Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 30

CONTEST : IPL 2024 Prediction Game

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

amritat

@amritat

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 5 years ago

#291

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

@red - Indeed, you should do it my dear. Because you got it wrong again. The actual sloka you can read below, verse no 14 and 15. [chap 135, udyoga parva, CE available with sacred texts, in case the link I am posting below doesn't work]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05135.htm

You also may seek anyone who knows Sanskrit for clarification. I have no problems.

Kunti addressing the sons of Madri is only verse no 13. Because that verse is addressed in dwivachana, which is a plural that has no parallel in English grammar. The person who is addressed in verse 14 is again addressed as singular, Purushottama. That is a singular noun. Then the first line of verse 15 is where Kunti says Drauapdi was insulted before you. There again in Sanskrit, the word used for YOU is 'vaha', which is singular YOU.

Yaccha vaha prekshamaanaanam!

So I didn't get it wrong. You got it wrong, KMG got it wrong, Debroy got that singular you right!

As for my knowledge in Sanskrit, I do hold some degree in it. I am ready to produce my certificate online for anyone who has doubts, once I reach home. I am hospitalised now. I am sorry for bragging about my credibility, but I would very much like to see the accusation on me disproved.

I often wonder upon what is your authority to decide over matters related to Mahabharata! If your knowledge in Sanskrit is Zero, so is the value of your opinions about Mahabharata.

Any Tom, Dick and Harry can read translations and research papers and behave like "hey, I know a lot, whatever you say is plain nonsense". For someone well studied in research, it doesn't make much effort to prove every research paper pointless. Those who depend upon translations and research papers to understand Mahabharata and join discussions to disprove everything they can't digest are only pitiable. All they have is used and borrowed stuff. They might find some value for their opinions in second hand book markets!

Now, lock that as well, deep in your memory.😎

I will refute your points later as I am currently in office, but I am slightly confused at your tone.

@bold - which accusation exactly? I dont remember having accused YOUR knowledge, just only discussing a shloka hy comparing Debroy n KMG. And I am not really interested in seeing your certificates or credential.

Oh wait a sec...are you referring to the wazzocks?

I was not talking about YOU!!! OMG!!!!

I was referring to some people I had encountered on Facebook fanpages in the past one year. Kindly read my comment again.

Edited by amritat - 5 years ago

Quote

Brahmaputra

@Brahmaputra

IF-Sizzlerz

+ 2

Posted: 5 years ago

#292

Originally posted by: amritat

I will refute your points later as I am currently in office, but I am slightly confused at your tone.
@bold - which accusation exactly? I dont remember having accused YOUR knowledge, just only discussing a shloka hy comparing Debroy n KMG. And I am not really interested in seeing your certificates or credential.

Oh wait a sec...are you referring to the wazzocks?
I was not talking about YOU!!! OMG!!!!

I was referring to some people I had encountered on Facebook fanpages in the past one year. Kindly read my comment again.

@bold - My bad, I edited my comment. You also may, if you wish. Anyhow, you may continue this discussion with someone else. I am done. I already told that yesterday.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

amritat

@amritat

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 5 years ago

#293

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

@bold - My bad, I edited my comment. You also may, if you wish. Anyhow, you may continue this discussion with someone else. I am done. I already told that yesterday.

Can a discussion be ended abruptly without getting closure? I am not sure, but I guess we better do here.

But you can be assured of one thing. Since I am not a Sanskrit scholar myself and somewhat handicapped in this regard (at least, till I acquire some degree, even if a Diploma), I ran through our whole conversation through three people who know Sanskrit/have a degree in Sanskrit. Had there been agreement between the four of you, I would have ended the discussion yesterday itself.

Feel free to not reply, I have no issues.

Edited by amritat - 5 years ago

Quote

Brahmaputra

@Brahmaputra

IF-Sizzlerz

+ 2

Posted: 5 years ago

#294

@amritat - I don't mind replying, we also can discuss about things, but I have no interest in MBh anymore. There is no closure in things related to MBh; it is always like a snake that bites its own tail, it goes on and on, in circles, to its own peril. The earliest you save yourself from it, the best.😊

Quote

amritat

@amritat

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 5 years ago

#295

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra
@amritat - I don't mind replying, we also can discuss about things, but I have no interest in MBh anymore. There is no closure in things related to MBh; it is always like a snake that bites its own tail, it goes on and on, in circles, to its own peril. The earliest you save yourself from it, the best. 😊

@bold - You begun the discussion by raising Kunti's point that eventually led to this. Still, if you say you are no longer interested in Mbh, that's fair enough.

I just had a discussion about that shloka from SE, Nilkantha as well as Gita Press (along with CE) with my Sanskrit-friends, and they still seem to concur with KMG's interpretation/translation than Debroy's, bcoz as per them, "Vaah" in this context is Plural.

But anyway...that's not important anymore, coz I honestly do not wish to pursue this topic any further.

Thanks for your valuable time.

Edited by amritat - 5 years ago

Quote

Brahmaputra

@Brahmaputra

IF-Sizzlerz

+ 2

Posted: 5 years ago

#296

Since I brought up the dialogue of Kunti, I shall conclude my part by explaining my understanding here.

The key problem is who is being addressed by Kunti and the verse in question are 13, 14 & 15 of chap 135 udyoga parva, Critical Edition.

My take is already known, so no need to repeat.

Debroy's translation is clear, word by word - Kunti is addressing Nakula & Sahadeva in verse 13, but Krishna in verse 14 & 15. The phrasal verb he used "look on" to translate "prekshamana" is defined by Oxford dictionary as "watch without getting involved". It is perhaps the best translation of the situation as Krishna didn't interfere.

In Satwalkar's hindi translation of CE (provided in the first page of this thread), he also translated Kunti addressing the twins in verse 13, and Krishna in 14 & 15. But he played around verse 15 a little and made it look like Krishna was not present in DS. Though it is evidently wrong, it is understandable given how people try to see deeper meaning where none exists but when the traditional view is challeneged, especially when Krishna is in the picture, as in Krishna's offer of Drauapdi to Karna. But the point is Satwalkar also is doubtless that Kunti was addressing Krishna, not Nakula & Sahadeva. Only part in his translation of "taccha va prekshamana..." went wrong.

However, Neelakantha edition and Geeta press edition have slightly different ending of the first line of verse 15, a slight difference in language that can make a huge difference in understanding. Those who are interested can google and read the original themselves. I am not going to quote or give any links. It is in chapter 137. Going by that, KMG seems legit in translating Kunti addressing the twins only, not Krishna.

I am not into a grammatical display regarding that. What more can I say when well known translators differ in opinion here!! It depends only upon which edition a person would like to believe. Both cannot be refuted, both have their own place. And it is not wise to cross-check CE with KMG. Both books are based on entirely different editions.

Quote

1 ... 26 27 28 29 30