Why the Shift?? - Page 11

I know there are forum rules against personal comments, so I shall refrain. For this effort, I hope I get brownie points in heaven😆.

1. That is the Sacred Texts creation. Veda Vyasa didn't build the website.

2. Even so, the parvas are listed right here in that document: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs01002.htm

33 asya prajñābhipannasya vicitrapadaparvaṇaḥ

bhāratasyetihāsasya śrūyatāṃ parva saṃgrahaḥ

34 parvānukramaṇī pūrvaṃ dvitīyaṃ parva saṃgrahaḥ

pauṣyaṃ paulomam āstīkam ādivaṃśāvatāraṇam

35 tataḥ saṃbhava parvoktam adbhutaṃ devanirmitam

dāho jatu gṛhasyātra haiḍimbaṃ parva cocyate

36 tato bakavadhaḥ parva parva caitrarathaṃ tataḥ

tataḥ svayaṃvaraṃ devyāḥ pāñcālyāḥ parva cocyate

37 kṣatradharmeṇa nirmitya tato vaivāhikaṃ smṛtam

vidurāgamanaṃ parva rājyalambhas tathaiva ca

38 arjunasya vanevāsaḥ subhadrāharaṇaṃ tataḥ

subhadrāharaṇād ūrdhvaṃ jñeyaṃ haraṇahārikam

39 tataḥ khāṇḍava dāhākhyaṃ tatraiva maya darśanam

sabhā parva tataḥ proktaṃ mantraparva tataḥ param

40 jarāsaṃdha vadhaḥ parva parva dig vijayas tathā

parva dig vijayād ūrdhvaṃ rājasūyikam ucyate

41 tataś cārghābhiharaṇaṃ śiśupāla vadhas tataḥ

dyūtaparva tataḥ proktam anudyūtam ataḥ param

42 tata āraṇyakaṃ parva kirmīravadha eva ca

īśvarārjunayor yuddhaṃ parva kairāta saṃjñitam

43 indralokābhigamanaṃ parva jñeyam ataḥ param

tīrthayātrā tataḥ parva kururājasya dhīmataḥ

44 jaṭāsuravadhaḥ parva yakṣayuddham ataḥ param

tathaivājagaraṃ parva vijñeyaṃ tadanantaram

45 mārkaṇḍeya samasyā ca parvoktaṃ tadanantaram

saṃvādaś ca tataḥ parva draupadī satyabhāmayoḥ

46 ghoṣayātrā tataḥ parva mṛgasvapnabhayaṃ tataḥ

vrīhi drauṇikam ākhyānaṃ tato 'nantaram ucyate

47 draupadī haraṇaṃ parva saindhavena vanāt tataḥ

kuṇḍalāharaṇaṃ parva tataḥ param ihocyate

48 āraṇeyaṃ tataḥ parva vairāṭaṃ tadanantaram

kīcakānāṃ vadhaḥ parva parva gograhaṇaṃ tataḥ

49 abhimanyunā ca vairāṭyāḥ parva vaivāhikaṃ smṛtam

udyogaparva vijñeyam ata ūrdhvaṃ mahādbhutam

50 tataḥ saṃjaya yānākhyaṃ parva jñeyam ataḥ param

prajāgaraṃ tataḥ parva dhṛtarāṣṭrasya cintayā

51 parva sānatsujātaṃ ca guhyam adhyātmadarśanam

yānasaṃdhis tataḥ parva bhagavad yānam eva ca

52 jñeyaṃ vivāda parvātra karṇasyāpi mahātmanaḥ

niryāṇaṃ parva ca tataḥ kurupāṇḍavasenayoḥ

53 rathātiratha saṃkhyā ca parvoktaṃ tadanantaram

ulūka dūtāgamanaṃ parvāmarṣa vivardhanam

54 ambopākhyānam api ca parva jñeyam ataḥ param

bhīṣmābhiṣecanaṃ parva jñeyam adbhutakāraṇam

55 jambū khaṇḍa vinirmāṇaṃ parvoktaṃ tadanantaram

bhūmiparva tato jñeyaṃ dvīpavistara kīrtanam

56 parvoktaṃ bhagavad gītā parva bhīsma vadhas tataḥ

droṇābhiṣekaḥ parvoktaṃ saṃśaptaka vadhas tataḥ

57 abhimanyuvadhaḥ parva pratijñā parva cocyate

jayadrathavadhaḥ parva ghaṭotkaca vadhas tataḥ

58 tato droṇa vadhaḥ parva vijñeyaṃ lomaharṣaṇam

mokṣo nārāyaṇāstrasya parvānantaram ucyate

59 karṇa parva tato jñeyaṃ śalya parva tataḥ param

hrada praveśanaṃ parva gadāyuddham ataḥ param

60 sārasvataṃ tataḥ parva tīrthavaṃśaguṇānvitam

ata ūrdhvaṃ tu bībhatsaṃ parva sauptikam ucyate

61 aiṣīkaṃ parva nirdiṣṭam ata ūrdhvaṃ sudāruṇam

jalapradānikaṃ parva strī parva ca tataḥ param

62 śrāddhaparva tato jñeyaṃ kurūṇām aurdhvadehikam

ābhiṣecanikaṃ parva dharmarājasya dhīmataḥ

63 cārvāka nigrahaḥ parva rakṣaso brahmarūpiṇaḥ

pravibhāgo gṛhāṇāṃ ca parvoktaṃ tadanantaram

64 śānti parva tato yatra rājadharmānukīrtanam

āpad dharmaś ca parvoktaṃ mokṣadharmas tataḥ param

65 tataḥ parva parijñeyam ānuśāsanikaṃ param

svargārohaṇikaṃ parva tato bhīṣmasya dhīmataḥ

66 tata āśvamedhikaṃ parva sarvapāpapraṇāśanam

anugītā tataḥ parva jñeyam adhyātmavācakam

67 parva cāśramavāsākhyaṃ putradarśanam eva ca

nāradāgamanaṃ parva tataḥ param ihocyate

68 mausalaṃ parva ca tato ghoraṃ samanuvarṇyate

mahāprasthānikaṃ parva svargārohaṇikaṃ tataḥ

3. Here is another Veda Vyasa Mahabharat, this time compiled by BORI: https://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/mahabharata/mahabharata-bori.html

4. Do you realize that the manuscripts are likely the closest we're going to get to Vyasa version? You're dismissing that and going for the Sacred Texts creation. This is like Ashwatthama drinking flour water and imagining it as milk.

__________________________

Once again, no matter how many word games you play, no matter how many times you drag the discussion in a different direction, Shakuni is not going to be the main villain of Mahabharata. He was just looking out for his nephew.

__________________________

if you want to argue text, try to do so from Sanskrit, not Hindi or English. If that's asking too much, actually argue the text, not chapter headings or articles or blog posts.

__________________________

Not going to continue with this topic until I see some willingness and/or ability to use reason.

In ved vyas parv is mention in second chapter but it is not mention in out side of every book like in kmg translation book

So I thought there is no parv name in sanskrit text

Thanks for sharing it now I go to know there is parv name in ved vyas sankrit text too

And I have not understand ur 4th point what are u trying to say

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

That was a struggle for full-blown independence. Autonomy is the wrong term to use there

Autonomy means a limited form of self government - like the Gorkhaland council in Left Bengal. Or what some union territories have. Essentially, it allows the government in question to manage all local issues - fixing roads and potholes, collecting the garbage, issuing permits, etc while leaving anything that has a scope of exceeding that entity's boundaries w/ the overlord power.

I am not the one to use this term, Please refer to the Government of India Act 1935, after struggling for years we got true division and decentralization of power with introduction of Provincial Autonomy and 10% Indians got right to vote

Gandhi Ji was asking for Dominion status for a long period of time, I think it was in 1929 where we declared Purna Swaraj or resolved to fight for complete Independence

The roadmap went from Colony to Dominion to Independent

Anyway, My point was about Karna having full power over his Kingdom when we got Provincial Autonomy after struggling for years in 1935 to say Karna had much more freedom than we did, and he didn't have to struggle

I am editing the comment, I realized it became personal remarks. Apologies for getting personal

Any how the researches already done, and even the book in itself reveal that the Mahabharata we have today has many more things than the Jaya by VedVyas. This book is noted down by someone who heard Ugrashrawa ji narrating Vaishampayanji the book written by VedVyas.

And I have never claimed that I know everything, however I am open to learn new things not hell bent to prove that I am right

I have also deleted my comment because I don't like passing snide comment

Anyhow the discussion here was not on that topic and whether or not Vadh should be used, the discussion was if Shakuni was dissatisfied by his sister's marriage to Dhritrashtra, we can never be sure, but the texts we have state that he wasn't, instead he was actually happy to get the relation formalized (official)

https://archive.org/stream/InterpolationsInTheMahabharata/INTERPOLATIONS%20In%20The%20Mahabharata_djvu.txt

Actually in today world there is no exact authentic book of mahabharat

Time to time translator keep adding new verse or remove verse from mahabharat based on demand of time

If padmvati history can be changed then no surprise mahabharat text is also change as time passes

Oh wow, come home from work, and see so many replies.

First of all, thank you Vrish. That seems very plausible given the context and the yug. I have always wondered this, and thought it was weird that even though belonging to the same family, they were referred as Pandavas only ji. However, it has been mentioned that the text does refer them as Kauravas.

Wistfullness - Bringing in discrimination due to caste; that's what I take from it now. Also, I just checked out the making of this series, and most of the actors said they wanted to play either Karan or Arjun - these two were THE roles. So perhaps BRC either wrote this character as such to appeal to actors as well as the audience, or maybe his character had been slowly being changed to meet today's sentimentality already through folklore/plays. However, I feel it is such a disservice to the original. Reading here and there, and a lot of the members' comments, the epic has everything going for it. Oh well, what do I know ji?

Nora - See, I hate the distortion they did to Draupadi's character the most. Regardless of any comment, vastarharan can never be justfied - but I see what you are saying. Knowing that she was a very strong willed and educated woman, I am just amused at this as well. We cannot make a woman strong and educated who leads her kingdom, never. So distortion was needed to make the men come out stronger. I feel serials should portray Karan as in the epic, why change it? In my opinion, Mahabharata has the raw emotions of humans, and it should be okay to portray them as such. And I know, not only he was whitewashed. Even in BRC, if they tried to whitewash someone more - they still come across as grey for me.

A lot of the discussion seems to have diverted to defining a word....

In all, I do feel that a TV series should actually try to make one Mahabharata as close to the original as possible. Shakuni was a man who loved his nephew, and actually wanted him to make peace with his cousins. Though I do love Gufi's portrayal - amazing - it will be nice to give justice to all of them according to what's written. Make Karan darker, make Draupadi fierce throughout - not as a woman scorned, but as the empress she was.

Sorry for the length, and if it doesn't make sense. Long days can do that lol

Originally posted by: surabhi01

https://archive.org/stream/InterpolationsInTheMahabharata/INTERPOLATIONS%20In%20The%20Mahabharata_djvu.txt

Actually in today world there is no exact authentic book of mahabharat

Time to time translator keep adding new verse or remove verse from mahabharat based on demand of time

If padmvati history can be changed then no surprise mahabharat text is also change as time passes

This is exactly what we were saying during our discussion on if Swargarohan parva was an interpolation or not

The earliest existing text we have is of 3rd century BC which is centuries after the text was narrated by VedVyas. Many things would be and had been added into it

Historian should try to find out bhoj patra as in ancient time rishis use to write in bhoj patra

And should preserve bhoj patra in library so at least we can get correct information about mahabharat