Ques on MahaBhrarta. Peep in/ DT Nt pg 25 - Page 14

Created

Last reply

Replies

287

Views

32.8k

Users

13

Likes

636

Frequent Posters

RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 7 years ago
@paartha,

I also do agree that Arjuna was more like a best friend to Krishna, and like you said I think it's because of the same age and also because of the Nara-Narayana theory (which is not in Vyasa's epic but in Vishnu Purana). I think the other Pandavas were more than just relatives though, to Krishna. He was genuinely fond of them and often engaged in teasing banter with them also. Yudhisthir and Bhima, being elder to him, he gave them the respect of elder brothers while also receiving respect from them for being the supreme Godhead. Nakula and Sahadeva were like his younger brothers and he treated them with genuine affection. Arjuna however was his best friend, due to being the same age and similar in disposition. There are incidents throughout the epic where Krishna offers loving guidance to each of the Pandavas.

Did you ever read KM Munshi's third novel in the Krishnavatara series? It's called 'The Five Brothers' and deals with Krishna's relationship with the Pandavas so beautifully.

A swayamvara was the equivalent of a betrothal/engagement in today's terms. A marriage was promised, but until the marriage happened, a bride and groom were generally still kept in isolation or closely supervised. Shakuntala and Dushyanta did not have a swayamvar. What they had was a gandharva vivaham, which is one of the many accepted forms of marriages in Vedic culture. A gandharva vivaham still includes marriage rites, but it's much quicker than a typical Vedic marriage.

I think Draupadi leaving with the Pandavas and being promised to all of them happened as per destiny, because otherwise there are too many coincidences and loopholes for it to happen otherwise.

As for Yudhisthira vowing to follow Kunti's words, I'm also confused by this chapter because it does have loopholes, which makes it clear that there have been interpolations to the original text. As you pointed out, there are instances which contradict each other, making it confusing to figure out exactly what the characters mean.
Y12345 thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: paartha

@..RamKiJanaki..

Yes, I agree to what you say, that Arjun might be a little over-confident about his ability at times but as you say, he was not an arrogant person. Yes, of course, only the almighty Lord Krishna was a perfect character and everyone else had their share of inabilities/failings.

Yes, all Pandavas were very close to Lord Krishna as they were his close relatives, but I feel it was Arjun who was more like a close friend to Lord Krishna rather than a relative like the other Pandavas. Lord Krishna, of course, treated the other Pandavas very kindly and with love but treated Arjun more like a friend. May be, this could be due to their similar interests/age or as the epic mentions at multiple places that Arjun was incarnation of Nara rishi, so this special affection could be understood from that point of view. And, Lord Krishna explicitly expresses the love and affection he has for Arjun on multiple times on various occasions in different parvas, so if this relationship was not special, then Vysa Maharishi would not have recorded this exclusive bond between them. I don't think Lord Krishna consistently displays such an expression of affection for any other character. Yes, each of the Pandavas had special qualities and they were noble individuals. It is just that, I admire Arjun more than the others.

Regarding Draupadi's marriage and various incidents preceding it, yes, this always puzzled me, it is a like a googly (in cricketing sense) to me. Always, been a mystery, the whole circumstances and all these various incidents.

Thanks for clearing the point about Swayamvar, I thought exchange of garlands was sufficient enough for declaration of marriage. If I'm not wrong, wasn't the same the case with Shakuntala and Dushyantha. I think their marriage was also done similarly, like exchange of garlands/rings?

But, as you raised, if that was the case, then Draupadi would become a younger brother's wife and Bhabhi and that would cause an issue with the traditional rites. But, whatever may be the case, the situation turned to be quite complex and difficult. Kudos to Draupadi/Pandavas for handling such delicate and complex situation with dignity and respect all through their lives.

One thing, sometimes I find it difficult to understand, was the way Yudhistir says that, for him his mother's words were final and hence those have to be executed. But, the same Yudhistir, if I'm not wrong becomes agitated and argues with Kunti, when Kunti sends Bhima to fight with Bakasura and he says that it was not a wise decision at all. So, in this case, it is not like he immediately obeys his mother's words to send Bhima off to fight with Bakasura.

Reading through the epic and reading various viewpoints of Mahabharat has always fascinated me, though I have started reading the BORI edition only recently. Thanks for sharing your knowledge in these posts.




____
But to answer the questions, Arjun was definitely upset with Karna( according to that quote that has been re translated into modern English) , and I agree that they were rivals. Both hated each other. It wasn't just one-sided.About Karna part in your previous post, I agree but about the loyalty thing, I feel he wasn't completely loyal. He was stuck in between, because sometimes he did support D, sometimes he hesitatied, sometimes he hesitated but did. And when D made him Commander, his duty was to kill pandavas but due to his promise to his mom, and his loyalty, he spared the 4. He was partly loyal, not fully. He was torn in between. That's what his character is about, a grey character.
Many people can relate with Karna, because he knew dharma but sometimes chose another way and isn't what we are all tempted to do as humans?

About bold part, I feel that way too you know. Because regarding Panchali issue, Pandavas acted like they had no other choice, and they had to obey to their mum, and elders, but all through the epic, we see them arguing and doing the contrary. Like when Yuddy staked Panchali, the 4 didnt say anything because they had to obey by their bro, but later, we see them having arguments, like on 17th day. And what is astonishing is Yuddy curse to Kunti, whose word he always obeyed regarding Panchali, but ended up cursing her? Was it because Panchali was a stranger, and no their family that nobody stood by her, but when they sudden;y know Karna was their bro, they stood for him ( by cursing Kunti) I feel its strange.
This whole thing about listening to elders is tricky, for example, pandavas didnt say anything after panchali humilation because his bro words meant all, similarly one could easily argued, that Dushana obeyed his big bro Durry, and dragged Panchali. Or Abhimanyu didnt listened to his uncles and went into the maze. Incidents like that.


Concerning Swaymbar, I think as soon as the bride to be accept someone, they automatically becomes ( how to say that, maybe engaged) which is why Panchali didnt return back to his dad, when Kunti mentioned that she should be divided. Just my POV.


Also, I do see everyone( Apart Krishna) as grey, obviously some having more shades of grey than others. Pandavas even after submitting themselves, did get rid of most of evil, but there was still that tint of grey, I don't know how to explain it. Krishna supported Pandavas because they were better in the lot, but as he himself point out, all white people do not exist. guys My history teacher once said that balance is a key concept, and when Krishna made Pandavas commit treachery, he knew what he did and maybe he did, because Pandavas had more good than bad in their account, and even by doing some treachery, their dharma would be also more than the Karavas. But at the cost of ending in hell. It was just his POV, thought I will share it with you! Yes, and Krishna siding has nothing to do with D didnt sit at his feet, he was mastermind, he knew he was going to be with Pandavas.



Edited by Y12345 - 7 years ago
Y12345 thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
Guys, let me share some raw quotes about Krishna/Karna.

Krishna yells, "Wow! Nice shot, Karna.

Arjuna asks Krishna, Why are you praising Karna?'

Krishna tells Arjun, Look at you! You have Lord Hanuman on the flag of this chariot. You have me as your charioteer. You received the blessings of Ma Durga and your Guru, Dronacharya before the battle, have a loving Mother and an aristocratic heritage. This Karna has nobody, his own charioteer, Salya belittles him, his own Guru (Parusurama) cursed him, his Mother abandoned him when he was born and he has no known heritage. Yet, look at the battle he's giving you. Without me and Lord Hanuman on this chariot, where would you be?'

This is a question that is fit for every one of us. Where would you be?' Where would anyone of us be without God's grace? We are not the doer. So, when Arjun is upset because of Krishna's praise of Karna Krishna reminds him that he is not the doer. One way or another, Krishna removed all of Arjuna's obstacles throughout his life. Krishna, via Dronacharya, eliminated Ekalavya as a future threat. Krishna, via Indra, made Karna give up his golden impenetrable armor. Krishna, via Ghatocatcha(Bhima's Son), made Karna use his deadly dart reserved for Arjuna. To Which Krishna laughed and laughed. When asked why he was laughing by Arjuna. Krishna said, one minute ago Karna could not be defeated even by the Gods, but, right now he has become human for the first time. Prior to that, Krishna would drive the chariot in such a way as to avoid Karna's side of the field.

Whereas, all of Arjuna's obstacles were removed one by one Karna's odds were stacked against him one by one


____

I also saw a brilliant article online which talks about the similarities of Krishna HUMAN form and Karna. Just human form, not Krishna ultimate energy.

Let me briefly state some.


Immediately after Krishna's birth, he was transported across the river by his father, Vasudeva to be brought up by his step-parents Nanda & Yasoda

Immediately after Karna's birth, his Mother Kunti placed him in a basket on the river. He was transported to his step-parents Adhiratha & Radha by the watchful eye of his father, Surya Dev

Krishna's mother was Devaki, his Step-Mother Yasoda, His Chief Wife Rukmini, yet he is remembered mostly for his lila with Radha. Radha-Krishna'

Karna's birth mother was Kunti, and even after finding out she was his mother He told Krishna that he will not be called Kaunteya son of Kunti, but will be remembered as Radheya Son of Radha. Till date, the Mahabharata refers to Karna as Radheya'

Krishna was asked by his people Yadavas- to become, King. Krishna refused and Ugrasena was King of the Yadavas.

Krishna asked Karna to become Emperor of India (BharataVarsha- Extending to Pakistan, Bangladesh & Afghanistan at the time), thereby preventing the MahaBharat War. Krishna argued that Karna being elder to both Yudhisthira & Duryodhana he would be the rightful heir to the throne. Karna refused the Kingdom on account of principle ( needs proof!)

Krishna/Karna were both looked upon as Outsiders' in the Mahabharat war

Krishna/Karna were often pre-judged and ridiculed by others. Krishna as a Cowherd' and Karna belonging to the Suta' caste

Krishna/Karna never sought titles, wealth or accolades of praise. Both were extremely generous to their family and friends

Krishna was born in the Kshatriya caste, yet he played the role of Arjuna's charioteer in the War

Karna was raised in the Suta (Charioteer) caste, yet he played the role of a Kshatriya in the War

Krishna/Karna both wanted Yudhisthira to become Emperor. Karna called Yudhisthira the embodiment of Truth' and that he deserved the Kingdom ( true, but due to his loyalty to D, he had to fight for the contrary)

By Birth, Karna had a closer relationship to Arjuna (Brothers) than Krishna had with Arjuna (Cousins)

But Spiritually, Krishna-Arjuna are the closest

Krishna asked Karna how he knew the Pandavas would Win the MahaBharat War. To which Karna responded, Kurukshethra is a sacrificial field. Arjuna is the Head Priest, You-Krishna are the presiding deity. Myself (Karna), Bhishma Dev, Dronacharya and Duryodhana are the sacrifice.' ( I'll look up the shoklas to comfirm)

Krishna/Karna both sacrificed their lives for the Pandavas

Krishna ended their conversation by telling Karna, You are the best of the Pandavas ( hahaa will look this up to)

The last tidbit is this, all the letters of K-A-R-N-A are in the word KRISHNA.

KARNA is the creation of Krishna to show the world the true meaning of sacrifice and to accept your fate. And in spite of all the bad luck or bad times you come across maintain: Your Spirituality, Your Generosity, Your Nobility, Your Dignity and Your Self- Respect and Respect for others (Hmm..)

The most telling aspect of Karna's character comes when Sri Krishna offers him the Emperorship of India and without so much of a blink of an eye Karna turns it down as a matter of principle.

Karna tells Krishna, "What am I to do with the Throne? Am I to die of old age on a Throne? No, my death will be on the battlefield like a true Warrior. There is no Glory, being King there is Glory dying a Hero's death I am after Glory, not the Throne or Gold. ( maybe the english translation went overboard but nevertheless)

The old one is below which maybe reveals that Krishna thought he was worthy of ruling entire india and maybe even more than Yuddy.

Enjoy the sovereignty of the earth, O thou of mighty arms, with thy brothers the Pandavas,with yapas and homas and auspicious rites of diverse kinds performed in thy honour. Let the Dravidas, with the Kuntalas, the Andhras, and the Talacharas, and the Shuchupas, and the Venupas, all walk before thee. Let chanters and panegyrists praise thee with innumerable laudatory hymns. Let the Pandavas proclaim,--Victory to Vasusena. Surrounded by the Pandavas, like the moon by the stars, RULE THOU THE KINGDOM , O son of Kunti"

Udyoga Parva: Bhagwat Yana Parva: Section CXL


Karna proceeds to tell Krishna, "Do not give me anything. Whatever, I get I will give to Duryodhana. If you give me the Kingdom, I will give it to Duryodhana. So, please don't offer me that, as Yudhisthira deserves the Kingdom. He is fit to be the Emperor of Bharata as the very embodiment of Truth. The Pandavas are under your protection, they will Win the War.

It is said that at Draupadi's Swayamvara (The most skilled Warrior Wins the Princess as his Wife) if Karna had Won Draupadi's hand he would have given her to Duryodhana.

Krishna and Karna did not trust each other. Karna thought of Krishna as a trickster. He was skeptical of Krishna's claims that he was a "god.
Krishna on the other hand was always in a fix because the most powerful warrior who could easily defeat Arjun just like that, was in the Kaurava camp.


However even though Karna had a mini grudge for Krishna because Krishna knew about his birth secret and kept quite the entire time, only to reveal this during the war, to reduce Karna's killing intent, this did not made him hate him, he still admired him.

They were distant cousins.


Krishna was closest friend of pandavas and Karna closest to D.

Krishna/Karna Everything they did they did for others, not for themselves. Two selfless souls always acting for the betterment for others, while needing nothing themselves is Freedom.

Karna was another version of Krishna in human form but with shades of grey.

Krishna would prefer NOT to kill Karna(directly or indirectly) but he must, for closure and for Dharma to prevail.He does, however ensure Karna gets his deserved glory, and sets him as an example of the idealised human- Karna's life story is an example to struggling humanity to persever and never lose heart.

Karna's sins were balanced out by time war started.So Krishna did what he did- gave him his glory, eliminated him for Pandavas' sake also.

They both had mutual respect for each other. Karna respected Krishna and Krishna respected him too.

"Sanjaya said, 'Having spoken these words, KARNA CLOSELY PRESSED MADHAVA TO HIS BOSOM. Dismissed by Kesava, he then descended from the car. (they hugged??)

Udyoga Parva: Bhagwat Yana Parva: Section CXLIII

Karna said, 'Without doubt, O KESAVA, thou hast said these words from thy love, affection, and friendship for me

From joy or fear. O GOVINDA. I cannot venture to destroy those bonds even for the sake of the whole earth

And it is for this, O ACHYUTA, that in the battle (that will ensue), I, O Krishna, have been chosen as the great antagonist of Arjuna

f I do not now engage in a single combat with Arjuna, this will, O HRISHIKESA, be inglorious for both myself and Partha

Karna was only person in dwapar yuga who did use 7-8 names of Lord Krishna in single speech.

All these name have specific importance and specific meaning.

These names has been mentioned to show greatness of Lord Krishna and Karna did use these names which proves the greatness of Lord Krishna( Unlike D, he did respected Krishna)

Krishna to Arjuna]

Hear in brief, O son of Pandu! I regard the mighty warrior Karna as thy equal, or perhaps, thy SUPERIOR ! . In energy he is equal to Agni. As regards speed, he is equal to the impetuosity of the wind. In wrath, he resembles the Destroyer himself. He is invincible. He is sensitive. He is a hero. He is, again, the FOREMOST OF HEROES. He is exceedingly handsome (irrelevant?). Possessed of every accomplishment of a warrior


The man does not exist in this world that could not stay before Karna armed with that dart and looking like Kartikeya in battle. By good luck, his (natural) armour had been taken away. By good luck, his earrings also had been taken away. By good luck, his infallible dart also is now baffled, through Ghatotkacha. Clad in (natural) coat of mail and decked with his (natural) ear-rings, Karna, who had his senses under control, could singly vanquish the three worlds with the very gods. Neither Vasava, nor Varuna the lord of the waters, nor Yama, could venture to approach him. Indeed, if that bull among men had his armour and ear-rings, neither thyself, bending the

Gandiva , nor myself, uplifting my discus, called Sudarsana , could vanquish him in battle. For thy good, Karna was divested of his ear-rings by Sakra with the help of an illusion.

Book 7: Drona Parva

(not main text but its the supplement books so highly ambiguous)


These wails are being incessantly heard, O Partha, of thy helpless friends who are uttering them, mangled by the shafts of Karna.

The manner in which Karna is aiming and letting off his shafts is such that NO INTERVAL can be noticed between the two acts. He will, O Partha, annihilate all our friends.

Book 7: Drona Parva

( Krishna praising his shooting skills)

There win occur one OPPORTUNITY for his slaughter. When his car-wheels will sink in the earth, availing thyself of that opportunity, thou shouldst slay him in that DISTRESSFUL situation. I will make thee a sign beforehand. Warned by it, thou shouldst act. The vanquisher of Vala himself, that foremost of heroes, wielding his thunder, is INCAPABLE of slaying the INVINCIBLE KARNA while the LATER STANDS WEAPON IN HAND

Book 7: Drona Parva

( Krishna confessed that it was impossible to slay Krishna without treachery)

Krishna said to Arjuna]

Hear in brief, O son of Pandu! I regard the mighty warrior Karna as thy equal, or perhaps, thy SUPERIOR ! . In energy he is equal to Agni. As regards speed, he is equal to the impetuosity of the wind. In wrath, he resembles the Destroyer himself. He is invincible. He is sensitive. He is a hero. He is, again, the FOREMOST OF HEROES. He is exceedingly handsome. Possessed of every accomplishment of a warrior.

Book 8: Karna Parva

Karna


"The force has its own reasons, I have my own reasons. Where were you when Drona denied me to teach lessons because I do not belong to a royal family? Where was Dharma when I was not allowed to compete in the Swayamvar of Draupadi and I was insulted of being a person from lowerly caste? Where was dharma when I had to answer every single person how a suta putra became the king? Dharma or righteousness for that matter has never been my friend. I have only one friend and only one dharma"

Karna


I am not fighting this war to gain anything. After Ganga putra Bheesma, I am the most unfortunate lone warrior in this battlefield. Fighting for nothing. He has his Pratigya and hence he is helpless. But I am not helpless. I can walk away from the war. But No, I won't. I cannot leave my friend when he needs me the most. I know he is wrong but that has nothing to do with my gratitude.


Krishna


Fine. What if Pandavas win and they invite you to become the king of Hastinapura? You will have to marry Draupadi then, will you do it?


Karna


No that is not even a possibility. At the end of this war, either I will be alive or Arjuna will be. No matter who wins this war, one of us is going to die. And as far as Draupadi is concerned, that is the only regret I have. I have wrongly insulted her, called her a wh**e in the court room. I shouldn't have said that. So even if she approaches me, I am not worthy of her now. At one point, I was. But not now. It's too late ( Did he actually repent??)

(Ref - Udyoga Parva: Bhagwat Yana Parva: Section CXL] - but translated to english hence)


( Karna thoughts are in Karna Parva + book rashmirathi)

Idk to what extent, you guys believe in Karna Parva but putting the quotes here just in case



Passion, engagement, skill and policy - these are the means to accomplish objectives.

Ashwatthama, Karna Parva, Mahabharata Book viii.6[3]

Karna Parva, Chapter 69:

Many people maintain that morality can be learned from the scriptures alone; I do not find fault with that, but then everything is not provided in the scriptures.
Moral precepts have been made for the well bring of all creatures.
Moral precepts have been made to free the creatures from all injuries.
Dharma - morality - is so called because it protects all. Morality saves all creatures. That is moral that keeps creatures from injuries.
An untruth spoken to save creatures from injuries is in the cause of morality, and does not amount to a falsehood.

Krishna, Karna Parva, Mahabharata Book viii.69.56-66



It's just the book quotes, the movies/TV versions as some of you pointed out was inaccurate.

__________________________________

The entire Mahabharata war will stop by only one word delivered by Karna to dharmaraj i.e. "I am your elder brother just enough this word to stop the entire war.

It would have been cool if Karna would have been with Pandavs. Imagine the look on D's face.


Edited by Y12345 - 7 years ago
paartha thumbnail
8th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
@Yenna, I do not collect reading any such text as below in the epic. It seems from folklore, as in folktales various incidents have been added. If it is present in the epic, then please do point to me, since I don't recollect reading it.


Krishna yells, "Wow! Nice shot, Karna.

Arjuna asks Krishna, Why are you praising Karna?'

"Arjuna asks Krishna, Why are you praising Karna?'

Krishna tells Arjun, Look at you! You have Lord Hanuman on the flag of this chariot. You have me as your charioteer. You received the blessings of Ma Durga and your Guru, Dronacharya before the battle, have a loving Mother and an aristocratic heritage. This Karna has nobody, his own charioteer, Salya belittles him, his own Guru (Parusurama) cursed him, his Mother abandoned him when he was born and he has no known heritage. Yet, look at the battle he's giving you. Without me and Lord Hanuman on this chariot, where would you be?'

This is a question that is fit for every one of us. Where would you be?' Where would anyone of us be without God's grace? We are not the doer. So, when Arjun is upset because of Krishna's praise of Karna Krishna reminds him that he is not the doer. One way or another, Krishna removed all of Arjuna's obstacles throughout his life. Krishna, via Dronacharya, eliminated Ekalavya as a future threat. Krishna, via Indra, made Karna give up his golden impenetrable armor. Krishna, via Ghatocatcha(Bhima's Son), made Karna use his deadly dart reserved for Arjuna. To Which Krishna laughed and laughed. When asked why he was laughing by Arjuna. Krishna said, one minute ago Karna could not be defeated even by the Gods, but, right now he has become human for the first time. Prior to that, Krishna would drive the chariot in such a way as to avoid Karna's side of the field.

Whereas, all of Arjuna's obstacles were removed one by one Karna's odds were stacked against him one by one"

Even if we take all of the above to be true, then one needs to ask a question, then why Lord Krishna supported Arjun/Pandavas. Because, they were fighting for Dharma. Lord Krishna says, if you surrender to me then, at all costs I will protect you. Karna refused to surrender to Lord Krishna, but Arjun surrendered to Lord Krishna, hence he was protected by him.

There is a difference in obeying a good command from an elder and trying to keep acting according to Dharma. Yes, you are right even Pandavas had to obey their elder brother during the dice game which was unfortunate and a sin but apart from that there were several noble commands of Yudhistir which they obeyed. Such as making sure to release Duryodhan from the Gandharvas, being content to get only five villages to avoid the all out war, helping and supporting Dhritarashtra/Gandhari similar to their parents during their old age despite the bitter war and so on. So, you can clearly see, that Yudhistir did have a noble nature and his brothers followed those commands of his. Dyut Sabha was a blot of course, but they were inherently noble people.

But, it all comes down to your inherent nature isn't it? Pandavas were inherently good and noble people but they did commit few mistakes/sins and they paid for those. With regards to Kauravas, they were inherently bad, because not only did they try to create hurdles/eliminate Pandavas but they also had scant respect for elders such as Vidura/Bhishma/Drona and various sages and even for their own parents. Of course, not all Kauravas were evil, people such as Vikarna amongst Kauravas was a noble person.

As I mentioned earlier I also like various qualities of Karna, but I don't believe he is to be character that is portrayed in modern novels/folktales, as larger than life figure.

With regards to loyalty, the reason I mentioned it was, because he had tremendous pressure from Lord Krishna and his mother to side with Pandavas, but still he refused to part with Duryodhan, so that shows to me he was a very loyal person. Here I'm stressing on the term loyalty only, and not whether that decision was correct or not on Karna's part.

I need to check various other posts quoted here, as some of them seems not present in the epic. The same Karna is also scolded by Lord Krishna several times in the epic for his evil nature towards Pandavas, and also for being an active part of the Kaurava camp. He was also scolded by Vidura/Bhishma several times as an evil influence. So, it was not like Karna was a pure and clean character without any flaws as portrayed in modern novels/folktales.

Yes, not many characters are completely white, but we can make a distinction by reading the epic who were inherently good/bad by their actions. Karna was no doubt a grey character and not a black one, but I don't believe in his modern portrayal of larger than life.

Regarding the similarity between Lord Krishna and Karna, there is a huge difference in the approach taken by Lord Krishna and Karna. For example, Lord Krishna doesn't get offended even when someone calls him a cowherd in fact Shisupal did say to him in the midst of Rajasuya ceremony and Lord Krishna did not utter a single word about it, but Karna gets offended when someone calls him a sutaputra. This is a natural tendency for most of us, so not pointing out Karna here, just making a point as you have mentioned similarities.

Of course, Karna is revered by many due to some of his great qualities but he did commit some mistakes/sins, and was not as noble as the Pandavas. Of course, this is just my point of view, and I came to this point of view only after reading the epic which is trimmed of various folktales. As earlier, I also had some misconceptions about Karna after seeing TV serials and reading folktales.

Y12345 thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
paartha
I did mentioned that its a collection of quotes from the books, and some are from main text but not all.
You will see the text in purple, is what I said I'll need to check and confirm.
About the similarities, it was not to compare, just state the points I came across while reading that article. Totally agree, both their approach and the way they view life in general was very different.

Who wrote the folktales? Are the books folktales? Like Karna Parva etc? There is a website sacred texts where all these come from. Is BORI version also not trustworthy? Which one you recommend?
Edited by Y12345 - 7 years ago
paartha thumbnail
8th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

@paartha,

I also do agree that Arjuna was more like a best friend to Krishna, and like you said I think it's because of the same age and also because of the Nara-Narayana theory (which is not in Vyasa's epic but in Vishnu Purana). I think the other Pandavas were more than just relatives though, to Krishna. He was genuinely fond of them and often engaged in teasing banter with them also. Yudhisthir and Bhima, being elder to him, he gave them the respect of elder brothers while also receiving respect from them for being the supreme Godhead. Nakula and Sahadeva were like his younger brothers and he treated them with genuine affection. Arjuna however was his best friend, due to being the same age and similar in disposition. There are incidents throughout the epic where Krishna offers loving guidance to each of the Pandavas.

Did you ever read KM Munshi's third novel in the Krishnavatara series? It's called 'The Five Brothers' and deals with Krishna's relationship with the Pandavas so beautifully.

A swayamvara was the equivalent of a betrothal/engagement in today's terms. A marriage was promised, but until the marriage happened, a bride and groom were generally still kept in isolation or closely supervised. Shakuntala and Dushyanta did not have a swayamvar. What they had was a gandharva vivaham, which is one of the many accepted forms of marriages in Vedic culture. A gandharva vivaham still includes marriage rites, but it's much quicker than a typical Vedic marriage.

I think Draupadi leaving with the Pandavas and being promised to all of them happened as per destiny, because otherwise there are too many coincidences and loopholes for it to happen otherwise.

As for Yudhisthira vowing to follow Kunti's words, I'm also confused by this chapter because it does have loopholes, which makes it clear that there have been interpolations to the original text. As you pointed out, there are instances which contradict each other, making it confusing to figure out exactly what the characters mean.


Thanks for clarifying the points about Swayamvar and also about Shakuntala/Dushyant. Yes, some points seem to contradict each other and difficult to get to the bottom to some of these incidents. As you say, here one can conclude "Destiny reigned supreme".

Yes, I have heard about KM Munshi's novels, will try to read them soon in future.
Edited by paartha - 7 years ago
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: Y12345


Also, I do see everyone( Apart Krishna) as grey, obviously some having more shades of grey than others. Pandavas even after submitting themselves, did get rid of most of evil, but there was still that tint of grey, I don't know how to explain it. Krishna supported Pandavas because they were better in the lot, but as he himself point out, all white people do not exist. guys My history teacher once said that balance is a key concept, and when Krishna made Pandavas commit treachery, he knew what he did and maybe he did, because Pandavas had more good than bad in their account, and even by doing some treachery, their dharma would be also more than the Karavas. But at the cost of ending in hell. It was just his POV, thought I will share it with you! Yes, and Krishna siding has nothing to do with D didnt sit at his feet, he was mastermind, he knew he was going to be with Pandavas.


Whatever the Pandavas did during the war on Krishna's orders was not treachery, neither was a it a sin. God's orders are the highest form of obeisance to any human being. No other personal dharma is more important, and thus the Pandavas did not consider anything or anyone else when Krishna told them to do something. They knew he was the supreme Godhead, placed their full trust on him, and followed his orders. That is why they won the war. Physical strength means nothing when one distances himself from God. Spiritual strength is always superior, and thus the Pandavas trumped over the Kauravas, who relied on physical strength more than spiritual.

Also, the Pandavas ending up in hell was all an illusion for Yama Dharmaraja to test his son Yudhisthira. In reality, the Pandavas never went to hell. They all went to Narayana loka, the highest form of heaven, because of their service to Krishna throughout their life.
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 7 years ago
@paartha,
I agree with you! I also like how you pointed out how the characters were either inherently good or inherently bad. I like those terms more than 'white', 'black', or 'gray'. Because even in real life, we have inherently good people and inherently bad people. Everyone makes mistakes, but inherently good people have the wisdom and ability to repent for their mistakes and apologize to the person they did wrong. They have the ability to feel guilt and empathy, and thus their mistakes, while wrong, do not form a blot on their character. Inherently bad people refuse to learn from their mistakes. They insist on feeding their ego and believing themselves to be right, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. Don't we see inherently good and inherently bad people all around us, everyday?

The Pandavas were inherently good people, who did make mistakes, but they repented for it and in the end, learned how to improve themselves, which is why they are remembered as noble characters. The Kauravas, particularly Duryodhan and Dushashan (and any others who followed them) were inherently bad people who did not want to change and were very comfortable in their arrogance. What they did was not a mistake but a crime, because there was no repentance, no guilt.

Karna, I would say, was perhaps an inherently good person who did feel guilt for his wrong actions, but at the same time, he was not a noble character because he chose to support the wrong person, an adharmi person, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty. He was so fortunate as to have God himself offer him a way out, but he chose so-called loyalty over God himself. He chose so-called loyalty over the ultimate Dharma. Even knowing he was supporting Duryodhan's sins, he still chose to support him, and thus the choices he made at the final stage of his life sealed his fate. He was inherently good, but not noble.

So it's totally useless, in my opinion, to argue about who was stronger, and whether the Pandavas won only because Krishna helped them. Isn't having God on one's side a magnanimous task itself? The Pandavas had great spiritual strength, and while they were also physically strong, that physical strength was nothing in the face of the spiritual energy they cultivated through Krishna. The Kauravas may have had more physical strength on their side, but without God's blessings, none of that matters.

Besides, Krishna never takes sides. For God, everyone is his children, but he will only support those who support Dharma. So if Krishna supported the Pandavas, it was because they had Dharma on their side, not because they were his cousins. After all, the Kauravas also had familial relationship with him, Duryodhan's daughter being Krishna's daughter-in-law, so if we go by familial relationship, Krishna could support either side, but he only ever supports Dharma.
paartha thumbnail
8th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: Y12345

paartha

I did mentioned that its a collection of quotes from the books, and some are from main text but not all.
You will see the text in purple, is what I said I'll need to check and confirm.
About the similarities, it was not to compare, just state the points I came across while reading that article. Totally agree, both their approach and the way they view life in general was very different.

Who wrote the folktales? Are the books folktales? Like Karna Parva etc? There is a website sacred texts where all these come from. Is BORI version also not trustworthy? Which one you recommend?


@Yenna, oh ok, sorry I thought the points you mentioned were in the text. Folktales could have been written by anyone in the past, like many incidents in the Mahabhrarat had regional versions with deviations of various incidents. You are right, we cannot say that one version alone is 100% accurate, so since the same was the question in front of the scholars in the early 20th century, so they went through numerous versions of the epic and came up with BORI edition. Again, this edition may not be 100% accurate, but is considered to be the most authentic one amongst various editions as it went through a process of scrutinizing over hundreds of versions by scholars. KMG version (sacred-texts) is also thought to be widely read since it is freely available online, I think this is also one of the better versions but not sure about the full authenticity of this one though.

And, this is what gives scope for our own point of view, it is just that we are not 100% of all the incidents, hence we can only speculate and debate according to our point of view and understanding. This is what makes it interesting, as the same situation can be interpreted differently by different persons. And, this is what has made Mahabharat discussions going on, fascinating to the readers, because of the depth of the stories, characters and incidents and of course various points of view.


paartha thumbnail
8th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

@paartha,

I agree with you! I also like how you pointed out how the characters were either inherently good or inherently bad. I like those terms more than 'white', 'black', or 'gray'. Because even in real life, we have inherently good people and inherently bad people. Everyone makes mistakes, but inherently good people have the wisdom and ability to repent for their mistakes and apologize to the person they did wrong. They have the ability to feel guilt and empathy, and thus their mistakes, while wrong, do not form a blot on their character. Inherently bad people refuse to learn from their mistakes. They insist on feeding their ego and believing themselves to be right, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. Don't we see inherently good and inherently bad people all around us, everyday?

The Pandavas were inherently good people, who did make mistakes, but they repented for it and in the end, learned how to improve themselves, which is why they are remembered as noble characters. The Kauravas, particularly Duryodhan and Dushashan (and any others who followed them) were inherently bad people who did not want to change and were very comfortable in their arrogance. What they did was not a mistake but a crime, because there was no repentance, no guilt.

Karna, I would say, was perhaps an inherently good person who did feel guilt for his wrong actions, but at the same time, he was not a noble character because he chose to support the wrong person, an adharmi person, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty. He was so fortunate as to have God himself offer him a way out, but he chose so-called loyalty over God himself. He chose so-called loyalty over the ultimate Dharma. Even knowing he was supporting Duryodhan's sins, he still chose to support him, and thus the choices he made at the final stage of his life sealed his fate. He was inherently good, but not noble.

So it's totally useless, in my opinion, to argue about who was stronger, and whether the Pandavas won only because Krishna helped them. Isn't having God on one's side a magnanimous task itself? The Pandavas had great spiritual strength, and while they were also physically strong, that physical strength was nothing in the face of the spiritual energy they cultivated through Krishna. The Kauravas may have had more physical strength on their side, but without God's blessings, none of that matters.

Besides, Krishna never takes sides. For God, everyone is his children, but he will only support those who support Dharma. So if Krishna supported the Pandavas, it was because they had Dharma on their side, not because they were his cousins. After all, the Kauravas also had familial relationship with him, Duryodhan's daughter being Krishna's daughter-in-law, so if we go by familial relationship, Krishna could support either side, but he only ever supports Dharma.


Brilliant post 👏, superb analysis loved it.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".