Karna: Does He Deserve So Much Respect??[DT Note Page 15] - Page 28

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

Ofcourse I do agree.. I have come across this linking from both the ends.. which am not feeling comfortable with.. neither can I argue that it is wrong interpretations as I dont have any evidence against it.. It irks me only if one is claimed right and other wrong..

i would just say that whatever happened at Drau's swyambar made him bitter towards her and when she married pandavas it just added to the bitterness he already had against them.So it was just another incident which added to the ill feeling he had towards pandavas

Originally posted by: SayaneeH.Lecter

1st of all y call it revenge why not call it an outburst of ages dominated anger?

Why not fighting with pandavas??

Is it really a question why not fighting Pandavas .. isn't fighting Pandavas wud be a question of politics? A politics that is complex with the presence of IP HP Anga panchaal

Abduction cud be an way but then it cud give birth an enmity between panchal n HP .. Karna cudn't take the decision solely moreover Draupadi wasn't married to 5 Pandavas then .. so the general respect Karna had for women was intact for Draupadi till then

To be very honest I don't think karna had a very high respect for Panchaali after she get married to 5 like he had for other Kulbadhus .. He said Drau an unchaste woman [not prostitute plz] when someone refers her kulbadhu n clearly said that as she has relationship with more than 4 men .. [as per Hindu laws then A chaste woman can have physical relationship with 4 men ] she can't be called/compared as Kulbadhu .. Here karna was only seeing a slave woman whose 5 husbands has sold her n the same woman humiliated him in public ages ago .. volcano irrupts even after deep respectable silence of ages .. doesn't it?

Again I am not supporting karna's this very act .. this is the only time he went wrong [I don't think in Abhimanyu's death he was wrong at all .. he was listening to his commander what is his Dharma as soldier in war field] .. but A man who was insulted again n again .. a princess invites him in her swamvaar just to announce in public that he belongs to low caste so she can't marry him .. its a kind of humiliation one will never forget .. even a sage will be provoked for tit for tat application ..

Hmm. Outburst of ages dominated anger?

I think that's just another way of saying revenge.

If he had said, "U insulted me for my caste. Now, see, u r a dasi too." Now that would have been outburst.

But we all know what he said. And that cannot be just outburst. That was certainly revenge.

Well, it was not the "princess" who invited him.

Anyway, his grudge against Draupadi is understood, but the way he took out his "outburst of ages of dominated anger" is not.

How can u say what Karna did was intentional? was it?? I believe it was outcome of his anger .. now the question is why after so many years?

Well Insult is one thing you never forget .. there are many including me who never forget a single word of humiliation specially when it happens in public .. specially when it happens for no wrong did of mine .. in time it comes out .. Drau n Karna had no connection until the dice game parva .. it was when Drau came in front of his the anger started speaking .. & anger is a thing that often prevent you to understand what your conscience is saying

I am NOT saying Karna was right in his action there but this one mistake can't be a judging bar for someone .. if this is the judging bar of society then we must judge Karishna for his act after Ghatotkach Badh, Arjun on his mass killing of Nagas [n Naga was a tribe for god sake not snakes] n Yudhisthir for .. there are more than one incidents so forget it

Okay, what Karna did was not intentional?

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

No idea to convince you.. but this is why I think it is a mistake and it is an insult... rejection or not does not matter.. If 'Suta or Suta's son' does not matter, Kunti would not have been worried about (or pretended to be worried about) the epithet Suta's son attached to him..

O Karna, surrounded by thy brothers, thou wilt, without doubt, blaze forth like Brahma Himself, surrounded by the gods on the platform of a great sacrifice. Endued with every virtue, thou art the first of all my relations. Let not the epithet Suta's son attach to thee. Thou art a Partha, endued with great energy.'"

It is not something like 'hello Mr Suta how are you doing today' but 'hey you Suta you dont stand eligible to get me, you of a lower caste'.. I cant consider it as mere statement of his forefather's profession, coz she said 'Suta' not Suta's son.. Am sure Karna's profession that day was not charioteering..

having said that, does not mean I say it tallies with VH.. I am of the belief that these two incidents are not connected at all, let alone equating..

Originally posted by: Patrarekha

the title of this post is really misleading i must say

Originally posted by: Brishti_Sarkar

Thank you for actually endorsing whatever I have said.you have proved Sutaputra is not an insult.

Originally posted by: Brishti_Sarkar

Thank you for actually endorsing whatever I have said.you have proved Sutaputra is not an insult.

hmm i think what diala meant was if you are denied to do something because of your caste it can be taken as insult which is what happened with karna in swyamabr

i mean for example if i am called a driver's daughter i may not mind but if tomorrow in office some one tells me infront of everyone that because you are a driver's daughter you cant do this or that i will feel slighted

infact everytime karna felt insulted was because he was being denied things because of his caste be it drona,rangbhoomi or draupadi's swyambar

Originally posted by: amritat

You are right. The content of the thread is actually quite different from what the title suggests.

I had initially decided on another title, but then decided to keep this one.

And I think I made a mistake, coz, many people have ended up misinterpreting my post, just bcoz of the title..

actually even i got misguided when i saw the title especially when i saw your name beside it because generally you make posts taking into account all the sides so i was actually very surprised when i started reading it.Once i finished i knew i wasn't wrong about your posts😊

dont worry its a good title

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

actually even i got misguided when i saw the title especially when i saw your name beside it because generally you make posts taking into account all the sides so i was actually very surprised when i started reading it.Once i finished i knew i wasn't wrong about your posts😊

dont worry its a good title