Kunti and karna - Page 2

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Bheeshma had made it clear that KANEENA sons can't inherit the throne.

Didn't Pandu say that Kaneena sons were able to inherit , although fifth in order?

I definitely remember reading that. Pandu listed the different types of sons a man may have. And the order in which they can inherit the man's property.

Originally posted by: AnkitaPurka66

Didn't Pandu say that Kaneena sons were able to inherit , although fifth in order?

I definitely remember reading that. Pandu listed the different types of sons a man may have. And the order in which they can inherit the man's property.

That was perhaps the Kaneen son of the man not the women

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That was perhaps the Kaneen son of the man not the women

Does he mention?

Pandu was actually quoting manusmriti.

159. The legitimate son of the body, the son begotten on a wife, the son adopted, the son made, the son secretly born, and the son cast off, (are) the six heirs and kinsmen.

160. The son of an unmarried damsel, the son received with the wife, the son bought, the son begotten on a re-married woman, the son self-given, and the son of a Sudra female, (are) the six (who are) not heirs, (but) kinsmen.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm

Karna was a kanina son of Kunti but he wasn't a Pandava. Moreover, since Kunti gave him up, she lost her rights over him the moment Adhiratha adopted him. Scriptures gave greater importance to the one who reared children.

If Karna's claim to the throne had substance, then even Vyasa could be deemed an heir to Shantanu.

"Bhishma said, 'When a person takes up and rears a son that has been cast off on the road by his father and mother, and when the person thus taking and rearing him fails to find out his parents after search, he becomes the father of such a son and the latter becomes what is called his made son. Not having anybody to own him, he becomes owned by him who brings him up. Such a son, again, comes to be regarded as belonging to that order to which his owner or rearer belongs.'

The Mahabharata

Book 13: Anusasana Parva

Kisari Mohan Ganguli, tr.

[1883-1896]

SECTION XLIX

I don't think ke karna ko kabhi hp ka maharaj sweekar kiya jata..

N I even think karna himself would have never did that..

Karna ne kunti ko 4 pandvo ko chodne ka vachan deke khud ko kunti ke rihn se mukt kar liya..kunti ne usse janam diya uss rihn se khud ko mukt kar liya..

N he called himself Radhey after all that..he always wanted to be radhey..he would have never join Pandava ..

Originally posted by: ariyabestfan

I don't think ke karna ko kabhi hp ka maharaj sweekar kiya jata..

N I even think karna himself would have never did that..

Karna ne kunti ko 4 pandvo ko chodne ka vachan deke khud ko kunti ke rihn se mukt kar liya..kunti ne usse janam diya uss rihn se khud ko mukt kar liya..

N he called himself Radhey after all that..he always wanted to be radhey..he would have never join Pandava ..

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Umm actually i don't think kunti asked him for any sort of promise ( if she did i would love if you can give the citation) it was karna himself who promised to not attack - four of the five Pandavas that including yudhishtra whose death would have tilted the result in their (duryodhan) s favour. And i don't think it was out any kind of affection for his "brothers" but more out of his own selfish need to prove himself better than arjun by killing him there you have kunti s eldest acting just like her - having both ways and in doing so betraying his best friend somebody who provided him with friendship affection and even kingdom

Actually, Kunti asked him to switch sides and fight on the side of her sons, or at least withdraw support to Duryodhan. That after a lifetime of him being committed to the latter. Oh, and he did develop a sudden affection for his 'brothers': when Krishna told him about it earlier, he extolled the greatness of them and even Abhimanyu, who'd die in the war. The biggest proof of that was him asking Krishna to keep his real identity a secret from the Pandavas b'cos if Yudhi got to find out, he'd have offered him the crown, and Karna in turn would have turned it over to Dury to repay him for the Anga crown and his friendship.

So your last part is right - he did somewhat betray his friend by not taking advantage of this and cheating the Pandavas of their rights. But a good reason for him not to have done that was not only dharma, but also that he didn't wanna take undue advantage of a situation where the Pandavas couldn't have done a thing. Also, he was regretful about insulting Draupadi in court, which he claimed he did only to please Dury.

I do agree that Kunti gets a lot of backlash from people who forgive these same mistakes in the male characters.

As far as her asking Karna to spare her other sons, she never asked him that. She asks him to join her brothers so that she doesn't need to see any of her sons die. As a woman, this request may have been in bad taste after everything that happened, but as a mother it's understandable. No mother wants to see her children kill one another. Even if one son has been separated or rejected all his life, when it comes to his death, no mother will want to see that.

So was her request morally wrong? Maybe. But is it understandable from a mother's POV? YES. This is why Karna even tells her he won't kill any of his brothers except Arjuna. Kunti never asked it of him, but he still wanted to appease his mother somewhat, because he understood her heart.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Actually, Kunti asked him to switch sides and fight on the side of her sons, or at least withdraw support to Duryodhan. That after a lifetime of him being committed to the latter. Oh, and he did develop a sudden affection for his 'brothers': when Krishna told him about it earlier, he extolled the greatness of them and even Abhimanyu, who'd die in the war. The biggest proof of that was him asking Krishna to keep his real identity a secret from the Pandavas b'cos if Yudhi got to find out, he'd have offered him the crown, and Karna in turn would have turned it over to Dury to repay him for the Anga crown and his friendship.

So your last part is right - he did somewhat betray his friend by not taking advantage of this and cheating the Pandavas of their rights. But a good reason for him not to have done that was not only dharma, but also that he didn't wanna take undue advantage of a situation where the Pandavas couldn't have done a thing. Also, he was regretful about insulting Draupadi in court, which he claimed he did only to please Dury.

I don't think karna would have inherited the throne anyway because he was officially adopted by adhirath (bhism said so in his last meeting with karna - citation previous page ).

Humiliated and almost gave idea of disrobing to please duryodhan ??? Does not really paint a very good image of him

And what about the hunting trip another idea to please duryodhan ?? Duryodhan ke khandhe par rakhke bandook chala rahe the angraaj 😆

And i don't know but IT WAS A WAR if he choose to side with duryodhan should have done completely and not went around giving promise that he did because that way he was being loyal to none just swinging like a pendulum but then that is just me i think if you have decided to stand with particular cause/person for whatever reason he/she should have done it with everything he/she had

Like how vikarna was he spoke up when the time was to speak up tried to put sense into his brother. And when it to came to choose sides he stood by his brother. Fought and died for him.

Originally posted by: AnkitaPurka66

I do not blame Kunti for abandoning Karna at birth - that is understandable for an unwed woman, a princess especially.

Although one question - was giving away the baby not an option? Why did she float him in the river? He could have died.

I blame her for keeping quiet all those years. Never caring even when he went on to Duryodhana's side.

And THEN go and emotionally manipulate him and weaken his resolve

She had NO rights to him, she gave them up. So she should not have gone to beg him for anything at the beginning of the war.

Yes, this could be just a strategic move with no motherly affection at all, but that doesn't make her any more likable to me as an admirer of the character Karna.

Why should she not have kept quiet? He was adopted by a loving couple, lived a cushy life by his own admission, got a superlative education Brahmashira notwithstanding, was friends with a prince, and was made king of Anga.

If anything, PANDAVAS had room to complain about her silence after Karna tried to poison Bheem and kill them all in Varanavat.

It waa only after dice hall that Kunti called him wretch and went to manipulate him. He was a criminal by then. Irredeemable after what he did. Pick any criminal from today. What would you say to his bio mom who actually supported him? Would you admire her rather than the bio mom who arranged things so that the criminal son got caught/faced death for his actions? Someone like her would've been called a patriot today.

As I said before what I don't get is why she divulged anything to the Pandavas. Luckily, except for Yudhishtira, no one appeared to have given a damn.