Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 30

Created

Last reply

Replies

292

Views

28.8k

Users

17

Likes

715

Frequent Posters

Brahmaputra thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 5 years ago
@amritat - I don't mind replying, we also can discuss about things, but I have no interest in MBh anymore. There is no closure in things related to MBh; it is always like a snake that bites its own tail, it goes on and on, in circles, to its own peril. The earliest you save yourself from it, the best.😊
amritat thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

@amritat - I don't mind replying, we also can discuss about things, but I have no interest in MBh anymore. There is no closure in things related to MBh; it is always like a snake that bites its own tail, it goes on and on, in circles, to its own peril. The earliest you save yourself from it, the best. 😊


@bold - You begun the discussion by raising Kunti's point that eventually led to this. Still, if you say you are no longer interested in Mbh, that's fair enough.

I just had a discussion about that shloka from SE, Nilkantha as well as Gita Press (along with CE) with my Sanskrit-friends, and they still seem to concur with KMG's interpretation/translation than Debroy's, bcoz as per them, "Vaah" in this context is Plural.

But anyway...that's not important anymore, coz I honestly do not wish to pursue this topic any further.

Thanks for your valuable time.



Edited by amritat - 5 years ago
Brahmaputra thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 5 years ago
Since I brought up the dialogue of Kunti, I shall conclude my part by explaining my understanding here.

The key problem is who is being addressed by Kunti and the verse in question are 13, 14 & 15 of chap 135 udyoga parva, Critical Edition.

My take is already known, so no need to repeat.

Debroy's translation is clear, word by word - Kunti is addressing Nakula & Sahadeva in verse 13, but Krishna in verse 14 & 15. The phrasal verb he used "look on" to translate "prekshamana" is defined by Oxford dictionary as "watch without getting involved". It is perhaps the best translation of the situation as Krishna didn't interfere.

In Satwalkar's hindi translation of CE (provided in the first page of this thread), he also translated Kunti addressing the twins in verse 13, and Krishna in 14 & 15. But he played around verse 15 a little and made it look like Krishna was not present in DS. Though it is evidently wrong, it is understandable given how people try to see deeper meaning where none exists but when the traditional view is challeneged, especially when Krishna is in the picture, as in Krishna's offer of Drauapdi to Karna. But the point is Satwalkar also is doubtless that Kunti was addressing Krishna, not Nakula & Sahadeva. Only part in his translation of "taccha va prekshamana..." went wrong.


However, Neelakantha edition and Geeta press edition have slightly different ending of the first line of verse 15, a slight difference in language that can make a huge difference in understanding. Those who are interested can google and read the original themselves. I am not going to quote or give any links. It is in chapter 137. Going by that, KMG seems legit in translating Kunti addressing the twins only, not Krishna.

I am not into a grammatical display regarding that. What more can I say when well known translators differ in opinion here!! It depends only upon which edition a person would like to believe. Both cannot be refuted, both have their own place. And it is not wise to cross-check CE with KMG. Both books are based on entirely different editions.
Top