Mahabharat Analysis and Debate - Page 46

By the way I wanted to ask everyone, I want to read Gita. Which is the best version available in english? I will buy it when I go to India.
Edited by karandel_2008 - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Does Karna deserve sympathy? Most of you would say yes. Heck, pretty much everybody would say Yes. I wouldn't.

Yes he deserves sympathy. Despite having a mother and royal blood he was abandoned and raised as a Suta. With the mindset of a warrior his entire life was spent trapped in a lie not of his doing and he never understood till it was too late. He loved his parents unconditionally for who they were. He was insulted and abused as sutaputra by the Pandavas. If only they would have left their pride aside for once and let him compete, the outcome would have been different.

Was Karna one of the best donors that we know, in mythology. Yes.

Was Karna a good person at heart? Not sure. He had a hand (implicit or otherwise) in every one of Duryodhan's shalyantras (wicked ways). Sometimes he was vociferous in his support and sometimes he was just there in the background but he was nevertheless there with Duryodhan matching him at every step.

I would call him a conflicted mind who made wrong choices. He was indebted to Duryodhana, the only person who embraced him as a friend and crowned him king of Anga (albeit for selfish reasons). His insecurity over his birth made him make many arrogant kshatriya like vows, including killing Arjuna. He blindly supported Duryodhana in all his evil ways and never once stopped him or counseled him otherwise. Yes, he was not the best person at heart. At the same time he was no malicious or evil. He was a person with misplaced ego who found it hard to grapple with his consciousness. But his generosity, bravery, passion as a kshatriya and never abandoning his friend make him worthy of praise. Moreover, he passed a chance to have his rightful family so that the Pandava's dharma could win. Think about it, Yudhisthir would give the kingdom to eldest Kaunteya who was obliged to give it to Duryodhana. By fighting against Pandavas, Karan gave dharma a chance and did not make it futile.

Was Karna a veer? Yes. A mahaveer? Yes. An Atirathi? No. Not according to Bhishma. And Bhishma was right in his assessment. For whatever reasons, if Karna was at a disadvantage, then he was and that's a fact.

Maharathi. Bheeshma criticizes him because of his misplaced love for Duryodhana and hatred for Pandavas. On his deathbed Bheeshma acknowledges Karan as a kshatriya and his strengths.

Fair / unfair is subjective.

Yes.

On the other hand, Arjuna was ambidextrous, had passion, inquisitiveness, single minded devotion and a singular vision when it comes to mastering archery and worked every waking moment of his life towards pursuing perfection and attaining supremacy in that department. There was none in that era who could draw an arrow from the quiver faster than him. He was never defeated, not even once, in his life (hence the title Vijaya). Always respectful towards the elders, affectionate towards his younger brothers, never wavered in his dharma, never abused his immense power, won the hearts of everyone including the devas. Blessed by none other than Shiva with a pashupatastra. Biggest disciple of Krishna who held on to every word of what Krishna said and did only because he understood who it was, that was telling him to do the things that he did.

Yes. Arjuna was great warrior. Perhaps the greatest at the Kurukshetra battlefield. But that by no means completely demeans Karna. Arjuna was fortunate to have the family to back him and the perpetual friendship and guidance of Krishna. He was fortunate to not have circumstance cloud his connection with the Supreme consciousness. Karna has to be appreciated for his achievements despite having nothing.

If it still murky, then the murkiness is in the mind. Clarity in vision is a virtue that one should strive for to appreciate things better.

Question - To whom, did the throne rightfully belong to?

As the eldest, Dhritarashtra had the legal right, but because of his disability, he was robbed, but then how comes he was made King after Pandu's exile and death?

I believe Duryodhana had more right to the throne than Yudhishtira.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

By the way I wanted to ask everyone, I want to read Gita. Which is the best version available in english? I will buy it when I go to India.

Ah I have the same question! Any places in Bombay where I can get the the English version? We have one at home somewhere but I just cannot find it!

My dadi used to read it to me as a kid and explain all the meanings to me and Mahabharat was probably my favourite show on TV as a kid. It was one of the few things that actually made me get up at 8 every saturday morning. :)

Originally posted by: Emptiness

Question - To whom, did the throne rightfully belong to?

As the eldest, Dhritarashtra had the legal right, but because of his disability, he was robbed, but then how comes he was made King after Pandu's exile and death?

I believe Duryodhana had more right to the throne than Yudhishtira.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

 

Both Pandu and Dhritarastra were Kings. Dhritarastra became King because Pandu stepped down from the throne to go to Vanvaas. He did not have any kids then so the throne went to Dhritarastra despite him being blind. It did not matter that he was the first son, because he was unable to rule due to his disability. But thanks to Pandu, Dhritarastra became King.

 

So when they both had sons, the eldest out of all the Kauravas and Pandavas was the rightful heir, because both their fathers were Kings of the same Kingdom. The eldest out of them all was Yudhisthira. After him would be Bhima, and then Duryodhana in order of the oldest to youngest. After Duryodhana would be Arjuna, then Dushashana, etc.

 

If only one of the brothers had been Kings, then his children would automatically be heirs, but both Dhritarastra and Pandu were Kings, so the eldest out of all the cousins was said to be the rightful heir by the wise people gathered in Dhritarastra's court.

Doesn't quite work like that.  The throne always went to the eldest son, as per the customs of those days.  Dhritarashtra was the legal heir, but Pandu was crowned, he however left the kingdom, and Dhritarastra was crowned King, so in the end, Dhritarashtra got his right to the throne.  He was the King, not Pandu, the Pandavas had no legitimate claim.  It doesn't matter that Yudhishtira was born before Duryodhana, Yudhishtira was the eldest son of Dhritarashtra's younger brother, only the eldest son of the King has the right to the throne, unless the King himself makes an exception to the rule, which Dhritarashtra didn't

Originally posted by: Emptiness

Doesn't quite work like that.  The throne always went to the eldest son, as per the customs of those days.  Dhritarashtra was the legal heir, but Pandu was crowned, he however left the kingdom, and Dhritarastra was crowned King, so in the end, Dhritarashtra got his right to the throne.  He was the King, not Pandu, the Pandavas had no legitimate claim.  It doesn't matter that Yudhishtira was born before Duryodhana, Yudhishtira was the eldest son of Dhritarashtra's younger brother, only the eldest son of the King has the right to the throne, unless the King himself makes an exception to the rule, which Dhritarashtra didn't

Edited by Gauri_3 - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

Yes I was also thinking that, but technically no one was born of Pandu and thus no one was Pandav by birth.

But, yet Pandu gave them his name and hence only they can claim to be Pandavs.

Edited by Gauri_3 - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

 

Karan, going by that yardstick, even Pandu and Dhritrashtra should have been out of race.  Rishi Vyas impregnated the queens because Vichitravirya was impotent.

 

And Vichitravirya would not have been crowned if Bheeshm did not take that oath.

gauri mausi.. app ki yeh mahabharat ki vichitra tippani vistar sey samjhayengi please..Rishi vyas ko app hindi fillum ka ranjit bana rahi hay....😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

 

Bharatvansh tradition was different.  The throne went to the most eligible if the eldest was not.  This is why Pandu was the King instead of Dhritrashtra.  When Pandu went to vanwaas, Dhritrashtra got the throne like one get power of attorney by an absentee owner these days.  Dhritrashtra never was the rightful owner per Bharatvanshi tradition.

 

 Yudhishthir was the eldest prince AND he was the most eligible too.   His right to throne was superior to Duryodhan any given day.

What King Bharata did was an exception, nowhere does it say that this was the norm of the Bharata lineage.  All subsequent Kings as far as I know, were the eldest son of the reigning King, unless they abdicated for some reason, only then did it go to the second eldest son.

Dhritrashtra was the legal King after Pandu had renounced the kingdom, hence Pandavas really had no right.  Again, Yudhishtira was the eldest of Pandu, who had already renounced the kingdom before he was even conceived, secondly, Duryodhana was known to be a good king, even in his final moments, the Devas and Gandavaras acknowledged him by showering flowers from the heavens and praising him.