Saif : " we will justify abduction of Sita and war with ram" - Page 7

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

what people fail to understand here is neither arjuna and karna are vyasa s protagonist yudi is followed closely by panchali   dont like yudi but that s simple truth  it was ultimately yudi and panchali s jaya their win

This thread is not the place to argue about it....but Yudhishthira is not the protagonist. He is the flag bearer of the Dharma side &  Duryodhana is the face of the Adharma side. But none of them are protagonists.

The three Krishnas are the central characters. The Krishna - Arjuna duo & Panchali. 

Shri Krishna is the ultimate hero of Mahabharata if you see it as a narration of Dharma vs Adharma. Followed closely by Arjuna & Panchali.

Originally posted by: GumGum

Is Saifu the next Salman? The way he has been giving attntion grabbing statements

 Bite your tongue 

Bhai is Bhai

Saif is a tool 😆

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Kinda agree with you but authentic sources are very much there if one wants them. The regional ones usually have a lot of contradictory folklores. 

For example, Mahabharata has several myths and folklores associated with it like Draupadi rejecting Karna or mocking Duryodhana as a blind man's blind son. None of these incidents are mentioned in the original text. BUT, the influence of the adaptations and the level of collective ignorance is so huge that people refuse to believe it's not a part of Mahabharata. This is precisely what I find most problematic. 

What is the original text of the Mahabharata? Is the original text still available somewhere today that we can verify what exactly was and was not in the original? 

The Abrahamic religions which are the youngest in the world are mired in so much dispute in the authenticity of both scripture and dogma - how can we ascertain the exact nature of a story centuries older? Shouldn't we just accept that these are interpretative in nature and there are multiple versions instead of one absolute truth? 

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

This thread is not the place to argue about it....but Yudhishthira is not the protagonist. He is the flag bearer of the Dharma side &  Duryodhana is the face of the Adharma side. But none of them are protagonists.

The three Krishnas are the central characters. The Krishna - Arjuna duo & Panchali. 

Shri Krishna is the ultimate hero of Mahabharata if you see it as a narration of Dharma vs Adharma. Followed closely by Arjuna & Panchali.

Yudi is very much the protagonist and panchali. I don't like him but that just the truth. It was their jaya their win yudi krishna Krishnaa duo duryodhan are some of the key players arjuna bheem karna come only after them it was yudi panchali s jaya. Vyasa s jaya is about them and duryodhan s ajaya

The only reason vaishampany s narrative slightly more tilted towards arjuna is because. It is his grandson who is listening to the story. 

Storywise yudi and panchali will always take over arjuna

Even according to political settings of those times yudi and panchali comes before arjuna

Panchali deserved that yudi didn't. But that just that it. 

Arjuna is not the protagonist. Yudi and panchali and krishna are

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

What is the original text of the Mahabharata? Is the original text still available somewhere today that we can verify what exactly was and was not in the original? 

The Abrahamic religions which are the youngest in the world are mired in so much dispute in the authenticity of both scripture and dogma - how can we ascertain the exact nature of a story centuries older? Shouldn't we just accept that these are interpretative in nature and there are multiple versions instead of one absolute truth? 

Even if there was an original text How would you ascertain that it is the original text ?

The question that needs to be asked is what is the oldest version available ?  It is the 6'th Century Ramayan found in Kolkatta. That version has no Baal kand(Raam's childhood) and Uttar Kand(After Ayodhya return story)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/6th-century-Ramayana-found-in-Kolkata-stuns-scholars/articleshow/50227724.cms

Originally posted by: surajhere

Even if there was an original text How would you ascertain that it is the original text ?

The question that needs to be asked is what is the oldest version available ?  It is the 6'th Century Ramayan found in Kolkatta. That version has no Baal kand(Raam's childhood) and Uttar Kand(After Ayodhya return story)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/6th-century-Ramayana-found-in-Kolkata-stuns-scholars/articleshow/50227724.cms

 

Both baal kand and uttar kand are widely believed as later interpolation. They are still shown in every Ramayana shows why?? Because producers can. That s creative freedom. That does not makes those parts authentic. 

about mb and its origin i think this thread sums t up very well -

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/5038742

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Both baal kand and uttar kand are widely believed as later interpolation. They are still shown in every Ramayana shows why?? Because producers can. That s creative freedom. That does not makes those parts authentic. 

In a similar manner unless we find even more older versions we may not know what is an addendum and what is original. This and a little bit of common sense can give us a relatively reasonably accurate picture about our own History, which Raamayan, Mahabharat, Rigved are.

Originally posted by: surajhere

In a similar manner unless we find even more older versions we may not know what is an addendum and what is original. This and a little bit of common sense can give us a relatively reasonably accurate picture about our own History, which Raamayan, Mahabharat, Rigved are.

 common sense? common sense says to stick to the most oldest scriptures because that s all we have got   common sense says not to take all folkfores as canon  and most oldest scripture straight away cancels all the golrification that characters like karna goes through and vilification drau gets  

the point is none of the most oldest or even new ones consist of dialogues like 'andhe ka putra andha' or even 'sutputra' comment  so we cannot take them as canon

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

 common sense? common sense says to stick to the most oldest scriptures because that s all we have got   common sense says not to take all folkfores as canon  and most oldest scripture straight away cancels all the golrification that characters like karna goes through and vilification drau gets  

the point is none of the most oldest or even new ones consist of dialogues like 'andhe ka putra andha' or even 'sutputra' comment  so we cannot take them as canon

But how do you know the oldest version itself does not have additions like Uttara Kand and Shambuk Vadh ?  Additions are not made on whims and fancy, they are made with a purpose. This applies to  new 'additions' you have mentioned as well as to the old.