B R Chopra portrayal of Karna with reference to KMG - Page 7

TM's point are being challenged and nothing else, his post was about the portrayal of Karna in current serials, that I have no problem with, but the reasons provided by the TM are contradictory and some are false, by simply  claiming that his own points are correct is not a way to avoid a challenge ( through citations ). Edited by TheWatcher - 9 years ago

Originally posted by: Medha.S

Yeah??? -- but the citation from Karna parva is the citation which proves that Karna was friends or at least some kind of ally not of equal status pre-gurukul.

Edited by smrth - 9 years ago

Originally posted by: varaali

Now this thread too has been distorted into a open warfare b/w Karna supporters and non supporters. I don't think this is what either Shivang or Semanti wanted int he first place.

Let us accept that it is never possible to get a satisfactory answer to "was Karna evil / bad / notorious notorious ?" 

Nor it is necessary. 

For someone who wants to treat MB as a research work - and not- as a means of entertainment, Karna is just among the several characters in the epic as complex or multi dimensional as any other. 

Shivang's whole idea (if anyone has bothered to read his second post) is how the serials, films and books have distorted the facts and presented Karna as a tragic figure, victim of circumstances. 

The serials, books and films have conveniently skipped some instances in his life, twisted some others and blown a few out of proportion to present us with a "Society-Victimized Poor Karna "

The whole thrust of this thread is not to arrive at a conclusion on Karna's character (it is neither possible nor necessary) but to place the  Karna - as depicted in serials and films-  in perspective.

WHat we feel is that Karna is certainly not as tragic a character as the serials have made him put to be. He is not a innocent victim of circumstances as the serials have made him out to be.

In several cases he is responsible for his own actions and hence for the results he had to bear.

once can say that this thread is about the Filmy Karna Vs Book Karna

well like watcher said we are just trying to discuss the points that TM has raised regarding karna using KMG some of them are false some contradictory  and some are true as well

Regarding star plus's mahabharat definitely his character has been distorted and white washed a lot

And as for other media yes i do agree his image as a tragic hero is exaggerated .I mean yes i do think is life was tragic because he never got his true place in his true family but i don't think his death was tragic he had made mistakes and his death was karma for his mistakes

Yes unfair means were used for his death but then he was also unfair to panadavs in his life and arjuna just returned the favour and i dont blame arjuna for that at all and generally media tones down the extent of his mistakes which makes it seem that his life was very tragic which isnt the case i agree with that

so trying to be unbiased if he is criticized for his mistakes he should also be appreciated for his good deeds making it seem that even his good deeds were done with an evil intention is being very biased

and regarding exaggerated images in media whose image isn't exaggerated if i can i would want to list how the images of other character's are also exaggerated in media its not only karna

panadavs righteousness is exaggerated,dury's evilness is exaggerated ,karna's tragedy is exaggerated so its not only karna whose image is exaggerated its almost all famous characters.

This because many people don't care to actually read the epic and just believe what TV adaptations  show and since its TV show which  requires drama everything becomes exaggerated

in any case my point is yes i do agree karna''s sufferings or tragedy is definitely exaggerated but same is the case with many other character's

Originally posted by: shindes

Now you are really distorting facts. Kindly provide reference .

 

 

i think it was brahmashira only

brahmastra is refereed to as brahamstra in KMG but brahamshira is refereed to as brahma weapon

This is the citation from pashuram's curse

Since thou hast, from avarice of weapons, behaved here with falsehood, therefore, O wretch, this Brahma weapon shalt not dwell in thy remembrance

and the citation of when he actually forgets

Indeed, O foremost of men, when the hour of Karna's death came, the high brahmastra that the illustrious Bhargava had imparted unto him, escaped from his memory

I am not sure why rangbhoomi citation cant be used to refute the claim that karna and dury were friends from before

i am not saying that they hadn't met at all they might have met but saying that they were best friends is a clear assumptions since its against what the rangbhoomi citation says

what does over use of a citation means i have no idea?Rangbhoomi citation is part of KMg in which both dury and karna say that they long for each other's friendship and are eager to be friend's which clearly means that they weren't friends from before.They don't at all say lets renew our friendship.what is illogical is converting the word eagerness to be friends with renewal😆.Renewal and eagerness don't mean the same thing

and not only dury and karna what about reaction of other people why does the  entire assembly wonder who he is .If he is dury's best friend shouldn't panadavs and drona know who he is already why should the entire assembly wonder who he is.Not only dury but no one else in assembly seems to recognize him

still not sure why this citation cant be used  just because it goes against the claim that karna and dury were friends from before

i am not denying that there arent citations that claim they were friends in gurukul there are  but rangbhoomi citation cant be ignored as well just because it contradicts with the former

that is why logical interpretation would be that they had met in gurukul or knew each other but their association was neither long nor strong enough to be friends
Edited by Sabhayata - 9 years ago

and why KMG even CE(critical edition) states the same thing in rangbhoomi.even CE doesn't say anything about renewal of friendship

this is what CE by bibek debroy says

This is after karna has display's his skllls

Karna replied,You have said it and that alone is enough. O descendant of the Bharata lineage! I only desire your friendship. And I desire to have a duel with Partha

This is after karna has become king of anga

When the cries of Victory had died down, the bull among kings told the Kourava,²⁵What can I give you that is comparable to your gift of this kingdom? O king! O tiger among kings! Tell me and I will do your bidding. Suyodhana²⁶replied,I wish for your eternal friendship

again the same thing why will dury wish for his friendship if they were best friends since childhood and why will karna desire his friendship .This happens in front of every  one shouldn't they already know karna and dury are best of friends

Also only after adiratha came did bhima realize that karna is a sut putra and went on to humiliate him.If dury and karna were best friends since childhood wouldn't bhima know who karna is why only after seeing adiratha did he realize karna is a sutputra

At that moment, Adhiratha entered the arena, swaying on his feet and supporting himself on a staff. He was trembling and perspiring and his upper garments were in disarray. On seeing him, Karna discarded his bow. Out of regard for his father, he bowed down his head, still wet with water from the coronation. The charioteer quickly covered his feet with the end of his garment and addressed Karna, who had been crowned with success, as his son. Trembling with affection, he kissed him on the head and wet with his tears the head that was already damp with water from the instatement as the king of Anga. When Pandava Bhimasena saw him, he deduced that he²⁷was a charioteer's son and jeeringly said

Edited by smrth - 9 years ago

I think the topic "Karna" is jinxed.

Ok, here is the citation from Aadi parva (rangbhoomi):

"Vaisampayana continued, 'When the spectators, with eyes expanded with wonder, made way for that subjugator of hostile cities, Karna, that hero with his natural mail and face brightened with ear-rings, took up his bow and girded on his sword, and then entered the spacious lists, like a walking cliff. That far-famed destroyer of hostile hosts, the large-eyed Karna, was born of Pritha in her maidenhood. He was a portion of the hot-beamed Sun and his energy and prowess were like unto those of the lion, or the bull, or the leader of a herd of elephants. In splendour he resembled the Sun, in loveliness the Moon, and in energy the fire. Begotten by the Sun himself, he was tall in stature like a golden palm tree, and, endued with the vigour of youth, he was capable of slaying a lion. Handsome in features, he was possessed of countless accomplishments. The mighty-armed warrior, eyeing all around the arena, bowed indifferently to Drona and Kripa. And the entire assembly, motionless and with steadfast gaze, thought, 'Who is he?' And they became agitated in their curiosity to know the warrior.

And here is the citation from Shaanti parva (Narad's words):

Thus addressed by Rama, Karna came away, having duty taken his leave. Arriving then before Duryodhana, he informed him, saying, 'I have mastered all weapons!'"

Edited by Urmila11 - 9 years ago

Originally posted by: smrth

Thank god! At least possibility of previous 'acquaintance', if not 'best of friend', is acknowledged. Their previous concurrence is no longer tossed altogether.😆After which, what importance does a narrative exclamation at reintroduction of a key character take over his previous relative anonymity? How is 'general public' to recognise an adult returning after many years of absence? How are all supposed to know a charioteer's son? 

  - Regarding, 'renewal' as in sense of 'reaffirmation'- as my other word 'exchange' is conveniently missed.😕 Interesting words in their exchange: 'only' from K and from D 'eternal' friendship, as something continuous?!😆

 - But if 'best of friendship' is so much nettling, their concurrence and converged interests (their shared 'jealousy') are enough for the purpose- poisoning.

  - What does CE say about Krishna's report card?!😆

  - Last, 'overreach' = use beyond its 'capacity'.

But I must cease. No unlimited time...

Karna and dury meeting once atleast during gurukul was never dismissed.If any one cared to read my full analysis rather than going by  their preconceived notions they would have realized that😆

i dont believe in disregarding one citation for the sake of other's.I have always said keeping both citations in mind they might have met during gurukul but association wasn't long enough to be termed as friendship and hence the rangbhomi citation will also make sense.I hope my point is clear now

of course reactions at karna's reintroduction at rangbhoomi matters because TM here claimed that karna and dury were friends since childhood and more which isn't true or let me say is contradictory

karna and dury say alot more than eternal and none of their words indicate towards renewal or reaffirmation both indicate towards starting a friendship in both KMG and CE

regarding their converged interests definitely dury befriended karna  that time since he found a competitor for arjuna his intentions at that time weren't noble i agree with that as well

kishna ji's report card about karna in CE says the same thing as KMG

i know overreach means😆 but what does overuse of citation means.Citation can be used to prove a point or to refute it that is what TM has done in the thread as well.Overuse of citation makes no sense whatsoever😆