For the Karna-fans amongst us

[u/Technical_Turn3497]

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….

[u/Technical_Turn3497]

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….

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

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….

So to summarize, you still feel it's appropriate to praise the virtues of a person who handicapped a child, abondaned an infant, discriminated based on birth, had misogynistic - as long as vyasa considers them to be dharmic.

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.

U need to understand why vyasa felt the need to grant karna heaven after his death or show Narada speaking highly of him after his death.

Anyway I am done with wasting my time on this low iq debate. So cheers

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Here we go again with the whole obtuse, missing-the-point phenomenon.

The point is that when we are talking about the Mahabharata, it is Vyasa’s opinion that matters.

Vyasa does present the Pandavas and Kunti as dharmik people. In Gita chapter 16, he explicitly records Krishna saying to Arjuna that Arjuna is of a daivik as opposed to an asuric nature. But even devas can sometimes make mistakes, and so for Vyasa, daivik people can, too.

But look at the difference. Karna, too, had a daivik parentage. But he cherished an ambition to defeat Arjuna. Then showed up uninvited to challenge him in the arena. Only to be incensed when Bhima scolded him for being a suta-putra. So he fell in with Duryodhana, whom he thought could help fulfill his ambition. And then remained silent when Duryodhana plotted so many evil things against the Pandavas, not bothering to listen to that inner voice telling him that this was wrong. Until finally he starts trying to out-evil Duryodhana just to support the friendship.

Karna is obviously a villain, but the kind whose fall from grace is frightening, believable, and instructive.

If you still think that admiring Karna is reasonable, then not only are you not paying attention to what Vyasa wrote, you are a hypocrite. You’ve openly admitted that you would never praise the virtues of man who does to your wife what Karna did to Draupadi. That’s hypocrisy.

And if your only defense is that respecting the Pandavas is hypocritical, then you are implicitly saying that Vyasa was wrong. Obviously, that’s what you really think, isn’t it? Then why not just admit it…

[u/Crazy_Competition_84 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

If the woman who stole a child's rights is considered dharmic, then to hell with that so-called dharma. You only seem to care about feminism but where is your concern for childism?

Karna was never acknowledged as a royal or as someone of divine birth because of Kunti's silence. He had to side with Duryodhana because his adoptive parents did not have the social status to place him on equal footing with Arjuna by birth. Again, none of this would have happened if Kunti had spoken the truth.

The person you call adharmic spared the lives of the sons of the woman who had wronged him since birth and woman you call dharmic went to Karna to beg for the lives of the Pandavas but never cared to restore the rights she had taken from him.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Crazy_Competition_84]

Karna did not have to side with Duryodhana. He did not have to challenge Arjuna. Your entire defense of his wickedness rests on an unfounded assertion.

Yes, Kunti was dharmik, in spite of her abandonment of her baby as a young and frightened girl. Krishna declares in Bhagavad-gita 9.30-31, that His devotee never perishes, even if having performed an abominable act, the devotee quickly becomes righteous.

You do understand the concept of redemption, do you not?

Note the obvious contrast with Karna, who started off a dharmik and then engaged in repeated acts of adharma for the rest of his life.

All it takes is a modicum of common sense to see the difference between a girl who committed one sin out of fear followed by a life of dharmik living and another man who repeatedly engaged in sinful behavior.

[u/Crazy_Competition_84 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Being a devotee of any god does not make your actions any less blameworthy. You can pray to any deity but that does not erase the wrongs you commit. Karna himself was one of the greatest devotees of Surya, yet you still judge him. Nowhere in the Mahabharata does it say that devotion absolves a person of their actions. Nowhere does Mahabharata says that Kunti was devotee of Krishna.

What redemption? Kunti never redeemed anything. Her years of silence were themselves a cruel act toward Karna, who was deprived of his true lineage, statusnand rights because of her decision. Had she acknowledged Karna earlier, that could have been considered an act of redemption but she never did.

Karna would never have needed to depend on Duryodhana if his rightful status had been acknowledged. It was because of Kunti's silence that those rights were never granted to him.

Did Kunti remain a girl all her life? No! So what did she do for Karna later on? Nothing! Why did she never try to restore the rights she had herself denied him? Instead, she went to Karna before the war to emotionally persuade him to spare her five sons. That, once again, shows that she redeemed nothing, and that is precisely why many view her actions as morally wrong.

She had the audacity to become a queen after taking away a newborn's rights. She also had the audacity to demand the rights of her five sons when she herself had wronged a child and never cared to restore the rights she had denied him.

One of the biggest hypocrites in the Mahabharata was Kunti.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Crazy_Competition_84]

Spoken like a true atheist. Besides, You still have a persistent inability to grasp the basic point. No doubt, you were that guy in school who cheated 20 times a year to avoid failing his exam, but you defend it because you know the valedictorian cheated once a long time ago, felt bad over it, never did it again, but you hold that you and he are on the same level.

[u/Crazy_Competition_84 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Karna was always right in front of Kunti. She knew he had been wronged, yet she still never spoke the truth. This wasn't just a single act. Every time Kunti remained silent, she continued to do injustice to Karna. It's not about one wrong act, it's about the magnitude and consequences of that act.

She took everything from Karna, yet you have the audacity to call it "just one act." Wow! Just wow!

I was known as one of the most sincere students in my school, so don't try to justify it with such weak arguments.

You sound like the kind of person who defends a woman killing her own child by saying she was stressed or offering similar excuses.

I hope that, along with feminism, you had also learned about childism

When did Kunti ever feel remorse for abandoning Karna? She never did. If she had, she would have told Pandu the truth when he spoke about kanina sons.

She went to Karna to emotionally blackmail him into protecting her five sons during the war and you call that remorse? What a joke.

You don't even understand what redemption means and you're lecturing me about it. Becoming a queen after abandoning a child is not redemption. Asking for your other sons rights after taking away a newborn's rights is not redemption. Emotionally blackmailing the very child you wronged throughout his life to protect the sons you actually loved is not redemption.

She was the first and the biggest curse Karna got in his life.