karna's first unrighteous act!! - Page 2

Pandavas were nowhere in Bhanumati swamvar...the whole incident was narrated by sage narad to pandavas...after death of karna when they were lamented and wanted to hear more n more about their elder bro... 😊 ..so interference of yudi -Arjun I'd totally fictionalised by SidT ... 😊

There is a famous quote on karna by ved vayas...the English translation of it was "rightous always called him right"...dharma itself have complicated definition...it varied from one to another...under one circumstances to another...one perspective to another.. so it's better we should not judge it so superficially.. 😊

Originally posted by: merrydock

karna is known and praised for his loyalty to duryodhana, what irks me is that in sony karn, karn doesn't seem to have any inner conflict. duryodhana forcefully abducts bhanumathi, karn feebly tries to stop him, but the moment Arjun steps forward to defend bhanumati from being abducted duryodhana simply calls to karn as a dog, and with out the slightest hesitation karn jumps to defend his Master opps!!! friend. its like all karna thinks of is fighting with Arjun for any reason what so ever. irrespective whether it is just or not? or the situation calls for it or not?. is only goal is to prove he is better archer then Arjun, baki log bhad main jaye.

this karn is a far cry for the nobel karn of his youth. who had a clear idea of justice and injustice.

many people love the character of karna from the mahabharata, and even sympathise with him. his loyalty and generosity is truly applaudable, but he could never be venerated for his righteousness. he was doomed to never be the hero. and despite all his good virtues would always fall short off Arjun.

ps:-i love gautam rode but i;m really surprised that he chose to portray such a character. unlike his previous roles of saras and rudra, he seems too loud and over the top

Always fall short of Arjun -
- by his own attributes : am not sure
- bcos Krishnaji was with Arjun - yes.

Karn had many great qualities, no doubt. He could have even defeated Arjun.
It's only natural he feels let down from childhood and being looked down. And the thirst to prove himself. If he won over Arjun he would have had the highest regard.
Yes he does fall short of Arjun in some qualities but not all or always. Arjun surrendered to The Lord but Karn went by his own decision to stay by D even after The Lord advised him against it.

Originally posted by: Nandita_Siddian

Pandavas were nowhere in Bhanumati swamvar...the whole incident was narrated by sage narad to pandavas...after death of karna when they were lamented and wanted to hear more n more about their elder bro... 😊 ..so interference of yudi -Arjun I'd totally fictionalised by SidT ... 😊

There is a famous quote on karna by ved vayas...the English translation of it was "rightous always called him right"...dharma itself have complicated definition...it varied from one to another...under one circumstances to another...one perspective to another.. so it's better we should not judge it so superficially.. 😊

Nandita sorry to come in lkr this. Please ignore if you are with my post. But would like to share a humble thought.
Dharma is simple yet complicated, complicated yet simple. It's pretty straight but for aapat Kala dharma. It does vary from people to people unless you are referring to varnashrama dharma.
Samanya dharma is there for all.
But I agree with you that one cannot judge superficially but get into the nuances before commenting. With you on this view. For example: Five husbands for a single wife would be viewed totally wrong today and even that day. It maybe viewed adharmic. But the context of their marriage need to be borne in mind. Kunti's words was just an instrument to bring about this divine act. Draupadi sought a boon to marry these five which was granted. Secondly if a woman marrying many husbands is still argued, it could also be argued that Draupadi is no ordinary woman. She was born out of fire as a teenager. Now why is this not questioned? If this can be accepted why not the former. I am not justifying the marriage, but the marriage cannot be condemned either in the eyes of a normal being and from a twentieth century perspective. So your point that nuances need to be factored before coming to conclusion. With you my friend.