Saif : " we will justify abduction of Sita and war with ram" - Page 18

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

"'Shalya said, "The abandonment of the afflicted and the sale of wives and children are, O Karna, prevalent amongst the Angas whose king thou art.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm

If that does not satisfy the person that discovers Arjuna to me, I will make him a more valuable gift, that, indeed, which he himself will solicit. Sons, wives and articles of pleasure and enjoyment that I have, these all I shall give him if he desires them. Indeed, unto him who discovers Keshava and Arjuna to me, I shall, after slaying those two, give all the wealth that may be left by them."

^ Here, Karna offers women and children to the soldiers to discover Arjuna's whereabouts.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08038.htm

Thanks.

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

I can ask the same to you 😆 You seem to be confused about which narrative you want to pursue and going back & forth on your own words 😆

So far you were hell bent on the explanation that this particular page explicitly mention this & hence let's ignore everything else & just take up in total literal sense. You were turning deaf ears to HearMeRoar's explanation about Eklavya's origin or infringement crimes or his kingdom's alliance with Hastinapur's arch rival.... because they were not explicitly mentioned in this particular portion even though they are facts mentioned in Mahabharata. Now that I showed that the "explicit mention" about the caste discrimination has been removed by BORI & BORI edition's narration simply reads that Drona, loyal to his Dharma & other students refused Eklavya, you want me to go reading up & looking up for references from sources outside Mahabharata? 😆

1. You are accusing me of defying grammar & making up stuffs with mind reading, but yet you are doing the same with the word Dharma. Since it's not an "explicit mention" about caste anymore, you are making the word "Dharma" analogous to caste discrimination😆 Since when Dharma or Dharmik Knowledge is only about caste? The whole Mahabharata is based on the concept Dharma vs Adharma so it's about caste?🤓You seem to not know that "Dharma" essentially means the right thing to do. Drona, being the military instructor of Hastinapur, protecting the interest of Hastinapur & eliminating any threat to its security is also his Dharma.

2. We don't need to read Drona's mind to understand his action. It is clearly stated that Eklavya introduced himself as Drona's student (AGAINST Drona's wish) → everyone believed it to be true → Arjuna even questioned his loyalty. Drona thinks about it & took his decision. No need to assume anything. The chain of events is self-explanatory. Accusations of treason was already being made when he did not even have anything to do with it & caste was the only thing he was thinking? Looks like you are the one who have read his mind 😆

My request to you is without going on back and forth on narratives please first decide what you want to take into consideration & what to not.

i) If you wish to bring references of Nishadas from outside of MB, something that has not been mentioned in the Eklavya chapter and want to base your argument on common knowledge or anything as such, you then have to take other variables like Drona being the Military instructor of Hastinapur, his duty / Dharma being loyal to Hastinapur & safeguarding its interest, Eklavya being a Prince whose Kingdom had allies with Magadha - the arch rival of Hastinapur, the strong probability that whatever he learns from Drona will be put to use against Hastinapur leading to Drona being labelled a traitor etc etc into consideration too. You can not cherry pick between them as per your convenience. If you are considering other facts, consider ALL of them.

ii) If you do not wish to consider those & want to stick to only what's been mentioned in the Eklavya portion, nothing out of it, then please do so. BORI team has removed the caste/ lowborn highborn part & retained only the part where Drona, being dharma / duty bound & considerate to others, could not take in Eklavya since he was Nishada (the footnote here mentioning them being from Mountains or Forests, practically an outsider to Hastinapur, nothing on the caste angle). That's it. It does not elaborate whether Nishada was low caste, Drona was caste supremacist & hence rejected him on grounds of low caste. It says nothing like that.

So you need to make up your mind & choose which approach you prefer and then stick to it. You cannot go back & forth between the two only to pick up the parts you like & discard the rest. Whichever approach you prefer, accept all that it entails.

What are you so confused about? The fact that Nishadas were considered low-born remains a fact of its time, regardless of whether the BORI team retains or not. Mahabharat did not exist in vacuum, it was a product of its times.

I am not cherry-picking anything. Did I ever deny that Nishadas were outsiders? No. Neither did I ever deny that Drona was a military general. I only pointed out that caste seems to have been the PRINCIPAL factor in Drona's refusal, since the ORIGINAL texts mention it as so.

I don't see how I'm cherry picking or what I'm saying might be so difficult to understand.

Answer this simple question: Why did Drona give the caste reason when Ekalavya approached him (in the original text)?

Originally posted by: sub_rosa

@Bold: Source?

Looks like already answered

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

What are you so confused about? The fact that Nishadas were considered low-born remains a fact of its time, regardless of whether the BORI team retains or not. Mahabharat did not exist in vacuum, it was a product of its times.

I am not cherry-picking anything. Did I ever deny that Nishadas were outsiders? No. Neither did I ever deny that Drona was a military general. I only pointed out that caste seems to have been the PRINCIPAL factor in Drona's refusal, since the ORIGINAL texts mention it as so.

I don't see how I'm cherry picking or what I'm saying might be so difficult to understand.

Answer this simple question: Why did Drona give the caste reason when Ekalavya approached him (in the original text)?

KMG is not original text. It is translated from Neelkantha Chaturdhara a.k.a the Bombay Edition.

The closest to original text would actually be BORI Critical Edition.

Saying this only because I see this claimed a lot that KMG is original. It is not. It is just in public domain and in English, so easier to cite.

Otherwise, I recognize we're taking opposite approaches to text, so very little point in continuing the discussion.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

What are you so confused about? The fact that Nishadas were considered low-born remains a fact of its time, regardless of whether the BORI team retains or not. Mahabharat did not exist in vacuum, it was a product of its times.

I am not cherry-picking anything. Did I ever deny that Nishadas were outsiders? No. Neither did I ever deny that Drona was a military general. I only pointed out that caste seems to have been the PRINCIPAL factor in Drona's refusal, since the ORIGINAL texts mention it as so.

I don't see how I'm cherry picking or what I'm saying might be so difficult to understand.

Answer this simple question: Why did Drona give the caste reason when Ekalavya approached him (in the original text)?

Oh Lord! 😆 I don't know from where to start 😆 Let's see. 😆

The satisfaction with which you are iterating the word "Original Text" is amusing 😆 If you are under the impression that the version you are reading in the sacredtext site is the "Original Text" of MB, then let me break it to you that it is not. It is the KMG version, which is a direct translation of the Neelkanth Edition. It's one of the well circulated versions, but no way original. There are similar well circulated versions like Geeta Press, the Southern Editions etc but none of them are "original text". THERE IS NO ORIGINAL TEXT OF MAHABHARATA AVAILABLE ANYWHERE.The Mahabharata Vyasa narrated, was not recorded in a written form back then. Back then it was circulated by Shruti method….and after a long time people started writing it. From author to author versions changed, with newer stories, background stories added in the mix. The Mahabharata we know right now is hardly the original Mahabharata narrated by Vyasa. All the versions by different authors….are just that. Different versions. None of them can be called the authentic version as we don't know how much later interpolations, folktales etc are present in them & how much is the original form.

To solve this very problem, the BORI team started their research and they studied over 1200 available manuscripts and compiled the critical edition with the parts that are found in majority of the mansucripts. BORI removed the parts which are present in only few, newer manuscripts and very possibly can be later additions. BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata is the closest version of Vyasa's Mahabharata we have today. Now, no one can know exactly what Vyasa's Mahabharata consisted….but the scholars at BORI have researched over 50 years to find out what could possibly be Vyasa's Mahabharata. So you saying it doesn't matter what BORI team retained or not is.....a bit ignorant on your part? It very much matters 😆

And I am not bluffing. You can look up & read BORI's history yourself if you don't believe me 😆

So BORI removed the caste excuse of Drona most probably because it was not present in most of the manuscripts. The majority of the manuscripts don't use the caste angle & Drona refuses to accept Eklavya because being the Military Instructor of Hastinapur he was morally & professionally duty bound to serve only Hastinapur & protect its security.
And if you read up the later events of Mahabharata, it doesn't take much to understand why so. Eklavya's kingdom had powerful allies like Magadha, when he became the King he was even invited & was very much present in Yudhistira's Rajsuya event along with other Kings.

Lol 😆 Untouchable & outcast? Sure 😆

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

Oh Lord! 😆 I don't know from where to start 😆 Let's see. 😆

The satisfaction with which you are iterating the word "Original Text" is amusing 😆 If you are under the impression that the version you are reading in the sacredtext site is the "Original Text" of MB, then let me break it to you that it is not. It is the KMG version, which is a direct translation of the Neelkanth Edition. It's one of the well circulated versions, but no way original. There are similar well circulated versions like Geeta Press, the Southern Editions etc but none of them are "original text". THERE IS NO ORIGINAL TEXT OF MAHABHARATA AVAILABLE ANYWHERE.The Mahabharata Vyasa narrated, was not recorded in a written form back then. Back then it was circulated by Shruti method….and after a long time people started writing it. From author to author versions changed, with newer stories, background stories added in the mix. The Mahabharata we know right now is hardly the original Mahabharata narrated by Vyasa. All the versions by different authors….are just that. Different versions. None of them can be called the authentic version as we don't know how much later interpolations, folktales etc are present in them & how much is the original form.

To solve this very problem, the BORI team started their research and they studied over 1200 available manuscripts and compiled the critical edition with the parts that are found in majority of the mansucripts. BORI removed the parts which are present in only few, newer manuscripts and very possibly can be later additions. BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata is the closest version of Vyasa's Mahabharata we have today. Now, no one can know exactly what Vyasa's Mahabharata consisted….but the scholars at BORI have researched over 50 years to find out what could possibly be Vyasa's Mahabharata. So you saying it doesn't matter what BORI team retained or not is.....a bit ignorant on your part? It very much matters 😆

And I am not bluffing. You can look up & read BORI's history yourself if you don't believe me 😆

So BORI removed the caste excuse of Drona most probably because it was not present in most of the manuscripts. The majority of the manuscripts don't use the caste angle & Drona refuses to accept Eklavya because being the Military Instructor of Hastinapur he was morally & professionally duty bound to serve only Hastinapur & protect its security.
And if you read up the later events of Mahabharata, it doesn't take much to understand why so. Eklavya's kingdom had powerful allies like Magadha, when he became the King he was even invited & was very much present in Yudhistira's Rajsuya event along with other Kings.

Lol 😆 Untouchable & outcast? Sure 😆

Bold: MOST PROBABLY. yeah. Not sure. 😆 I have read Kaliprasanna Singha's Mahabharat which is one of the most well-researched versions available, one which has been hailed by scholars for its authenticity.

What are your views on history? Any idea about the history of tribal people who lived in the forests during the Indo-Aryan era? They were virtually untouchables. Are you trying to say that the world of Mahabharat existed in a vacuum? 🤪Military alliances were done for power, but within the varna system they were one of the lowest castes. This is an INDISPUTABLE fact documented by history.

Want me to refer some history books to you? Start with DD Kosambi's book on Aryan migration.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

Bold: MOST PROBABLY. yeah. Not sure. 😆 I have read Kaliprasanna Singha's Mahabharat which is one of the most well-researched versions available, one which has been hailed by scholars for its authenticity.

What are your views on history? Any idea about the history of tribal people who lived in the forests during the Indo-Aryan era? They were virtually untouchables. Are you trying to say that the world of Mahabharat existed in a vacuum? 🤪Military alliances were done for power, but within the varna system they were one of the lowest castes. This is an INDISPUTABLE fact documented by history.

Want me to refer some history books to you? Start with DD Kosambi's book on Aryan migration.

😆 😆

At this point you have ditched Eklavya & are focusing only on Nishadas as a whole.😆

Nishadas were not a single tribe. In most of the ancient texts, all the indigenous tribes have been grouped together under the generic term Nishadas. Nishadas had several branches & they ruled quite a few kingdoms. Mountains & Forests were their abode. Not all of them were considered lowborn or outcast. gradually assi

As per Linguist S. K. Chatterji the Nishadas were different from the Dasas and the Dasyus. Ancient texts like Shrauta, Apastamba Shrauta Sutra, Latyayana Shrauta Sutra etc project them as powerful tribes. certain Vedic Rituals like Vishvajit sacrifice required the performer to live with the Nishadas & share their food. The Satapatha Brahmana mentions them among the groups whom the Vedic priests taught Itihasa, the Atharvaveda, the art of snake-charming (sarpa-vidya), and demonology (deva-jana-vidya). There are texts like The Manava-Shrauta-Sutra which explicitly prescribes a Shrauta (Vedic) sacrifice for a Nishada chief.
The existence of these texts clearly suggests that efforts were made to assimilate the Nishadas into the Indo - Aryan Social Framework. As per historian Ramaprasad Chanda, the Nishadas were too numerous and too powerful to be eliminated, enslaved, or expelled by the Indo - Aryans. Panini's Ganapatha even mentions a particular gotra called Nishada, which your suggested scholar D. D. Kosambi, interpreted into some of the Nishada priests being assimilated as Brahmanas in the Indo-Aryan society. 😆

In Mahabharata, Eklavya belonged to royal lineage & had alliances with other kingdoms. He was even invited to Yudhistira's Rajsuya Sacrifice & he attended it. Even if some of the Nishadas branches had limited social status or were relegated to the status of untouchable later on, Eklavya did not belong to those branches.

I thought we were talking about this Eklavya character in particular, not all the branches of Nishadas? 🤔 You again have gone off topic & now this pointless argument is getting really boring 😆

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

1. The son of Suta - The false victimization begins here. Suta was third in the hierarchy of Varnas, after Brahmin and Kshatriya. The portrayal of Sutas as a low, oppressed class is totally wrong. Suta was a son of a Brahmin mother and a Kshatriya father. Karna's foster father was a royal man and a friend of Dhritarashtra. Unlike the Pandavas who were born in a forest and led a difficult life amid deadly conspiracies, Karna's life was very comfortable.

Karna always aspired to be bigger than who he was. He wanted to be a great warrior. But was always dismissed and chided because he was a sutaputra and it was foolish for him to have such lofty notions.

Interestingly, despite being Brahmins Drona and Kripa faced a lot of poverty and harassment in their lives.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

2. Drona's rejection - Unlike the popular belief, Karna wasn't rejected by Drona on caste basis. He was very much a part of the Gurukul with the Kuru princes. That's where he befriended Duryodhana and developed a sense of jealousy towards Arjuna. Once he went to Drona and expressed his desire to possess the Brahmashira weapon. This desire was obviously fueled by his jealousy. Drona, refused because Karna did not deserve the weapon.

From my understanding, a lot of people went to the Gurukul at Hastinapur. But Drona's exclusive tutelage in weaponry and warfare was reserved for the Hastinapur princes. I see it more like Drona rejects Karna because he had signed an exclusive contract.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

3. Karna was Duryodhana's active co-conspirator in all the crimes the latter did. This also includes Bhima's poisoning which took place when the Kurus and Pandavas were children.

Again from my understanding, it was Sakuni who inspired Bhima's poisoning. Duryodhana and Karna don't really become BFFs until Karna challenges Arjuna in the showcase.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

4. Draupadi did NOT insult Karna. The latter couldn't string the bow.

They are not mutually exclusive. Draupadi insulted Karna because he couldn't string the bow. Many couldn't string the bow - but Draupadi chose him to taunt.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

5. Karna is the one who verbally abused Draupadi, called her a prostitute, and ordered Dussasana to disrobe her.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

6. When Pandavas and Draupadi were in forest exile, Karna suggested Duryodhana to march there to revel in their misery and to humiliate them.

However, this plan backfired when Gandharvas attacked the conspirators and Karna fled leaving his dearest friend at the mercy of the attackers. 😆

True.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

7. Karna's so-called Kavach Kundal daan was actually a TRADE. When Indra arrived in the guise of a Brahmin, Karna blatantly refused to part with his armour and ear rings without the possession of a deadly weapon in exchange. Hence, the greatest Daanveer tag is bogus.

Karna has a reputation of being "danveer" well before this. He consistently and generously gave more than anyone of his era. Also can we not ignore the fact that Indra disguised himself as a Brahmin to ask Karna for his kavacha and kundala. Let's not dismiss Indra's schemes and treachery. Karna never refused to part with his kavacha and kundala. But because Surya had warned him he knew Indra would offer him a trade. I don't think this one trade-off where Indra was duplicitous can erase a lifetime of generosity.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

8. Karna had a huge hand in blocking the peace talks. Even the likes of Shakuni advised Duryodhana to make peace with the Pandavas, Karna never failed in being an instigator.

True. But it's not pure malevolence. Karna believes it is better to die on the battlefield than give up without a fight.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

9. Contrary to what TV serials show, Bheeshma didn't oust Karna from the Kuru army. It was Karna who directed insulting words towards him and swore he wouldn't step in to fight until Bheeshma is eliminated.

He even advised Duryodhana to oust Bheeshma. 🤪

Bheeshma later admits that he needled Karna intentionally as he didn't want Karna battling his own brothers for Duryodhana. Before taking command, Karna has a long conversation with Bheeshma on his deathbed, and the two reconcile. Bheeshma even blesses his grandson Karna for battle.

I feel like there are other crimes of Karna you missed - like conspiring to kill 16-year-old Abhimanyu in a way that broke all the rules of engagement in war. It is said that dharma left the battlefield that day and no war henceforth would be honorable. He also encourages the midnight battle which again broke the agreed-upon code of when the two sides would fight.

Karna is by no means heroic. As a woman, I found his abuse of Draupadi exceptionally distasteful. Encouraging sexual assault of a woman just because she rejected/insulted you is like modern-day incel behavior. But he is by no means a villain either. There are many honorable things he does. And ultimately he is a victim of circumstance. Would he have been a better person if the circumstances in his life were better - if his birth mother acknowledged him and he had access to the dreams he aspired to? Most people who see him as a tragic hero answer yes to that. I prefer the term tragic anti-hero as some analysts have given him.

Dear friends the discussions are no more on Saif or any BW related topic. So now we can happily carry on discussions in DM.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Karna always aspired to be bigger than who he was. He wanted to be a great warrior. But was always dismissed and chided because he was a sutaputra and it was foolish for him to have such lofty notions.

Interestingly, despite being Brahmins Drona and Kripa faced a lot of poverty and harassment in their lives.

From my understanding, a lot of people went to the Gurukul at Hastinapur. But Drona's exclusive tutelage in weaponry and warfare was reserved for the Hastinapur princes. I see it more like Drona rejects Karna because he had signed an exclusive contract.

Again from my understanding, it was Sakuni who inspired Bhima's poisoning. Duryodhana and Karna don't really become BFFs until Karna challenges Arjuna in the showcase.

They are not mutually exclusive. Draupadi insulted Karna because he couldn't string the bow. Many couldn't string the bow - but Draupadi chose him to taunt.

.

Not speculation or extrapolation or analysis on my part. These are from Critical Edition and KMG.

And saying this because I keep seeing these beliefs in various forums.

1. Karna got all the education that Hastinapuri princes got. The only thing Drona refused to teach him was Brahmashira which he didn't teach any princes except Arjuna. Karna in fact bluntly says he wants to know how to use the weapon so he could one day kill Arjuna.

Karna then went to Parasu Ram to learn it.

2. Shakuni had no part in any of Suyodhana's plots except the dice hall. The rest were hatched with help from Karna.

3. Draupadi's rejection was present in 4 out of 1600 plus manuscripts of Northern recension and not in the older and hopefully less corrupted manuscripts; hence has been dismissed as interpolation. Moreover, even in those manuscripts with the statement, Karna's loss is documented well before this supposed rejection. Southern recension says Krishna, in the form of a mouse, chewed the bow strings so Karna would fail, which I take to mean as sabotage so Draupadi would marry the future emperor.

(An aside: even if she rejected, which she didn't, it was her wedding and well within her rights to say she wouldn't marry a man with Mickey Mouse ears if she so chose)

Karna and other kings then tried to burn her alive for garlanding the brahmana who did win.

4. Didn't quote this.

Karna doesn't merely call Panchali a prostitute or order Dusshasan to disrobe her.

Karna also asked her to choose one of the men in court to have sex with.

He also told her that her job would be to pleasure the Kuru princes.

5. His kingdom was the hub of Aryavarta's child sex trafficking.

He offered his own wife and children to any solider who'd help him locate Krishna and Arjuna.

Forgive me... I cannot see the man (and I use the term loosely) as antihero, tragic or otherwise. And I marvel how people can laud a wannabe rapist as some sort of caste emblem, esp when he was both upper caste and a villain driven by ambition and greed.

He was adopted, but adoption is not a tragedy.

Suta is actually upper caste (brahmana mother and kshatriya father). Shurasena, Krishna's grandfather, was a suta who married a Naga woman, making Krishna and his family lower in the caste structure.

Harivamsa documents the Karna lineage descending from Raghava Ram's dynasty... how much higher can a person get than be descended from Ram's clan?

Anga belonged to Karna's adoptive family even before and somehow fell into Hastinapuri hands. All this is documented in Mbh and HV.

He had a cushy life (by his own admission to Krishna) and chose to attack the Pandavas to curry favor with the prince he believed would inherit (this, too, he says).

That he died at his brother's hands was entirely due to his own misdeeds.

The writer in me understands he is a delicious character to dig into. But writers like me also have done a lot of whitewashing on Karna and somehow justified even his sexual assault on Panchali.