Karna the tragic hero of Mahabharat

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

.Reshama.

@.Reshama.

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: varaali

Yudhishthira gambled away his wife, but Harishchandra- yes, the same Harishchandra- actually SOLD his wife in market place to a brahmin.

The 'heroes' of our epics don't exactly shine, do they?

well said

Quote

Bhavna Antriwale-Gargate

@bgargate

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: varaali

Yudhishthira gambled away his wife, but Harishchandra- yes, the same Harishchandra- actually SOLD his wife in market place to a brahmin.

The 'heroes' of our epics don't exactly shine, do they?

Agree

These "Heroes" just hide their weaknesses and inabilities behind their so called righteousness

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

#33

Swati1975

I am sorry but i disagree .Mahabharata is a complex story but at end of the day it is about good vs evil. It is about how good will always triumph over evil. The Mahabharata itself is dharma yudh which means war between dharam and adharam and how dharam will always win.Its about war between righteous pandavas and unrighteous kauravas .Now whether pandavas are righteous as per you or not it depends on your POV. But as per ved vyas's mahabharta they were the righteous ones and that is why Mahabharata is knwon as dharam yudh

As for grey characters. Grey characters are those who are equally good and equally bad. Having few faults doesn't make a grey character .A grey character is one when you sins are balanced with your good deeds. So yes for me karan is a grey character but not pandavas because each pandav made a mistake like you pointed out for yudhistir but they were generally good and hence even god was on their side. Yes Pandavas weren't perfect not even Shri Ram was perfect but they were generally good

Did you know out of all the padavas and draupadi Yudhistir was the only one who spent no time or the least time in hell because he was considered to be the most righteous of all? Now even i dont agree with this but this is what is written. So if we see mahabhart from a neutral POV it is good (pandavas ) vs evil (kauravas) now. Now whether you personally consider pandavas to be good or not depends on you.

I guess what i am trying to say is that in Mahabharat all characters are imperfect but not grey.Grey shaded characters are like dhidhrashtra,karna(as per me atleast).But generally characters are good or bad but even good charcters are not perfect .That is what it shows.All good characters from Bheeshm to drona to arjun to yudhidhtir to draupadi made mistakes and suffered for them

Edited by Sabhayata - 12 years ago

Quote

.Reshama.

@.Reshama.

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#34

Well yuddisthir put his brothers and draupadi at stake in the gamble game. When duryodhan brother dragged deaupadi ..he didnt utter a word/or save her.He lied that his guru son had died. Am suprised he went directly to heaven...

Edited by .Reshama. - 12 years ago

Quote

swati1975us

@swati1975us

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Swati1975

I am sorry but i disagree .Mahabharata is a complex story but at end of the day it is about good vs evil.

We agree to disagree. We are obviously not approaching the book with the same frame of mind.

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

#36

Reshma

I am not sure whether yudhistir didn't got to hell at all. But even if he did it was for the least time and he was the first one to go to heaven out of all pandavas because he was considered to be the most righteous? Even I don't think he was the most righteous but that is what happened

Also yes yudhistir made a big mistake when he gambled his wife and brother's didn't say anything when draupadi was insulted but then he suffered for it as well by going to vanvas(exile) for 13 years. Infact when they were in exile draupadi's brother had come with his full army and has asked the pandavas to come along with him to attack Hastinapur and take revenge. All the other Pandavs were ready except for yudhistir. Becuase he knew he made a mistake and that is why he has gotten this vanavas and this was his way to redeem himself. I mean unlike shri ram the vanvas he got wasn't unjustified. That is why he asked his brother's that if they feel they haven't made any mistake and this vanvas is an injustice done do them they can go and fight but a as per him this vanvas was also due to his mistake hence he will redeem himself by suffering the punishment for his mistake that is living in exile for 13 years. So what i am trying to say is yes he did make a huge huge mistake during dice game but suffered for it as well. Its not like his mistake went unpunished or he didn't realize he made huge mistake. He realized he made a huge mistake and readily suffered the consequences for it

But still I dont think he was the mist righteous of all the pandavs and deserved to go to heaven first. I think they were all equal but well cant change what is written

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#37

Let us see this analytically- w/o bringing in dharma / adharma.

There was a kingdom and two prospective Crown princes. Fine. Kingdom got divided, each cousin getting one half. By perseverance and hard work, skill and prayer, Yudhishthira's kingdom becomes more prosperous of the two.

Duryodhana gets jealous. Anything wrong in that? He makes no pretense of being a saint. Invites Yudhishthira for a game of dice.

Who asked Yudhishthira to accept the invitation?
On coming to know that Shakuni would throw the dice on behalf of Duryodhann, Yudhishthira could have still backed off. As Krishna would mention later on, Yudhishthira should have also said that since Shakuni was going to throw play on behalf of Duryodhan, it was only fair that he, Yudhishthira, also gets a proxy to play for him and Yudhishthira should have invited Krishna to play on his behalf.
Who asked to keep increasing the stakes?
And above all, who asked him to play a second time, knowing very well what happened the first time?

Obviously Duryodhana was unfair when he did not return the Pandavas' kingdom after the exile- but which ruler is so generous? Duryodhana was Duryodhana- not Raghukul's Bharata. This may be a reflection of Duryodhan's lust for power but not evil in anyway.

Mahabharata is about politics, succession, ambition and the quest for power- not even remotely about dharma / adharma.

Edited by varaali - 12 years ago

Quote

sjnp

@sjnp

Inactive

Posted: 12 years ago

#38

The Mahabharata is a tale of uncontrolled lusts - lust for land, lust for wealth, lust for power, lust for honour, lust for fame, lust for acceptance, lust for vengeance, lust for pleasure, and, above all, plain sexual lust. It is the story of lust in every imaginable form and the terrible consequences that uncontrolled lust leads to.

The Sanskrit word for lust is kama. The Mahabharata does not criticize kama per se., nor does Indian culture do so. What is criticized is uncontrolled kama, kama that controls us, kama that becomes our master, that makes us its slaves. The Vedic culture sees kama as the beginning of the universe. The brilliant Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda, the Hymn of Creation, speaks of Kama as the first being to emerge, or the first essence to come into being and then becomes the cause of everything else coming into existence. The Taittiriya Upanishad speaks of the spark of desire entering the heart of the Unmanifest Being, which then creates out of itself everything else, abstract and concrete, real and illusory, moving and unmoving, all.

It is for this reason that Krishna both praises Kama in the Gita and warns us against it. In one place he says Kama is himself - is God - so long as it does not violate Dharma. When it violates dharma, what is divine becomes demoniac: dharmaaviruddhe bhooteshu kamo'smi bharatarshabha - "I am kama that is not against dharma in beings." In another place he takes its name as man's worst enemy.

The beauty of Mahabharata is that no character is perfectly good or perfectly bad (whereas Ramayana is clearer differentiation in terms of good and bad). Each person is a shade of grey and in varying tones and shades. Another point of interest is that the supposed villain Ravana does not follow the law (or dharma) by outright kidnapping of another's wife but in Mahabharata (which happens after Ramayana and thus we can see the deterioration in people, their characters and the dharma in general) the supposed villains Kauravs and Dhritarashtra follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law and Pandavs are forced to act adharma-ly in their battle against Kauravs!

After the war is over and Gandhari has lost all sons, she is filled with fury and bitterness and she asks Ved Vyasa - "How can brave men, for the sake of their lives, abandon in battle the dharma prescribed by wise men? How indeed can they?" The core question is - "Is a war against adharma, fought by adharma means, really for dharma?"

Ved Vyasa explains to her that that life is a limitless series of births and deaths, that each one of us has had numberless mothers and fathers, sons and wives, and we are going to have numberless more of them. We have lived through innumerable meetings and partings, will live through countless more of them, just as we are now living through new meetings and partings every day. And in this eternal journey, there is only one thing that will stand with us: dharma. Dharma is the source of all worldly comforts and possessions; pleasures come from that, prosperity comes from that, everything comes from that. Vyasa's advice is: never give up dharma; not out of fear, not for pleasures, not out of greed, nor even for the sake of life itself. For, dharma is eternal, and joys and sorrows transitory. The soul is the Eternal, what makes it appear bound is transitory. And yet people do not live by dharma. Why, asks the sage, why?

Quote

akhl

@akhl

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#39

Between Karn and Arjun, I think Arjun was definitely a better archer. In the Virat war, Karn was with his kavach and kundal. Moreover, Arjun was alone and he had to face the large Kaurav army. Still Arjun won.