Suryadeva, Rishi Durvasa and abandonment - what should they have done? - Page 8

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

1)Ok first point agreed regarding rangbhoomi but this again proves that kunti cared what will happen to her sons the panadavs way more than she cared about what was happening to Karna

2)well their friendship took time to be strong.If kunti would have perhaps said the truth earlier when Dury and karna's friendship was forming things would have been different but by the time kunti did choose to tell the friendship was too strong for karna to turn back

3)Even before the war if kunti did tell the truth it was to save her own sons not karna at all which she did acheive thanks to Karna

Here is the extract where in she decides to tell karan the truth.What i understand was that she didnt fear Bheehsm or Drona hurting panadavs but she feared that karna would hurt them if he didnt know the truth i dont see any concern for Karna here

Hearing these words uttered by Vidura, who always wished her sons the accomplishment of their objects, Kunti began to sigh heavily, afflicted with grief, and began to think within herself, 'Fie to wealth, for the sake of which this great slaughter of kinsmen is about to take place. Indeed, in this war, they that are friends will sustain defeat. What can be a greater grief than this that the Pandavas, the Chedis,the Panchalas, and the Yadavas, assembled together, will fight with the Bharatas? Verily, I behold demerit in war. (On the other hand) if we do not fight, poverty and humiliation would be ours. As regards the person that is poor, even death is beneficial (to him). (On the other band) the extermination of one's kinsmen is not victory. As I reflect on this, my heart swelleth with sorrow. The grandsire (Bhishma), the son of Santanu, the preceptor (Drona), who is the foremost of warriors, and Karna, having embraced Duryodhana's side, enhance my fears. The preceptor Drona, it seemeth to me, will never fight willingly against his pupils. As regards the Grandsire, why will he not show some affection for the Pandavas? There is only this sinful Karna then, of deluded understanding and ever following the deluded lead of the wicked Duryodhana, that hateth the Pandavas. Obstinately pursuing that which injureth the Pandavas, this Karna is, again, very powerful. It is this which burneth me at present. Proceeding to gratify him. I will today disclose the truth and seek to draw his heart towards the Pandavas. Pleased with me, while I was living in the inner apartments of the palace of my father, Kuntibhoja, the holy Durvasa gave me a boon in the form of an invocation consisting of mantras. Long reflecting with a trembling heart on the strength or weakness of those mantras and the power also of the Brahmana's words, and in consequence also of my disposition as a woman, and my nature as a girl of unripe years, deliberating repeatedly and while guarded by a confidential nurse and surrounded by my waiting-maids, and thinking also of how not to incur any reproach, how to maintain the honour of my father, and how I myself might have an accession of good fortune without being guilty of any transgression, I, at last, remembered that Brahmana and bowed to him, and having obtained that mantras from excess of curiosity and from folly, I summoned, during my maidenhood, the god Surya. He, therefore, who was held in my womb during my maidenhood,--why should he not obey my words that are certainly acceptable and beneficial to his brothers? And reflecting in this strain, Kunti formed an excellent resolution. And having formed that resolution, she went to the sacred stream called after Bhagiratha.

Originally posted by: AnjanaYYZ

Even if Kunti was selfish in her motives I won't blame her! She sacrificed 1 child for 5. As I state in a previous post - the math on that one is heartbreakingly simple. Also, just because she placed the welfare of Pandavas ahead of Karna does not preclude her loving him on some level. Having raised the five and personally observed their sorrows and joys I cannot fault her for being attached to them more so.

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

Why is everyone saying a Kanina aon will be looked down? The child had all rights to be the rightful heir of the man his mother eventually gets married to.. wrt a kanina son things were far better than what it is today.. She gets married or not is a different story..

can anyone give me the citation which says Suryadev guaranteed her the safety of the child? I could not find it..

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

Ok then this is for you.. what Pandu says to Kunti.. Maiden born son was not termed illegitimate.. he was as legitimate as the son of his mother born to her wedded husband.. If no one would marry a woman with a son in her maidenhood, why is the child included here as heir and kinsmen of his mother's husband?

The religious institutes mention six kinds of sons that are heirs and kinsmen, and six other kinds that are not heirs but kinsmen. I shall speak of them presently. O Pritha, listen to me. They are: 1st, the son begotten by one's own self upon his wedded wife; 2nd, the son begotten upon one's wife by an accomplished person from motives of kindness; 3rd, the son begotten upon one's wife by a person for pecuniary consideration; 4th, the son begotten upon the wife after the husband's death; 5th, the maiden-born son; 6th, the son born of an unchaste wife; 7th, the son given; 8th, the son bought for a consideration; 9th, the son self-given; 10th, the son received with a pregnant bride; 11th, the brother's son; and 12th, the son begotten upon a wife of lower caste.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Yes, I know the maiden-born son is a type of heir and kinsmen, but society did not recognize this back then. Duryodhan was reluctant to accept the Pandavas, who were born while Pandu was alive, and I think he represented a lot of what society believed back then, because Duryodhan also had supporters who doubted the Pandavas' right to be heirs. I doubt this society would have accepted Karna with open arms.