Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 8

Originally posted by: amritat

Personally, I have slight reservation with the idea that Karna became Karna only after giving up his Kavach Kundal. This is bcoz, he is addressed throughout the epic as Karna by different characters, without or without Kavach Kundal. I understand that the story is composed later...so if the narrator calls him Karna, it is understood. But the various characters too? I feel the narrator wouldnt have made such a cardinal mistake there.

To be honest, it is easier for me to believe that the reason provided behind Karna's name is interpolation, rather than his whole participation with Duryodhan or his study at Drone's Gurukul.

Karna also means "ear" if I am not wrong. Was he named as such bcoz of his Kundalas? I cannot say, just guessing.

Originally posted by: riti4u

That part looks vague.. and incomplete perhaps.. don't laugh but only thing I cud make sense is karna introducing himself when asking drona for permission😆

Originally posted by: amritat

@Brahmaputra - I am honestly not 100% sure about Vaikartana though. Is he addressed as Vaikartana by his friends n foes, except the narrators anywhere? I would need some help there to find out citations about this.

And by facts, I mean Adhirath and Dhritarashtra were friends IIRC.

2.) I follow the text of CE there. I think he was in Drone's Gurukul for a short time, and did become friends with Duryodhan.

3.) Originally, I read that part thinking RB is Karna's entry scene. But once I read that Karna n Duryodhan were friends, I re-read RB. Honestly, I did not find their exchange unnatural. Both swearing their friendship for one another may have been a figure of speech.

4.) Agree about Bhima part. That part confuses me too, and honestly, I have no answer to it. One possibility is that, like you said, Karna was there for a short while. He may have stayed mostly with Duryodhan n Co. So, Bhima did not really recall him, but Arjun did, for obvious reasons.

This, I admit, is purely my speculation, nothing else. Mahabharata has too many contradictions and loose ends.

5.) It is probably bcoz, for the first time, Yudisthir sees the full strength of Karna for the first time, the skill which he may have honed, courtesy Parshuram.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

My primary concern about Karna here is his age. By the time Drona began his gurukula, Karna was too old to begin studying. He must have been 15 at least. It was an age by which boys already became engaged in their father's job, back then. He was not Krishna to start studying at 16. If we go by SR, Karna was 30 when he joined Drona's gurukula. It would be ridiculous to imagine poor Arjuna feeling jealous of some 45 year old uncle in Rangabhoomi. 😆

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Exactly, there is always something that contradicts the other. That is why I these days end up following Adi Shankara who in his commentary on Bhagavat Geeta wrote that Mahabharata was Vyasa's imagination, which indicates that the poet only used a story as a tool to express his ideas, that Vyasa had a story and he created characters accordingly. I have tried enough to make sense of the story he wrote and recently began to feel tired thinking about it and discussing. Now Mahabharata is becoming no different than War & Peace to me, except that I happen to love War & Peace.😆

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Exactly, there is always something that contradicts the other. That is why I these days end up following Adi Shankara who in his commentary on Bhagavat Geeta wrote that Mahabharata was Vyasa's imagination, which indicates that the poet only used a story as a tool to express his ideas, that Vyasa had a story and he created characters accordingly. I have tried enough to make sense of the story he wrote and recently began to feel tired thinking about it and discussing. Now Mahabharata is becoming no different than War & Peace to me, except that I happen to love War & Peace.😆

Originally posted by: riti4u

Or it could be possible that many things are lost or misinterpreted in translation over the ages...after all it traveled through so many ways.. first by vocal and then by records... sometimes even Sanskrit translation can give different meaning to intended event or story...

There are places which are associated with Mahabharat so there can be some fact.. or a feud between brothers which became known in some other form as it traveled..

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Section 59, Shalya Parva

Having struck Duryodhana down, the valiant Bhimasena, approaching the Kuru chief, addressed him, saying, "O wretch, formerly laughing at the disrobed Draupadi in the midst of the assembly, thou hadst, O fool, addressed us as 'Cow, Cow!' Bear now the fruit of that insult!"

"They that had dragged Draupadi, while ill, into the assembly and had disrobed her there, behold those Dhartarashtras slain in battle by the Pandavas through the ascetic penances of Yajnasena's daughter!

While clad in a single raiment and in her season, the princess Krishna was treated cruelly by Duhshasana in the midst of the assembly and before the eyes of all. Those scorchers of foes, the Pandavas, who still remember thenaked Draupadi plunged into distress, can never be dissuaded from battle.

regarding drapaudi not mentioning it than there can be many reasons for that the act was extremely disturbing for anybody to mention again and again

another reason given to not believe it because krishna was raised to god status much latter than first draft of mb was written but this kind of reminds me of father of genetic greoger mendel who explain theory of inherhitance much before microscope was actually discovered people didnt believed him at that time because of lack of evidence not because it was not true he got recognise much after his death same with krishna whose was recognised much latter than after his death in both cases things were discarded because people failed to think beyond what they saw its human nature we believe what we see since there was not much evidence of either mendels theory or krishna s divinity than they refuted it at that time but all of it was proved latter

and now after so many years scholars are using it to refuse it again using the same old debate refusing it yet again because we dont want to believe things we dont see but than there was a time people even refused to believe that humans can fly like birds but today this is possible isnt it or presence of electricity,internet etc

personally i firmly believe in vh , divine intervention, and even in gita gyan anything and everything cannot be later addition and above all i believe in the presence of krishna

if we are really trying to remove mystic factor than the kavach-kundal daan is also not valid as that itself is quiet hard to believe that a boy can be born with them

apart from there many instances which don not fit with "real' thing

bottom line is we cannot be so sure that these things which are apparatenly magical or beyond imagination today didnt existed at that time i take it as a science og those times 😆

not mentioning cannot be the reason for not happening