DBSK depictions & presentations - Page 3 | Dwarkadheesh

First Previous

page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

We discussed this some in that earlier thread about Sagar Arts vs Sagar Pictures. Sagar Arts has some clue about the various events in mythology, but Sagar pictures has none. From day 1, a number of the religious practices and the significance of event escaped them, as well as actual histoy. Only time they got it more or less right was the killing of Narakasura.

Actually, even RS SK did a pretty mediocre job of that serial - for instance, IIRC, showing Paundrak being slain by Hanuman, or totally reshuffling the sequence of events in the Mahabharata war. But yeah, in this serial, the previous track of Susheela's rebellion against Sudama, as well as his resuming his begging activities, showed how clueless SP is. As for the current track, the only thing they got right was Paundrak pretending to be god. Rest all is just them making up whatever they feel like.

I don't think any of the Sagars are qualified to cover Dwapar Yuga, so I agree w/ you. Incidentally, who are the guys producing DkDM?

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

IF-Addictz

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
We discussed this some in that earlier thread about Sagar Arts vs Sagar Pictures. Sagar Arts has some clue about the various events in mythology, but Sagar pictures has none. From day 1, a number of the religious practices and the significance of event escaped them, as well as actual histoy. Only time they got it more or less right was the killing of Narakasura.

Actually, even RS SK did a pretty mediocre job of that serial - for instance, IIRC, showing Paundrak being slain by Hanuman, or totally reshuffling the sequence of events in the Mahabharata war. But yeah, in this serial, the previous track of Susheela's rebellion against Sudama, as well as his resuming his begging activities, showed how clueless SP is. As for the current track, the only thing they got right was Paundrak pretending to be god. Rest all is just them making up whatever they feel like.

Yes, Sagar Arts is a lot better than Sagar Pictures...but if Jai Jai Jai Bajrangbali is Sagar Arts, they're doing a shoddy job of that too. Is that Sagar pictures? Chandragupta Maurya I think is Sagar Arts, and along with Mahima Shani Dev Ki, which isn't doing that bad, they both have decent TRPs compared to the current Sagar Pictures shows. Even Veer Shivaji is doing very well with the audience, and it's also Sagar Arts. I think Sagar Arts stays true to the mythos/historical stories more in terms of not only storyline but also settings. Everything in Sagar Pictures is always dark and gloomy.

You already know that I don't like the post-RS part of SK much...they did show a lot of major events poorly, and except for a few scenes like the Tulabharam and Rukmini Haran, majority of it was dragged endlessly, especially the latter part of the serial. Only part of the Mahabharat track I liked was Abhimanyu Vadh and Arjuna's vow, which was shown well and was very emotional.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

CGM is currently a totally fictional show, so I wouldn't count it as a feather in their cap. And VS - it's true that after the death of Shambhuji, there was a civil war among the Marathas due to Tarabai, the DIL of Shivaji's 2nd wife (and of course Shivaji himself). But his own early days being transformed into a saas-bahu-2nd bahu triangle is just too much to digest. The other fear I have about such historical shows is the tendency to whitewash the villains due to political correctness, which is why I avoid such shows like the plague. Am not watching the Shobha Somnath ki for that reason too.

MDSK is good, but it's like the Panchatantra - pure fiction. Like for instance, the artificial insertion of Shani Dev into stories where he wasn't present. Plus the last few episodes have been disappointing.

Incidentally, how accurate is it to call it post RS, when RS appeared in the final episode w/ his bhashan and delivered it? I don't really believe that he disapproved of any of the things that were shown.

Edited by .Vrish. - 12 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

LJR

I moved our discussion here, so that we can discuss it beyond the previous update

Quote

varaali

@varaali

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

A belated response to one of your posts- There were neither idols nor idol worshippers of Krishna during his lifetime. The people would have worshipped either Shiva (as a lingam) or Vishnu.

In fact Krishna himself worshipped an idol of Vishnu (in standing pose with Shankha Chakra, Gada and Padma) . Just before the deluge at Dwaraka, Krishna handed over this precious idol to Uddahva and asked him to worship it the same way Krishna had done. Uddhava taking the idol with him proceed to Badari Ashram. Towards the end of his life, he entrusted the idol to Brihaspati and Vayu asking them to enshrine the idol in a suitable place. Guru and Vayu found a place in Kerala to be most suitable (a piece of land which had been ploughed out by Parashurama) and established the idol there. This is same idol which is being worshipped in Guruvayoour till today.

Neither did Krishna give darshan of his divine form to all and sundry. Bhishma was probably aware of his inherent divinity, but revealed it publicly only on his death bed when he chanted the Vishnu Sahasranama in the presence of Krishna. To Arjuna (and thereby Sanjaya) he gave his Vishwaroop darshan. Akrura was one other person to whom Krishna actually revealed his Vishnu roop. Kunti recognized him as their saviour only after Parikshit was resurrected. Sudama was a dear friend- a sakha - not a devotee.

Edited by varaali - 12 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

When Krishna was giving his discourse to Arjun, was Sanjaya hearing all that as well? And how would Sanjaya get the Vishwaroopa vision if the only person Krishna was giving it to was Arjun?

But Akrura was one of the 3 conspirators who plotted to kill Satrajit, and who got the Syamantaka gem after Kritavarma declined to keep it. So why would Krishna be favorably disposed towards him?

Quote

varaali

@varaali

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
When Krishna was giving his discourse to Arjun, was Sanjaya hearing all that as well? And how would Sanjaya get the Vishwaroopa vision if the only person Krishna was giving it to was Arjun?

Vrish,

Refer SLoka 74-78 of the 18th Chapter (Moksha Sanyasa Yoga) of Bhagavat Gita. The original Sanskrit and its translation, you can read it online.

In the 74 sloka, Sanjaya says "Thus I have heard the wonderful dialogue b/w Vasudeva and Partha, causing my hair to stand on end"

In the 75 sloka he says "Through the grace of Vyasa have I heard the supreme and most profound yoga direct from krishna, the Lord of Yoga Himself declaring it

And especially in the 77th sloka he exclaims "And as often as I recall that most wondrous form of Hari, great is my astonishment, O king and I rejoice again and again .

Sanjaya concludes by saying " Yatra Yogeshwaro Krishno Yatro Partho Dhaurdhara , Tatra Shree Vijayo bhootir Dhruva neetir Matir mama." (Where ever there is Krishna, the Lord of Yoga, where there is Partha, the archer, there exist Prosperity, Victory, Happiness, Firm Governance, such indded is my conviction"

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

But what was the point of Krishna giving him that, when on day 18, when the the last of the Kaurava warriors - Sudarshan, Shakuni, Ulooka were getting killed, Sanjaya went there to join the battle, but was quickly defeated & captured by Satyaki, and released only due to the intervention of Vyasa? Krishna himself said that only a few are allowed that privilege, and I don't see how Sanjaya deserved it above anyone else.

Quote

varaali

@varaali

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

But Akrura was one of the 3 conspirators who plotted to kill Satrajit, and who got the Syamantaka gem after Kritavarma declined to keep it. So why would Krishna be favorably disposed towards him?

Akrura was blessed with the vision of the Divine forms of Krishna and Balarama when he was escorting them from Vrindavan to Mathura. (So it was before the Syamantaka Mani episode )This is described in great detail in the 39 chapter of the 10 Skanda. While performing his Sandha Vandana in the waters of Yamuna, Akrura saw Balarama as Ananta Sesha and Krishna as Vishnu reclining on his serpant, in full splendour with other Gods and Goddesses, Narada, Prahalada, the Sanakadi rishis, singing his glories.

Akrura overwhelmed at this sight, begins to pray- which is narrated in the next chapter- No 40.

While Akrura incited Shatadhanva to murder Satrajit, he took no part in the actual murder (Does this reduce the severity of his guilt?) In fact when Shatadhanva wanted to give the gem to Akrura for safekeeping, Akrura flatly refuses, praising Krishna in four slokas. Nevertheless Shathadhanva, left the mani in Akrura's possession

Even after Akrura and Kritavarma fled Dwaraka on hearing the death of Shatadhanva, Krishna

spoke gently to Akrura, and only wanted him to show the gem to the citizens of Dwaraka and especially Satyabhama. Krishna then allowed Akrura to retain the jewel but ensured that all gold received from it should go to Satyabhama or her sons.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

The conspiracy against Satrajit was done by all 3 - Akrura, Kritavarma and Satadhandva. Satadhandva, after finding out that Krishna was after him, first tried to get refuge from Kritavarma, who refused to incur Krishna's wrath. Same w/ Akrura - he too didn't want to incur Krishna's wrath, so Satadhandva gave him the gem hoping to save himself that way.

The last part of what you described is correct - Krishna had Akrura keep the gem, but give the gold to Satyabhama & her children.

Quote

1 2 3 4 5