Yes,both Satyavati and Kunti approached their sons in times of need.However,if Kunti would have acknowledged Karna,then who knows he may not have joined Duryodhan at all.
Originally posted by: Justlikethat1
Seeing the various interpretations of Mahabharath, one really tends to have a lot of respect for Karna. But from what is written in the actual MB, Karna, for all his good points was as bad as Duryodhana.. It was not friendship but an alliance to serve his purpose. If he had been a good friend, he would have been against a lot of things Duryodhana did. But he was an active participant in many of the acts Duryodhana did and the makers of Mahabharat have tried to show justification of it by making the Pandavas look bad when it comes to Karna..
Just my PoV.. 😳Of course, Karna did have his good points and was unlucky a number of times. But that is true for many others in MB.. Karna was no different.😊
Originally posted by: rasyafan
true and one more fact that karan was in debt of Duryodhan who took advantage of it and he knew karan's importance in this war he fully used karan to the best of his abilities to win this war
karan was an excellent human being he was a daan veer but as they say sangati logon ka bhagya badal deti hai he kept worse friends
Karna as a character was stronger than Dhritarashtra.Even in the original Mahabharat,he was an excellent human being.He had flaws too for everyone was flawed apart from Lord Krishna.Arjun's flaw was his insecurity.He was arrogant of his archery skills too.Yudhistira gambled away his wife.It goes on.He did not choose this side.This side chose him.Duryodhan accepted him when everyone shunned him.He was as talented as Arjun.He did not instigate Duryodhan.Duryodhan's mind was already poisoned against the Pandavas by Shakuni since childhood.Duryodhan took Karna to his side for he knew that Yudhistir had Arjun whereas he had no archer in his side.Seeing that Karna was as good as an archer like Arjun,he took him to his side.As far as challenging Arjun is concerned ,he only wanted to prove his abilities.Drona rejected him because of his caste.The Pandavas scorned him for his caste though they regretted later when they found out his truth.Draupadi rejected him for his caste even though he was worthy of her.He supported Duryodhan because he too hated the Pandavas for what they did to him.He was not perfect,though.He had flaws.His two major flaws are-1-He made fun of Draupadi,2-He participated in Abhimanyu's killing.Originally posted by: Justlikethat1
@Bold - Not exactly. Karan had a very generous nature, there is no dispute that. But he was not an excellent human being. Rather, his generosity and loyalty to Duryodana were the only saving graces in his life.
Karan was there heckling and making fun of Draupadi when she was dragged into the court. He instigated Duryodhana against the Pandavas for no reason other than the fact that the elders in the family would not let him fight Arjuna.. He conveniently forgot that he had been a little too out of line that day when he challenges Arjuna in the open court during the princes introduction to the subjects.
Karan's obsession to prove himself to be better than Arjun was similar to Duryodhana's obsession to better Yudhistir. Both did not realize that neither Arjun nor Yudhistir wanted such competition. Pushed to his limits Arjun would take Karan's challenge up.
Karan is another Dhridhrastra. While Dhridrashtra justified his actions by siting his blindness, Karan did by siting his antecedents. Again.. just my PoV😳
Karna as a character was stronger than Dhritarashtra.Even in the original Mahabharat,he was an excellent human being.He had flaws too for everyone was flawed apart from Lord Krishna.Arjun's flaw was his insecurity.
Arjuna was not insecure. He is depicted to be so in MB interpretations. In the actual MB, Arjuna is touted to be a warrior par excellence and he knew that. He was impulsive sometimes but he had every Gunn that was expected from a kshatriya.
He was arrogant of his archery skills too.
Again misrepresentation. In Vyasa's Mahabharatha, there is a specific episode that details how Arjuna unlike the others was a warrior who was humble and who was ready to lead others. The episode at the end of Angzhathavas when he leads Utthara's brother and changes him from a coward to a brave man specifically praises Arjuna for being humble and generous with his skills and praises. This is just one of those episodes. Arjuna had the pride of a prince but he was also quick to apologize when he made mistakes. The romantic interpretations making the villain into someone he wasn't had to make Arjuna bad to show Karan to be good.
Yudhistira gambled away his wife.It goes on.
There is a story behind that too. I do not agree nor do I condone what Yudhistir did. But according to MB, Sages visit Yudhistir in Indraprastha and tell him that the coming times would be tough and will lead to the end of Kuru vansh.
Yudhistir, afraid that he and his brothers would be the cause of such events takes an oath not to say no to anything the Kauravas ask for in the next 13 years, the time from which the sages predict the downfall to happen.
As it happens, his oath itself is the reason he loses everything and his wife. It was not his need to gamble but the oath he took. But then again, like the other pratigya's of different people, this one too went to waste.
He did not choose this side.This side chose him.Duryodhan accepted him when everyone shunned him.He was as talented as Arjun.
Karan was talented, no doubt. He learnt under Parashurama.. He could not have asked for a better teacher.
But Arjuna beats Karan and the entire Kaurava army single handedly.. It is Karan's Nagastra, the boon he gets for a curse of Arjun that makes him Arjun's equal in the war.
He did not instigate Duryodhan.Duryodhan's mind was already poisoned against the Pandavas by Shakuni since childhood.Duryodhan took Karna to his side for he knew that Yudhistir had Arjun whereas he had no archer in his side.Seeing that Karna was as good as an archer like Arjun,he took him to his side
Yes. Shakuni takes the major blame. But was it the sign of true warrior that Karna was that he agreed and even advised Duryidhana to take Shakuni's advice in lighting the wax palace in fire so that the Pandavas die as a whole and there would be no other issues? That is also Karna. He was there siding Shakuni and instigating Duryodhana and Dhridhrastra about how people were praising the Pandavas and how Duryodhana would be unsurped. It would have served him better if he would have told Duryodhana how to rule properly instead of siding with Shakuni all the time. There is a difference between being a chamcha and being a friend. Just my opinion.
.As far as challenging Arjun is concerned ,he only wanted to prove his abilities.Drona rejected him because of his caste.The Pandavas scorned him for his caste though they regretted later when they found out his truth
It was a practice in the ages of MB that the people of different divisions always fought within their ranks. It could have been great for Karna to fight Arjuna, a prince. But Arjuna would not have the same rule. One simply has to follow protocol of times.. They were there for a reason.
It was not for caste but for Karan's obvious lack of manners and the way he wanted to prove himself that led to his humiliation. Ekalavya was also in par with Arjun and compared to the way he behaved, Karan's behavior calling Arjuna a weakling in front of him especially in the open stadium where the prince was showing his skills for the first time was very ill timed and out of line. Hence the disrespect.
It actually bodes well that the Pandavas had the heart to cry for their brother inspite of his faults. It shows their magnanimity.
.Draupadi rejected him for his caste even though he was worthy of her.
She was a Princess. And as explained before, in that age, marriages happened between two people from the same varuna or if the husband's varuna was better. So a Princess could marry a brahmin sage but she cannot marry below her varna.. Karan was below Draupadi's status and she gave the reason in tune with those times. It was wrong for Karan to assume and come to a swayamvar where he was not invited. He was not invited for a reason.
He supported Duryodhan because he too hated the Pandavas for what they did to him.He was not perfect,though.He had flaws.His two major flaws are-1-He made fun of Draupadi,2-He participated in Abhimanyu's killing.
He had a lot of flaws but I agree he had his good points. Realizing his mistakes in the end of one of them. His devotion to his friend is another. For all his badness, I agree that he had his good points.What I am trying to tell is that in Mahabharat,nobody is perfect.Neither Arjun nor Karna nor Yudhistir nor Duryodhan.Apart from Lord Krishna.This is my POV,I guess.Please No Offence meant.
Originally posted by: Justlikethat1
No one is perfect. I totally agree. MB is not about people in black and white. It is about people in grey and what they did.
When the number of good things they do is more than the bad, they were known as good people and those whose bad Karma's over-weighed the good ones were called bad. Karan fell into the second category.
MB did not have Asuras like Ramayana where the person was completely black. But it had Nar-asuras whose deeds made them bad. Whatever good they did was just not enough. Karan was one such person. Again just my PoV😳
Originally posted by: rasyafan
I was about to say the same. Rishi Parasher was asked to procreate for a child and when he asked Satyawati he also gave her a boon that after her being with him she would gain her virginity also her beauty and smell of fish will go away from her body and she will become very very attractive. and she will give birth to a great sage. Right after he went away she gave birth to Ved Vyas ji who had become an adult and left her for meditation but jate jate he said whenever you will remember me I will come to you.
And Satyawati was a queen a grown up and Kunti was a child herself a teenager when she experimented this with Surya bhagwan and to her shock a child was born from her all she could think of was to get rid of him.
Besides Satyawati gave birth to a rishi from a sage which was considered alright in those days. But she revealed this fact when she her grand son had died.
Kunti was a daughter in law and could not reveal this yes she was also a queen and a widow just like satyawati but still Satyawati was raj mata who was bold and she had a huge problem of gettign heir to the thrown.
Both situations were different both personalities different.
Originally posted by: niveditasg
Yes it is true that Karna disrespected Draupadi. But we have to remember that Draupadi also disrespected Karna by Krisna's instruction. Draupadi desired to be Karna's wife but Krisna asked her to stop Karna from hitting the fish eye before Arjun has the chance. He knew that Karna will be able to do it but he did not wanted Draupadi to be wedded by Karna and that's why according to Krisna's instruction she insulted Karna during her Swyamvar. In my opinion it is Lord Krisna who is the sole cause of the war of Kurukshetra. He took the Krisna avatar only to eradicate the world from evil. He made everybody do what he wanted by manipulating things and that's what he also said to arjuna just before the start of the war that everything is him all the good and the evil. He also acknowledged at the end of Mahabharata that he is also at fault and that's why he also got the punishment for his evil deeds by watching his own generation dying because of civil war and himself gets killed. In my opinion the only flawless person was Balaramin Mahabharata.
comment:
p_commentcount