Posted:
@TM,
We do have to agree to disagree, because while I like the Starbharat portrayal of Karna's death, it was a completely distorted version and nothing such happened in the epic. It's nice to watch television adaptations of mythological stories, but one needs to read the epic if they want to get a real version of the events. If you don't want a real version and would rather base your view of Karna on BRC, Starbharat or other adaptations, that's your choice and I can't/won't argue against it.
Also, I do not agree that Duryodhan deserved first choice when he came to Krishna for help. See the symbolism of this scene. Duryodhan comes into the room first, sees only one chair available, and goes to sit on the chair near Krishna's head, full of arrogance that he was a King/crown-prince of a renowned kingdom. On the other hand, Arjuna comes into the room, doesn't get himself another chair when he sees that Duryodhan has already occupied the only one, and goes to sit at God's feet with full devotion. God always blesses those that come to him without arrogance or greed. When Krishna opened his eyes, his loving gaze first fell on Arjuna who was at his feet, and he felt his heart warm at the sight of such devotion, so he gave Arjuna first choice. Arjuna deserved it, because he served Krishna his whole life and was always devoted to him. He never questioned Krishna's divinity and had utmost belief in him. Also, Duryodhan wanted the narayani sena in his heart, and Krishna knew that. Duryodhan, being the ignorant man that he was, did not recognize God and instead chose a simple army that was no match for God's divinity. If Duryodhan had truly wanted Krishna, he would have sat at his feet when he entered the room, instead of taking the chair.
Also, your assessment of Lakshman is completely wrong. I'm sorry, but Lakshman never went against Ram's orders. When Ram told him not to use the Brahmastra against Indrajit because it would result in calamity, he revoked it at once without questioning him, even though it ended with him being hit by the shakti. For Lakshman to destroy Indrajit's yagna without Ram's consent is completely unbelievable, because he would never do that. Indrajit's yagna was destroyed with Ram's consent, because the yagna was being done with an unrighteous ambition and God always destroys those who do yagnas and tapas for the wrong reasons. Btw, Lakshman did not attack Indrajit from behind. Lakshman waited outside the cave in which Indrajit was doing tapas. The vaanar sena went inside and destroyed the yagna, and Indrajit came out in anger with his chariot and weapons. That's when he and Lakshman began fighting. There was nothing unethical about the way Indrajit died. I don't really care what RSR or other television adaptations showed. They may or may not have shown the right thing, but in the epic there was nothing unethical about Indrajit's death, and that is what matters.
There were only 2 occasions on which Lakshman disobeyed Ram, that too after going through a lot of moral dilemma.
1) Leaving Sita in Panchavati when Mareech cried out in Ram's voice - that too by Sita's orders since Lakshman never once believed the voice belonged to Ram.
2) Interrupting Ram and Yama Dharmaraja's conversation in the end of Uttara Kanda, because had he not, Durvasa would have cursed all of Ayodhya. This resulted in the end of Lakshman's incarnation.
Lakshman never disobeyed his brother on any other account. Thinking so would be an insult to his ideal character.
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki
Hindi TV Shows
