-{| SATYASTHA Karna: AHAM Sharma AT#17 |}- - Page 89

Originally posted by: Nandiniraizaada

Maghavat or meghavat ???

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

It has been spelt both ways

but then how can we be sure diala of even KMG or any other translations available.. I mean even all of them are interpretations of Sanskrit shlokas right. These single line shlokas even when done by researchers can give different interpretations of same event. What authenticity these versions available hold. I mean they are too written by disciples after generations right... not by Ved Vyas. Earlier i think more than written they had this way of just forwarding stories to generation after generation thru recitals or may be poems.. so my point is .. Is there any actual Mahabharat text present.. I mean actual as in written by Ved Vyas..or that is perhaps lost ages ago... and all we follow is faint recollection of that great saga once written...

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

i guess we can never get a clear answer to this just like why karna never used his shakti during virat yudh or why he didnt use vijaya bow from the start

Riti we cannot be sure of interpretations but the interpretations can go here and there in a few places if two or three interrogations or translations are saying similar thing then we have to believe them and if another interpretation is totally changing the context and making hero into villainand villain into hero then their has to be some thing wrong with the interpretation

Originally posted by: Nandiniraizaada

@ all I have not read or seen this book you are talking but was this author there when kurukshetra happened ?? Like vyas???

LOL no

that is why i dont take books based on a character's perspective to be authentic i would generally go by what translations say

i think books written by a character's perspective generally exaggerates that particular characters struggles to get more sympathy which i generally think is not required not only talking about ajaya but generally books that are written from a character's perspective are exaggerated

but i would also say that some of the author's interpretation can be correct as well since the thing is that vyasa generally never explains the character's POV i mean the actions are there but the thought process behind the actions is not there so its left to interpretation

for example talking about karna sparing pandavas.he said to be smiling when he is fighting his brother's and sparing them.Now based on how one views karna interpretation behind this smile is different

for example RM Raesh interprets i to be a brotherly smile full of affection but in another interpretation i read which views karna not in a good light the smile is more of an evil smile saying see i am better than you,you cant defeat me

now any of these interpretations can be right since the epci itself doesn't specify it same goes for many other incidents since thought processes aren't mentioned it can be interpreted in many ways

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

Riti I agree with the difference in translations.. that is acceptable.. any difference of interpretation there, am open to it.. and I agree there has been insertions and deletions to the original.. VedVyas never wrote it and if Ganesh writing is believed then surely that is not available with us.. but again it has some source is what I say.. however corrupted it is today, it started with someone who was a part of the story itself.. if this is really an argument then why do we complain about starbharat?

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

These are really big questions.. Virat atleast I can understand coz Karna dint have the upper hand which was a string attached to usage of Shakti iirc but chariot wheel and Vijaya I dont know what..

was this also a condition?

i thought condition was that only if in grave danger you can use the shakti