DOTM#2 : Arjuna's skill defines heroism more than Karna's integrity - Page 7

Epic Narrators

Created

Last reply

Replies

96

Views

4.6k

Users

21

Likes

273

Frequent Posters

RamAayeHain thumbnail
Anniversary 9 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 3

Team Arjun

Posted: 3 months ago
#61

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Thankyou dear. Hope you like the content,


I know even I was surprised when I read Mahabharat the first time. It was like everything I knew was wrong. Such a rude shock it was.


@bold, will it surprise you to know that even Balram wasn't the only brother of Krishna? He had multiple brothers. Harivanshpurana mentions his father totally had 86 children from his various wives (definitely not all would have stayed alive) Krishna is sometimes mentioned as Gada's brother, Gada was therefore another brother of Krishna

These three however were most important and widely known. Hence this is how only they are worshipped.


My personal opinion (this is strictly my inference not conclusive)-- The third deity being worshipped in Jagganath wasn't originally Subhadra but Ekanamsha


Some of the oldest excavations in India(dating from 50 BCE-100CE) especially around the Mathura region (but also as far as in present day Afghanistan) show the glimpses of the 5 Vrishni heroes-- Krishna(Vasudeva), Balrama (Samkarshan), Pradumnya, Anirudhha and Samba. However at places there are also only 3 heroes available all with weapons where two are males Vasudeva and Samkarshan along with a female Ekanamsha. All three here are having their weapons and are represented as warriors.


Unfortunately we don't know now much about her, but at a time, she was highly worshipped by the worshippers of Vrishni. Some later texts state she was The daughter of Nand and Yashoda that was exchanged at birth (hence adopted Vrishni)

Whatsoever slowly her worship decreased and today most even don't know her name. I personally feel that originally the Jagganath was worshipped along with Baldev and her, but as people forgot her, slowly that third deity was accepted as Subhadra. All the more reason because some folklore says she was later reincarnated as Subhadra


B- didn't knew that at all 😮😅damn is the description of Krishna's family is written in Mahabharata?


Woahhh... So Subhadra is just a representation name for the nand yashoda daughter who got exchanged with Shree Krishna and later re incarnated again to be Krishna's sis 🔥 but did this fact matches with the story of Jagannath 🤔

RainOfDew thumbnail

Team Arjun

Posted: 3 months ago
#62

Originally posted by: RamAayeHain


I totally understand smiley36i am also reading Valmiki Ramayan and facing same problem


B- ohh this one is fact, chalo kuch to sahi information di gayi hai serial mein 😅


Read MB soon.. bahut shock lagne walr hainsmiley37


This is next in line after MBsmiley36 The speed with which i m reading it will take like 2 yrs to completesmiley36

Edited by RainOfDew - 3 months ago
RamAayeHain thumbnail
Anniversary 9 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 3

Team Arjun

Posted: 3 months ago
#63

Originally posted by: RainOfDew


Read MB soon.. bahut shock lagne walr hainsmiley37


This is next in line after MBsmiley36 The speed with which i m reading it will take like 2 yrs to completesmiley36


smiley37smiley37yup will have to start soon

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
ICC T20 CWC 2024 Match Winner 0 Thumbnail Anniversary 11 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 3 months ago
#64

Originally posted by: RamAayeHain


B- didn't knew that at all 😮😅damn is the description of Krishna's family is written in Mahabharata?


Woahhh... So Subhadra is just a representation name for the nand yashoda daughter who got exchanged with Shree Krishna and later re incarnated again to be Krishna's sis 🔥 but did this fact matches with the story of Jagannath 🤔

@bold no Subhadra is the real name of Krishna's sister and Vasudev's daughter. But many consider that she was the daughter of Nand Yashoda in her previous birth (commonly identified with Ekmasha in later texts)


To be honest the current day texts don't explain what exactly happened to her after Kansa tried to kill and couldn't.


The Jagganth story is very late and don't actually relate her to that daughter

Loving2Missing2 thumbnail
Anniversary 7 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2

Team - Love Foever

Posted: 3 months ago
#65

Once again Simi, you have come up with a paradigm-churning topic. Beautiful perspectives given in this thread. Very enjoyable and thought-provoking. My sincere apology for coming very very late. Even now, I am not sure whether I can depict my understanding in full.


Let's go to the very start. Was Shantanu following his Rajdharma to ensure that his personal desires didn't interfere with the ruling of Hastinapur? Was he even following pitadharm to firstly not let his son his pining for a woman or thereafter to restrain him from taking an oath to give up his princeship? And what is Shantanu pining for? Lust for a woman after having had divinity of Ganga as his partner? The Dharma as exemplified by Bharata getting violated here.

In fulfilling his putradharma, Devavrat renounces the throne and takes a lifelong oath.

In Tretayug, Rama had renounced throne to fulfill putradharma; but the 'ahum' of me and my oath which is dominating in Devavrata's case was completely absent in Rama's behaviour. Rama chose to streamline normal social life by killing the demons of Dandkaranya. Though he stringently followed renouncement of the throne, he never ever deviated from his Rajdharma. In Devavrata's case the oath became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Satyavati is selfish, yes! But the parampara of prince ship to eldest son of the king comes from the society, not her. She is abiding by the social norms and through that ensuring her importance. When both her sons die without any progeny, she goes back to Bheeshma and requests him to marry her daughter-in-laws. On his refusal, she invites Vyasa to create the progeny heir....... Are the so-called heirs belonging to the Kuru Dynasty anymore????


The first heir is Dhrutarashtra. Because he is born blind, the throne is given to Pandu and Pandu accepts it... So the idealism in human relations seen in Tretayug Ramayan is disappearing.......Bharata had run the kingdom on Rama's behalf; but never taken the throne...... Couldn't Pandu support his elder brother to administer the kingdom? Bhesshma had already vowed to protect the throne and support the kingdom administration, right??.... So what happened?.... Leave aside the mythological entity part and look at Dhrutarashtra as a normal human being..... How would one feel if he suffered an inborn disability for no mistake of his...... and the throne, his birthright, taken away owing to that disability.......Wouldn't the guy feel insecure?


The yogmaya and the vidhata playing their dice game...... Pandu gets a curse and renounces his throne..... so the throne comes back to Dhrutarashtra....... so now his being blind is not an obstacle, is it?....... And you had a physically able Vidura as the same father's progeny...... But now his being Daasiputra comes into play....... So the socially adapted patriarchy loses all its meaning?...... Why such discrimination?....

Bharata had exemplified Rajdharma......sown a seed of democracy in giving Kingdom to his adopted well deserving son rather than his natural-born sons......However, with time, human values are deteriorated.


This is when Yogmaya and Vidhata decide that a complete destruction is necessary.....So Narayan's reincarnation and Krishna is born. In this incarnation, he vocalises his promise "Dharm Sansthapanarthay Sambhavami Yuge Yuge"...... The same commitment he has already been fulfilling since his Matsyavataar...... everything will be destroyed, but the chosen few will be saved by Narayan to reestablish Dharma.


Now come Arjuna and Karna!


Keeping aside the mythological reverence and looking at Arjuna Vs Karna as just humans...... I feel it's more like comparing apple to orange.....Ek ko sab mila hai, doosra apna basic kuchh khojate chala hai..... So this debate is challenging.


Arjuna, The celebrated Indraputra! The acknowledged Prince, the greatest Dhanurdhar! ........But where is the faith, the belief in his limitless capability?...... The gurudakshina of Eklavya's right hand thumb was taken by Drona.... But Arjuna allowed that to happen.....so no accountability, no ownership to that injustice? He did not acknowledge Eklavya as his equivalent expert, he did not dissuade Drona from doing it....... The same non-acknowledgement happens in Karna's case as well...... Duryodhan takes advantage bestowing Karna with kingship and identity.


Karna, Sooryaputra..... a valoured warrior.... a celebrated mrutyunjay!....... He does not have faith in his capabilities either...... his mistake is taking the discrimination of being called Sootaputra to heart...... I can empathise with a child who is unable to relate to his clan because he's so very different than them.....And then the Kavach and Kundala he carried as a birth gift...... he suffers a huge identity crisis..... but why let that crisis affect your righteousness and your decision making?.....He lets this identity crisis rule his decision to accept Duryodhana's gift of Kingship. The anger he hoards in his heart against Draupadi's insult ..... that anger influences his decision making in Draupadi Vastraharan incident...... He violates dharma at many such instances.


Arjuna...... when he was a dhanurdhar so great having Bramhastra....... Then what was the need for Indra to disguise as Brahmin and play on Karna's Daanveer aspect to snatch away the kavach and kundala?..... why did Arjuna not dissuade his father from such illegal weakening of the opponent?


In spite of everything, Arjuna is not corrupt or cunning at heart and he seeks Krishna with true devotion..... So Narayan chooses him as the Nar!........More than who did what, these scriptures Ramayana or Mahabharata teach us to seek Narayan as the Paramatma roop...... Phir voh tumhari naiyya paar kara dega!


Is Mahabharata won by Arjuna's skill or by Krishna's smart brain game??? ...... Was it possible to kill Bheeshma, had Shikhandi not been placed in front?........ An elephant named Ashwatthama was killed and the news given to Drona as Ashwathama dead..... Without that would Arjuna's valor alone could kill Drona?........ Karna, Duryodhana and many others each death was carefully engineered by Krishna..... Arjuna was only the medium!


For Krishna, Arjuna, his medium, was important to execute the complete wipe-out...... So he saved Arjuna in Jayadratha's case as well....... But was Arjuna's oath to jump into fire correct?....... You have seen the vishwaroop of that Paramatma...... You have heard Geeta, the karmayog...... You know there is a greater purpose in this battle..... You know Nainam Chhindanti Shastraani................ Heinous Treatment given to Abhimanyu's corpse needed to be avenged, yes! But Arjuna took that oath under the influence of his anger generated by his maya bandhan.


Krishna's chosen few were the five Pandavas because they were in general righteous......and Dhrutarashtra, Gandhari.....both victims of a social injustice....... for whom living was worse than death after the battle..... And Kunti ..... In a way, the same purpose of Krishna was accepted and acknowledged by Karna when he promised Kunti her five children would stay alive...... A thought comes to my mind.....With Duryodhana, it wasn't Yudhishthir seeking Krishna's help in battle....what would have happened had Duryodhana sent Karna to Krishna? Karna revered Krishna equally and he would also choose to sit at Krishna's feet..... When given a choice, he would perhaps choose Krishna himself and not his sena.....but this was not to be, Vidhi's Vidhaan was already written.


It's Krishna's purpose! Krishna's battle! Krishna engineered destruction!...... Swayam hi Rachana, Swayam Rachayita.... Similarly, he is creating the destruction, but every death on that battlefield is he himself dying bit by bit....... And then he takes the onus of the entire battle and accepts Gandhari's curse..... Suffers the destruction of his own family in the Yaadavi Yuddh....... Krishna is the true hero!


I find Mahabharat a very complex interplay of human relations and extremely difficult to pass judgements. The only thing to understand is that righteousness will save you at the time of final destruction; so be righteous.

chatterbox thumbnail
Anniversary 19 Thumbnail Visit Streak 180 0 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 2 months ago
#66

Wooaah neha


That was awesome views. Just never thought this deep. Rest of the views by all were equally good

To be honest debates r not my cup of tea I run away.

Like I did this time. 😂😂😂😂

What to say ur knowledge is just wow .


Only thing I will ask.

Kidhar ghum thi itne din se

Loving2Missing2 thumbnail
Anniversary 7 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2

Team - Love Foever

Posted: 2 months ago
#67

Originally posted by: chatterbox

Wooaah neha


That was awesome views. Just never thought this deep. Rest of the views by all were equally good

To be honest debates r not my cup of tea I run away.

Like I did this time. 😂😂😂😂

What to say ur knowledge is just wow .


Only thing I will ask.

Kidhar ghum thi itne din se


Thank you, CB dismiley31.

Life hai! Kabhi jakad leti hai, kabhi pakad leti haismiley4...... Aur vaise bhi main thodi late lateef hoon, duniya mein bhi Nau mahine aur 12 din ke baad aayeesmiley37

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
ICC T20 CWC 2024 Match Winner 0 Thumbnail Anniversary 11 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 2 months ago
#68

Originally posted by: Loving2Missing2

Once again Simi, you have come up with a paradigm-churning topic. Beautiful perspectives given in this thread. Very enjoyable and thought-provoking. My sincere apology for coming very very late. Even now, I am not sure whether I can depict my understanding in full.


A lot of pointers here.


Firstly Shantanu had led his kingdom with utmost caution, no one can let say he didn't follow his Rajdharma. But that doesn't take away personal wishes. Practically he had always been a loner after Ganga left him. She had even taken away Bheeshm (then Devrata) with her to return only when he was into his late teens. Isn't it very normal for him to aspire marrying again?? And he had been throughout in conflict. He loved Ganga dearly so let her do what she wished including killing their 8 Sons. The only reason why he had to let go Ganga was because he decided to go against and save Bheeshm from being killed by her... He was always bound by his love for children and his commitment to his wife...


Now coming to his marrying Satyavati, it wasn't her demand to transfer kingdom to her sons but that of her (adoptive) father and Shantanu rejected it. It was Bheeshm who saw his father sad at it and therefore decided to let go his personal life for his father's happiness. We might discuss whether or not it was a correct decision, but in no way can we blame either Shantanu or Satyavati for that. Why and how Satyavati became a selfish woman.


And I don't understand what makes you feel that Devrata let go his Rajdharma. He dedicated himself for the betterment and good governance of his state. He was practically the de facto king (without official designation) for most part of his life when he expanded the domains of his empire, worked for the people within. Also No Bheeshm had never taken an oath to protect the throne.


Now coming to the part of Vedavyas. Both the sons of Satyavati died without having a child, they needed an heir for the throne. She asked Bheeshm to marry and he didn't. She even asked him to atleast have a Niyoga, he didn't. What option did they have then except asking VedVyasa?? About whether they still remained the children of Kuruvanshh. Yes they did. Just like today any child born through IVF (using someone else's sperms) remains the child of his mother's husband. It's not only biology that always play role it is also the rules of the society which at that time where clear that children born out of Niyoga are the children of their mother's husband.

Coming to Dhritrashtra and Pandu. That can not to be compared with Ram and Bharat. Ram wasn't denied the throne because of his deformity. He was a victim of a conspiracy by Bharat's mom He was definitely a better king candidate than Bharat. While Pandu was a better King candidate. Why shall one let go the position he deserves?? Dhritrashtra would have fell insecure no doubt about that, but that doesn't change the fact that he was disabled hence couldn't have become the king. Just like Shikhandi. Being a king is a responsibility not just a right. Even when Pandu absconded, they didn't officiate Dhritrashtra as the king.

No Vidur couldn't have been the king going by the norms of that time, how much so ever one feels bad about it. Vidur was not Bharat who was the son of a learned couple but the son of a Slave women. Children of Slave women were never taken to be worthy of following the family name. Here in fact Vidur didn't even belong to that family line since his mother wasn't VichitraVeer's wife and didn't have him due to Niyoga. He unlike Dhritrashtra or Pandu wasn't officially the son of Vichitraveer. If anything making a king to a child of a Slave women would have caused a public uproar or rebellion which no one could have countered. That thing was completely unacceptable back then.


Coming to the difference between Arjun and Karna. I completely agree that Arjun was better placed with him being the recognised son of Pandu Kunti and even Indra acknowledging him as his biological son unlike Karna who didn't have though despite knowing he was a Nobel born. But then that is only a psychological advantage. Physically definitely Karna was better placed being brought up in a palace unlike Arjun who spent his initial years in a forest as a hermit. And in the palace with a constant fear of dying. Not denying that psychological advantage plays a huge role, but physical comfort is also important.


You can't say Arjun had everything while Karna had none. Karna had his own set things too.


I agree that Arjun was never the most righteous one. He wasn't even near to that. His jealousy to Eklavya is a clear proof about it. That however doesn't cascade to Karna. Here it was opposite and Karna was jealous to Arjun. It was never that Karna wasn't as capable as Arjun (for whatsoever reasons) so why will he be acknowledged so. Duryodhana taking advantage of this is something never mentioned in the texts so I don't know why are you taking it that way. Why can't there be genuine fondness between them?


Karna having identity crisis is definitely undeniable, but how and why do you think that had anything to do with his (lack of) righteousness?

The kawatch kundal aspect. Why shall Indra let undue advantage remain with any opponent?? It's very simple. Whether or not he could be killed with that is a different topic but when there is an opportunity to take it away why not just do that?? Aside he didn't take it up during or just before the war but years before that. Also eventually Karna traded it, it wasn't any "daan"


Completely agree Bheeshm was killed by planning of Krishna. Drona wasn't killed by Arjun but by Dhristadhyum and Arjun was angry the way he was killed. Karna killing was completely proper.

Skills of Arjun might not have been enough to get him win the war, but was definitely enough to defeat Karna everytime they encountered.


I don't understand what made you feel Karna was equally devoted to Krishna going by the fact he tried to arrest Krishna when He came as a mediator. Also sending an employee of yours to do seek alliance is always worse than personally visiting for that purpose.

What do you find better? Someone coming to your home for inviting you or someone sending their servant to invite you?


Aside what makes Pandavas righteous?? I don't think they ever were..

Loving2Missing2 thumbnail
Anniversary 7 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2

Team - Love Foever

Posted: 2 months ago
#69

Thank you for expressing your opinion on my shared views. Let us not get at loggerheads with each other but understand this thread as a paradigm churning, A Meemansa or A Manthan.


I saw your video on myths of Mahabharata (not in full owing to lack of time then). You have already studied the critical edition of Mahabharata. so we both agree that Mahabharata started as an orally transmitted tale and the recovered Original Vyasa written "Jaya" was just 8800 verses. Sukhtankar himself agreed that it was impossible to reconstruct an actual fluid text of the whole Mahabharat.


So the way Ganesha wrote Mahabharat is added later on, I wonder how many incidents are actually authentic?? Even in current times of preserving written texts there's so much deviation from historical facts in media e.g. the famous misnomer of Jodha Bai. So one can only imagine what happened in the BC and BCE era.


What's best for us is to interpret the teaching/learning we take from these epic scriptures. The scriptures can be interpreted in multiple ways...... Each one is right and from the creator's viewpoint perhaps none.


I have a firm belief that dharma starts degrading as a slow process. It's that state like cancer when there's a choice to revert back..... When you don't, it becomes a state/ a phase which the creator cascades to the worst possible limits and then creates final destruction.......


In DKDM, I loved one dialogue of Mahadev in the Jalandhar track .... A person is always given two choices..... destiny is all about the result of the choices he has made...... And a sentence that appears in the last Krishna Chapter in Mrityunjay, the Marathi Novel..... I am always telling you what's right or wrong but when you unhear me constantly, then I create death in front of you..... That moment between life transitioning to death always brings the TRUE REALISATION!


You are an erudite yourself on Mahabharata. So let us both, Instead of judging from outside, make an effort to understand character psychology. You are defending Shantanu and Satyavati whereas I held them equally responsible along with Bheeshma...... I am fully aware of and agree with the data points you gave about Shantanu Period..... Now let's discuss about whether he's allowed to have personal wishes?....... When his personal wish starts interfering with the future of Kingdom, then no! You have assumed a position which requires a lot of personal wish sacrifices...... You needed a wife? Fine! Choose any beauty who does not take away your legal heir ke rights....... Satyavati's adoptive father put forth the conditions, then Satyavati could make her father understand that she becoming the queen itself was itself a great feat achieved and if she ever got sons they would still be princes...... How can a condition be put forth based on a future occurrence? All girls born hoti toh kya karate? Bachche hote hi nahi toh kya karate?...... And with such condition, Shantanu should not start pining to such a level that his son, the prince, understood something was wrong........Devadatta/Devavrata, The prince should not have taken an oath like ab jaan gayee toh bhi nahi todunga.


Ram could not unify with Seeta for 14 years after his marriage and thereafter he had to send a pregnant Seeta to the jungles to fend for herself during which he remained faithful with Seeta........ I have a personal experience to share. I lost my mother in my childhood but my father refrained from remarrying because he wasn't sure whether any stepmother would give correct treatment. He dedicated his life to first raise me and thereafter my kids while I lived abroad for my career........... With such example benchmarks seen at multiple places, I will not spare Shantanu as never have faltered. Of course, I agree that he was a good administrator...... but then so was Raavana for Lanka and in current times, Hitler for Germany. Can they be spared as no fault of theirs?


So the destiny of these choices made by Shantanu, Satyavati and Devavrata is the birth of incapable Vichitraveerya and Chitrangada....... The cascade starts from thereon leading to a blind Dhrutarashtra and an anemic Pandu and a servant heir Vidur further.


Regarding Bheeshma and Rajdharma......... I wonder what he and Satyavati were doing when Vichitraveerya got addicted or when Chitrangada started getting air in his head?...... Aaj bhi bachche wrong path pe ja rahe hain, toh ek chamaat hum log laga hi dete hain for their own betterment...... So doesn't Bheeshma's Rajdharma include guiding these two heirs to proper kinghood...... And if he was as such the de facto King, then follow your parampara and make Dhrutarashtra the king..... Bheeshma and Pandu could easily take care of duties which he couldn't cater to...... Agar Vichitraveerya King ho sakata hai toh Dhrutarashtra kyun nahi?


If Bheeshma was truly fulfilling his duties, then he would give the example of Bharata and advise Satyavati on a deserving candidate from their huge family clans as there used to be. Or he would accept the non-fulfilment of his own oath...... By staying stuck on that oath, he only creates his name as Bheeshma...And this is his ahankaar... No benefit thereon for the great Kuru empire which had been running through generations...... In all further period, he is not decisive with anybody. With every non-choice of his, Hastinapur destiny gets worse and worse.


Dhrutarashtra and Pandu as per IVF logic given by you can be said sons of Ambika and Ambalika. But the claim that they are the heir of Kuruvansh ancestral property, Hastinapur kingdom, can be disputed even today, especially with DNA parenting becoming a vital test to prove the parentage.


Destruction is planned by Vidhata due to an overall social degradation including Varnabhed for treating Vidur as Daasiputra or Karna as Sootapootra, also treating the kingdom like personal property and not acting as public servant to Mother Earth and the Praja, gambling, disrespect for women.

Panchali and Arjun are Vidhata's mediums to bring the degradation cascade to the absolute base of Vastraharan and the real purpose of the entire Mahabharat, the Geeta.

I am not aware of Dhritarashtra not being considered the king. In that case, was Hastinapur Throne kept vacant till Kauravas and Pandavas grew old enough to show their colours? This is just my query.

Also, as per my information, Karna didn't live in the palace. He met Duryodhan and the other clan for the first time during the competition. Because he wanted to prove his archery skills against Arjuna and was denied the opportunity, his jealousy against Arjuna fired up.

Arjun had everything while Karna had none. Karna had his own set things too.:- I have a nephew who's an adopted child to middle-class parents. Today he has strived to become a successful businessman. By some conspiracy of the Universe, if he had Akash Ambani as an Opponent in some business competition, what would my nephew's winning chances be? Though his capabilities are much better because he didn't get anything on silver platter and then had to understand his being original orphan, so the mental trauma and adjustment thereafter. That's why I mentioned comparing Orange to apple.

I thought of Karna being devoted to Krishna based on my various readings and multiple serial depictions right from B R Chopra Mahabharat to Radha Krishna of StarPlus recently. If you have any PDF of the authentic Mahabharat edition, please do share across or copy paste the part where he tried to arrest Krishna. I have the belief, it was Duryodhana ordering his soldiers to arrest Krishna.


Pandavas are not Doodh ke dhoole, I agree. But that's the beauty of the scripture. I derive this trust that Narayana /Krishna is a true kamalnayan..... Like the Lotus grows in the mud-slush but the dirt doesn't touch it; so I may have multiple avagun, par voh chit nahi dharega..... he will see the goodness of my soul.



To Sima,

I humbly request once again. Could you please change the title from DOTM. The word debate gets a connotation like swords leke khade ho gaye...... Meemansa or Manthan is a much better way of having healthy sharing/discussion of paradigms. After all, what's the use of Mythology if we don't take learnings from it and implement in our lives?smiley2

In next one, if the title continues, I'll follow CB di's way and not share my views.

Edited by Loving2Missing2 - 2 months ago
1169321 thumbnail
Posted: 2 months ago
#70

Hey

I actually thought about it but I don't think the story was changed because it was being narrated to Arjuna's great grandson.

The Kavya was composed by Ved Vyasa and was told by him to his subordinates who then went to various places and participated in "Katha Vachan"

This particular incident took place in Yagna hosted by Janmejaya but what we read is actually being retold by a Katha Vachak who was present in that Yagna and he didn't have any connection to Arjuna

I don't think they'd present a distorted version of Mahabharata to Janmejaya as it was in form of a poem, it is much more difficult to change

Edited by NoraSM - 2 months ago
Top