krishna's argument - Page 2

Originally posted by: ..dreamygatz..

Originally posted by: Neutral2

Same thing can be viewed in many ways.

If we follow epic, Karna had performed the same feat in the rangbhoomi which Arjun had performed and then Karna challenged Arjun because duel had already done between Duryodhan and Bhim. So its not wrong to challenge Arjun. When Arjun decline to have duel fight on the basis of caste then Duryodhan give him Angaraj. So it was just like a PURUSHKAR given by the king or son of king for his skill/hardwork. Though he can refuse it but it was difficult to refuse anything which was given by King/Son of King. How many of you will refuse award/gift given by government??? He has all right to take the kingdom and he is not needed to refuse it but with power comes responsibilty which he didnt fulfill .

Second thing is loyality. One can see loyality towards friendship and other can see loyality towards the country which give him(Karn) many thing including money, power and respect. So it was King decision whether to return Indraprasth to pandav or not, Karn was fighting like another soldier of Hastinapur. Had karna refused to fight, duryodhan wouldnt have fought at all. Krishna did not ask him to help pandavas, pandavas dont need karna's help, but he asked him to help duryodhan. He asked him to keep his friendship on gandhari's request, if a friend goes on wrong path we are not to support him but rebuke him. But karna has been an equal participant and sometimes even a chief architect of his conspiracies. Karna was not a soldier of hastinapur, he was not a slave, he was given the title of a "friend" and he failed to keep his friendship for his own motives.

Now come to DAAN. People give charity to obtain punya, swarg after death, to repent for their sin, name & fame, or to fulfil vow. How many of you just do charity for only help to others/poor and it doesn't bother you whether you will go to hell/heaven? Daan is different from charity. Daan is handout in english. Handout is given to beggars for punya, charity is given to NGOs out of compassion.

For me Daan was in the nature of Karn. Two incident support my point. First when a boy demanded the same ghee which he had fallen and Karn smash the mud to obtain that ghee and got curse. Second when Kunti came he spare 4 pandav life. It was not written how Karn and Duryodhan was as a king but Lord Krishna offer Hastinapur as a King to Karna. So we can assume he was good King. And giving charity to poor brahmin (those who are meditating all the day to obtain spiritual knowledge) is the highest form of charity. Sri Krishna offered indraprastha not hastinapura. Yes, we dont know how karna was as a king and seeing that he was generous and good at heart he is assumed to be a good king. But there are many instances which say that people were not happy in hastinapura. They wanted to leave for indraprastha and people cried when pandavas were going to exile and always wished yudistir was crowned prince. Duryodhan was an able administrator, infact he was a great administrator thanks to shakuni's guidance who very well knew how to handle a kingdom's affair but then he forgot to teach him how to handle people's affairs.

the highest form of daan is kanyadaan. And then "anna daan". The charity to brahmins is considered pious because they are considered to be knowledgeable and pure, hence their blessings are poor. Now isnt this caste discrimination too.? Daan keliye brahmin chahiye lekin unhi brahmins aur kshatriyon ko bura bhala bolna hai in other issues.

Krishna saying was right if Karna does not have dream of becoming the best archer rather choose his skill/hardwork for greater cause to estabalish Dharma then it will be more fruitful but Krishna didn't tell him how he could do so. To establish dharma was a job of King. How single Karna without army can do so???

Originally posted by: TheDreamCatcher

Originally posted by: TheDreamCatcher

Edited by ..dreamygatz.. - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: TheDreamCatcher

@red: why do you need to be a king and have an army to follow dharma? What exactly does dharma mean? righteousness. And you need an army to preach and follow righteousness??

My question is if Karna want to use his skill/hardwork as a warrior in establishing dharma how he can do that. He can defeat only small king without any army if he was not Angraj. But there was no use of it. Jarasand was terror at that time but he also had such huge army that even krishna does not handle this.

What Karna can do is to remain silent all the time like other suta.

Krishna argument was right that Bhism, Drona and Karna were responsible for the war as if they did not support Duryodhan the war would not happen. But Krishna did not have the right to say this to all three as Krishna give narayani sena to support Duryodhan. If Krishna have reason to give narayani sena to Adharma side then why can't the great three have their personal reason to support Duryodhan? Thats why epic Krishna did not do this.

Krishna argument was right that Bhism, Drona and Karna were responsible for the war as if they did not support Duryodhan the war would not happen. But Krishna did not have the right to say this to all three as Krishna give narayani sena to support Duryodhan. If Krishna have reason to give narayani sena to Adharma side then why can't the great three have their personal reason to support Duryodhan? Thats why epic Krishna did not do this.

Originally posted by: ..dreamygatz..