Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
They are cutting so much. I am not liking it at all
The TRPs being affected too.
The TRP is less than 2.5 this week.
They're cutting? This is what yesterday supposedly was, and it seemed pretty complete to me
Originally posted by: proteeti
why am i like 20 episodes behind on every single show that i watch?! 😆ðŸ˜
Where are you right now? I've been watching it on YouTube, and I've just completed the Tulabharam incident.
Note that I have been skipping a lot, like the gopis, Radha, much of Gurukul (other than the avatar stories), Udhav, Arjun & Subhadra.
Where are you right now? I've been watching it on YouTube, and I've just completed the Tulabharam incident.
Note that I have been skipping a lot, like the gopis, Radha, much of Gurukul (other than the avatar stories), Udhav, Arjun & Subhadra.
I'm at Krishna-ka-mitti-khana part. 😆
Everything's so quiet here? Things have re-opened?
Anyway, are they skipping all Mahabharat episodes?
On 11th July, they showed this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GjLJdUbmME
and 12th July, they showed this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2qFiPz52Jo
In other words, they skipped all the Lakshagriha episodes?
Is that what they're planning to do w/ this serial - skip everything Mahabharat? In that case, after the killing of Paundrak and Durjaya, they'll then go immediately to Vajranam and Banasura?
The earlier telecasts of this serial in the 90s was a disaster due to all the channel shifting: this was actually a great opportunity to show the entire original serial end to end, maybe making it a nightly show given the lockdown? They could have knocked it off by the end of this year
Really? What are they showing right now?
The serial was largely Srimad Bhagavatam, but w/ healthy portions of Mahabharat thrown in. After the death of Paundrak, it went to Mahabharat, although the chronological order of things was garbled. For instance, they seem to show Bhima's encounter w/ Hanuman, which occurred during the Pandava exile, as happening b4 the vastraharan. And they pack in Arjun's humiliation by Hanuman, and also toss in fictitious lessons for Balarama and the Sudarshan chakra as well.
While dedicating a large number of episodes to Sudama, they missed some pretty important stuff, such as the killing of Satyajit (guess they'd have been at a loss to show that since Akrura was one of the disgruntled suitors of Satyabhama) as well as the war b/w Krishna and Shalva, Dantavatra and Vidyutjeeva. Also, there were quite a number of fun stories about Krishna's other 5 marriages. Incidentally, in the Narakasura track, they seemed to make no mention about Krishna's marriage to the 16,100 captives of Naraka: they went straight to the Parijat tree and then to the Tulabharam episode.
^^ Wasn't Akrura really old at the time of Satyabhama's marriage? He was the same as as Vasudeva and Kamsa. Also, SB never mentions 'disgruntled suitors' as Satyabhama didn't have a swayamvar. Her father simply gives her in marriage to Krishna after the syamantaka mani incident.
This is the chapter that SB seemingly didn't cover. And it's obvious why: the fact that they were totally muddled as to the chronological sequence would have become clear, since all this happened during the house of lac, which in the serial took place way before the Syamantaka gem events.
The ACK Syamantaka Gem had it that Satyajit had actually promised Satyabhama's hand to any one of these 3 - Akrura, Kritavarma and Satadhanva. So when he turned on them and offered her hand to Krishna instead, they didn't like it, and when Krishna and Balarama were away, they plotted. Satadhandva was given the job of stealing the jewel, and murdered Satyajit in the process. Satyabhama then fled to Hastinapur to get Krishna to get her father justice, while Satadhanva was refused help by either Kritavarma or Akrura. He then left the jewel w/ Akrura and fled, and when Krishna killed him, he didn't find it, and ultimately got it from Akrura, but told Akrura to keep it, and just give him its gold.
So no, Satyabhama didn't have a swayamvara, but she did have prior suitors. I'm not sure whether the expanded text actually has it that Satyajit promised them anything, but given that they reacted the way they did after she was offered to Krishna over them, I'm inclined to think that Satyajit did, and conveniently forgot all about it when Krishna returned his jewel. Otherwise someone like Akrura wouldn't have turned on him despite Satyabhama being given to Krishna.
This story was also alluded to in Mausala Parva in Mahabharata, when Satyaki and Kritavarma started trading accusations on each other. One of the things Satyaki attacked Kritavarma for was causing Satyajit's death
Yadavs as we discussed were never a collective or happy lot.
Akura ji definitely wasn't some devotee of SriKrishna as it's clear from the actions of him throughout.
The Andhaks led by Kritvarma were definitely anti Krishna.
I guess It's only Satyaki who was always a true support to Krishna (not even Balram, at least not after they reached Dwarika. He often got angry and left)
They just always had that forged image of togetherness because they were at external threat and they needed the guidance of Krishna
By Mausual Parva their external issues were resolved so the internal power conflict took a front seat. It was definitely not just a night fight turned into the end, it was a mutual mistrust building over the years which eventually burst out that night
I guess one of the reasons of so close Krishna Arjun friendship was that Krishna lacked such unselfish and pure relation back home
The shows have Akroorji as a complete devotee to Krishna, which he definitely wasn't, but that means they can't show the wrongs he did
Good points made about Akrura
Balarama had weird opinions: just b'cos he thought as highly about Duryodhan as Drona did about Arjun, he supported him. In fact, on the question of whom to support, he was at different times, all over the place. In the Mahabharat, during Vana parva, he was pro Pandava (in terms of fighting for them), in Udyog Parva, he declined to join either side, and in Shalya parva, the flashback accounts have him trying to persuade Krishna to support Duryodhan. He should have done what Drona did vis a vis Arjun, and joined the Pandava side so that he could just battle Duryodhan. In the process, he could even have had fun w/ some other mace warriors, such as Shalya.
That said, what most books and serials show about Balarama wanting Subhadra to marry Duryodhan is a myth. In SB, he just thought about it, but it seems that he wanted her to marry the man of her choice. That didn't work for Krishna, since Subhadra marrying a Kaurava ally would have bound Krishna to the Kauravas.
On the Andhakas, the thing I wonder - did they have some sort of latent loyalty to Kansa? That's the only explanation for their seeming hostility to Krishna. For Kritavarma, his son Bali happened to marry Krishna/Rukmini's daughter Charumati, so that should have theoretically swung Krishna more to the Andhaka side.
Yeah, in the 36 years b/w the Kurukshetra war (probably even longer given Kritavarma joining the Kauravas) and the Mausala events, the differences definitely grew. Mausala parva describes how all the Yadavas, except Krishna and Balarama, became more depraved, and chances are that the Vrishni-Andhaka differences were getting more pronounced. Samba and his friends mocking the rishis didn't come out of nowhere: it was the perception of invincibility that seemed to convince them that anything goes, w/ the result of the curse and everything that followed.
Arjun worked out the best deal by giving the sons of Satyaki, Kritavarma and Anirudha kingdoms of their own, rather than force them to live together in a contrived coalition
comment:
p_commentcount