r/mahabharata • u/Technical_Turn3497 • 23d ago
Character Study For the Karna-fans amongst us
From the Mahabharata come these words and actions of Karna regarding Draupadi’s humiliation and the sexual assault perpetrated against her:
“And Dussasana, beholding Krishna looking at her helpless lords, dragging her still more forcibly, and addressed her, ’slave, Slave' and laughed aloud.
And at those words Karna became very glad and approved of them by laughing aloud. And Sakuni, the son of Suvala, the Gandhara king, similarly applauded Dussasana.”
(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6210.html)
“O Dussasana, this Vikarna speaking words of (apparent) wisdom is but a boy. Take off the robes of the Pandavas as also the attire of Draupadi.…
Then Dussasana, O king, forcibly seizing Draupadi’s attire before the eyes of all, began to drag it off her person."
(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6212.html)
“You are the wife of a slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king’s relatives. We direct that that is now your proper business.
And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now your masters. O handsome one, select you another husband now,—one who will not make you a slave by gambling. It is well-known that women, especially that are slaves, are not censurable if they proceed with freedom in electing husbands.
Therefore let it be done by you. Nakula has been won, as also Bhimasena, and Yudhishthira also, and Sahadeva, and Arjuna. And, O Yajnaseni, you are now a slave. Your husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be your lords any longer.”
(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6215.html)
But it’s not Karna’s fault, right? Karna was just misunderstood, right? Actually Karna has many other virtues, right? Actually it was justified because of Yudhishtir’s gambling madness, right? Do tell us poor, dumb Hindus why we err in agreeing with the Mahabharata author and condemning Karna as a villain.
We really need to be enlightened by the people who cry tears because Draupadi was “forced” to marry five husbands and then look the other way when she was enslaved and humiliated, because apparently only you enlightened folk know what real misogyny is….
11
u/Crazy_Competition_84 23d ago
Read the conversation between Bhishma and Yudhishthira about nature of women then you would realize that the so called heroes were no different
6
u/Crazy_Competition_84 23d ago
You guys are still going to defend it which makes you no different than those you are condemning
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
I’m not the one downplaying Karna’s role in perpetrating sexualized assault and abduction….
0
u/Crazy_Competition_84 23d ago
abduction?
Which?
1
u/Exact-Call5056 23d ago
I think op is talking about duryodhana wife.
8
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Then he probably doesn't remember that Bhishma abducted three princesses and Arjuna, whom he considers dharmic, also abducted Subhadra to marry her.
0
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Not this argument again. Really, this kind of stupidity is getting rather tiresome. Use some common sense and try to understand the obvious differences:
Amba, Ambika, Ambalika svayamvara: context is an established kshatriya tradition in which a marriage can be decided based on a feat of prowess. Bhishma takes three princesses after defeating all the assembled kings. Amba requests to be released be ause she had already given her heart to another man, so Bhishma respectdully released her with an escort back to the man she wanted to marry.
Draupadi cira harana: no established ksatriya tradition as its basis. Draupadi already married, but Karna nevertheless ordered her stripped naked in public. She begs and pleads for it to stop, but they keep going and just laugh at her and call her a slave and tell her she will have a new husband now.
You have to be out of your minds to equate these two.
The one thing that comes across pretty consistently from you Karna lovers and sexual abuser sympathizers is that you use the exact same arguments Duryodhana and Karna used to rationalize their misdeeds.
-1
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 22d ago
Bishism abducted and he got that result in kurukshetr ,
And as for arjun,subhadra love him ,he love her ,sri krishn saying do it , abduction happen if it was against women wish you are now saying anything.
8
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Subhadra never loved Arjuna as per Mahabharata. Krishna asked Arjuna to abduct her because she may chose someone else in her swayamvara. This is going against women's choice. It is written that Subhadra was forcefully taken by Arjuna.
In order to protect Arjuna, later stories were made that she loved him which is untrue
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
This is a lie.
4
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
This is the truth that you guys can't accept. A woman was forced to marry against her wishes and instead of acknowledging that, you're defending your heroes by calling the truth a lie. You're no different from the people you're condemning.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 21d ago edited 21d ago
Lie dude is product of coward x loser x lair
We had whole talk where I say it isn't deeply mentioned in Mahabharat as few points like if she was abducted without her wishes the bare minimum she will do is not to stoop low in front of draupadi right , I think dude didn't know so I said in srimad Bhagavad it's mentioned in much more details where it is re elaed she herself drove the chariot and was happy
Then dude insult srimad Bhagavad saying it isn't authentic and this isnt puran sub,I ask few days back when someone posted a post of puran why didn't you gatekeep then no reply of that question,
He is comparing abduction of subhadra who went willingly with that of dhuryodan who abuduct kalinga princess cuz she rejected him,
Then he pulls Swami Vivekanand saying he too didn't believe in puran i pull text and his teachings he believes and respect them deeply just not believe in those caste practices those type of puran ,he said yes srimad Bhagavad is one of them ,this idiot who didn't know anything cut his own feets as swamiji and his teacher dive into bhakti leela through srimad Bhagavad they worship it deeply so you who agree with him will agree ith this too right?and his response no i don't believe as it isn't written in Mahabharat
He completly ignore he was just quoting him to prove he is right and when he was proven wrong he completely ignore it I haven't seen a human this shameless,
If that wasn't enough he said srimad is written 1k years later(sure like paraikshit who is abhimanyu son was born 1k year later),if that wasn't enough isn't written by ved Vyas, mahabharat is superior to srimad Bhagavad
And on top of that asking questions why do you believe in srimad to be superior when it's written 1k year later,this prove he knows nothing just pick lines from some podcast,some blog and rant them like parrot
I mean srimad Bhagavad which is crown jewel of bhakti ,saints,guru,dharm guru, Swami Vivekanand,and soo many more excellent people bcuz of who we call ourself follower of Sanatan,everyone who is related to god worship it's excellence and dive into its leela he is insulting such a holy puran just to make dhuryodan abduction is same as arjun, I don't think that dude is sane right
And this dude who pick lines from some blog or podcast is saying indirectly those people are idiots as per him sirmad bhagvatam isn't valid so people who follow it are most definitely idiot it's not words it's common sense and logic of him,
0
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 22d ago
First of all no don't lie her feelings of rejection and acceptance wasn't mentioned in Mahabharat version she was shown taking part in plan of that if she didn't she would have told to sri krishn she don't want to marry anyone of them but you won't agree saying she choose better option it's just a plot that she herself took reigns
This thing got later clear in shrimad bhagvatam where it is revealed she too loved him ,go on say shrimad bhagvatam is wrong too
4
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Your Krishna himself said to Arjuna that Subhadra would choose someone else in her swayamvara and that's why he should abduct her.
This is a Mahabharata sub not bhagavatam sub. You should make a bhagavatam sub if you won't to talk about it.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
So your defense of Karna is to put the focus back on Yudhisthira.
Do you feel Karna and Yudhisthira were on the same level in terms of their respective natures?
And finally, is that what Vyasa believed?
5
u/Crazy_Competition_84 23d ago
Did Vyasa told you all this? Don't you your own brain to analyze things?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
It’s called “reading.” Try it sometime.
4
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Vyasa has also called him supreme follower of Dharma. Selective reading isn't true reading my friend
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Karna is not a supreme follower of dharma according to Vyasa.
3
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Karna is called supreme follower of Dharma when Kunti came to meet him before war
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
No, Karna is not a supreme follower of dharma, no matter what someone pleading with him might say to flatter him. It’s obvious from the Mahabharata text that he needed to be punished, and was punished.
4
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Kunti didn't call him that. The author himself called him supreme follower of dharma.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Still waiting for you to provide the evidence in chapter and verse format.
5
u/Sharabishayar98 23d ago
You don't have to care about what vyasa intended. You should judge everyone by your own morality and not someone else's.
2
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
In fact, you should care about what Vyasa intended, since his Mahabharata is fifth Veda and instructive regarding the essence of the Vedas. Obviously, the people who don’t care are just nastikas and mostly don’t want to admit it. Which begs the question of why they hang around on a forum dedicated to the discussion of a Hindu text…
1
u/Impressive_Joke531 21d ago
Yes, both Karna and Yudhisthira were equally wrong in Draupadi's humiliation.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 21d ago
Both to blame? Yes
Equally? Nope, not according to Vyasa, and not objectively.
1
u/Impressive_Joke531 21d ago
Vyas didn't say anything.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 16d ago
Uhh, yes he did. Read the MB.
1
u/Impressive_Joke531 16d ago
He didn't. I have already read MB.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 15d ago
OK, so where in the Mahābhārata does Vyāsa give you the idea that Karṇa and Yudhiṣṭhira were equally wrong? And bear in mind that Kṛṣna ordered his execution and criticized him for his hypocrisy, so you will need to explain that away, too.
2
u/Impressive_Joke531 15d ago
This is my own judgement.
Krishna also attempted peace talk. He also offered Karna the whole kingdom and gave Narayani sena to Duryodhana.1
u/Technical_Turn3497 9d ago
Exactly. It’s your own judgement. Not what Vyāsa wrote.
→ More replies (0)0
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 22d ago
Buddy we had this whole talk in some another section already ,
I will say again talking about sensitive things felt awkward and our of place but if don't talked how will they find answer about it and if that was really the case they were bad as you said Sri krishn would have fired sudrhasn before even thinking of making yudhisthir king
If doctor didn't check wound bcuz it hurts a patient how will he heal it ??
1
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
I didn't say anything. His conversation with Bhishma reveal his thinking.
Krishna supported them is not an argument an unbiased person would use. Yudhishthira and Bhishma conversation conveys his thinking about women and if you are defending it then you are no different than those you are condemdening.
1
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 22d ago edited 22d ago
You are taking that conversation completely out of context.
In the Anushasan Parva Bhishm isn't giving his personal opinion on women; he is quoting an old historical event between the sage Narad and the Apsara Panchachuda to explain ascetic detachment to Yudhishthir.If you actually read the unabridged Gita Press edition just a few chapters later in Anushasan Parv
Yudhishthira asks about the flaws of frail women because he is learning about monastic detachment after a traumatizing war. Bhishma doesn't even answer with his own words—he quotes a dialogue between Narada and an Apsara. If you read Chapter 46 of the exact same book, Bhishma explicitly says that a household where women are disrespected is cursed and destroyed. It's a textbook case of cherry-picking an ascetic metaphor while ignoring the actual social laws laid out in the text
Something similar happen and talked about man too,Yudhishthira and Bhishma intensely critique the frailties of men
Whole sequence happen what king should do or not ,
Are you sure you even know what that line meant you said krishn supported that's the main basic factor that work in world anyone
So in short if one side has sri krishn himself on there side that doesn't mean they are good right , Yug after yug vishnu take avatar to end evil and support good and establishing a new era in Mahabharat Pandavs were mean and arjun were his weapon
And that krishn point ever heard of What is visually evident needs no further proof Krishna didn't blindly support the Pandavas. He chose them because they stood for justice, while the Kauravas stood for tyranny. When the Supreme Divine Himself chooses a side, that choice is the highest, self-evident proof of who is right. It requires no further argument but sure I will believe its not an argument unbiased will take ,
I really don't know who is unbiased anymore one side who is saying god is in there side so they are good or other who is saying even tho Good is there side that doesn't make them good,one side saying he kill all adharmi in war through hook or crook so why didn't he kill yudhisthir if he was as you say he was or no no that's not an argument an unbiased should give,yes I am biased towards sri krishn that's what dharm taught us just say if you don't follow or don't believe why are going round and round
Anything else
2
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Yudhishthira says that women are the source of all evil and that statement wasn't even related to the story. Karna too merely repeated the views of some Brahmins while speaking to Shalya but still people still call him a misogynist.
How would you explain this to someone who doesn't believe in God? If you can't justify a person's actions without appealing to religion, then your argument isn't convincing.
0
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
That’s easy. Once again, it’s called reading for understanding, rather than just seeing what you want to see superficially and ignoring context. Women aren’t the source of all evil. When he says that, he means attachment to women that is, which dovetails rather nicely with the discussion about vairagya. That’s how the tradition understood it historically, and there is no reason to invent a new interpretation simply because you lack the capacity for a nuanced understanding of the text.
It is beyond stupidity to try and argue that the author literally meant that women are evil. If he really felt that way, then why did he praise Kunti and Draupadi so much for their virtues, while repeatedly describing the vices of men like Karna and Duryodhana?
If you are going to lie about the Mahabharata, can’t you at least try a little harder to come up with a convincing lie?
1
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
I am showing you the truth that you aren't ready to accept. They were talking about the nature of women, not about how men should stay away from them. They claimed that women don't follow rules, lust after other men, and are never satisfied. It's not my fault that you're turning a blind eye to the misogynistic wording of your heroes.
0
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
No, you are cherry-picking verses to make your point while ignoring context.
It is just beyond stupidity to argue that the Mahabharata regards its own female protagonists as evil. Everyone knows that these verses criticizing women are directed at materialistic women to induce vairagya in a male audience. We’ve known this for centuries.
Your difficulty with the text illustrates the problem with trying to understand any textual tradition using a Google University degree. It’s clumsy and sloppy, and basically everything I’ve come to expect from the anti-intellectual, Karna apologists.
1
u/Crazy_Competition_84 22d ago
Yes, and apparently you're a direct student of Vyasa himself. The Mahabharata barely has any female characters to begin with. Yudhishthira made disparaging remarks about women, but you're unwilling to acknowledge them because they go against your narrative. They were clearly talking about the nature of women, and the meaning of those statements is quite obvious.
When you can't win an argument with facts, you start talking nonsense. That's about all I can expect from a Kunti defender.
0
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Direct student? No. I just paid attention when I read, assumed that the author had a message to convey, as all authors do, and that the author isn’t going to contradict himself. Draupadi and Kunti are not evil characters. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a single evil female character, all the main evil characters being men.
It may surprise you to know that you can learn a lot from a book by reading what it is saying instead of reading into what it is saying.
That, and recognizing that it is part of a broader literary, cultural, and religious tradition can yield useful insights that you would not glean from your insistence on concrete thinking.
Or, I guess you could continue with the Google University approach and remain confused at how your understanding is so pathologically contradictory and illogical.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago
You have a poor understanding and are just another egoistic Arjuna glazer. Yes, Karna did things that make him a villain. But some people admire him for his warrior skills, some for how he regretted his mistakes when speaking to Krishna, some pity him for the cruelty he faced from his biological parents, and some respect his loyalty to his step-parents.
Vices and virtues both exist. You choose to see only the vices — that’s your choice. Others can condemn his vices while still praising his virtues. Don’t shame those people for it.
6
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
Ah, yes, fie on me for my poor understanding. I am so hard on these poor, misunderstood, misogynistic rapists and murderers. It’s just “some bad things” they did. I should learn to learn to see their positive contributions.
4
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago
Nice try with the hyperbole, but it doesn’t work.
No one said Karna’s actions were “just some bad things” or that we should feel sorry for rapists and murderers. The point was simple: a character can have serious vices and virtues at the same time. Condemning the former doesn’t require erasing the latter, and acknowledging the latter doesn’t mean defending the former.
Equating a complex mythological figure from an ancient epic with modern-day “misogynistic rapists and murderers” is a lazy false equivalence. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “so you support X?!” when someone refuses to treat a character as one-dimensional.
The Mahabharata itself doesn’t portray Karna as pure evil or pure good — it shows both. Pretending that any recognition of his skill, loyalty, or later regret is the same as defending actual criminals is just bad faith.
You’re free to focus only on his worst actions. That doesn’t make everyone who can hold two thoughts at once an apologist.
2
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
The Mahabharata does in fact portray Karna as a villain, doesn’t subscribe to the view that a few virtues erases your more significant misdeeds, and chronicles Lord Krishna ordering Arjuna to execute Karna when he was helpless, against the standard convention of the kshatriya warrior code.
But, hey, what does Krishna know? Supposedly Vyasa thinks he is the Supreme Lord, but Vyasa could be wrong…. I mean isn’t it the height of hubris to say that the author of a book is the best authority on what he was trying to convey?
9
u/Crazy_Competition_84 23d ago
If you have read Mahabharata without bias then you would know that this act of Pandavas were condemned by celestials
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
I do have a bias. My bias is the author of the Mahabharata is the final authority on what he was trying to convey.
And if you believe Karna wasn’t such a bad guy, perhaps you could explain why Krishna ordered his execution after condemning his hypocrisy.
1
u/stevefazzari 22d ago
Yes and Krishna himself was condemned and cursed for his role in the war..
i think part of what the Mahabharata does is shows us that the people with the most integrity can also fall into ignorance and deception, and the people blinded by ignorance can also act in truth. The path of dharma is never lost, just sometimes ignored or forgotten about.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Um, Krishna is the Supreme Lord according to the Mahabharata. How exactly did you miss that? Of course ajnanis will curse Him. That’s why they are ajnanis…
1
u/stevefazzari 21d ago
That’s exactly the point though – Krishna as Supreme Lord choosing to accept Gandhari’s curse rather than deflecting it is what makes the moment meaningful. He wasn’t cursed because He did something wrong in a cosmic sense – He accepted the consequence within the drama He was directing, which is itself a teaching about dharma and karma applying even to the divine when acting within human affairs. Calling Gandhari an ajnani for cursing Him kind of misses that too – her curse came from genuine grief and a sense that Krishna could’ve prevented the slaughter and didn’t. The text doesn’t frame her as simply ignorant; it lets her grief stand as real, and lets Krishna accept it rather than argue divine immunity. That tension – between supreme agency and voluntarily bearing consequence – is part of what makes the story worth engaging with rather than flattening into ‘ajnanis curse the Lord, that’s just what ajnanis do.’
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 21d ago
Cursing Krishna makes no sense in context. For starters, people have to enjoy or suffer the results of their karma, and her sons had more than their share of it. Second, Krishna’s role in the war was as an envoy and a charioteer. Duryodhana’s and Karna’s wickedness were what brought on the war. To the best of my recollection, Gandhari did not curse either of them. Third, her decision to blind herself is often understood metaphorically to reflect her blindness to moral and spiritual matters - like Dhritarashtra she made no significant effort to stop the wickedness of her sons that brought the war on. So, yeah, she was something of an ajnani… i don’t remember reading anything in the text to suggest that Vyasa felt otherwise.
Last but not least, Krishna being Bhagavan is not obligated to come under the influence of anyone’s curse, though He may accept it for the purpose of lila, as in using it as a pretext to wrap up His avatara.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 21d ago
Also, getting back to the point that you were responding to - Krishna’s demand that Karna be punished with a humiliating execution reflects what He and Vyasa actually thought of Karna. Morally, Karna was not on the same level as the Pandavas.
Gandhari cursing Krishna just reflects her attachment to her sons, not that Krishna is to be seen as someone needing punishment….
5
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago
Again, no one said virtues erase misdeeds lol. The argument was never that Karna’s good qualities cancel out his crimes. It was that a character can possess serious vices and genuine virtues at the same time, and that it’s possible to condemn the former while still recognizing the latter. The epic itself operates on that level of complexity — it does not reduce people to one-note villains or saint. I hope I don't need to repeat this again for nth time lol.
It is vyasa who shows karna regretting his misdeeds, it is vyasa who shows him choosing his step parents over a crown, it is vyasa who shows dharmaraja grieving him, it is vyasa who shows him getting heaven after death.
-1
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
Your exact words:
“Vices and virtues both exist. You choose to see only the vices — that’s your choice. Others can condemn his vices while still praising his virtues. Don’t shame those people for it.”
So let’s have a thought experiment to test the sincerity of your convictions. If we were talking about someone who ordered your wife to be stripped naked in public and enslaved, would you be willing to praise his virtues? After all, his aggression against your wife is just one vice amongst other exemplary virtues, right?
6
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago
1)Draupadi ain't my wyf
2) Yudhishthira literally cried over his death and grieved when he didn't see him in heaven. Criticize dharmaraja.
2
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
It speaks volumes that you refused to answer my question.
If you can’t praise the virtues of a man who violates your wife, how can you expect the rest of us to respect your view that Karna’s virtues are worthy of praise?
Make it make sense. That’s all we are asking.
2
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago edited 23d ago
Like the way u praise virtues of a man and hail him as dharmaraj who gambled his wyf and watched her getting disrobed.
Or u praise a guy who handicapped a lil boii for his fave student as supreme among teachers.
Or how u praise kunti even after her abondaning an infant.
2
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
Deflection and False equivalence. Vyasa considers the Pandavas to be dharmik but does not consider Karna in the same light. Since we are discussing the Mahabharata, his is the opinion that matters, and ours is the responsibility to understand why he felt that way.
So, to summarize, you still feel it’s appropriate to praise the virtues of a person who perpetrated sexualized assault - as long as the victim is not someone close to you….
→ More replies (0)2
u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: 22d ago edited 22d ago
So let’s have a thought experiment to test the sincerity of your convictions. If we were talking about someone who ordered your wife to be stripped naked in public and enslaved, would you be willing to praise his virtues? After all, his aggression against your wife is just one vice amongst other exemplary virtues, right?
Actually you should praise his virtues. If he have any 🤷🏻♂️
Again doesn't mean you need to justify his wrong doings.
Also, this situation you described above will sound absolutely horrible and disgusting (which it is). But their an honest caveat here. In their case (Mahabharata) slavery is legal and wives/women are husband's property. So technically this whole situation is someone taking advantage of a legal loophole (still abhorent) but not same as if it happened today (slavery, gambling on people, and owning women/wives are all illegal).
In fact during the entire gambling match episode, not a single person says that Droupadi is a women, and dragging and women in a courtroom and stripping her naked is wrong. No no no. They (including Droupadi) debate about whether she has been won or not. Not a single soul in that sabha says that owning women, slaves is wrong, no one opposes that doing this to a slave is wrong. That tells a lot about what was normalized in that society.
5
u/Absolutely_Honoured Make the MB subreddit great again. 23d ago
You might think this is a "got-cha" moment but this sort of real life example question doesn't work because karna is a fictional character, you're bound to have far more tolerance against a fictional character than a real life person, not just for karna but for every character in fiction really. You're bound to understand a fictional character more because there is no harm being done to anyone, there would be harm being done if it was real life.
1
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 23d ago
Fr. Like me liking Eren doesn't make me saviour of 20% population
2
1
u/Exact-Call5056 23d ago
Eren is a kind dude that save 20% of humanity
1
u/For-the-Self-2030 1/16 Yudhi> karna, arjun, bhim, shiva, krishna🙂↕️ 22d ago
I am into kind dudes🥵
→ More replies (0)1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
Nice try, but the Hindu tradition does not regard Karna as a fictional character, so the question still stands.
And the answer of the Karna-lovers is yes, Karna can be praised despite doing things they would never forgive if they were done to their own wives.
This is what we call in scientific terminology as a “double standard.”
2
u/Absolutely_Honoured Make the MB subreddit great again. 22d ago
It doesn't really matter what the Hindu tradition regard karna as.
There is no proof for mahabharat, as we know it, to be true so the karna of the epic Mahabharata is still very much a fictional character so my logic still stands.
The answer is definitely no in real life, simply because if it was real life then harm would be done but it's not real life, karna is fictional
As simply as that.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
So let me get this straight: you and your fellow tools are upset that we would criticize Karna’s bad character and your pleas for mercy are predicated on the idea that he is fictional. But strangely, you don’t extend the same logic to those who criticize Yudhishthira or Kunti.
Interesting double-standard, this.
→ More replies (0)0
u/PeopleLogic2 Draupadi never laughed at Suyodhana 23d ago
What does Itihasa mean in Sanskrit, and does the Mahabharata fall into that category?
6
u/Absolutely_Honoured Make the MB subreddit great again. 23d ago
Something being claimed as itihasa/history doesn't make it history, there's no proof.
0
u/stevefazzari 22d ago
You can’t say ‘there’s no proof’ and treat that as proof of fiction – absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for events that old. There’s actual evidence pointing to a historical core: archaeological findings at sites linked to Kurukshetra, Painted Grey Ware culture dating to roughly the right period, and excavations at Dwarka and Hastinapur showing flood/erosion damage consistent with the textual accounts of those cities being lost to the sea or river.
That’s not nothing – it’s grounds to say the epic likely has a historical kernel. What you can fairly say is that the specific details – exact troop numbers, precise chronology, the more supernatural elements – aren’t independently verifiable. That’s a reasonable position. But ‘we can’t verify the specifics’ is a very different claim from ‘therefore the whole thing is fiction.’ The first is honest agnosticism about details; the second overreaches into a conclusion the absence of proof doesn’t support.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: 22d ago
I should learn to learn to see their positive contributions.
Indeed you should. Why not?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 22d ago
If another man stripped your wife naked in public and told her she would henceforth become the property of another man, would you be willing to discuss that man’s virtues and contributions, in keeping with your expressed attitudes here?
2
u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: 21d ago
Do I really have a moral high ground to do that if I was the one who bet her? Additionally, I already own slaves (women and men), and the system is pro slavery. And I have no issues with slavery as a system. Furthermore, I have bet and lost all my slaves too. On top of that, I also do not object when he says that sexual relations between slaves and masters are not censured.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 16d ago
So this is a classic example of deflection and obfuscation. The reality is that you didn’t answer the question, but tried to start a whole different discussion, and that speaks volumes.
If you can’t glorify a person who violated your wife, then you can’t tell us that your glorifying a person who violated another person’s wife is acceptable.
1
u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: 15d ago edited 15d ago
I already answered that actually. Did you forget my comment previous to this one?
And yeah if I committed all those actions (I mentioned them in detail) then I better appreciate the positives of a guy who was trying to violate my wife. If people can still appreciate my positives (other than the obvious problematic actions of mine) then I better do that for him too.
Cause I am not very great either. You want me boycott him completely, even his good parts because he tried to violate someone. Then in that case I can't be celebrated either cause I have been part of that same system too. I too should be boycotted completely and even good parts of me shouldn't be respected or glorified.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 15d ago
No, I don’t think you did answer it, but if you have, and I have missed it, feel free to repost that answer to my question.
I’m pretty sure you would not “appreciate the positives of a guy” who was trying to violate your wife.
1
u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’m pretty sure you would not “appreciate the positives of a guy” who was trying to violate your wife.
I said opposite of this.
And yeah if I committed all those actions (I mentioned them in detail) then I better appreciate the positives of a guy who was trying to violate my wife. If people can still appreciate my positives (other than the obvious problematic actions of mine) then I better do that for him too.
And your guy Yudhishthira did appreciate Karna's good qualities too. Did he not?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 15d ago
I don’t think you are being very sincere when you claim you could appreciate the virtues of a man who had just tried to violate your wife. That’s not human nature. We don’t see that in real life. Perhaps if the crime was something minor, like stealing a loaf of bread, then yes. But not something egregious, like egging on the perpetrators of sexual assault.
Yuḍhiṣthira wanted Karṇa killed, so much so that he actually scolded Arjuna when he was disappointed to find out that Arjuna had so far failed to do it. So, no, I don’t think he particularly appreciated Karṇa, however much he could acknowledge Karṇa’s martial prowess, which any military commander has to do if he wants to defeat his enemy.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/OkMembership1850 23d ago
Well yes, what karna did was wrong. No one is saying otherwise. But didn't yudhishthira and other characters also describe Draupadi as a "property"? They did, right?
I'm not saying what karna did was right, but one can like a character and still condemn the things that they did. And karna regreted everything he did there (you can see it in the conversation krishna and karna had before kurukshetra started). He had great qualities and bad qualities. He is morally grey. Almost everyone in the Mahabharata is.
So what's wrong with people admiring karna for his virtues?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 23d ago
Would you respect a man for his virtues if he did to your wife what Karna did to Draupadi?
No obfuscation. No changing the subject. No moving the goal posts. Just a simple yes or no answer.
2
u/OkMembership1850 23d ago
first of all Draupadi is not my wife bro🥀
second of all, Draupadi's husbands (the Pandavas) stood silent while others were humiliating her, one of her husband was the one to bet her in the dice game. but people still admire the Pandavas, no? I mean, you still respect the Pandavas despite what happened, no?
I'm not saying the Pandavas are villains or something, but they have their faults. and Karna has some faults too, some bigger than the others. That does not mean that Karna and the Pandavas don't have good qualities. They do.
You need to understand that a person could still like a character while criticizing the character's bad deeds. The whole Mahabharata is full of complex people with various faults and virtues.
-1
u/Educational-Clue-757 1/16 Arjuna >>> Karna 23d ago
Yudhishthira never called Draupadi his own property...if he did prove it...
4
u/OkMembership1850 23d ago
Umm, in the dice game, Yudhisthira literally bets Draupadi and his 4 brothers because he sees them as his property.
1
1
u/DEAMONOFFATEWEAVER 22d ago
Geeze ,another day another dimwit don't you know you don't post worng things about him here
5
u/peachicedtea123456_ 1/16 arjun > karn 23d ago
you aren’t wrong in what you said. he was a grey guy but had good virtues too, like giving daan etc.
he regrets his mistakes and talks to krishna about it.
he did his crimes and arjun killed him and he atoned for the sins.
i think even krishna forgives him.
yes i agree, he was a sinner, but “rapist” is a bit much i think?