Karn was made for Draupadi - Page 4

There is a mention that while going towards heaven when Draupadi fell down Yudhistir replied saying thats because she loved Arjuna more than rest.

Originally posted by: haha67re

There is a mention that while going towards heaven when Draupadi fell down Yudhistir replied saying thats because she loved Arjuna more than rest.

In that case he should have mentioned loving Karna as sin,Because loving other man should be a greater sin right?

One more thing I have seen so many favorable comments for Karna and criticism for Yudhistir...

I guess people are glorifying every small good work of Karna and criticizing Yudhistir for being boneless..

Like rest of Mahabharata characters they can not black and white ..Just to counter balance other points of view ..There are numerous occasions where Yudhistir proved his virtue...Few occasions:

i)He saved his brothers life from Yaksha

ii)He agreed for division of state only to avoid fights

iii)He tried for peace even after the 13 years exile and didnt attack directly

There are many more incidents...Whatever I know I cant digest one thing ow can he put is brothers and wife at stake.Its completely out of his character...

For Karna...

He followed Duryodhana blindly..its not a way a righteous and wise person will behave...But again every person has his own principles..

He humiliated Draupadi ..For someone who bore the burnt of humiliation throughout his life it was out of character..

He was involved with Abhimanyu killing.Again someone who just wanted a confrontation with Arjun to prove his own mettle,it was completely outrageous thing to do...

But he was a big hearted man ..that's true .Just like the way Yudhistir was the righteous man

Yudi had his great qualities no doubt but so did almost every other character in MB. As for Yudi commenting on Draupadi's fall during the march to heaven- can we say that Yudi loved both his wives equally? What about Arjuna- did he love all his wives equally? Why single out Draupadi for this so called sin? Whatever her feelings she behaved fair to all her husbands and that is something that the pandavas cannot be credited for in their behaviour towards her! Which was a bigger sin I wonder !

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

I'm not talking about different versions or interpretations. I'm talking about Veda Vyasa's Mahabharata, which is the original and truest form of the epic. Vyasa's Mahabharata is as Valmiki's Ramayana. Different versions followed later on with authors' own interpretation, but the accuracy of the original one cannot be disputed.

There is no reference to Draupadi's "love" for Karna in Vyasa's Mahabharata. That is all just the fantasy of different authors which they interpreted into their story, but it's pure fiction.

As for Kunti and Madri's sons, Pandu was not impotent. 😆 He could not have children with his wives because he was cursed by a sage that if he had physical relations with them, he would die. That is the only reason Kunti and Madri had to have sons from Gods. Read the epic, this is written very clearly.

as far a ved Vyas's mahabharat is concerned its lost in translation so all that we are reading and watching is fiction and yes Pandu was cursed by a sage but it happened much later. Even till that time he couldn't bear children. The story is written from the side who gets victory hence nothing bad about the pandavas is actually mentioned. What doesn't make sense is during the vastra haran Karna and duryodhana were insulting draupadi, in between duryodhana challenged the pandavas to go against yudhisthir and come and save their wife but nobody actually came forward to help draupadi in the time of need. Because the Kurukshetra was always destined to happen. Also as you are saying about fiction here I must add that in actual mahabharat its said that there was no mention vastra haran and draupadi was pulled by her hair by Dussasan and made to sit on Duryodhana's lap and vastra haran was added by few authors later because of its immense popularity. And Yes, all the good things about Pandavas and Lord Krishna is highlighted but people rarely know that even lord krishna was cursed by mere human being (by gandhari) for being the cause of this kurukshetra war which caused the downfall of the whole yadav dynasty and lord krishna died a painful death in grief. I mean he died by and arrow but not before he grieved for his family and the yadavas.

Originally posted by: haha67re

There is a mention that while going towards heaven when Draupadi fell down Yudhistir replied saying thats because she loved Arjuna more than rest.

In that case he should have mentioned loving Karna as sin,Because loving other man should be a greater sin right?

One more thing I have seen so many favorable comments for Karna and criticism for Yudhistir...

I guess people are glorifying every small good work of Karna and criticizing Yudhistir for being boneless..

Like rest of Mahabharata characters they can not black and white ..Just to counter balance other points of view ..There are numerous occasions where Yudhistir proved his virtue...Few occasions:

i)He saved his brothers life from Yaksha

ii)He agreed for division of state only to avoid fights

iii)He tried for peace even after the 13 years exile and didnt attack directly

There are many more incidents...Whatever I know I cant digest one thing ow can he put is brothers and wife at stake.Its completely out of his character...

For Karna...

He followed Duryodhana blindly..its not a way a righteous and wise person will behave...But again every person has his own principles..

He humiliated Draupadi ..For someone who bore the burnt of humiliation throughout his life it was out of character..

He was involved with Abhimanyu killing.Again someone who just wanted a confrontation with Arjun to prove his own mettle,it was completely outrageous thing to do...

But he was a bigheartedman ..that's true .Just like the way Yudhistir was the righteous man

if you compare yudhisthir and karna I would say, being labeled as kshatriya, the world had been pretty fair to him. He got all the privileges of a prince, but everytime the world had been unfair to Karna. Inspite of being capaple and deserving he was denied many things, humiliated many times and called sut putra. But, duryodhana saw karna for what he was rather than seeing his family background, and when duryodhana gifted him the kingdom of Anga. He asked duryodhana that what favor did he want in return, then Durdyodhana said just his freindship. Karna had always known duryodhan was wrong, he never followed him blindly and that this was war would bring his end but he had decided that mitra dharma was greater for him than the universal dharma. If Karna would have sided with the Pandavas he could have been the emperor, and the Pandavas who humiliated him his entire life, would serve him and this way he could actually nurse as well as satisfy his hurt pride. But, he choosed his dharma above all.

Just two things that I didn't like him is humiliating draupadi (but like its said karma is a bitch and he was sorry for it in the end, he acknowledged to Bhisma) and killing Abhimanyu by unfair means (even Karna, Bhisma and Dronacharya were defeated and killed by not so fair means but most of us never question this)

Originally posted by: enlightenme

in many versions of mahabharat there is a chapter where Draupadi admits of her secret love for Karna. called 'Jambul Akhyan'. Karna was offered Draupadi as wife by Kunti or Krishna, to side with the pandavas along with the offer to become the king during the kurukshetra war, but he refused because he was indebted to his evil friend. (Just type Draupadi's secret and google.)

Many authors have explored this part of the story (I mean the Karna - Draupadi angle) like in the 'palace of illusions' by chitra banerjee devakuni. Where entire mahabharata is told from the sight of Draupadi. Where plight of Draupadi is described that how she lived with each brother a year. when she would come to live with the next brother memories of the previous brother would assail her thoughts.

There is also a reason why Draupadi was married to 5 bothers in those days. its because Kunti clearly read the desire in Yudisthir's eyes for Draupadi hence she got her married to the 5 brothers to avoid quarrel over a woman because the strength of Pandavas was in their unity, they were incomplete without each other.

There are many versions of Mahabharata with different interpretion. there are many undercurrents in the story, of mahabharata if you ask why kunti and madri's were not pandu's son. why did they have of bear children from the devtas then the reason is very obvious that maharaj pandu was impodent.

I really don't know whether Draupadi loved Karna or not. But, the fact is if Draupadi would have been Karna's wife then there would have been no vastra haran and no kurukshetra and no mahabharat. And to add I would say these two characters faced the hightest amount of humiliation and its really sad they both took active part in each other's humiliation.

I wouldn't say Krishna lied and cheated, He used each situation to it's advantage which was his dharma

Originally posted by: sonanai

How can people even think of DRaupadi having secret love for Karna?...Draupadi was a chaste woman...She was the Mahasati...She always served her husbands with great devotion...She cannot think of any other men other than her husbands...She was God,and God cannot think of such an evil...Even in Ved Vyas Mahabharat it was said that draupadi served her husbands with full devotion...

She was a devoted wife undoubtedly but people are thinking that she might have been attracted To Karn based on Jambul story. Till I heard that story I had also thought that she loved Arjun but now after listening to that story it is very much apossibility.

Yudi telling that Draupadi loving Arjuna more than her other husbands is a sin is completely absurd. How that type of statement came up in the epic, we don't know. Again a discrimination against females. It is definitely mentioned that Arjuna loved Subhadra more than he loved Draupadi. Why is this not considered sin?

Again Draupadi deserves to be praised because she lived for equal time with all the five of her husbands. Even though it is said she loved Arjuna more, she was loving Yudhistira also even though the actions done by the latter caused problems for her. As far men of those days, definitely kings were polygamous. And did the kings spend equal time with all their wives? It is possible a king after marrying more than once, neglected one of the wives. Uttanapada married Suniti and Suruchi. The king said nothing when Suruchi told Dhruva that the boy had no right to sit on his father's lap because he was not born from her womb. The boy was left weeping. What would have been the case if the king loved both the wives equally.

Draupadi certainly deserves praise for the way she handled herself inspite of all the trying situations she found herself in. Yudhister's statement is discriminatory towards women but it may be seen as nothing wrong as it was in line with the patriarchal society.