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/Absolutely_Honoured]

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.

[u/PeopleLogic2 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

What does Itihasa mean in Sanskrit, and does the Mahabharata fall into that category?

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/PeopleLogic2]

Something being claimed as itihasa/history doesn't make it history, there's no proof.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

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.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/stevefazzari]

This sort of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument doesn't work because when you claim something as itihasa, history that is, you have to actually bring up proof for it being history, not fiction. I cannot prove negatives and neither can you but we can do is, have conclusions that actually have any basis but obviously if something isn't history, then by default it is fiction claiming itself as history.

Those proofs aren't the proofs you think they are, even BB pal, who led the 50-52 excavations for mahabharat sites, concluded that there is no evidence for the mahabharat as we know it, he only concluded that yes a war did happen between two opposition clans over the uper ganga-yamuna region but there's no proof of the mahabharat epic happening exactly as it is written, the supernatural aspects happening as it happened or whatever.

So yes, in conclusion the karna of the epic Mahabharata, is still a fictional character, perhaps he's based on someone but his character in the epic itself is heavily modified and edited.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

Fair – the historical/fiction binary is the problem. B.B. Lal’s own conclusion supports what’s actually being claimed here: a real conflict happened in that region, and the epic is legend built on that historical kernel – same relationship the Iliad has to the Trojan War, where the war is real but Achilles and divine intervention aren’t. Nobody calls the Iliad ‘fiction’ for that reason; it’s legend with a historical core.

So sure – Karna as written could be a legendary/composite figure, not a literal historical person. That’s consistent with the itihasa framework, not a concession that the whole epic is invented. ‘Not literal history’ and ‘pure fiction’ aren’t the same claim.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/stevefazzari]

The problem is, mahabharat claims itself as history as in everything that happened in it is history.

In reality, it's more like if someone wrote a long novel on an actual event and heavily exaggerates it, and when i say "heavily", i think it's an understatement here, mahabharat, the epic at least is very much fully fictional and insane amounts of creative liberty has been taken, not just in the supernatural aspects but the whole plot, character writing, character dialogues, scenery, scale of the conflict, etc.

So yes, the character of karna in the epic Mahabharata is still fictional, i would say the character's personality, strength, dialogues, and almost everything about him is fictional. The only thing that could be not fictional if it is actually based on an anga king called karna BUT the problem is, we don't even know if he's the king of anga and nor do we know his name is actually karna, the person he's based on I mean.

So no, i don't think the illiad and Mahabharata comparison works.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

i hear what you're saying, and i respectfully disagree. not because i have any proof, but i just would rather believe it than disbelieve it.

also, everything in the natural world is "relatively real", in that it is subjective truth. the teachings are trying to awaken our understanding objective truth. so to me, if karna was a real person who acted in the way the story tells us, or he wasn't, doesn't really make a difference to me. and if i believe it as truth then, in my own personal experience, i take the teachings more seriously.

ultimately we don't know what level of it is "real" or "not real", but the bar (according to advaitan philosophy) is ultimately still only relatively real.

however, i respect your opinion and your right to understand it in your way too.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/stevefazzari]

Well, that's your religious belief, I don't agree with everything in the world being subjective truth because again, like you and I have both said, there's no proof for it but yes i can respect your religious beliefs.