death of tragic hero karna - Page 7

Created

Last reply

Replies

137

Views

15.8k

Users

26

Likes

570

Frequent Posters

RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 11 years ago
#61

Originally posted by: JazzyM


Karna did repetnt, the citation provided by Ritika (riti4u) confirms it.


Karna didn't repent. He just felt sorry, but he didn't do anything to repent, did he? There's a difference between feeling sorry and doing something to repent.

But didn't Karna utter the words condeming Draupadi being the wife of 5; questioning her moral code... or was that also a folklore? For me, that utterance is equal to doing something wrong. Words uttered to demean someone is Adharm.

No, it was not folklore, this is what the text says. What Karna says is indeed wrong. Lord Krishna himself questions Karna's virtue before killing him.

"Hearing these words, a loud uproar rose from among those present in that assembly. And they all applauded Vikarna and censured the son of Suvala. And at that sound, the son of Radha, deprived of his senses by anger, waving his well-shaped arms, said these words,--'O Vikarna, many opposite and inconsistent conditions are noticeable in this assembly. Like fire produced from a faggot, consuming the faggot itself, this thy ire will consume thee. These personages here, though urged by Krishna, have not uttered a word. They all regard the daughter of Drupada to have been properly won. Thou alone, O son of Dhritarashtra in consequence of thy immature years, art bursting with wrath, for though but a boy thou speakest in the assembly as if thou wert old. O younger brother of Duryodhana, thou dost not know what morality truly is, for thou sayest like a fool that this Krishna who hath been (justly) won as not won at all. O son of Dhritarashtra, how dost thou regard Krishna as not won, when the eldest of the Pandavas before this assembly staked all his possessions? O bull of the Bharata race, Draupadi is included in all the possessions (of Yudhishthira). Therefore, why regardest thou Krishna who hath been justly won as not won? Draupadi had been mentioned (by Suvala) and approved of as a stake by the Pandavas. For what reason then dost thou yet regard her as not won? Or, if thou thinkest that bringing her hither attired in a single piece of cloth, is an action of impropriety, listen to certain excellent reasons I will give. O son of the Kuru race, the gods have ordained only one husband for one woman. This Draupadi, however, hath many husbands. Therefore, certain it is that she is an unchaste woman. To bring her, therefore, into this assembly attired though she be in one piece of cloth--even to uncover her is not at all an act that may cause surprise. Whatever wealth the Pandavas had--she herself and these Pandavas themselves,--have all been justly won by the son of Suvala. O Dussasana, this Vikarna speaking words of (apparent) wisdom is but a boy. Take off the robes of the Pandavas

p. 132

as also the attire of Draupadi. Hearing these words the Pandavas, O Bharata, took of their upper garments and throwing them down sat in that assembly. Then Dussasana, O king, forcibly seizing Draupadi's attire before the eyes of all, began to drag it off her person."

"Karna said,--'Of all the persons in the assembly, three, viz., Bhishma, Vidura, and the preceptor of the Kurus (Drona) appear to be independent; for they always speak of their master as wicked, always censure him, and never wish for his prosperity. O excellent one, the slave, the son, and the wife are always dependent. They cannot earn wealth, for whatever they earn belongeth to their master. Thou art the wife of a

p. 138

slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king's relatives. We direct that that is now thy proper business. And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now thy masters. O handsome one, select thou another husband now,--one who will not make thee a slave by gambling. It is well-known that women, especially that are slaves, are not censurable if they proceed with freedom in electing husbands. Therefore let it be done by thee. Nakula hath been won, as also Bhimasena, and Yudhishthira also, and Sahadeva, and Arjuna. And, O Yajnaseni, thou art now a slave. Thy husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be thy lords any longer. Alas, doth not the son of Pritha regards life, prowess and manhood as of no use that he offereth this daughter of Drupada, the king of Panchala, in the presence of all this assembly, as a stake at dice?'"

Krishna lists off all Karna's ill deeds: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08091.htm

"Sanjaya said, 'Then Vasudeva, stationed on the car, addressed Karna, saying, "By good luck it is, O son of Radha, that thou rememberest virtue! It is generally seen that they that are mean, when they sink into distress, rail at Providence but never at their own misdeeds. Thyself and Suyodhana and Duhshasana and Shakuni, the son of Subala, had caused Draupadi, clad in a single piece of raiment, to be brought into the midst of the assembly. On that occasion, O Karna, this virtue of thine did not manifest itself. When at the assembly Shakuni, an adept in dice, vanquished Kunti's son Yudhishthira who was unacquainted with it, whither had this virtue of thine gone? When the Kuru king (Duryodhana), acting under thy counsels, treated Bhimasena in that way with the aid of snakes and poisoned food, whither had this virtue of thine then gone? When the period of exile into the woods was over as also the thirteenth year, thou didst not make over to the Pandavas their kingdom. Whither had this virtue of thine then gone? Thou didst set fire to the house of lac at Varanavata for burning to death the sleeping Pandavas. Whither then, O son of Radha, had this virtue of thine gone? Thou laughedest at Krishna while she stood in the midst of the assembly, scantily dressed because in her season and obedient to Duhshasana's will, whither, then, O Karna, had this virtue of thine gone? When from the apartment reserved for the females innocent Krishna was dragged, thou didst not interfere. Whither, O son of Radha, had this virtue of thine gone? Thyself addressing the princess Draupadi, that lady whose tread is as dignified as that of the elephant, in these words, viz., 'The Pandavas, O Krishna, are lost. They have sunk into eternal hell. Do thou choose another husband!' thou lookedest on the scene with delight. Whither then, O Karna, had this virtue of thine gone? Covetous of kingdom and relying on the ruler of the Gandharvas, thou summonedest the Pandavas (to a match of dice). Whither then had this virtue of thine gone? When many mighty car-warriors, encompassing the boy Abhimanyu in battle, slew him, whither had this virtue of thine then gone? If this virtue that thou now invokest was nowhere on those occasions, what is the use then of parching thy palate now, by uttering that word? Thou art now for the practice of virtue, O Suta, but thou shalt not escape with life. Like Nala who was defeated by Pushkara with the aid of dice but who regained his kingdom by prowess, the Pandavas, who are free from cupidity, will recover their kingdom by the prowess of their arms, aided with all their friends. Having slain in battle their powerful foes, they, with the Somakas, will recover their kingdom. The Dhartarashtras will meet with destruction at the hands of those lions among men (viz., the sons of Pandu), that are always protected by virtue!'"

"Sanjaya continued, 'Thus addressed, O Bharata, by Vasudeva, Karna hung down his head in shame and gave no answer. With lips quivering in rage, he raised his bow, O Bharata, and, being endued with great energy and prowess, he continued to fight with Partha. Then Vasudeva, addressing Phalguna, that bull among men, said, "O thou of great might, piercing Karna with a celestial weapon, throw him down." Thus addressed by the holy one, Arjuna became filled with rage. Indeed, remembering the incidents alluded to by Krishna, Dhananjaya blazed up with fury. Then, O king, blazing flames of fire seemed to emanate from all the pores of the angry Partha's body. The sight seemed to be exceedingly wonderful. Beholding it, Karna, invoking the brahmastra, showered his shafts upon Dhananjaya, and once more made an effort to extricate his car. Partha also, by the aid of the brahmastra, poured arrowy downpours upon Karna. Baffling with his own weapon the weapon of his foe, the son of Pandu continued to strike him. The son of Kunti then, aiming at Karna sped another favourite weapon of his that was inspired with the energy of Agni. Sped by Arjuna, that weapon blazed up with its own energy.

RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 11 years ago
#62
This debate is meaningless anyway. It's been done so many times before so I don't see the point of wasting time and energy reiterating the same thing over and over.
TheWatcher thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
#63
Dont forget it was the same Krishna who called Karna ' the foremost of heroes', Krishna even called him righteous.
adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#64

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

I totally agree, Karna cannot be excused of his wrongdoings because of his "tragic life". I'm sorry, but even though he struggled, he did have a happy childhood, far happier than the Pandavas' anyway. Anyone basing their perspective on Starbharat, BRC, or any other television/film adaptation will get a distorted view on Karna only. One must read the epic. Then they will understand how much media has portrayed Karna as a tragic hero when in the epic, his character is totally different.

Finding fault with Lord Krishna's actions is laughable. He was God. He was beyond right or wrong. Everything he did had a reason, and Mahabharat is not some fictional story for people to choose favorite characters, spend their life defending their wrong actions, and insulting God because he did not favor them. Everyone who died in the Mahabharat war (including warriors on the Pandavas' side) died because of their karma. If they died through deceit, it was because of the sins they committed in present or past lives, no other explanation, so finding fault with God is just not right. However, I know my words fall on deaf ears because so many people today love to criticize God, especially Ram and Krishna, as if they are so great themselves for living in a "modern and advanced" world, greater than God himself.



wen did i insult God for not favoring any character...do i hv the guts to do that...i only made a statement...nywyz like MB can be interpreted in many ways...similarly everything that anyone writes in public forums can also be interpreted in many ways...i shud stop worrying about that...

but yes MB is just a fictional story for me...i dont want to or rather i will purposely not considered it as a holy scripture...because then i hv to take lessons from MB...for me MB is nothing but a book filled with adharmas...i dont want to single out any character or event...so it is safe for me to consider it as fiction...but fiction or not...i hv the rite to choose fav characters...by doing so i may end up favoring him but never will i insult krishna for not supporting him...like today he told duryodhana that he can only show the path whether that will be accepted by a man or not depends upon his dharma...my whole reason for making this thread has been misinterpreted...so i hv nothing to say on that...

adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#65

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

@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.



thanx for telling the story of indrejit's death...but the story i told that i read in some books...nywyz i already told i dont remember wat was shown in doordarshan's ramayana...i may be wrong...like i already said in my first post of this thread that i hv learnt many things by joining this forum...

adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#66

Originally posted by: ..Apz..

Tragic hero is a definition that is to be seen in the literary sense. Tragedy is something of a serious nature capable of invoking Katharsis in people who read/view the drama. It is the fall of a noble character from great heights due to a fatal flaw in his character called Hamartia.


Take examples of Shakespearean tragic heroes. Macbeth,Hamlet,Lear and Othello...They all had fairly good lives. Still they are called tragic heros.

Karna is probably the only character from Indian epic who fits into the bill. Infact even the flaws in him were so noble that it thrusts a greatness upon him ( loyalty and daan) and also had circumstances against him right from his birth. People who read MB as scripture are free to believe in the spiritual side of the epic. But those who read it also as a piece literature tend to empathise with the humane characters of the epic. So for every post on Karna people do not have to go on quoting some translations trying to prove it otherwise.

On a serious note, if anyone questions any thing in the epic, it should not be seen as finding fault with the God. Without questions one never gets answers. Questions lead to answers and then to enlightenment. I truly believe even God acknowledges those who ask questions and gives answers in His own way.



@bold...exactly this is wat i do...i connect with the humane side...the spiritual stuff is too complicated for me to fully comprehend...i mean understanding all the divine words of krishna takes a lot of deep understanding which i do not have...and little knowledge is even more dangerous...so i tend to stick to the humane side...
adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#67

Originally posted by: TheWatcher


Yes getting a Guru who is parrtial to his son and Arjuna is no hurdle at all, and getting refused Brahmastra and other divine weapons was no hurdle along with getting insulted in Rangbhoomi. Your definition of 'hurdles' do match that of dictionary.

Being a participant unwillingly is different, Karna was never very happy of Duryodhan's schemes, in fact Karna told Duryodhan to stop his deceit and evil deeds. Ask for a citation - you will get one.





exactly...one who has been cursed and manipulated numerous times in his life...if these r not hurdles then i need to recheck dictionary...
adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#68

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

As far as physical capability goes, it's true Karna was equal to Arjuna as Lord Krishna himself said so, but Krishna also said in the Shrimad Bhagavatham that he and Arjuna are incarnations of Nara and Narayana, who are Vishnu's avatars, so Arjuna was in no way inferior to Karna. He was another incarnation of Vishnu in the form of Nara.

For me, Mahabharat is very much a spiritual epic, so I cannot criticize the Godly characters as if it's a fictional story of the modern era, where it's fashionable to love "flawed" characters. In my opinion that's equal to blasphemy, but of course others are free to disagree.

If someone like Karna today ordered a woman to be stripped, people would be protesting and blaming him for sexual harassment. They'd want him to be punished and given capital punishment, but since Karna is such a "tragic hero" in the epic, his mistake is forgiven and forgotten.



i only want to say one thing...this whole thing of karna siding the kauravas and insulting draupadi wud not hv hapnd had he been told about his birth...it was not as if noone knew it...kunti knew who karna was but never said...i agree not knowing the truth doesnt gv him the right to insult a woman...but then like i said it was all about the circumstances karna was in all his life...

as for being fashionable to love flawed characters...i think every single character in MB is flawed...so if i wud hv said that i love arjuna, bheeshma, yudhishthira or anyone else i guess that wud hv been fine rite...except karna i can love anyone else even though all r flawed...really...
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 11 years ago
#69

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

Dont forget it was the same Krishna who called Karna ' the foremost of heroes', Krishna even called him righteous.


Krishna called many warriors foremost of heroes, including Karna, Arjuna, Bhima, Abhimanyu, Bhishma and Drona. Like with others, Krishna gave Karna the recognition he was due as a great warrior, but that doesn't mean he did not commit sins. Krishna did call Karna righteous, just as he called Bhishma and Drona righteous, but that doesn't mean they did not commit sins. Krishna even called the Pandavas the most righteous of men, but that doesn't mean they did not commit sins. Lord Krishna was always impartial. He praised and appreciated everyone when they deserved it and also condemned them when they committed sins. Krishna's dialogue before Karna's death portrays this. Krishna is Jagatguru, the teacher of the world. Like a good teacher, he praises his students when they do right and criticizes them when they do wrong.

My point is, Krishna appreciating Karna does not make him the most perfect person in Mahabharat, and Krishna criticizing him at the time of death does not make him the most evil person. Like a true Guru, Krishna appreciated and criticized when required.

I don't hate Karna. What I do hate is seeing people defend his wrongdoings to portray him as this tragic hero who had a horrible life and was treated ill by everyone. I hate people defending his wrongdoings and saying things like God was unjust to him, he shouldn't have died because he was so perfect, blah blah blah. What I hate most of all is when people say Draupadi deserved what Karna did and said to her because she refused him in her swayamvar. I'm not saying everyone says that, but many people do, and it makes me sad because such mindset is the reason why women are still not respected in the world today. Hearing all this rises my ire against Karna, but in reality I do not hate him. I do respect certain parts of his character, but I do not see him as a tragic hero. That's just my opinion, because for me Mahabharat is a spiritual epic. It's about God and his teachings for humanity. I cannot read the epic like I read fiction, so I do not look for relating to characters. It doesn't matter who I relate to, because Krishna's teachings are more important than that. Without understanding the deeper spiritual message of the epic, fighting over the trivial details is impractical and a waste of time IMO.
adoremevirgo thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 11 years ago
#70

Originally posted by: riti4u

I tried restraining a lot dear..from morning I was...but seriously bringing in same topic and same argument again n again in every post of Karna just makes me loose cool.



i really dont know how all these discussions came up...i opened this thread only and only to express my opinions about karna...no other character was part of my topic...i mentioned some names only to talk about the things that hapnd in karna's life...i like karna doesnt mean that i dislike the pandavas or krishna...i dont know how that idea crept up in this thread...


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".