Who is who? - Page 5

Originally posted by: jhalak7

I have epics like Iliad,odyssey at home. Both epic version and story version. Epic version is pocket size. Story version is huge.

I don't know what story version you are talking about i am simply saying about the epic itself composed by Ved Vyasa.

I have actual Sanskrit transliteration with meaning of each Shlok.

Vyasa composed a Mahakavya so its in poetic form(not story form) Also he existed(assuming Mahabharata a fiction composed in 1st century BCE latest date since we have an inscription of one verse from the epic in Heleodorus pillar in 1st century BCE of Shanti Parva) at least 1500 years before Kansiram so he definitely could not have storified the composition of KansiRam unless he had a time machine. And original is always the older one

I dont understand why are you claiming the poem by KanshiRam is more reliable than epic of Ved Vyasa. But anyway if you think so you could however then

Anyhow the discussion then makes no sense at all because when we say something about Mahabharata we mean Vyasa Mahabharata not the poetic composition of KashiRam ji because definitely the former is older and original irrespective of what Pandit ji might say.

Peace

Originally posted by: jhalak7

Nope.

I read the entire original version of Mahabharata (poetry version the original one). She and her entire family was a victim. Vishma murdered her father in prison becoz they never wanted their daughter to marry a blind. Damaged Shakuni's leg in such a way that he became creeple forever. Shakuni made the goti of pasa from the bone of his dead father.Thus it never failed him. He took oath to destroy the entire family that day. He hated them forever. To save her brother Gandari had to marry Dhrtu. To prove herself "sati" she had to tie her eyes. This can't be an entertainment for a woman who is not blind to stay blind forever. Vishma and Karna were not good guys in original Mahabharata. They were cruel and selfish.

When she was pregnant her husband bashed her so much that she beat her womb and gave birth to a pile of meat. Vyas gave life to that meat. Dhritu wanted only 100son. Because this was the reason for him/Visma to marry Gandari. There was no love or honor in this union. She was like a prisoner or baby making machine for them.

Gandari wanted at least one daughter for herself but couldn't tell it to anybody. Only Vyas understood her secret desire. So you see Vyas was always kind and concerned about woman's feelings Thus it is he who made 101 pieces of meat. From which she had her daughter.

Neither her sons nor her husband was respectful to her. Sometimes they listened to her though. Not always. When she told Duryadhan to come to her complete naked he disobeyed her. This is why he couldn't be immortal. For our time this is not a big deal. But for that time mother's words were like the order from 'god'.Pandavas obeyed every single order their mother gave to them. Actually this was the final reason for the defeat of Kauravas. They never respected or listened to their woman...not even their mother.

Gandari was a kind woman in original book. She loved all equally including Draupadi. Never bashed or accused anyone except Krishna. As she thought it is Krishna who created fight in between all the 105 brothers.Or else she was a sweetheart.

You will have to understand this is a folktale. Not part of the text. The version you referring to might contain a lot of such folktales. That is not part of the epic

Shakuni in real Mb did not even half the role that the Tv version gives him

He did not manipulate Duryodhan. There is no mention of any revenge. In fact, first, he actually tries to dissuade Duryodhan from dyut sabha plan.

I will suggest you refer to BORI S Mahabarath. Their version is I think one that is closest to the actual epic

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes while reading for the first time it seemed to me like i knew the entire epic wrong

Bheeshm was such a misogynistic guy. He wouldn't be ever the same for me

That strangely does not suprise me at all , it was the ancient times , almost everyone would've been a misogynist to a certain level , imo Yudhishthir is the most misogynistic cause of Dyut sabha ( no offence meant) . Also how long did it take you to read the entire epic?

Originally posted by: Pete15rogmourey

That strangely does not suprise me at all , it was the ancient times , almost everyone would've been a misogynist to a certain level , imo Yudhishthir is the most misogynistic cause of Dyut sabha ( no offence meant) . Also how long did it take you to read the entire epic?

Read it completely (before that had read in parts about major episodes) during first wave lockdown so had ample time. Took over 5 months but then I also for some parts checked other translations

No I too always took Yudhisthir as biggest misogynist but my o my Bhishma took the cake ik Anushashan Parva. He was like women should always be kept under control as they are insinciere by nature. When they see a handsome man they start drooling over him forgetting their age or marital status

And trust me I am using very respectful words here comparing to what's written there. Its cheap and humiliating to the core

But you are right everyone was misogynistic. Krishna asks Arjun to abduct Subhadra else given a chance no knows whom she would select for herself. They didn't even want to give their sisters the minimal rights which the society back them permitted for.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Read it completely (before that had read in parts about major episodes) during first wave lockdown so had ample time. Took over 5 months but then I also for some parts checked other translations

No I too always took Yudhisthir as biggest misogynist but my o my Bhishma took the cake ik Anushashan Parva. He was like women should always be kept under control as they are insinciere by nature. When they see a handsome man they start drooling over him forgetting their age or marital status

And trust me I am using very respectful words here comparing to what's written there. Its cheap and humiliating to the core

But you are right everyone was misogynistic. Krishna asks Arjun to abduct Subhadra else given a chance no knows whom she would select for herself. They didn't even want to give their sisters the minimal rights which the society back them permitted for.

Krishna being a misogynist is fhe only thing that hits hard 😟 He's supposed to be Paramatma and all...

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Read it completely (before that had read in parts about major episodes) during first wave lockdown so had ample time. Took over 5 months but then I also for some parts checked other translations

No I too always took Yudhisthir as biggest misogynist but my o my Bhishma took the cake ik Anushashan Parva. He was like women should always be kept under control as they are insinciere by nature. When they see a handsome man they start drooling over him forgetting their age or marital status

And trust me I am using very respectful words here comparing to what's written there. Its cheap and humiliating to the core

But you are right everyone was misogynistic. Krishna asks Arjun to abduct Subhadra else given a chance no knows whom she would select for herself. They didn't even want to give their sisters the minimal rights which the society back them permitted for.

Krishna was anything but misogynistic. I know he was wrong in Subdhara s case. But he was desperate to cement his alliance with Pandavas that he did not consider his sister s wishes. That does not make him misogynistic just pragmatic.

Apart from this, he was the only Man in the epic who came close to being a Feminist.

Originally posted by: Agni_Jytsona

Krishna was anything but misogynistic. I know he was wrong in Subdhara s case. But he was desperate to cement his alliance with Pandavas that he did not consider his sister s wishes. That does not make him misogynistic just pragmatic.

Apart from this, he was the only Man in the epic who came close to being a Feminist.

Everyone exhibited extreme misogyny at some point or other

Yes that was the only place his lines seemed misogynistic

Originally posted by: Pete15rogmourey

Krishna being a misogynist is fhe only thing that hits hard 😟 He's supposed to be Paramatma and all...

But that's the only part he exhibited misogyny though

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

ok correcting my statement

Everyone exhibited extreme misogyny at some point or other

Yes that was the only place his lines seemed misogynistic

I don't think it was misogyny—just a bit of entitlement on his part. I am sure many of Krishna s own marriages were due to politics and not out of love. So, he just expected his sister to do the same. Go along with his plan to strengthen bonds with another political biggie. Which was wrong ofcourse

Originally posted by: Agni_Jytsona

I don't think it was misogyny—just a bit of entitlement on his part. I am sure many of Krishna s own marriages were due to politics and not out of love. So, he just expected his sister to do the same. Go along with his plan to strengthen bonds with another political biggie. Which was wrong ofcourse

His marriage of politics was his choice. His sister's marriage of politics not her choice so cant be compared unless he discussed with her and convinced.

Also the words he use for women there isnt respectable