Fans of Bhutta Nangraaj Karna also known as Karnandus have lost all their faith in BORI CE. Now they are challenging the authenticity of BORI CE on the basis of opinions on two or three scholars. As for them, the views of these scholars are more authentic than BORI CE that's why they are hiding behind these scholars just to defend their idol's crime from disrobing incident.
Just tell me one thing how can be the opinion of two or three scholars more authentic than Vyasa's epic itself !
All scholars of BORI researched and found that the disrobing of Draupadi is not an interpolation that's why we see them including this incident in the critical edition of Mahabharata as it is very much a part of Vyasa's epic.
Now it depends upon you to believe either the Vyasa's epic or these two or three scholars who are just like you and me.
Also they have some baseless excuses regarding this incident. I will counter all those excuses one by one but before that everyone must check the proof from main event of critical edition, which mentioned the disrobing of Draupadi.
BORI CE, SABHA PARVA-61
It is my view that there is nothing surprising in her being brought into the sabha in a single garment, or even if she is naked. In accordance with dharma, Soubala has won all the riches the Pandavas possessed, including her and
themselves. O Duhshasana! This Vikarna is only a child, though he speaks words of wisdom. Strip away the garments from the Pandavas and Droupadi.” O descendant of the Bharata lineage! On hearing these words, the Pandavas took off their upper garments and sat down in the sabha. O king! Then Duhshasana forcibly tugged at Droupadi’s garments. In front of everyone in the sabha, he forcibly pulled. O lord of the earth! As Droupadi’s garment was
being tugged away, another similar garment appeared every time. At this, a terrible uproar arose. All the assembled kings witnessed the most extraordinary sight in the worlds and approved.
LET'S EXPOSE ALL THE EXCUSES GIVEN REGARDING THIS INCIDENT
EXCUSE NO. 1) In the very first chapter of Mahabharata, Dhritarashtra didn't mention that Draupadi was disrobed
DISROBING :- In that chapter Dhritarashtra also didn't mention that Karna had spared the life of Nakula neither he mentioned that Yudhishthira gambled away Pandavas and Draupadi which means all incidents happened in actual event need not to be mentioned in cross references.
Why do Bhutta Nangu Karnandus not make a post raising question that whether all the Pro Karna incidents not mentioned by Dhritarashtra can be interpolated or not ?
EXCUSE NO. 2) BORI CE has released it's annals and in those annals they mentioned the disrobing of Draupadi is an interpolation
DISROBING :- It is true that there are 2-3 scholars who have worked in BORI, have released their annals from BORI and BORI also shared their annals on its blog but it should be noted that annals were released by 2-3 scholars only.
First of all, opinion of 2-3 scholars of BORI can't be opinion of all the scholars of BORI
Secondly, it's nowhere written in that annal that people should reject disrobing while reading critical edition. Those annals are just opinion of 2-3 scholars. Every person has right to research and express his view on literature. It does not mean we should accept them by rejecting the primary source.
Also there are two annals on dice game. First is "Was Draupadi ever disrobed" by Pradeep Bhattacharya and 2nd annal is "Did Dushasana drag Draupadi". In 2nd annal they just gave different views on Draupadi's dragging, they never talked about disrobing.
There is one more annal, written by Prof. M.A Mehendale and shared by BORI on their blog. In that annal it is clearly written that disrobing happened and only Shri Krishna's interference is interpolation.
From M.A MEHENDALE's annal👇👇
Reading this whole incident what the critical edition tells us is only that when Dahsana dragged Draupadi's upper garment tarnariva(26.140)" ther appeared in its place, und tha happened many times (2.61 41). The ideal edition does not tell us how this miracle happened. It gives so explanation of the miracle Prof. Edperion in his Introduction to the Subha parvan observes "a nation of Kru or any other superhuman agency it is apparently implied (though not stated) that cosmic justice automatically, or magically if you like presented the chaste und noble Draupadi from heing stripped in public. pp. xxvit-xxx)
NOTE:- Removing upper garment could have made Draupadi completely naked as she was in a single garment in the dice hall
...,...............................
Let's take another example why these annals can't be taken seriously.
There is another annal which is shared by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( Nicholas Sutton : A Note On The Development Of Emotional Bhakti )
It is written that the entire Anushasana Parva is an interpolation added by later poets to promote Shaivism (Worshipping cult of Lord Shiva). See the evidence below👇👇
"To sum up there are a number of significant points regarding the development of Indian devotional religion to be drawn from a consideration of the Upmanyu Upakhyana. First of all it demonstrates that significant features of what is generally regarded as emotional bhakti may occur in the Mahabharata, a factor which tends to blur any rigid delineation between intellectual and emotional. Secondly, this may provide evidence to support a thesis that certain passages of the great epic, and the Amusasana parvarin particular, are interpolation into the wider text from a very late period, probably from a date some time after 1000 CE, and that such additions may be present in the Critical Edition of the text. To accept such a conclusion, however, required that fundamental changes be made to the conventional dating of certain passages of the epic".
NOW TELL US:-
Does it mean that the entire Anushasana Parva is an interpolation ? Do you have guts to call entire Anushasana Parva an interpolation ? Do you have guts to question Shaivism ?
.......................................
Now read what Mr. M.K Dhavalkar said in his BORI annals which is shared by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
He clearly said that if we accept the authenticity of BORI CE then the disrobing of Draupadi is an interpolation or not can be can be solved easily and it is a well known truth that the Vastra haran is mentioned in the BORI CE which means rejecting vastra haran is rejecting authenticity of BORI CE.
SEE THE WORDS OF M.K DHAVALKAR👇👇
One of the most controversial episodes in the Mahabharata is the disrobing of Draupadi by Duháisana after the Pandavas lost the game of dice with the Kauravas. The first and foremost problem is whether the parti cular episode is a later interpolation or whether it was there in the original form of the epic. This issue can be settled if we accept the authenticity of the critical edition of the epic which has been prepared by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( BORI).
.....................................
Basically,
BORI annals is just a platform where they publish the opinion of scholars but they never claim that people should consider it while reading the critical edition.
The process of making of annals and the process of making of the critical edition is completely different.
As we can see opinions differ from on scholar to another scholar. You don't have right to reject Vyasa's Mahabharata using opinions of scholars.
By thinking logically, we can understand that critical edition is not in heaven which can not be edited by BORI scholars so they can edit the critical edition anytime, then why they are not removing disrobing of Draupadi ? This logic itself proves that the disrobing of Draupadi is not an interpolation otherwise they would have removed it till now.
If you will read all annals of BORI, then you will find that 99% part of Mahabharata is interpolation as some scholars says that this part is an interpolation and other scholars says that another part is an interpolation.
Annals came in existence on the basis of opinions/logics while the Mahabharata Critical Edition is made after researching on so many manuscripts.
How can opinion of someone can defeat 1300 manuscripts which were used to make critical edition ?
Don't cry until BORI itself removes this incident and for your kind information they won't remove this incident even in dreams of Karnanudus as it is very much a part of original epic.
EXCUSE NO. 3) BORI is going to release 2nd version of the critical edition of Mahabharata and in that version they will remove Draupadi's disrobing
DISROBING :- I don't know where they heard this blunder. No wonder that they have crossed all the limits of lying. There's no upcoming version of critical edition of Mahabharata going to be released by BORI anymore. Even in their future plans, BORI didn't mention anything about this another critical edition rather they just said that they will correct some minor errors like typing errors etc
See their future plans, which are officially released by them on their website. Nowhere they mentioned that they are going to make any new critical edition of Mahabharata.
Future Plans of BORI CE👇👇
Next steps in ongoing work
- Updating of reference cards should continue.
- Compiling and editing of entries for the Cultural Index should continue.
- Printing Bibliography Data - cards according to the proforma.
- Sending letters to Libraries world over for assistance in preparation of the Bibliography of Mahabharata.
- Complete digitization of the Bibliography.
- Editing of the Bibliography.
Prospects of expansion
- Translation of the Critical Edition.
- Interpretative Epilogue of Mahabharata.
- Digitization of the Critical Apparatus.
- Digitization of Cultural Index.
EXCUSE NO. 4) When Draupadi proceeds to exile, she is described as wearing a bloodstained cloth. How could she still be wearing bloodstained cloth if Shri Krishna/Dharma had continuously replaced what Dushasana kept pulling away.
DISROBING :- Is it written anywhere that Draupadi's period had been stopped after the act of disrobing ? If it is written anywhere then show me the narrative.
Their claim says that since Draupadi's cloth has been replaced by Dharma during her disrobing then she can't be described as wearing bloodstained cloth while going to exile. It means that they wants to say that Draupadi's period had been stopped thats why they are raising this claim. Now since it is your claim Bhutta Karna fans so you will have to prove it otherwise don't cry that Arjuna fans should prove it that how her cloth was described as bloodstained cloth
Most funny thing is that they first hided behind Pradeep Bhattacharya for this point when we refuted it then they started crying that it was Pradeep's claim hence it is not their duty to prove this claim. Pradeep will prove it lol 🤣🤣
Foolishness and comedy is at its peak
EXCUSE NO. 5) The cross-references proves that the disrobing of Draupadi is an interpolation as whenever this incident is mentioned in the cross-reference Draupadi is mentioned being dragged only not getting disrobed.
DISROBING :- It is the most funny excuse which those two or three scholars and Karna fans are giving to prove that Draupadi's disrobing is an interpolation. The logic applied by them says that since Draupadi's disrobing don't have cross reference but her dragging has hence disrobing is an interpolation. So basically they are judging actual event on the basis of cross reference. Now I will use their own logic and will apply it on Pro Karna incidents.
A) The Ashwasena (so called Nagastra) incident where Ashwasena destroyed the diadem of Arjuna has been contradicted by cross reference.
Arjuna has been reffered as the one with diadem only with Indra's diadem. Many warriors used to wear diadem but no one is reffered with the same exact words(the one with the diadem), not even Arjuna before receiving Indra's diadem. The first time Arjuna was mentioned with these words after receiving Indra's diadem.
When Arjuna was about to release Anjalika astra in order to fairly cut the head of Karna he is being mentioned as the one with diadem but how can he have diadem if it's already destroyed ?
Even after the battle there are many references which proves that Arjuna had his diadem. See the evidence below
Karna Parva, Chapter No. 67
Wishing to slay Karna, bring about his end and convey him to Yama, he released the arrow, which was as radiant as the sun and the moon. Cheerfully, so that he could be conveyed towards victory, the one with the diadem and the garland shot the arrow
Here, Arjuna is being mentioned as the one with diadem while shooting arrow to kill Karna
Stri Parva, Chapter No. 24
‘O Janardana! When you are in an assembly, what will you say and tell them? Will you yourself say that Arjuna performed a great deed, or will the one with the diadem say so?
After the war, Arjuna is again mentioned as the one with diadem in Stri Parva
Ashwamedhika Parva, Chapter No. 83
‘The horse wandered around the entire earth, up to the frontiers of the ocean.
O king! It then returned and headed for the city of Nagasahvya. The energetic one who sported the diadem also returned and followed the horse.
Even in his Ashwamedha conquest, Arjuna is mentioned as sporting the diadem.
Arjuna was referred as the "one with diadem" only for Indra's diadem. In Virata Parva he accepted this fact to Princs Uttara. See the proof below
Virata Parva, Chapter No. 39
In earlier times, when I fought with
the bulls among the danavas, Shakra gave me a diadem, as radiant as the sun, for my head. That is the reason I am Kiriti.
Hence we can safely conclude this overhyped Ashwasena incident is an interpolation as per the logic of Karnandus
Other than having contradictions, this incident also lacks cross references. Now if they have guts to cry on the basis of cross references then they should accept this Ashwasena incident as an interpolation also.
B) Now let's apply this logic on another Pro Karna incident,
The burning of Arjuna's chariot is one of the most famous incident in modern era but if we apply the logic of cross reference then this incident is also an interpolation. Arjuna's chariot along with it's white horses was burnt but later we found many cross reference which proves that his white horses were alive which clearly makes this incident an interpolation
So as we can see that the above incident not only lack a single reference but also have so many contradiction in Mahabharata itself.
In Mahabharata, Arjuna was referred as the one with the white horses with those horses of him which used to yoke his chariot. See the proof below,
Sauptika Parva, Chapter No. 12
‘He is
regarded as the supreme one among gods and humans. He is the wielder of Gandiva, the one with the
white horses. The supreme of apes sits astride his standard. He is Jishnu.
Shanti Parva, Chapter No. 1
This is consuming my limbs, like a mass of cotton in a fire. Partha, the one with the white horses, did not know that he was a brother. Nor did Bhima and the twins know this.
Ashram-vasa Parva, Chapter No. 30
They were clad in armour and had standards. The
immensely energetic Arjuna was on a chariot that was as radiant as the sun. This was yoked to divine
and white horses and he followed the king on this.
Also The reason Shri Krishna has given for the chariot not getting burnt during battles also contradicts the wars in entire Mahabharata and doesn't seem authentic. Shri Krishna said that because he was sitting on the chariot, it didn't burn but we see many examples in the Mahabharata where Shri Krishna was not on the chariot still it didn't burn.
Let's see those contradictions
- Let's remove those 2 incidents from Bhishma Parva where Shri Krishna descended from Arjuna's chariot because Arjuna was fighting mildly with Bhishma
- On the 14th day of Kurukshetra War, the horses of Arjuna's chariot became tired and in order to remove their tiredness Shri Krishna descended from chariot but still it didn't burn [Mb, 7.74]
- On the 15th day of Kurukshetra War, Shri Krishna again descended from Arjuna's chariot to save Bhima from Narayanastra but still it didn't burn [Mb, 7.171]
- On the 17th day of Kurukshetra War, during the meeting of Yudhishthira, Shri Krishna and Arjuna, Shri Krishna wasn't on the chariot but still it didn't burn [Mb, 8. 46]
- On the 13th night of Kurukshetra War, Shri wasn't on Arjuna's chariot rather in his tent but still the chariot didn't burn [Mb, 7.50]
- On the 18th day of Kurukshetra War, Shri Krishna was not on Arjuna's chariot, when along with the Pandavas challenged Duryodhana for the final fight [Mb, 9.54]
Now let's move to some other incidents which can be considered interpolation as per this logic.
C) The meeting of Shri Krishna and Karna :-
This incident has only one cross reference mentioned by Sauti in the 2nd chapter of Mahabharata. Other than this there is no single reference in the entire Mahabharata which clearly proves that this incident is an interpolation.
Plus,
--In the first chapter of Mahabharata, when Dhritarashtra was briefly narrating the incidents of Mahabharata, he did not mention the meeting of Shri Krishna and Karna [ Mb 1.1]
--In the 2nd chapter of Mahabharata, Sauti did not mention
that Upa-Parva of Udhyoga Parva, in which the meeting of Shri Krishna and Karna takes place. It also puts questions on the meeting of Kunti and Karna [Mb, 1.2]
--Shri Krishna himself never mentioned about this meeting in the entire Mahabharata.
-- Karna's identity had been revealed in Stri Parva by Kunti to Pandavas [Mb, 11.27] but still when Yudhishthira was telling about Karna in Shanti Parva he did not mention meeting of Shri Krishna and Karna [Mb, 12.01]
--Even Bibek Debroy doubted on the authenticity of this meeting (Read last footnotes of this meeting)
--Even cross reference which we have founded for the meeting of Shri Krishna and Karna in the 2nd chapter of Mahabharata also contradicts actual narration of meeting. Whatever written in that cross reference don't match with actual meeting.
D). The incident of Karna sparing the lives of Yudhishthira, Nakula and Sahdeva
These incidents also don't have any cross reference and can clearly be considered as interpolation as per their logic.
Plus,
-Dhritarashtra also did not mention these incident in the first chapter of Mb while narrating many incidents of Mahabharata [Mb, 1.1]
-Neither does Sanjaya mentioned anywhere in cross reference other than actual event
-Nor Yudhisthira mentioned these incidents in the shanti parva while narrating about Karna before Narada(Mb.12.01). He mentioned Kunti-karna meeting but not Krishna-karna meeting
Moreover,
When Arjuna and Shri Krishna visited the Pandavas tent to see Yudhishthira, Yudhishthira tells them that he is alive because of Bhima's power(Mb.8.46) but in actual event, when Karna abused Yudhishthira and spared his life, Bhima couldn't do anything which clearly contradict the actual event and makes this incident an interpolation.
E) The So Called Unfair Killing Of Karna
Karna fans whine without any proof that Karna was killed unarmed, while they know very well that Karna's death was one of the most fair death in Mahabharata. But I am adding this point only for those Karnandus who think that Karna was killed unarmed.
Actually whenever Karna's unfair killing is mentioned in cross reference it is written that only Karna's chariot sank down on the ground and Arjuna cutt off his head. With the exception of one place, nowhere it is written that Karna was lifting the chariot wheel during his death.
The actual event of Karna's death also says that he was killed armed then why those Karnandus cry without any proof.
The disrobing of Draupadi is mentioned in both actual and cross reference but the fictional unarmed death of Karna is not mentioned anywhere (with the exception of one place)
CONCLUSION:- As we can see that if we apply those logics which some scholars have used in describing Draupadi's disrobing incident as an interpolation then almost all the Pro Karna incident and Anti Pandavas incidents are interpolation. Does Karna fans have the guts to accept these incidents as interpolations ? If not then don't whine over disrobing incident
EXCUSE NO. 6) BORI CE removed all the cross reference regarding disrobing of Draupadi
DISROBING :- It is another lie created by Bhutta Karna fans, there are many cross references regarding this incident. The two cross reference is mentioned directly and other than those two references, the rest cross references are mentioned indirectly
Now let's see those cross references which are mentioned directly and given below
1). Shalya Parva, Chapter No. 4
Krishna
was in her season and was clad in a single garment. While all the
worlds looked on, she was oppressed by Duhshasana in the midst of the assembly hall. The Pandavas
remember the distress of the naked one
2). Shalya Parva, Chapter No. 58
‘Droupadi was in her season and they
disrespected her. They deprived her of her garment there. Behold. Through Yajnaseni’s austerities,
in the battle, the sons of Dhritarashtra have been slain by the Pandavas.
EXCUSE NO. 7) :- The personal opinions of the scholars are not mere their personal opinions, but it is as authentic as Vyasa's words.
DISROBING :- Does This comedy even needs refutation ? The personal opinion of the scholars are not their personals opinons then what is it ? It should be treated as Vyasa's words ?
Let me explain it with an example,
We all know about Dr. B. R Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution who has received Bharat Ratna. Basically, Dr. B. R Ambedkar preferred Neo-Buddhism over Hinduism that's why he left Hinduism and formed another sect known as Navayana Buddhism. So, Dr. Ambedkar's personal views preferred Neo-Buddhism over Hinduism but the Constitution composed by him doesn't preferred Neo - Buddhism over Hinduism and our honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi has praised Dr. B.R Ambedkar many times not because of his personal views but bec ko the texts of Constitution composed by him.
Similarly, the personal views of these scholars exists outside the texts of Mahabharata just like the personal views of Dr. Ambedkar exists outside the texts of Indian Constitution. Every Indian don't need to become Neo - Buddhist and the disrobing of Draupadi need not to be considered an interpolation because the views of Dr. B.R Ambedkar and those scholars exists outside the Indian Constitution and Mahabharata.
Now I am challenging the entire Karnandu community
If you have guts then show me a single evidence, where those scholars have said that their words should be treated as Vyasa's words itself ?
- Where the BORI CE said that scholars opinion should be considered while reading Vyasa's Mahabharata
Also it should be noted that those scholars didn't narrate entire 18 Parva long Mahabharata so why should their opinions should be considered as equal as texts ? Suppose if a scholar shares his/her opinion on Draupadi's disrobing but didn't mentioned any character like Bhagadatta then Bhagadatta should be considered as an interpolated character according to the logic of Karnandus 🤣🤣
Hence, Mahabharata is separate from scholar's opinions.
EXCUSE NO. 8):- Draupadi's disrobing is a major incident and a backbone of Mahabharata hence it needs cross reference but the other events of Mahabharata specially Por Karna incidents are not events hence it don't need cross - reference .
DISROBING :- Who the hell are you Karnanundus to decide which incident need cross Reference and which incident not ? Are you Vyasa? Where did you read that Draupadi disrobing is a backbone of Mahabharat hence it needs cross Reference ? In Tv-serials or in Mrityunjay novel or in your dreams?😂😂
EXCUSE NO. 9):- All those scholars who considered Draupadi's disrobing as ab interpolation are gods and incarnation of Shri Krishna Dwaipyayana Vyasa in Kaliyuga but the present editor of Mahabharata CE and members of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute are fools that's why they are not removing disrobing of Draupadi from the Mahabharata Critical Edition
DISROBING :- Keep burning in the fire of truth and in the heat of reality you Karnandus 😜😜😝😝
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
.........................................
So dear Draupadi haters, you are standing completely helpless in this argument be it in context with the actual event or the cross reference. Hence, it's a genuine advice to you that you should stop targeting traditional but authentic failures of Karna both as a warrior and as a human being
