Vedur - Page 2

Originally posted by: ...SaRun...

Thanks for this information as I did not have any idea about it.One more question if all the boys were born at the same time then how come Satayavati knew before their birth that they wont be perfect to become the king. If the first spem did the job how come the very next could do the job again?

And it shows that this neyog thing was not a good thing to do.Both princesses did not want it at first place but Satyavati forced them and her plan again backfired by both kids were born with imperfections.

This is the perfect example of man proposes God disposes.

The throne belonged to Bheesham but greed of Satyavati took it to someone else's dynasty,Ved Vyasa.

Ved Vyasa was son of Satyavathi ...when she called him that time he was in solute living in Himalayas so he told to wait for few months so till then he will be looking calmer but Satyavathi said she wanted to do that without waiting
so when Ambika saw him she closed her eyes ... and Ambalika went white with fear
and Ved Vyasa saw them closing eyes and going white so he knew what will happen and he told this to Satyavathi so she said to elder to go once again but she send her maid who was mother of Vidur

yes they should have shown this bit... I also did not understand all that part

Originally posted by: Shaya_123

Ved Vyasa was very unpleasent and fearsome in look due to which when Ambika saw him, she closed her eyes and Ambalika went pale with fear. As a result, Dhritarastra was born blind and Pandu was born sickly. Both of them were not qualified for becoming kings. Thereafter Satyavathi asked Vyasa to grant a son to Ambika so that at least one of the boys born are eligible in all respects. Hence Ambika sent a lady-in-waiting to Vyasa from which Vidur was born. That lady didn't get scared of him and hence a healthy boy was born.

In B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat, I thought they showed Ved Vyasa himself to call a third lady.

Originally posted by: naraine

In B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat, I thought they showed Ved Vyasa himself to call a third lady.

Yes this i agree with this part should have been shown and it wouldnt have taken long to show this part also

I agree that the part should have been shown, but That story was Pretty Explicit, so Hence I guess, they've thought better to narrate a little than having them broadly as perhaps to avoid the misconducts that, might have been on Viewers mind without properly understanding the situation.

Originally posted by: MrToolConfuser

I agree that the part should have been shown, but That story was Pretty Explicit, so Hence I guess, they've thought better to narrate a little than having them broadly as perhaps to avoid the misconducts that, might have been on Viewers mind without properly understanding the situation.

They are not showing the relevant points just making a story so that they come quickly to the period when the war took place Hence the Battle of Mahabharat

It is clear that they just want to show the war without dragging the story on n on for months
it's a very fast paced story without logic but half cooked noodles eaten from between where it is cooked the rest thrown out to the bin😡

But if they really show it in detail then it would take t - 3 yrs like the last Mahabharata
and we all know this Mahabharata is going to live only for 6 months 😆
thank god😃

Originally posted by: naraine

In B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat, I thought they showed Ved Vyasa himself to call a third lady.