Mahabharat Episode Discussion Thread # 10/ DT's Nt pg 121

First Previous

Page

118

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#911

Mr Cots.. I would agree with both you and Watcher.. Mild arrows and reluctant fight are part of his promise.. Why come to Bhima? his promise to Kunti itself (applies to the show too) is something where he falls short as 'Duryodhan's friend'.. without another option yes.. Thanks to badly timed truth..

Edited by ...Diala... - 11 years ago

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#912

Originally posted by: ...Diala...
Anu

Good if not.. but that is how I see 'he who shall not be named'.. Sincere apologies for misunderstanding if I really did..

To help you change subject, I would think anyone in a war field wears some head gear for protection.. And why would a Yadava prince wear a turban or helmet because he is a Sarathy.. all portraits I've seen and MB book covers do show him with the crown.. and afaik Sahadev and Shalya too did the charioteer's job.. I dont think they changed it for every change of role..

What women wear in war.. I dont think I talked about it.. but about Sikhandini, she is always in her war costume isnt it? I have not seen her dress like other woman.. may be that substitutes sex change.. also I dont think she will turn Sikhandin.. and am worried she is not married.. is neutral sex a reason by any chance?

What I meant is I dont want start anything up by naming names. Obviously it didnt work. Sorry, anyway, it was not meant to be criticism or praise - just a statement of how I interpreted the look.

The helmet thing - no one else is wearing one, though. Only Krishna.

Shikandini married?! Didnt know that! If she is , what will the hubby do, after the gender bender? And, if she actually was Panchal desh's senapathi, Papa Drupad was pretty liberal. Even these days, I dont know that there are many women CICs

Edited by thearcher - 11 years ago

Quote

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

AnuMP

@AnuMP

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#913

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

I meant none of the warriors are seen wearing a helmet

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#914

Oh the other main guys... you are right.. Why 🤔

I hope they wear it during war.. they did in the promos, not sure if they changed mind now...

anyway I cant see Krishna without a Mukut or with the Kid's Mukut..

Quote

Arijit

@Arijit007

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#915

ok, how come duri jaan chaanged his target from bheem to krishna, has he gone mad?

Quote

guenhwyvar

@guenhwyvar

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#916

Originally posted by: ...Diala...
Oh the other main guys... you are right.. Why 🤔

I hope they wear it during war.. they did in the promos, not sure if they changed mind now...

anyway I cant see Krishna without a Mukut or with the Kid's Mukut..

But they all look so much better without the mukut (except Yuddhi and Dury -- those two are born crown wearers)

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#917

Kauravs today -

Dury is going to try to kill Vaasudev? Did he actually try this in the epic? I would like SP to show it though; the sheer entertainment factor would be amazing🤣

👏 Gandhari finally understood that pran about blinding herself was not such a hot idea. Too little, too late, though

Bhishm said, yudh ka utsah? What is there to be excited about? I guess, I am not soldier material, so probably not able to understand it😕

Pandavs and Govind

Whatever the reason behind it, it was pretty liberal of Yudhi (in the epic, it is Krishna) to get Shikhandini into the war even

Panchali looked pretty proud of big sis

Papa Drupad looked confused

I dont know Dhrishtadyumn actor's name, but he could give Arya Arjun a run for his money in terms of hotness😳

I thought now Arya Arjun has started giving those intense looks to Panchali and Panchali unfortunately looks like she is saying, 'Soldiers, ATTENSHUN'😆

Dont know if CVs asked Pooja to play it that way but Panchali's interactions with putrs today reminded me of Govind

Krishna looked pretty stern there with yada yada incantation in the BG

No armor for Krishna? And again, he is the only one with mukut

Govind brings up Sakhi's name at every possible opportunity and this very obviously makes the Kaurav side uncomfortable👏

Edited by thearcher - 11 years ago

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#918

Right.. they all looked great in the Kridangan without crowns.. Thanks to Baloon Blowers.. I still remember how much good Rohit looked in his intro shot..

But Aham, Arpit and Shaheer looked no less in the theater promo.. They looked more majestic and warrior like I will say..

Edited by ...Diala... - 11 years ago

Quote

india2050

@india2050

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#919

So the injustice continues. Poor Dhristadymna's turn now. So he gets the Pradhan senapati position as a hand me down from his sister-soon-to-be-turned-into-brother.

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#920

Originally posted by: amritat
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, then Karna and Duryodhan were friends from childhood.
It is mentioned in Adi Parva that in childhood, Karna had a disliking for Arjun, for reasons I still can't understand, and was inclined towards the Kauravas, when they were getting trined under Drone.

Later on Lord Krishna says that Karna was involved in the poisoning part.

As for the "Practising assassination" thing, well that's a personal interpretation.

Here are basis for the poisoning involvement- strictly as per Vyas MB.

"On the death of their father those heroes (the Pandavas) came to their own home. And within a short time they became well-versed in archery. And the Kurus beholding the Pandavas gifted with physical strength, energy, and power of mind, popular also with the citizens, and blessed with good fortune, became very jealous. Then the crooked minded Duryodhana, and Karna, with (the former's uncle) the son of Suvala began to persecute them and devise means for their exit..The wicked son of Dhritarashtra gave poison to Bhima, but Bhima of the stomach of the wolf digested the poison with the food. Then the wretch again tied the sleeping Bhima on the margin of the Ganges and, casting him into the water, went away. But when Bhimasena of strong arms, the son of Kunti woke, he tore the strings with which he had been tied and came up, his pains all gone. And while asleep and in the water black snakes of virulent poison bit him in every part of his body. But that slayer of foes did not still perish...

Adi P.

But a most clear, unambiguous and direct recount of this partnership, Lord Himself witnessth,

"Then Vasudeva, stationed on the car, addressed Karna, saying, "By good luck it is, O son of Radha, that thou rememberest virtue! It is generally seen that they that are mean, when they sink into distress, rail at Providence but never at their own misdeeds...When the Kuru king (Duryodhana), acting under thy counsels, treated Bhimasena in that way with the aid of snakes and poisoned food, whither had this virtue of thine then gone?..."

K P.

Lord clearly states- "acting under thy counsel". This aspect- collective plots to remove their unwanted presence is clearly mentioned in Adi Parva. So twice it gets borne out. A counter- his physical presence is not 'described' in the incidence- is conveniently selective. Why should he be there? His 'counsel' is the contention. Just like Varnavat. Not his physical presence- like Varnavat.

But as feared earlier, now to defend our iconic hero, God himself- his 'impartiality', his veracity are now under question. selective denial of the charge. Can't counter this one perhaps.🤢

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

1 ... 90 91 92 93 94 ... 118

Mahabharat Episode Discussion Thread # 10/ DT's Nt pg 121 - Page 92

Related Topics

Explore Topics