'I will not wed a Suta ...'

Page

Next Last

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Since this particular act of Draupadi features time and again in various discussions with regard to Karna, it may be worthwhile to explore it a little further.

Drauapdi saying that she will not wed a Suta, after Karna had fixed the arrow to the bow and had even drawn the drawstring back- occurs only in the Neelkanta version (the one used by KMG)

There are other sources of the Mahabharata apart from the one used by KMG, which have equal claim to authenticity.

In the Southern recension (SR) , it is stated that Karna misses the mark by a few centimeters. There is no mention of Drauapdi calling him a Suta

In the Sarada and some Maithili versions, I have read the Karna accompanies Duryodhana as a part of his group but does not take part in the competition.

So which version are we supposed to consider as authentic?

It is precisely because of this ambiguity that Dr Sukhtankar omitted it entirely from the Critical Edition.

In fact, the entire Krishna- coming- to save- Draupadi in VH episode is skipped in the Critical Edition- largely because of several inconsistencies in the passages that describe the VH- be it the Southern Recession or the Neelkantha version.

But the fact the Karna called Draupadi "unchaste" figures consistently every version

"Bandhaki" is how he calls Drauapdi. I have tried to find out if "Bandhaki" can perhaps have another meaning, but unfortunately every dictionary seems to give the same meaning. There seems to be no ambiguity here- hence it finds its way in the Critical Edition too.

The point I am trying to make here is not about Karna or Draupadi but the fact that while having frantic discussions on any topic let us not forget that there are other sources too apart from KMG. Bibek Debroy's translation, for example.

Edited by varaali - 11 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

halfbloodprince

@Wistfulness

Achiever

+ 8

Posted: 11 years ago

Thank you for this post Varaali di. 😊
I didn't know that even the Sanskrit versions vary.

Anyway, I find the Geeta press version slightly better than KMG.

Quote

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

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

TM,

Thanks for an objective analysis of the topic. I hope, this will stay objective and not get swamped by subjective hyperboles.

I have a question since long. Frequently , I have seen you cautioning against

use of KMG as base reference. Generally, and rightly, pointing out 'possibility' of different interpretation- Sanskrit being such a lucid, flexible language. Or even, outright error of translation in a few cases...The question is, despite all these, is not KMG a sincere effort? Is not it mostly retaining the flavour of Source in earnest? And recognised by most as a 'reliable' source? Moreover, when all the alternatives mentioned- maybe some of them superior- are not available for easy cyber referencing, unlike KMG, why should we not employ it as 'objective', authentic mean in the debates? Especially when we see most stretched out subjective denials, assertions, derivations, assumptions ruling the roost in this formal platform? Do we not see free pass to these methods on daily base- even on such formal, leisured forum? So what alternative do we have?

P.s. I know you to be a much superior scholar. I am an ordinary reader. The above is an observation and then query about the alternative in context of this kind of forum platform only.😊

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

Apu

@butterturnips

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

It is written that Radha's son failed to string the bow and I have read that that Radha's son was another son of Radha and not Karna. Many people participated in her swyamvara including Karna's brothers who were also addressed as Radha's son. 😊

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: smrth

TM,
Thanks for an objective analysis of the topic. I hope, this will stay objective and not get swamped by subjective hyperboles.
I have a question since long. Frequently , I have seen you cautioning against
use of KMG as base reference. Generally, and rightly, pointing out 'possibility' of different interpretation- Sanskrit being such a lucid, flexible language. Or even, outright error of translation in a few cases...The question is, despite all these, is not KMG a sincere effort? Is not it mostly retaining the flavour of Source in earnest? And recognised by most as a 'reliable' source? Moreover, when all the alternatives mentioned- maybe some of them superior- are not available for easy cyber referencing, unlike KMG, why should we not employ it as 'objective', authentic mean in the debates? Especially when we see most stretched out subjective denials, assertions, derivations, assumptions ruling the roost in this formal platform? Do we not see free pass to these methods on daily base- even on such formal, leisured forum? So what alternative do we have?

P.s. I know you to be a much superior scholar. I am an ordinary reader. The above is an observation and then query about the alternative in context of this kind of forum platform only.😊

>>P.s. I know you to be a much superior scholar. I am an ordinary reader. The above is an observation and then query about the alternative in context of this kind of forum platform only.😊>>>

Oh, I am, by no stretch of imagination, a 'superior scholar'. I am just an average student (very average- if you go by my latest marks 😆) but extremely fortunate to be under the guidance of truly superior scholars.

Regarding KMG:

I do acknowledge the sincerity of his work. KMG in his preface says that he has used the Neelkantha version for his translation and for the most part, it does retain the original flavor.

The problem arises when arguments in a forum like this break out over the usage / meaning / intention of a solitary word in a passage. That too, while judging a person's character. If we are going to pass judgments, then we are going to be hindered by the limitations of the language used for translation.

Secondly- the reason why I cross reference several other versions as well, is to bring out the differences in the way a single issue has been described in the different versions. It can have an impact on how we judge / understand that issue.

For instance, it has come to be popularly believed that Draupadi rejected Karna because he was a Suta. Hasn't this had an impact on several other discussions as well? Doesn't this crop up while doing character analysis of Drauapdi or Karna?

But if we were aware that there are several other versions of this same story, will it not broaden our impression of the same incident? Will our perception of Karna or Draupadi remain the same even after coming to know that there may be other versions to the same story?

Thirdly, I feel there have been some mistranslations ( I would be happy to be proved wrong) as well by KMG . Example: when Vaishampayana describes the ulimate abodes which were reached by the Pandava and Kaurava warriors after their deaths.

Of course, in the absence easy cross-referencing of other versions, in English, we are constrained to use only KMG. But before launching into a full scale battle over citations and quotations, let us remember that it is one of the several versions.

Edited by varaali - 11 years ago

Quote

TheWatcher

@TheWatcher

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

2-3 Karna's have been mentioned in KMG who failed to even lift the bow, but only one Karna who is the offspring of sun or Son of Vikartana was able to easily pick up the bow and string it. Unless Karna's alternate name or his origin is not mentioned - he is not the main Karna. Its not like he would have got 3-4 chances.

This is news to me that in other versions - Karna did not order Draupadi's VH - so Star Plus wasn't that wrong as everyone is claiming.

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Varaali.. thanks for the post.. wish this had come up earlier when KMG was declared to be 'THE' source of the forum.. well omitting 'anything' that is inconsistent across versions when it comes to arguments is something I welcome.. but am sure selective amnesia will come into play.. anyway thanks again..

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

This is news to me that in other versions - Karna did not order Draupadi's VH - so Star Plus wasn't that wrong as everyone is claiming.

so lets stop bothering about Karna's WW in the VH??

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: TheWatcher
2-3 Karna's have been mentioned in KMG who failed to even lift the bow, but only one Karna who is the offspring of sun or Son of Vikartana was able to easily pick up the bow and string it. Unless Karna's alternate name or his origin is not mentioned - he is not the main Karna. Its not like he would have got 3-4 chances.

This is news to me that in other versions - Karna did not order Draupadi's VH - so Star Plus wasn't that wrong as everyone is claiming.

Due to the ambiguity in both the cases (Drauapdi Swayamavara and the VH), Dr Sukhtankar thought it appropriate to omit it entirely from the Critical Edition.

If authenticity was the criterion, I would place the Critical Edition at the top.

Edited by varaali - 11 years ago

Quote

ThePirateKing

@ThePirateKing

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#10

Agreed.

KMG has been referenced as it is the version available online in English and easily reference-able. There are the Far East versions of MB which many believe to be equally authentic (the reasons are many and will simply take discussion out somewhere) as the Indian versions, but not well known in India.

I personally find the Critical Edition more authentic. But then each one to himself/herself. As long as the discussions remain civilized am OK with whatever reference is there, its up to the individual to read and form the conclusions

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 ... 9

'I will not wed a Suta ...'

Related Topics

Explore Topics