'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 55

@abhijitbasu

Hello sir, we're lucky to have a veteran like you here patiently clearing our doubts. I wish to know your views on my below confusions.

This is cited from the context of all Gods and sages etc appearing in two sides of Karna & Arjuna, in the Mahabharata battle. At this, Brahman and Isana replied unto the chief of the celestials, saying-- "The victory of the high souled Vijaya is certain, of that Savyasaci who gratified the eater of sacrificial libations in the forest of Khandava and who, coming to heaven, rendered assistance to thee, O Sakra! Karna is on the side of the Danavas. It is proper, therefore, that he should meet with defeat. By this, without doubt, the purposes of the gods will be achieved. One's own business, O chief of the celestials, should always be important."

Again when Arjuna aims Anjalika-- " Indeed, seeing that weapon raised (for being sped) in that dreadful battle, the Rishis loudly cried out,"Peace be to the universe!".

My confusions are the following.

1. Why did the Gods want Karna to be killed at any cost? I can understand Indra, Vayu, Yama and Ashwins... But why all other Gods? Even Ishaana and Brahman wanted the same. As far as my little knowledge goes, Karna always respected, prayed and never offended any of them. Then why they all wanted him to die?
2. What did Ishaana and Brahman mean by saying 'Karna was on the side of Daanavas'? How can we consider Kauravas to be Daanavas? Had Karna ever made an ally with any Daanava for the battle?
3. What was the purpose or business of the Gods which was impossible only because of Karna was alive and for which all of them unanimously wished for his death? Is it not the duty of Gods to protect their devotee? As I said before, I don't remember him going against them in any instance.
4. Karna always did Daana to every brahmin, rishi, sanyasi etc..respected them, sheltered them, obeyed them... Still what could be the reason they all turned against him? Had he ever insulted them that they all together wished for his death for the peace of universe?

All citations are taken from KMG translation of Mahabharata. Kindly forgive my any wrong words considering the ignorance of a beginner and show light on the above darkness.

@abhijitbasu, sir, what is your point of view about krishna?

Originally posted by: AnuMP

@Abhijitbasu

Sir

It is really wonderful to have someone here who obviously has significant scholarship on our epics. I am merely a casual reader, but I would prefer to characterize Bheema as someone who had clarity of thought and his priorities right, rather than someone of native cunning. After all, brawn does not necessarily mean a lack of brain, correct? While Yudhishtir may be have debated the fine print of dharmic behavior endlessly, Bheem didnt hesitate before helping the weak; re: Draupadi in the Keechak incident. I also thought it significant that Vyasa does not mention any prior discussion with Yudhishtir, before Bheem kills him. He must have known what the response would be.

A question I had for you which is somewhat related. I always thought that the fact that the story was being told to Arjun and Subhadra's descendants may have colored the narrative somewhat. Arjun in my opinion stood for the human being in us, with capacity to love greatly and capable of goodness but conflicted by mundane connections. He was a great warrior, a Mahanayak. But, Bheem was equally crucial to the story. Parkishit (or was it Janmejaya? As I said, I am a casual reader), must have been the patron for the rishis telling the story

PS - Misspellings are courtesy iPad (I would hate to look illiterate in front of a scholar😆)

I am only a student and no scholar! But apropos your question, it indeed is quite innovative. One is apt to miss the point that Vaishampaayana, the first narrator, was telling the story at Janamejaya's sarpa-satra, and so there could be a diplomatic finesse in playing up the greatness of Janamejaya's own great-grandfather Arjuna vis--vis others. But we should not forget that the narration was done in presence of Vyasa, the original chronicler; and the illustrious Veda-Vyasa might not have been a party to any major prevarication. Arjuna, after all was the God's chosen one, and the epic, arguably perhaps, gives him the pre-eminence due to him.

Originally posted by: bheegi

@AbhijitBasu

Sir, I've a question regarding Arjuna and his portrayal in a number of contemporary versions/re tellings of the Mahabharat.

Books like Parva (Bhyrappa), Bhimsen (Prem Panicker) and Aryavarta Chronicles (Krishna Udayasankar) don't portray Arjuna as much of a hero as Ved Vyas did. There seems to be a feeling amongst a lot of these contemporary authors that Arjuna received more glory than he deserved. While I don't quite agree with their interpretation, what are your thoughts on Arjuna? I feel if he wasn't as glorious as Ved Vyas portrayed him, Krishna wouldn't have chosen him as the recipient of his Gita gyan.

I feel some of the authors haven't forgiven Arjuna for allowing his wife to be shared. Are we right in judging his actions? We really don't know how people operated during the dwapar yuga. Mothers and elders were revered much more than spouses or lovers...

Would love your POV on Arjuna's character

P.S: For that matter, a lot of authors are less appreciative of Yudhistra/Dharma's character also

sorry to interrupt ... Bhimsen is just a translation of the malayalam novel Randamoozham by M.T Vasudevan Nair .. Having read both , English one is way beyond the original ..
The malayalam novel Randamoozham is a classic with an apt name as well .. Randamoozham means Second turn ...

Originally posted by: -Jamy-

@abhijitbasu

Hello sir, we're lucky to have a veteran like you here patiently clearing our doubts. I wish to know your views on my below confusions.

This is cited from the context of all Gods and sages etc appearing in two sides of Karna & Arjuna, in the Mahabharata battle. At this, Brahman and Isana replied unto the chief of the celestials, saying-- "The victory of the high souled Vijaya is certain, of that Savyasaci who gratified the eater of sacrificial libations in the forest of Khandava and who, coming to heaven, rendered assistance to thee, O Sakra! Karna is on the side of the Danavas. It is proper, therefore, that he should meet with defeat. By this, without doubt, the purposes of the gods will be achieved. One's own business, O chief of the celestials, should always be important."

Again when Arjuna aims Anjalika-- " Indeed, seeing that weapon raised (for being sped) in that dreadful battle, the Rishis loudly cried out,"Peace be to the universe!".

My confusions are the following.

1. Why did the Gods want Karna to be killed at any cost? I can understand Indra, Vayu, Yama and Ashwins... But why all other Gods? Even Ishaana and Brahman wanted the same. As far as my little knowledge goes, Karna always respected, prayed and never offended any of them. Then why they all wanted him to die?
2. What did Ishaana and Brahman mean by saying 'Karna was on the side of Daanavas'?
How can we consider Kauravas to be Daanavas? Had Karna ever made an ally with any Daanava for the battle?
3. What was the purpose or business of the Gods which was impossible only because of Karna was alive and for which all of them unanimously wished for his death? Is it not the duty of Gods to protect their devotee? As I said before, I don't remember him going against them in any instance.
4. Karna always did Daana to every brahmin, rishi, sanyasi etc..respected them, sheltered them, obeyed them... Still what could be the reason they all turned against him? Had he ever insulted them that they all together wished for his death for the peace of universe?

All citations are taken from KMG translation of Mahabharata. Kindly forgive my any wrong words considering the ignorance of a beginner and show light on the above darkness.

Pertinent questions! But I'll answer briefly, since I'm now packing up for my half-yearly move from one city to another (I may be off this forum tomorrow). The short point is that Duryodhana has a demoniac connection (remember, e.g., the evil omen at his birth, and Kripa's and Vidura's advice to kill him, which was overruled by Dhrtarashtra). So Karna, being his major source of strength, was helping the demoniac cause. Karna in this view, was the right man on the wrong side. There have, however, been other contrary interpretations, especially by noted Western commentators like Hopkins, which are called the 'Inversion Theory', suggesting that the Kauravas with Karna were the original virtuous side and followers of Shiva, who were later made the wrong side by Krishna/Vishnu-worshipping Brahmins. But that's a long story (dealt with in my book), and not the one accepted by majority opinion.

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Pertinent questions! But I'll answer briefly, since I'm now packing up for my half-yearly move from one city to another (I may be off this forum tomorrow). The short point is that Duryodhana has a demoniac connection (remember, e.g., the evil omen at his birth, and Kripa's and Vidura's advice to kill him, which was overruled by Dhrtarashtra). So Karna, being his major source of strength, was helping the demoniac cause. Karna in this view, was the right man on the wrong side. There have, however, been other contrary interpretations, especially by noted Western commentators like Hopkins, which are called the 'Inversion Theory', suggesting that the Kauravas with Karna were the original virtuous side and followers of Shiva, who were later made the wrong side by Krishna/Vishnu-worshipping Brahmins. But that's a long story (dealt with in my book), and not the one accepted by majority opinion.

Sir, I do remember the event of bad omens appearing at the time of Duryodhana's birth. I have read the gist of 'Invasion Theory' you mentioned. But it seems to be rejected by many scholars and is even said to be contradictory to many existing facts. I'll try to expand and understand the answers based on the facts given!
Thanks a lot for finding time to answer my queries.😊

Originally posted by: Arijit007

@abhijitbasu, sir, what is your point of view about krishna?

Hi Arijit, Krishna, as you know, is too large a character to be sketched in a few words. And MB's Krishna has myriad layered nuances - man-demigod-God - on which I will not be presumptuous enough to express a summary point of view. My book tries, and only tries, to understand him and his role as an employer of seemingly 'debatable' means to achieve the right end of 'Ultimate Dharma'; and the man-God preserver of the Dvaapara order, whose transit from mortality led to the coming of Kali-yuga. I hold him dear as my Personal God, but that is a matter I consciously do not let interfere with my limited human faculty of logical-spiritual reasoning in attempting an academic analysis of his unique role in the MB. Would love to talk more about Him when I reach Delhi in a day's time.

Originally posted by: divyasn

sorry to interrupt ... Bhimsen is just a translation of the malayalam novel Randamoozham by M.T Vasudevan Nair .. Having read both , English one is way beyond the original ..
The malayalam novel Randamoozham is a classic with an apt name as well .. Randamoozham means Second turn ...

Originally posted by: bheegi

<font color="#3300cc">@AbhijitBasu</font>

<font color="#3300cc">I was finally able to purchase 'Parva' from a book shop in India. I just read it recently. It's an interesting retelling with a lot of emphasis on the lesser known characters.</font>

<font color="#3300cc">It was a more depressing read than the original story. I guess the divinity in the MB does add to the positivity of the story. I wonder if that's whats happened over the centuries too. Bards and narrators might have added the religious and divine aspects to make the story more acceptable to the lay public. What are your thoughts on that?</font>

<font color="#3300cc">Sangeeta</font>

Parva is an imaginative reconstruction which impressed me in parts. The initial story of old Shalya and the depiction of the uninhibited ways of the Madra people and girls is interesting, So also are the episodes of Pandu's pravrajyaa and the kshetraja births of his sons through the agency of visiting Devas of superior race. But thereafter the story drags for long stretches with details on peripheral matters. On the whole, I agree with you that the book is somewhat 'depressing' in that the thrill of MB is just not there. Vyasa's MB (with or without its interpolations) is a great epic, and a great epic is best enjoyed when the reader follows Coleridge's advice to 'willingly suspend disbelief' of the supernatural.