The Swayamvar that Vyasa presented who are in,who won? - Page 3

I won't agree with your anvaya. I will stick to what I wrote.It is not as companion. It is along with. For you can be for both not for only kauravas. It is like ' your brother along with his friend went to see the picture." Picture is for both. Anvaya can make difference if you want to twist the meaning. And I can't understand your logic. If Karna is a participant he won't accompany?Why? Friends can together attend a contest.Krishna and Arjuna together went to Lakshana's swayamvar.The usage of veerah need not make them only as contestants. Sometimes to fulfill the structure of the poem,or for prosody certain words can be used.And again I repeat. The phal here is Tvadardham that applies to both.The boys along with Their leader attended the event. Attendance applies to both. So your anvaya is not palpable to me. As for Kshatriyas protesting and then keeping Karna in the front due to his warriorship..Blah Blah. Where a controversy is there Karna will be. He is not sword mouthed. He has foul mouth. His teacher Parasurama never bothered to acknowledge him or his talent. In Udyoga Parva He praised Arjun to skies before Karna and specified that to kill Sahasrakavach that is Karn,Nara incarnated as Arjuna. One more thing. The failed warriors here include Karna also.I hundred percent include him in that list. There are no two ways about it.Kshatriyas protested with king Drupad. Karna is also there. So he also will protest as his male ego also was hurt.He failed.Thats all.iBy the way Arjun did not have Gandiv by then. He got it during Khandava Dahan.At the Swayamvar he fought with the bow he used to hit the target .

😲Are you serious? Where did I even write Anvayam? I only explained the things more. It is clear who is twisting meanings. "Sahitaa" clearly means "accompanied by", not "along with". Who does teach such a bad Sasnkrit?
Dhrishtadyumna already stated "etat kartaa karma sudushkaram; yah KULENA roopena balena YUKTA tasyaadya bhaaryaa bhaginee mameya; krishnaa bhavitree na mrishaa braveemi" (Truly do I say that, of suitable lineage, beauty, and strength, whoever achieves this extraordinary task shall today obtain my sister, Krishnaa as his wife). He clearly says the contest was open only for KULENA YUKTA (born in suitable lineage) which in case of Kshatriyas included only Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Introduction of contestants only follows this. Why would he include Karna as a contestant then? It cannot be accepted he forgot what he told just a moment ago.
It is unbelievable and unacceptable that a large number of verse have to be considered false only for a single line. Or all these verse must be called interpolations to save Karna's face!!!
Your Karna seem to be only yours. Neither Vyasa not even Krishna will agree with him. You include him among failed or not failed, no one cares. That is not the point here.

If Karna was not allowed by Dhrisht dyumna why was he allowed to sit in their enclosure? Or for that matter if he is not a contestant,he would never have taken part in the war that followed. Then the matter would not be concerned with him. The Kings placing him before due to his valour,I don't think they would do so if he did not contest. Jarasanth,Salya and others are too proud to do that. Above all I believe if Karna is not allowed as a contestant,Vedvyas would definitely have given a hint through Dhrishtdyumn's speech. He didn't do so itself speaks the truth. What Karna is according to me resulted through my reading,following the discussions of Stalwarts in Mahanayak site,my research project and my conscience. I don't need to change my views depending upon another's view point. All said and done,I believe every letter and word presented by me here is done with conviction. I don't agree with you in any point. So adieu,and Good luck to you.Explore the greatness of Karna with someone who is in sink with your thought process. Not with me who is a worshipper of Narottam Arjun. Good Bye. The basic difference between you and me is I believe in the -authenticity of the poem that is present in the heart of Swayamvara Episode whereas you seem to believe the previous ones. I reiterate Karna is a contestant as per my understanding and I stand by it.And one more thing Sahitah means with,along with. That is not bad Sanskrit. As in English along with and accompanied by give almost the same meaning.Sita Sahitah Ramah Aranyam Agachhat.means Along with Sita Rama went to the forest.So Rest assured we are not teaching bad Sanskrit.Sanskrit Sabda Kosh gives various meanings for Sahita Along with,Accompanied,Associated with...and so on.

Excuse me, I feel you misunderstood my point. I am not here to prove Karna's greatness or glory or his mahaanta. They are relative things, depends purely upon who sees what. I don't want to change anyone's view or make someone accept what I say. I discuss because I love discussing, not because I want to force my thoughts on others. Did I ever say Karna was great, infalliable or unconquerable? Did I ever spoke a thing on other characters? For me, I am more interested in Mahabharata as whole than individual characters. I had hated Karna. When I felt I was criticising him without trying to know the views of people who like him, I decided to interact with Karna fans and learn from them. That is how I ended up in this forum and Karna AT. Even after that, I did not try to like him as what I came across here was incapable of clearing my doubts. Fortunately, I was told about Sanskrit Mahabharata available online and later I downloaded CE in my phone to read. It is only after reading and analysing thoroughly, I am now speaking on Karna, putting my hatred aside. Like you, I am also an admirer of Arjuna. This is a fact known to everyone in the forum. To be frank, I assume from what you just wrote above, you have seen Karna through eyes of those who are skeptical about him. Understanding only one side of anything does not make it complete.
Krishna also was present in Svayamvaram, Balarama also was. Did they participate? No, isn't it? Dhrishtadyumna had announced their names too. When you say Vaikartana failed as per CE, fingers raise on Vyasa's authoritativesness. Because till that one particular verse, the idea is Karna did not participate at all and suddenly he is said to be failed. Now both cannot be true if we consider Vaikartana. Either one or many verses have to be false. We cannot blame Vyasa for every petty thing though we can say it might be an interpolation. But which one? Karna failed or Karna did nothing? The general nature of Mahabharata is pro-pandava. Do you expect Vaishampayana tell Janamejaya "your great-grandfathers were wicked wretches who stood doing nothing while their wife was getting stripped among hundreds of men"? When child Bheema broke heads and limbs of Kaurava kids, he is called "powerful son of God" and he was just "playful". But when Duryodhana of same age tries to poison Bheema, he is called "wicked wretch". What kind of rationality is this? So, in this pro-Pandava book, every single point that supports Karna or Kauravas is of immense importance is what I think. This is all why I said Karna did not participate. I am pretty aware about what I write.
About my Karna, I do not consider him extraordinary, utterly undefeatable or completely flawless. I don't even consider he was born with Kavacha-Kundala. All that is rubbish and nonsense. So are the other nonsenses people talk about him. I don't need to explore Karna with anyone as I have not seen anyone who did that to the depth I did. I think Karna non-admirers should know him more as it is not impossible to lose the ground of convictions made about him. How will they argue if they don't know what to argue? I had to do as I felt I was answerless when questioned. And as you said good-bye, let me also desist my words here.😊

Hi both...

I am sorry if I am intruding in this thread bcoz I dont know whether it is right to comment here or not.
I would like to say great discussion by you both...

Despite the arguments...I found your discussions extremely knowledgeable.
After reading all the comments, I am realizing how inferior my knowledge is about the epic, compared to you all.

Please keep up the conversation...n please calm down... 😊 I know this is a controversial topic but we can sometimes discuss without debating.

Lakshmi...great points you have put up...Makes me think a lot. I agree with your categorization...
I have seen these fan groups closely...but anyway...that is a different topic.

Jamy/Vishnu...I am really stunned(in a good way) to read some of the things you wrote. I will ask my question later in PM.

I am neither an ardent Arjun fan nor am I a Karna fan from any angle(though I admit I was one)...hence I am reading your comments in a neutral way n honestly...surprised in a good way to learn about so many things I didn't know about the Swamvar of my favourite character...
Thanks to both for all the knowledge you both shared...
It would have been better if u two could discuss further with a little less of wrath... 😊


I apologize again if I have intruded wrongly.

Hi Amritat,Welcome to The Swayamvar. You are free to comment your views. As for our conversation,It is not reaching anywhere. We both are adamant and stubborn.If my revered critic went to the extent of commenting on my Sanskrit teaching,without even checking Sabdakosh I thought that is too much.A word will have many meanings. We are free to take whatever is appropriate.Here The Word Is Sahita that gives umpteen meanings which include Accompanied and along with But the way the counter argument proceeded,I thought Enough.Anyway. Happy to hear your good response.Do post your views more often.

@Amrita - Hai there. I am glad to read your comment. I am just being playful, not wrathful.😆 I enjoy discussions, just because I love discussing, not really that I want to prove my point. I don't mind getting disproved or defeated, but only after a good debate and you guys know that. One reason I always agrued for Karna is that, I didn't know him, I did not like him, he looked so mysterious and I thought why don't give it a try.😆 Thats all. Today scientists say what all we see in our real life might be only an illusion. Then better not to speak on what we read and imagine.😆 And of course, your questions are always welcome.

@ltelidevara -Madame, I am extremely sorry if you felt I criticised your teaching. I meant you might have been taught in a wrong way. I don't have degrees in Sanskrit, but I am learning since childhood. I cannot claim my Sanskrit is the best but it is not bad either. It is just enough for understanding MBh.
Coming back to "sahitaa", I still feel I am 100% right. I don't know which dictionary you read, but I read four - Monier Williams, Apte, Bloomfield and McDonald's. "Sahitaa" as it appears in Sanskrit, has a positive meaning AFAIK. "accompanied by" is the nearest meaning and to my understanding "shaitaa" can correctly be said as "accompany in a manner to willingly help and support". It is not an unknown fact that a Sanskrit word can mean a lot more than what it superficially appears, or that is what I have been taught. Whereas in English, both "accompany" and "along with" can be an action done unwillingly or forced by. I am not saying the same cannot be applied to Sanskrit, but only when something negative is attached to the word. As long as "Sahitaa" stands independently, it shows the willingness of the doer. In the example you quoted on Seeta and Rama, what will a first time reader who doesn't know Seeta think? Seeta might have gone herself with Rama or she went under social or emotional pressure. Here the word "sahitaa" tells the reader that when Rama chose to go, Seeta willingly chose to go with him. It was HER decision to ACCOMPANY where he went, ie forest in the case of this example. Same is the case of Karna in Svayamvaram. That Dury chose to go & Karna chose to go with him as a supporter. So were Krishna and Balarama. They did not partcipate at all. Had they, Krishna surely would have won Draupadi, no doubt. They were present only as an emotional support to their friends in same manner Karna was for Dury. Otherwise, there are other words that perfectly fit in that sloka. Why did Vyasa choose Sahitaa?
This is not picking individual verse here. Instead, taking the context as a whole. Dhrishtadyumna twice said all contestants were Kshatriyas. He also to told that the contest was open for only "high-born". Whatever we both argue over "sahitaa", unless it can be proved that Karna was accepted as a Kshatriya univocally by all, at the time of Svayamvaram, neither you nor me not even creator himself is going to prove he participated. There is nothing to disprove so many slokas that indicate Kshatriya participation. Consider the context as a whole, it clearly means Radheya did not participate at all, it was some other Karna. Or we can say, "I disagree with Vyasa. He was a liar." or, "that is just an interpolation to save Karna's face". Plenty of reasons can be found. But the book is pro-Pandava and anything that is "undoing" Karna is of immense value.
I am not concluding anything. Everyone can choose according to what have been understood.

I can definitely tell where along with is given .Spoken Sanskrit DE and Mornier Williams page 1101 I think clearly given along with,in association with ,in company with and ofcourse accompanied by. Great Alankarikas like Bhamaha and others used the word Sahitau as I cited above . Sabdarthau Sahitau Kavyam. The Kavya Is defined thus.' Sabda along with sense or meaning is called Kavya. " Sahita is used when both the components used there depict a close bond. Like in this case Sabda with Artha forms Kavya. Likewise Karnena Sahitah Dharta rashtrah attended the swayamvar for you. .Tvadardham is applicable to both Karna and the sons of Dhritarashtra. Karna would 'nt have attended if he is just an accomplice of Duryothan.Certainly those who enter the lists will be seated separately.As for Dhrishtradyumn 's saying that the Swayamvara is meant for a highborn,it is a mandatory statement that initiates the Swayamvara procedures. Karna attended the Swayamvar as Ang Raj. If Dhrisht has objection for his candidature he would declare it in the beginning itself. Not later.I would never ever agree that the name Karna refers to another one someone insignificant and makes his place in Ved Vyasa's citation.No. He is Angraj Karn . That is why the word Karna Salya Pramukhah. As for Pro Pandava argument I will not agree with that either. An Epic is an Epic. And Vedvyas knows how to take forward the story in its glory. Let any one blame him for his favouritism for Pandavas.but not me. I highly regard the Great incarnation of Narayan Vyaso Narayano Hari .I repeat my stand remains the same.Karna attended,failed,fought and left the battle in the middle.

I just want to ask one thing:

If the 'Kula' thing is mentioned clearly in the epic...then y do so many people create such a fuss over the Sutaputra comnent?

I know Draupadi did not insult Karna...I firmly believe it. But even if we assume for a moment she did,
if the conditions for partcipation is stated clearly regarding lineage, how come well-read members(not you both) go on arguing about the validity of Karna's participation n the righteousness of Draupadi's rejection? It was already made clear that she will marry only in a suitable lineage...then how come Karna participated after having a horrible experience in Rangbhoomi?

Please clear my doubts...

The argument is not about Draupadi's rejection. It is crystal clear that she never said any such Suta Putra thing nor did she reject his candidature. It is about Karna's participation. What horrible experience he had at Rangabhumi? Only Bheema said harsh words and Kripa asked his introduction to have a duel with Arjun. And most important point to be noted is after his coronation as king of Anga every one became silent and a duel has to begin between him and Arjun but Sunset stopped the combat. If Karna is considered to be worthy enough to fight with Arjun after he becomes a king,there ends the argument. Duryothan's step paved his way to enter into the Elite class and he attended the Swayamvar as a king not as a Sutaputr. The fact that he is sitting with the prestegeous Kings indicates the truth that no one from the Royal family refused his status of a contestant. Otherwise Vedvyas would have reported that important point as it definitely means a lot to the readers to help them understand cast descretions happened in those days.