꧁༺ | ꧁•⊹Ishita⊹•꧂ AT # 1 - Page 17

Well people to say an unpopular opinion, let us understand that the Mahabharata that we have is not a documentary that everything written in it has to be a literal truth.

Maybe Vyas' Jaya was a documentary, but the moment Vaishampayan narrated it to Janmayey it became a tale and not a historical documentary.

The version we have is by someone who composed a poem on the narration of Ugrashrawa of the tale that Vaishampayan narrated. No where his/her intention was to record history but it was now more for an entertainment purposes

Just like today we have historical shows added with a lot of fictionalised elements to make it more interesting. Lot of things would be added by him/her to make it interesting. For example Yaksha Prashna, stories of magic vessel n Durvasa that could definitely not be history. He would have added folklores and his interpretations about it as well

They wouldn't have definitely been dramatic enough to address each other like " Oh bull of Bharat Vansh" no one who is noting down the events can know the exact words used by others in a conversation (especially when there is no recording). We must not take it as every word being historical.

Yes there was a war between two set of cousins which somehow engulfed nearly the entire country and caused immense destruction.

There were people referred in the epic, Yudhishtir did stake his wife and Duryodhan, Dusshashan, Karna tried to disrobe Draupadi, that however doesn't mean that everything written there actually happened or the conversations mentioned are historical truth. We must not try to take everything literally

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Well people to say an unpopular opinion, let us understand that the Mahabharata that we have is not a documentary that everything written in it has to be a literal truth.

Maybe Vyas' Jaya was a documentary, but the moment Vaishampayan narrated it to Janmayey it became a tale and not a historical documentary.

The version we have is by someone who composed a poem on the narration of Ugrashrawa of the tale that Vaishampayan narrated. No where his/her intention was to record history but it was now more for an entertainment purposes

Just like today we have historical shows added with a lot of fictionalised elements to make it more interesting. Lot of things would be added by him/her to make it interesting. For example Yaksha Prashna, stories of magic vessel n Durvasa that could definitely not be history. He would have added folklores and his interpretations about it as well

They wouldn't have definitely been dramatic enough to address each other like " Oh bull of Bharat Vansh" no one who is noting down the events can know the exact words used by others in a conversation (especially when there is no recording). We must not take it as every word being historical.

Yes there was a war between two set of cousins which somehow engulfed nearly the entire country and caused immense destruction.

There were people referred in the epic, Yudhishtir did stake his wife and Duryodhan, Dusshashan, Karna tried to disrobe Draupadi, that however doesn't mean that everything written there actually happened or the conversations mentioned are historical truth. We must not try to take everything literally

Agreed. The language is highly dramatised and that's expected since Mahabharata was narrated to Janmejaya as a performance in the Yagya I think. So it had to be entertaining too. And then there's the question of stuff being added later, which BORI has tried to remove but even they said that they kept some stuff because it was too ingrained in public psyche (not sure about this). What you're saying leaves room for many interpretations and that's exactly what happened right? There's hundreds of interpretations, both fictional and non fictional. But then, we need a base. A point of reference. That's where the text we have comes in. What we want to believe is subjective, speaking of feelings/emotions/motivations if characters is subjective but there is stuff that's objectively written. Not every word is Historical but that doesn't mean that the Crux of what is being said is completely different. The language is dramatised, but the point of the conversation, the subject of the conversation can still stay the same.

My point is, just because the language is dramatised and characters speak in a roundabout way, doesn't mean what they said never happened. Besides in Mbh most characters launch into huge ass tales to make their point. One of the most unrealistic examples of this is Vidura in Dyuta Parva. Imagine the scene, Dusshasana has attempted to strip Draupadi, Bheema took a highly murderous oath and then Vidura just.. starts a story about Prahlada, Sudhanva and Prahlada's son (forgot his name). The point of the story is that if the King sides with the wrong party knowing that he's doing wrong, he commits a great sin. Vidura probably said only that to Dhritrashtra- you will get a lot of sin if you side with Duryodhana. The narrator/interpolator dramatised it by adding an anecdote. That doesn't mean Vidura never said it. He perhaps said it in a more straightforward way.

That was longer than I intended, sorry 😅

Duryodhana telling Dhritrashtra about Draupadi-

Yajnaseni does not eat until she has seen to it that everyone has eaten and is full, even hunchbacks and dwarfs.

- Mahabharata volume 2, translated by Bibek Debroy.

I think the fact that her even enemy praised her work ethic and kindness speaks volumes about the kind of Queen, and the kind of woman Panchali was.

It is infuriating seeing these TV shows with their BS storylines maligning her and putting words in her mouth. This production house deserves to be sued.