MISCONCEPTION ABOUT DRAPADI SWAYAMVARA CONTEST (BORI CE)
Now a days there is a bit of Misconception that Karna Failed' at Draupadi Swayamvar. It's a huge lie and propaganda being spread by Arjuna fans . Let me prove from BORI CE that Karna never participated.
_________________________________________________________________
■ MISCONCEPTION-1 : LORD KRISHNA FAILED TO STRING BOW IN DRAUPADI SWAYAMVAR
Adi Parv, Section-177, Verse-16
BORI CE –
सङ्कर्षणो वासुदेवो रौक्मिणेयश्च वीर्यवान् |
साम्बश्च चारुदेष्णश्च सारणोऽथ गदस्तथा ||१६||
एते चान्ये च बहवो नानाजनपदेश्वराः |
त्वदर्थमागता भद्रे क्षत्रियाः प्रथिता भुवि ||२१||
एते वेत्स्यन्ति विक्रान्तास्त्वदर्थं लक्ष्यमुत्तमम् |
विध्येत य इमं लक्ष्यं वरयेथाः शुभेऽद्य तम् ||२२||
B.Debroy Translation -
VASUDEVA, Rukmini’s brave son Samba, Charudeshna, Sarana, GADA, Akrura, Satyaki, the immensely powerful Uddhava, Hridika’s son Kritavarma, Prithu, Viprithu, Viduratha, Kanka, Samika, Saramejaya, the brave Vatapati, Jhilli, Pindaraka, the brave Ushinara, all famous as descended from the Vrishni lineage; Bhagiratha, Brihatkshetra, Jayadratha, the king of Sindhu, Brihadratha, Bahlika, the maharatha Shrutayu, Uluka, King Kaitava, Chitrangada, Subhangada, the patient king of Vatsa, the king of Kosala. ‘“O fortunate one! These and many other kings of many regions, famous on earth, have ‘“O fortunate one! These and many other kings of many regions, famous on earth, have come here for you. These brave ones will try to shoot the excellent target for your hand. O beautiful one! You will choose as a husband the one who hits it.”’
EXPOSING –
1) According to Prince Dhristdyumn, Vasudeva Krishna, Balrama (known as gada), Sambha, Satyaki and other vrishni warriors come to win hand of draupadi
2) This was just assumption of Dhristdyumn that Vasudeva Krishna might participate in archery contest to win hand of Draupadi
3) To be frank, assumption of Dhristdyumn failed in reality and no vrishni warrior participate in contest so failure of Lord Krishna is out of context
4) We already witnessed failure of many false assumptions which failed in real upcoming events of future because only god can predict future not human
• Some demons confessed before Duryodhana that souls of demons will enters the bodies of Karna, Bhishma and Drona. Irony is that demons never entered bodies of these warriors in upcoming future events.
• Ghatotkach too admitted that he will kill karna in battle and his assumption failed in upcoming event of future. He failed to kill karna and himself got killed by Karna
5) In same way, assumption of Dhristdyumn became false in future and Krishna did not participate in contest
RESULT –
According to BORI CE, Lord Krishna did not participate in swayamvara contest so failure is out of context
________________________________________________
■ MISCONCEPTION-2 : SURYA’S SON KARNA FAILED TO STRING BOW IN DRAUPADI SWAYAMVAR
■ PART-1 : CORRECT WORD TO WORD TRANSLATION OF SANSKRIT VERSE FROM BORI CE
BORI CE (Adi Parv, Section-179, Verse-4) -
यत्कर्णशल्यप्रमुखैः पार्थिवैर्लोकविश्रुतैः |
नानतं बलवद्भिर्हि धनुर्वेदपरायणैः ||४||
WORD TO WORD SANSKRIT TRANSLATION -
यत - Such
कर - The task (stringing bow)
न - To Perform
शल्य - Shalya
प्रमुखै - Celebrated
पार्थिवै - Kshtriyas
र्लोकविश्रुतै - Famous in the world
नानतं - Could not
बल - Strength
वद्भिर्हि - Great
धनुर्वेदपरायणै - Well versed in dhanurveda
Correct Meaning -
******************
World famous Celebrated Kshtriyas like Shalya enduced with great strength and well versed in Dhanurveda could not (perform the task)
EXPLAINATION -
Sanskrit word to word translation of this verse-4 doesnt mentioned process of stringing bow. The sanskrit word for stringing bow is missing from sanskrit verse. So we can safely conclude that the word 'यत्कर्ण = To perform the task'. The verse mentioned that shalya could not perform unknown task and nowhere written that task was to string bow
■ PART-2 : REVIEW BY SCHOLARS AND THEIR TRANSLATIONS
Let's be honest, no matter how much justification we give people would still believe the actual Scholars so let's read the lines as per their translation.
1. SCHOLAR B. DEBROY (No 1 Sanskrit Scholar)
Translation (Primary Source) -
If KSHTRIYAS LIKE KARNA and Shalya, who are famous in the world, have great strength and are well versed in DhanurVeda, could not string the bow, how can this weakling Brahmana, with no knowledge of weapons, succeed?
पार्थिवै = Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=Such as karna
EXPLAINATION –
According to B.Debroy translation of BORI CE, Kshtriya Karna failed to string bow in draupadi swayamvara contest in cross reference. This is a big mismatch in the epic just like above paragraph that indicates lord Krishna himself failed in Swayamvara. It's also interesting to note that only Karna and Shalya's names are taken, neither was Karna a Kshatriya nor was Shalya world famous or renowned for his prowess. There were greater warriors present. The only link between these two warriors is later they would play an important role at Kurukshetra, more prominent than any other kshatriyas present there. It clearly was a glorification statement for Arjuna. Also another point is Karna was never really called Karna until he donated his Kavach Kundal so why would a random Brahmin' call him Karn?
Also if we take the word Kshatriya literally then
there are total 5 Karna in mahabharta (refer our guru dakshina war thread for detail)
• Two sons of Gandhari (Kshtriyas)
• Yuyutsu (Kshtriyas)
• Demon king Karna-yest (Kshtriyas)
• Surya’s son Karna (Suta)
According to most authentic translation of BORI CE by B.Debroy, the karna who failed to string bow was suppose be kshtriya by cast means either son of gandhari or yuyutsu hence failure of Vrisha Karna of suta cast is out of context
EXPOSING EXCUSES–
_______________________________________________
1) B.Debroy is fool and didn’t know meaning of पार्थिवै so he translated=पार्थिवै as Kshtriyas
Exposing –
B. Debroy has translated verse correctly as there are many meanings of single word in Sanskrit. The meaning of any Sanskrit word depends upon the requirement of statement in particular situation like ‘कोटी’ means quality, crore and category. The meaning of ‘पार्थिवै’ also changes as per requirement of statement of particular situation so B.Debroy has translated 'पार्थिवै' as 'Kshtriyas' because it fit the requirement of statement.
_______________________________________________
2) Gandhari’s sons karna were not present in swayamavr contest. So their failure is out of context
Exposing –
Vaisamapayana himself mentioned that all kaurava brothers come to swayamvara to win hand of draupadi. Thus proves that Gandhari’s sons karna were present in swayamvara. The text also mentioned that karna come to protect kauravas
[Vaisampayana to Janamejaya]
O king! The Kouravas, led by Duryodhana, also came there, accompanied by Karna.
_______________________________________________
3) According to dictionary पार्थिवै means only king
Exposing –
Yes it's king if we used the link of same NON-AUTHENTIC dictionary which failed in cross verfication of 'Nyavartata' before few days back. People should understand the difference between ‘पार्थिवै’ and ‘पार्थिव’. If we go by pure sanskrit then the meaning of ‘पार्थिव’ also considered as ‘earthly’ which denotes deadbody.
Dictionaries :
पार्थिव = Earthly or Prince or Royal
http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&script=hk&tran_input=पार्थिव+&direct=au
पार्थिव = पृथ्वी संबंधी
http://shabdkosh.raftaar.in/Meaning-of-पार्थिव-in-Hindi
पार्थिव = [वि.] - 1. पृथ्वी संबंधी 2. पृथ्वी से उत्पन्न; पृथ्वीतत्व का विकार रूप, जैसे- पार्थिव शरीर
http://www.hindi2dictionary.com/parthiv-meaning-eng.html
If we go by same logic of dictionaries then everyone should just all the scholars as they didn't translate पार्थिव as earthly deadbody. Deadbodies failed to perform unknown task. Two minutes silence. Lol
No dictionary in the word can give exact meaning of any sanskrit word because in the end, it's depend upon requirement of statement in that situation.The meaning of any Sanskrit word depends upon the requirement of statement in that particular situation
2. SCHOLAR KM GANGULEY
such celebrated Kshatriyas as Salya and others endued with might and accomplished in the science and practice of arms could not?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01191.htm
पार्थिवै = Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=To perform task
3. SCHOLAR PC ROY
such celebrated Kshatriyas as Salya and others endued with might and accomplished in the science and practice of arms could not?
पार्थिवै = Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=To perform task
4. SCHOLAR MN DUTT
such celebrated Kshatriyas as Salya and others endued with might and accomplished in the science and practice of arms could not?
पार्थिवै = Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=To perform task
EXPLAINATION –
According to secondary translation sources like KMG, MN Dutt and PC Roy even son of Gandhari did not failed to perform unknown task. Secondary sources omitted the name of Gandhari’s son karna from translation as the meaning of ‘यत्कर्ण’ was translated as verb ‘To perform task'. Secondary translations also translated ‘पार्थिवै’ as ‘Kshtriyas’
_______________________________________________
EXPOSING EXCUSES–
KMG, PC Roy and MN dutt are also fool like B. Debroy and they too mistranslated verse. They might have translated different script and karna fans should prove that they trasnslated verse of BORI CE
Exposing –
After blaming B.Debroy our great self made Vyasa's of Arjunpurana are accusing Kesari Mohan Ganguli and other scholars without understanding a simple thing that the sanksrit words are aften translated by all scholars according to requirement of statement in that particular situation. So the translation by all scholars of ‘पार्थिवै as Kshtriyas’ is 100% correct as per requirement of statement in that particular situation
Second it’s not our responsibility to prove that they used BORI CE verse because claim of mistranslation made by some entitled self called Geniuses . The Sanskrit verse is SAME IN ALL Sanskrit script even Nilkantha (which was refer by KMG for translation) contains same verse.
Nilkantha Verse -
यत्कर्ण शल्यप्रमुखैःक्षत्रियेर्लोकविश्रुतैः |
नानतं बलवद्भिर्हि धनुर्वेदपरायणैः ||४||
पार्थिवै(क्षत्रिय)=Kshtriyas
The word ‘यत्कर्ण’ is common in all Sanskrit scripts which exists and all 3 scholars (KMG, MN Dutt and PC roy) translated it as ‘to perform the task’ supporting our correct translation. We can provide 50 references from all northern and southern recension for same Sanskrit verse can super begger SSC failed admin provide even one reference to prove that different verse exist. LOL.
RESULT – According to KMG, MN Dutt and PC Roy even Gandhari’s son karna didn’t fail to string bow let alone suta’s son karna
5. SCHOLAR PANDIT RAMNARAYAN (Gita Press)
such celebrated Kshatriyas Like Karna and Salya and others endued with might and accomplished in the science and practice of arms could not?
पार्थिवै(क्षत्रिया)=Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=Such as karna
EXPLAINATION –
The script used by this scholar had replaced the word ‘पार्थिवै’ with ‘क्षत्रिया’ in Sanskrit verse thus again proves that ‘पार्थिवै’ was often used as alternative to Sanskrit word ‘क्षत्रिया’ in those days when our epic was written. This again proves that पार्थिवै=Kshtriyas
Pandit Ramnarayan also gives footnote where it’s clearly written that 'कर्ण ने बाण नही चढाया था’ means Karna didn’t participate in swayamvar contest. Thus according to this scholar also karna did not participate in swayamvar contest. SSC failed admin being slayer of English and hindi don’t know difference between ‘बाण नही चढाया था’ and ‘नही चढा सका था’. Slayer of hindi spotted. LOL
RESULT – According to scholar Pandit Ramnarayan (Gita Press), gandhari’s son karna failed to string the bow
6. SCHOLAR BAPAT SHASTRI
Marathi Version (Adi Parv, Section-188)
हे विप्रहो । धनुर्विदेत प्रविण असलेला कर्ण, शल्य इत्यादी क्षत्रिय
Meaning –
O Brahmanas ! Kshtriyas such as karna, shalya etc well versed in dhanuveda
पार्थिवै = Kshtriyas, यत्कर्ण=Such as karna
EXPLAINATION –
Prof. Bapat Shastri also translated epic using same references like KMG version. He is considered to be highly qualified scholar in Marathi literature.
RESULT - According to Prof. Bapat. Shastri, gandhari’s son karna failed to string the bow
7. SCHOLAR MA MAHENDALE
The reason for authenticity of BORI CE is more than 50 scholars worked hard for it. If one scholar composed BORI CE then it wouldn’t be authentic. The adi parv of BORI CE is mainly edited by Prof. V. S. Sukhtankar and he did publish annal from his point view and his view are totally against MA Mahendale. The journal provided by SSC failed admin is not published by any BORI scholars who worked for original BORI CE project. 50 scholars used 1250 manuscipts for research and finally we have BORI CE. The scholar MA Mahendale had NO contribution to project except preparing index for publishing. He was teacher and when he joined BORI institute, BORI CE project was already completed by original scholar team. His job was to publish index (it’s just like decorating book). So he is just scholar who published his own retelling through annal like Prof. Devdutt Patnaik who published Jaya – Retelling of mahabharata
Main Mahabharata Version Editors
Prof. V. S. Sukhtankar
Prof. S. K. Belvalkar,
Prof. S. K. De
Prof. Dr. R. N. Dandekar
BORI annals Editors
Dr. S. K. Belvalkar
Dr. A. D.Pusalkar
Dr. R. N. Arun Dandekar
http://www.bori.ac.in/mahabharata_project.html
The scholar has published his journal and there is no 100% confirmation by him for failure of any karna rather he just confirmed that draupadi rejecting karna is interpolation. His analysis is based upon following assumptions
_______________________________________________
1) Draupada had invited karna to participate in swayamvara contest
EXPLAINATION –
There is no text which proves that karna was invited by king draupada. The text clearly states that duryodhana headed by his brothers comes to participate and karna just come with them for company (support)
[Vaisampayana to Janamejaya]
O king! The Kouravas, led by Duryodhana, also came there, accompanied by Karna.
Second, Draupad was cast minded human who didn’t want to hand over his daughter to anyone (except Brahmin or kshtriya) and just hate low cast vaishya and sudras like hell. Then how can he invite low cast suta karna to hand over his daughter?
Adi Parv, Section-181
[Draupad to Dhristdyumn]
The great-souled one asked Dhrishtadyumna, “Where has Krishna gone? Who has taken her away? Is it a Shudra or one of low birth? Has a Vaishya who pays taxes placed his feet on my head? Has a garland been thrown away on a cremation ground? O son! Or is it a foremost man from our own varna, or is it one from a higher varna? Or has a lower being placed his foot on my head and defiled Krishna?
_______________________________________________
2) Swayamvar contest was neutral and all caste were allowed to participate
EXPLAINATION –
There is no swayamvar in the history which was opened for all castes. According to rules of veda shastra Only kshatriyas were allowed to participate in swayamvara contest not even brahmanas. Kshtriyas were not ready to accept it as only kshtriya had rights over swyamvara. If any kshtriya won contest other would have accepted it but kshtriyas were not ready to accept Brahmin as it was against the tradition of swayamvara. If swayamvara was restricted for ONLY KSHTRIYAS then suta karna’s participation is out of context. This is also reason why did karna marry suta girl as per choice of adhiratha as he was not allowed to participate in any swayamvara
Adi Parv, Section-180
The sacred texts clearly say that a svayamvara is for Kshatriyas; Brahmanas have no right in the choice of a husband. O kings! If this lady does not wish one of us as her husband, let us throw her into the fire and return to our kingdoms.
DHRISTDYUMN TOO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ONLY MAN BORN IN NOBLE FAMILY CAN PARTICIPATE IN CONTEST
Adi Parv, Section-179
Dhrishtadyumna went to the centre of the arena and spoke, in a thundering voice, words that were deep with meaning and sweet. “O assembled kings! Hear that this is the bow, that is the target and these are the arrows. With these five arrows, shoot the target through the hole in the centre of the machine. I truly say that the handsome and strong one, born in a noble family, who accomplishes this great feat today, will obtain as his wife my sister Krishna.
NOBLE FAMILY (High Cast Family) - Thus swayamvara was restricted for noble family man not suta low cast family man
RESULT – According to scholar MA Mahendale, there is no confirmation for karna’s success/failure and his most of the assumptions are false for analysis of draupadi rejecting karna episode
_______________________________________________
8. Prof. V. S. SUKHTANKAR
He is the main editor of BORI CE and head of all scholar. He did detail research on adi parv. He too discussed the matter of swayamvara and concluded following conclusion. You can read his editorial notes on this link
gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Suk933__Sukthankar_ProlegomenaMBh1.pdf
1) According to Prof. V.S. Sukhtankar, Draupadi rejecting karna text can be find out in SIX MANUSCRIPTS K* Ñ2 Dn D2.4. c, that is, one manuscript of the K group, one Nepali manuscript, and three composite Devanāgarī manuscripts, besides the Nīlakaṇṭha version
According to MA Mahendale, Draupadi rejecting karna is given in only FOUR manuscripts.Prof. V.S. Sukhtankar himself EXPOSED MA Mahendale as he mentioned two more manuscript
2) According to Prof. V.S. Sukhtankar,the oldest dated manuscript of BORI critical apparatus is a Nepali manuscript (Ñ3) which bears a date corresponding to A.D. 1511. Prof. V.S. Sukhtankar, already states that Draupadi rejecting karna is given in nepali manuscript. Thus proves that
ACCORDING TO OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF MAHABHARATA WHICH BELONGS TO A.D 1511, DRAUPADI HAD REJECTED KARNA ON THE GROUND OF CAST
3) Prof. V.S. Sukhtankar himself discussed the swayamvar topic in detail. But he NEVER said that karna failed in swayamvar. If karna failed then he would have mentioned that as he discussed the topic in detail but he never said anything about karna's participation even when he discussed all means for which draupadi rejecting karna episode was omitted. Thus proves that
ACCORDING TO PROF. V.S. SUKHTANKAR, KARNA NEVER FAILED IN SWAYAMVAR AND EVEN DRAUPADI REJECTING KARNA IS THE CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC AS 'NAHAM VARIYAM SUTAM' IS THE PART OF OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF MAHABHARATA
FINAL RESULT –
All scholars are humans. More than 6 sanskrit scholars already confirm that suta’s son karna didn’t fail to do unknown task.
3 scholars confirmed that some kshtriya karna failed to perform unknown task and remaining 3 confirmed that even gandhari’s son karna didn’t fail to perform unknown task
According to BORI CE, word to word translation proves that Even Shalya did not fail to string bow let alone Gandhari's son Karna because that verse doesn’t mentioned stringing process
There is no 100% confirmation by Scholar MA Mahendale for this and his most of the assumptions are falses
Prof. V.S.Sukhtankar himself exposed MA mahendale and admit that 'Draupadi rejecting karna' event is the part of oldest manuscript of mahabharata. He also confirmed that karna did not participate in contest
_________________________________________________________________
■ MISCONCEPTION -3 : ARJUNA HAD PIERCED THE EYE OF FISH BY SEEING IT’S REFLECTION IN WATER/OIL POT
Adi Parv, Section-179, Verse-16
सज्यं च चक्रे निमिषान्तरेण; शरांश्च जग्राह दशार्धसङ्ख्यान् |
विव्याध लक्ष्यं निपपात तच्च; छिद्रेण भूमौ सहसातिविद्धम् ||१६||
B.Debroy Translation –
In the twinkling of an eye, he strung the bow and grasped the five arrows. Through the hole in the machine, he suddenly pierced the target and it fell down on the ground
EXPOSING –
1) Arjuna had managed to string bow (as bow was designed by king Draupad keeping arjuna in mind so there was nothing special if he strung bow)
2) He took five arrows to shoot one target. Arjuna need five arrows to hit one simple target this itself proves his lack of archery skill. LOL
3) No fish, No water/oil pot, No reflection. It was simple ordinary target that’s why he was able to hit target
Last but not least,
there was no guarantee of arjuna if he can hit same target again because he was too ordinary and crook warrior who hit the target sometime and even missed the simple target many times Arjuna even failed to hit deer which was present in front of his naked eyes. He shot many arrows and his inexhaustible quiver became exhaustible still he was unable to hit that deer even once. He repeatedly shot arrows aiming at deer and failed every time. Deer used arjuna for entertainment and as arjuna was consumed by hunger and thirst, Deer spared life of arjuna and vanished from spot. Arjuna is still searching for that deer for revenge for his humiliation
KARNA v/s ARJUAN – (Skill of bow stringing)
***********************************
ARJUNA WAS UNABLE TO STRING HIS OWN BOW GANDIVA –
Mausala Parv, Section-9
[Arjuna to Vyassa]
Though I picked up my bow, I found that I was unable to string it.
KARNA WAS ABLE TO STRING HIS OWN BOW VIJAYA -
Karna Parv, Section-64
Having spoken these words, the powerful and brave son of a suta, picked up Vijaya, his ancient and excellent bow. O great king! Having strung it, he repeatedly rubbed the string. He asked the warriors to return. "The immensely strong one with an immeasurable soul took a pledge of truth and invoked the Bhargava weapon
RESULT –
Arjuna was able to hit ordinary target. Fish, Water pot and Reflection are the fictional concepts of TV Serials. Arjuna was just ordinary crook warrior who sometime managed to hit simple target and most of the times missed simple target
_________________________________________________________________
■ CONCLUSION –
A) According to BORI CE, Lord Krishna did not participate in swayamvar contest failure is out of context
B) Accoridng to BORI CE, even shalya did not fail to string bow let alone gandhari’s son karna or suta’s son karna
C) According to 3 Scholars B.Debroy, Pandit Ramnarayana and Bapat Shastri. All of them confirmed that Gandhari’s son Karna and Shalya failed to perform unknown task
D) Acoording to 3 scholars KMG, PC Roy and MN Dutt. All of them confirmed that Gandhari’s son karna did not fail only shalya failed to perform unknown task
E) According to BORI CE, Arjuna didn’t hit target by seeing any reflection
F) According to BORI CE, Karna strung his bow but Arjuna FAILED to string his bow
G) According to editorial notes by Prof. V.S.Sukthankar (main editor of BORI), suta's son did not fail. Draupadi rejecting karna is the part of oldest manuscript of mahabharata
