a women against men to protect her.

and Krishna saying that he wasn't available could probably mean that he could not save her from all that humiliation jo vastraharan se pehle hua tha, may be I am not sure.

see I almost consider all the theories untill and uneless the theories are not way too much to handle.

for eg

1. Arjun and Krishn were gay (please don't throw chappals, I am not saying this, neither I believe this)

2. Krishna and Draupadi loved each other.

3. Arjun was a trans.

and many more.

its good to keep our opinions, even I have so many specially against Yudi but still it is always to consider others feelings, I saw so many such comments on BR MB.

I agree with a little and disagree with a lot of the opinions shared here, but I believe that when a text has been reshaped so many times already, it's futile to discourage anyone from retelling the story and inserting anachronistic values into it.

Sexual and gender diversity is real, and I fully support writers reimagining their favourite characters to reflect that diversity. I have an ongoing fan fiction that alludes to Ghaṭotkaca's adventure in drag to marry Lakṣmaṇa ...

https://www.indiaforums.com/fanfiction/chapter/21624

And I wrote this Nano Drama about the feelings of frenemies Lakṣmaṇa and Kṣatradeva:

https://www.indiaforums.com/fanfiction/chapter/33300

Here is what the critical edition and manuscript variants tell us about whether Kṛṣṇa or men or women rescued Kṛṣṇā Draupadī from being stripped:

(1) The narrator alliterates Duḥśāsana's boast that he will drag Kṛṣṇā by her black hair even if she shrieks out to Kṛṣṇa etc. (Sabhāparvan 60.26):

tato'bravīt tāṃ prasabhaṃ nigṛhya

keśeṣu kṛṣṇeṣu tadā sa Kṛṣṇām

Kṛṣṇaṃ ca Jiṣṇuṃ ca Hariṃ Naraṃ ca

trāṇāya vikrośa nayāmi hi tvām

Note that Kṛṣṇa and Jiṣṇu are both names of Arjuna; Hari could refer to the monkey-flag for which Arjuna was known; and Arjuna was identified with Nara = man. So, it's up to the audience to guess whether Duḥśāsana thought it worthwhile to tell his captive it was no use to call out to Kṛṣṇa, who was far away, to deities Jiṣṇu = Indra and Hari = Viṣṇu, and to Nara = any man, or Duḥśāsana was only mocking the names of enslaved Arjuna, her hero who was nearby.

(2) Although prompted by Duḥśāsana, Kṛṣṇā Draupadī doesn't call out to Kṛṣṇa or anyone else to save her. Later, when her garment (vāsas, vasanaṃ, or vastraṃ, probably an antarīya, never specified as a "saree" with the Saṃskṛta word śāṭī) is spontaneously replaced (not lengthened), the critical edition's text doesn't specify Kṛṣṇa or dharma as the miraculous power (Sabhāparvan 61.40-41):

tato Duḥśāsano rājan Draupadyā vasanaṃ balāt

sabhā-madhye samākṣipya vyapakraṣṭuṃ pracakrame

ākṛṣyamāṇe vasane Draupadyās tu viśāṃ pate

tad-rūpam aparaṃ vastraṃ prādur-āsīd anekaśaḥ

Between these two verses, several manuscripts insert this verse that repurposes Duḥśāsana's boast into a plea from Kṛṣṇā to Kṛṣṇa, answered by Dharma (and a couple of manuscripts begin a new chapter with it):

Kṛṣṇaṃ ca Viṣṇuṃ ca Hariṃ Naraṃ ca

trāṇāya vikrośati Yājñasenī

tatas tu Dharmo'ntarito mah'ātmā

samāvṛṇot tāṃ vividha-vastra-pūgaḥ

Sensing that the fourth line's ending is ungrammatical (nominative pūgaḥ instead of instrumental pūgaiḥ) and doesn't fit the eleven-syllable Indravajrā or Upendravajrā metres at all, different people who copied it replaced it with many different words, even vastra-yugmaiḥ = with pairs of garments.

Before the above inserted verse, several manuscripts insert this passage to make Kṛṣṇa's involvement explicit:

Vaiśaṃpāyana uvāca

ākṛṣyamāṇe vasane Draupadyā cintito Hariḥ

Govinda Dvārakā-vāsin Kṛṣṇa gopī-jana-priya

Kauravaiḥ paribhūtāṃ māṃ kiṃ na jānāsi Keśava

he nātha he Ramā-nātha vraja-nāth'ārti-nāśana

Kaurav'ārṇava-magnāṃ mām uddharasva jan'ārdana

Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa mahā-yogin viśv'ātman viśva-bhāvana

prapannāṃ pāhi Govinda Kuru-madhye'vasīdatīm

ity anusmṛtya Kṛṣṇaṃ sā Hariṃ tri-bhuvan'eśvaram

prārudad duḥkhitā rājan mukham ācchādya bhāminī

Yājñasenyā vacaḥ śrutvā Kṛṣṇo gahvarito'bhavat

tyaktvā śayy'āsanaṃ padbhyāṃ kṛpāluḥ kṛpayā'bhyagāt

Instead of the above passage, one manuscript has Kṛṣṇā Draupadī reminding Kṛṣṇa of her royal status in just two verses before the Dharma verse:

Vaiśaṃpāyana uvāca (not Draupady uvāca!)

Govinda Dvārakā'vāsa Kṛṣṇa gopī-jana-priya

Kurubhiḥ paribhūtāṃ māṃ kiṃ na jānāsi Keśava

mahiṣīṃ Pāṇḍu-putrāṇām Ājamīḍha-kule vadhūm

sā'haṃ keśa-grahaṃ prāptā tvayi jīvati Keśava

Instead of the Dharma verse, or before it, several manuscripts insert these two verses, with or without replacing the first verse or inserting extra verses:

apakṛṣyamāṇe vasane vilalāpa suduḥkhitā

jñātaṃ mayā Vasiṣṭhena purā gītaṃ mah'ātmanā

mahaty āpadi saṃprāpte smartavyo bhagavān Hariḥ

Govind'eti samābhāṣya Kṛṣṇ'eti ca punaḥ punaḥ

manasā cintayām āsa devaṃ Nārāyaṇaṃ prabhum

āpatsv abhayadaṃ Kṛṣṇaṃ lokānāṃ prapitāmaham

sā tat-kāle tu Govinde viniveśita-mānasā

trāhi māṃ Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇ'eti duḥkhād etad udāhṛtam

Draupady uvāca

śaṅkha-cakra-gadā-pāṇe Dvārakā-nilay'ācyuta

Govinda puṇḍarīk'ākṣa rakṣa māṃ śaraṇ'āgatām

tvayā siṃhena nāthena rakṣamāṇām anāthavat

cakarṣa vasanaṃ pāpaḥ Kurūṇāṃ saṃnidhau mama

hā Kṛṣṇa Dvārakā-vāsin kv'āsi Yādava-nandana

imām avasthāṃ saṃprāptām anāthāṃ kim upekṣase

In contrast with all of these different eloquent invocations of Kṛṣṇa, every manuscript that attributes the miracle to him, either alongside or instead of Dharma, uses the same half-verse:

tasya prasādād Draupadyāḥ kṛṣyamāṇe'mbare tathā

either after or before this half-verse of the critical edition that narrates the spontaneous replacement of garments:

tad-rūpam aparaṃ vastraṃ prādur-āsīd anekaśaḥ

With or without the above invocations of Kṛṣṇa, many manuscripts follow the miracle by attributing it to Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's own dharma-practice:

nānā-rāga-virāgāṇi vasanāny atha vai prabho

prādur-bhavanti śataśo dharmasya paripālanāt

And one manuscript specifies the number of replaced garments:

aṣṭ'ottara-śataṃ yāvad vasanaṃ pracakarṣa ha

(3) While it's nice to imagine women coming to Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's rescue, her speech in the critical edition's text as she goes into exile with hair loose, wearing one blood-smeared garment, weeping and grimy, makes it clear that she wanted other women to suffer like herself (Sabhāparvan 71.19-20):

yatkṛte'ham imāṃ prāptā teṣāṃ varṣe caturdaśe

hata-patyo hata-sutā hata-bandhu-jana-priyāḥ

bandhu-śoṇita-digdh'āṅgyo mukta-keśyo rajasvalāḥ

evaṃ kṛt'odakā nāryaḥ pravekṣyanti gaj'āhvayam

In the fourteenth year, the women of those who brought me to this (condition) will have their husbands killed, their sons killed, their family-folk and dear ones killed. Their limbs smeared with their family's blood, their hair loose, grimy, even thus those women will offer water and enter the elephant-named (Hāstinapura).

Hey, nice to know your opinion and I truely respect that, but I have thoda saa different POV and my intention is not to disrespect anyone's feelings.

I hope whatever I am saying will not sound offensive and will make sense. Again it is not to hurt anyone.

Its altogether a different question that whether I support homosexual people or not, it has nothing to do with Krishna and Arjun being straight. The problem comes when we actually restrict everything to LGBTQ+ community, suppose if two guys are sharing a good bond then they are gay, who gave people the right to define other person's gender? I will share my own example, I just admired a girl ki wow, how beautiful she is looking today, literally people started calling me a lesbian, why, who told them that I am a lesbian? Who gave them the right to call me like this? Did I tell them anything like that? When I know that I am straight then how are they calling me lesbian?

*Please note that below example is just an example and has nothing to do with the reality, if someone is hurt then I am absolutely ready to delete that particular line.

Suppose (just for the sake of example) if MSD and Kohli become veryyyyyyyyyyy good friends, good se bhi zyada good friends, toh will we start calling them ****? Do we have any right to call them by such names? Is everything just a romantic saga for us? can't we think something apart from romance?

For some MB and all the people there may be fictional but for many they really existed.

I myself worship Krishna but still you have seen me putting questions in order to take a diverse POV and no matter I agree or not but I have tried to accept everything,.

Although I believe that Krishna saved Draupadi but I have no problem with different POVs because its everyone's believe, there are many who don't believe in Krishna as a God, its absolutely fine, few people also consider him to be a myth, even that is fine. Everything is fine untill it is not hurting anyone's believe.

See, writing and taking creative liberties is fine, but still when we are living in a country where diverce practices and Gods are worshiped then just for the sake of others feelings we should be little considerate, if this is fine then I don't think that Draupadi and Karn lovestory has any problem (although I hate that as well) just for the sake of freedom of speech and expression we cannot just hurt others naa, every right comes with its responsibility but we often remember our rights and tend to forget our responsibilities.

if someone is really a gay and then you are calling that person as such toh its fine, but when so many people are worshiping a particular God, toh let it be, we don't have any right to just go and say that oh, Krishna was a gay, Arjun was a gay, I don't think that a gay person will go and fall for a girl.

See let me try to explain my POV with an example

Its very good that we don't believe in someone, even I doubt whether Radha actually existed or not, but still there are devotees who believe and not just believe they actually worship Radha, so when they say that yes I believe in Radha so what's the point in saying ki no, your believe is false or something like that.

similarly when there are actually so many people in fact I think half North India worships Krishna (I am not sure about rest of the parts) toh why should we say something which might hurt anyone.

For some of us they are just characters, but for many people those are not just characters but God and hope and what not.

It does not mean that they do not support homosexual people but Krishna and Arjun ko gay bulane ki kya zaroorat hai.

I hope I have not disrespected you or your opinion in any manner. If I did then sorry for that.

accha, I have a different opinion about CE, it is not directed to anyone, just slightly different opinion nothing else.

The Critical Edition (CE) is a well-crafted version of atext, but it's important to understand it's essentially an edited version basedon studying manuscripts. This method, often called "text criticism,"originated from German scholars and was applied in India by Sukthankar.However, this approach is criticized for being influenced by colonialperspectives.

In India, epics like the Mahabharata were considered sacredand part of an oral tradition. Before the CE, people were okay with variousversions of the text. However, the trend of regarding the CE as absolute truthcan be risky. The original text should be acknowledged, and if there areadditions, their age and origins need careful study.

The concept of an 'Ur-text' (original text) is debated. TheCE, based on manuscripts from the 13th to 19th centuries, doesn't trace back tothe earliest texts. Sukthankar, the CE's creator, believed the Mahabharata ismuch more profound than what the CE presents. Even though he was confident inthe CE, he felt the epic had a depth beyond its scope.

Sukthankar's observations in his book "The Meaning ofthe Mahabharata" highlighted the CE's focus on manuscript analysis ratherthan the deeper metaphysical aspects of the Mahabharata. He emphasized that theessence of the epic goes far beyond what the CE captures.

It's common for people to criticize various scholarly works.Many experts and researchers in this field hold strong opinions. Even if youperceive the BORI edition as flawed, it's just one interpretation among many.The key point is that multiple versions and interpretations of the Mahabharataexist due to the vastness and diversity of the Indian storytelling tradition.

Continued in next post

See, frankly I don't think the way we tend to classify identities as straight or not-straight isn't entirely correct. It is continuous spectrum and people land anywhere in that. Also, there isn't just straight and gay/lesbian right. There are also so many other terms like bisexuality, pansexuality, demisexuality etc. Along the same lines, I do not think the MB era also classified sexuality as rigidly into boxes as we sometimes tend to do now.

Just by proposing that Krishna and Arjun were romantically inclined towards each other one does not and cannot trivialize or nullify their other relationships (they were both clearly not monogamous even before this became an issue). Also, I agree with you on the point that we need not make everything about physical relations, though even then you have alloromantic asexuals who are perfectly alright with having a romantic connection just without the physical part of it (even this in itself is a huge spectrum).

The calling people gay part, is a much bigger and deep-seated societal issue where somehow the very existence of LGBTQIA+ individual is perceived as a slight and hence the mere words taken as insults. I personally do not understand why Krishna/Arjun possibly not being heterosexual affects the day-to-day of any devotee.

Throughout history 95+ percent of all characters fictitious or real, have been heterosexual. So, I feel it is important to call out every insinuation and undertone we see in these older texts, even if it's just to prove that this isn't a fad or a 'lifestyle', and people's preferences, throughout history, have always been on a spectrum. Every little bit of tolerant speech and actions in these texts counts.