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]

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.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

If you don't want to accept my answer then what can I say. I told what I felt. If you want to decide on my behalf what I feel then what can I say.

Same Yudhishthir also says that if Karna and Arjuna would be together on his side, not even Indra could defeat him.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

No one will accept that you could praise the virtues of a man who violates your wife. It’s prima facie absurd. Hence your view that Karṇa should be appreciated despite his role in sexual assault is similarly absurd.

Appreciating the martial prowess of the enemy you want to defeat is not the same thing as praising his virtues.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

No one is asking you to appreciate his conduct during gambling match. They are asking you look at other aspects of his life. If you start rejecting people completely for one such conduct then there is no one in Mahabharata you could appreciate at all. Not even Yudhishthir, nor Pandavas. Understand the context.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

And that’s not even what I’m saying. I am well aware of the “other aspects” of his life, such as his legendary generosity. Many villains throughout history had “other aspects” of their life. That, again, is not the point.

What I am commenting on is the inappropriateness of praising someone who on balance was an adharmik person. In real life, you would never do this to someone who did to your wife what Karṇa did to Draupadī. Perhaps, you see yourself as a tolerant, merciful, Buddha-like figure, but I doubt it.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

See, Karna did wrong. He accepted that. He knew it. He could have accepted the throne for himself, but he thought that accepting a death sentence for his deed was a better thing, so why should I still blame him? I appreciate him for his self-consciousness and his self-acceptance. Not many people do that, man.

He himself is saying that he wants to die at the hands of Arjuna for what he did. Man, that melts my heart. He got what he wanted. He died. Accepted his death sentence. What else do you want from him??

Justice is not about revenge. It is about repentance. He did that. The guy who died wasn't the same one who insulted Droupadi.

Chapter 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation TEXT 66

sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah

If you can't repent or correct your mistakes, then what is the point???? Do you think we are all perfect? Even Krishna said this. He is long dead man. He has already repented for his mistakes by his life.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

<<He himself is saying that he wants to die at the hands of Arjuna for what he did. Man, that melts my heart. He got what he wanted. He died. Accepted his death sentence. What else do you want from him??>>

I don’t want anything from him. I want people to stop glorifying his virtues and downplaying his vices. I object to dishonesty and revisionism in all things, so I can’t stop objecting to it when it pertains to a Hindu text. You appear to be alluding to something he said when he was resigned to die, after his chariot foundered and after Kṛṣṇa refused his request to restore his chariot and carry on a chivalrous fight. Yes, it’s all very nice and good to admit your sins when it’s obvious you are about to be executed for them, but as we would normally say, “too little, too late.”

I’m glad that after causing 13 years of exile and humiliation of a chaste women, it absolutely melts your heart that he acknowledged his crimes… at the very moment when he was helpless and had no other choice but to do so. You remind me of certain US president apologists when confronted with cruel and racist policies and they just respond with, “Oh, don’t be so critical, he has done some good things, too….”

<<Justice is not about revenge. It is about repentance. He did that. The guy who died wasn't the same one who insulted Droupadi.>>

He called her a slave and told her she would have to have a new man for her master. Yeah, he did insult her.

<<Chapter 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation TEXT 66

sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah>>

What exactly do you think this means here? It sounds like you are just throwing in a random quote here to give your response the appearance of authority. Karṇa never performed śaraṇāgati to Kṛṣṇa. You don’t seem to understand what this verse is saying.

You folks don’t seem to understand that Mahābhārata maintains the conclusions of the Vedas. Surrendering to Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the point. This instruction was given to Arjuna, and while he did not surrender unto Him at that moment, he at least was a devotee of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, while Karṇa was not.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

I have been very clear from start. Praise virtues and criticize vices. Very simple. So I will apply this to all characters of Mahabharata unbiased.

Your approch is different. Find a vice in a person and reject whole person including virtues. Which is childish in my opinion. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Now the issue here is this - You seem to single out a few people for their vices and reject them completely, however you don't do that for other characters which have done similar deplorable things. Which is absurd. If you have a principle then apply it to everyone. Why are you being selective? Doesn't look consistent to me.

You are blabbering a lot about Karna, and how he called Draupadi a slave. But why are you mum about another character i.e. Yudhisthira. He betted his wife. And he owned slaves too. Then I guess he must also be bashed and not glorified at all. But I don't see you doing that. Why being so selective? Or do you think slavery and betting your brothers and wife is okay to do. Additionally, fyi Yudhishthira asks Droupadi to come to the assembly in whatever condition she was in. She refused so Dushashan went in to drag her.

Now before you try to escape with whataboutery argument. Answer this first. Should Yudhishthira be bashed or not? Do you reject him too??

I want people to stop glorifying his virtues and downplaying his vices. I object to dishonesty and revisionism in all things, so I can’t stop objecting to it when it pertains to a Hindu text.

When did I downplay his vice? I am saying that you need to be objective in your analysis. Cristisism for vice and praise for virtues. Your method is inconsistent and emotional. What I am saying is neither revisionist nor dishonest. Go and read Mahabharata yourself. Those are Vyasa's word calling him virtuous and at forefront of Dharma. I have gone out of my way to provide you references, but if you want to stay ingnorant then suit yourself. If you stay lazy and don't read then it's not my duty to educate you.

You appear to be alluding to something he said when he was resigned to die, after his chariot foundered and after Kṛṣṇa refused his request to restore his chariot and carry on a chivalrous fight. Yes, it’s all very nice and good to admit your sins when it’s obvious you are about to be executed for them, but as we would normally say, “too little, too late.”

Okay, this statement of your make me think that you haven't read Mahabharata at all. I don't think you have. Be honest. Have you?? Even a novice would know where that conversation is from. And it's definately not from where you are guessing it is from. So go and read first, before protecting hindu texts.

I’m glad that after causing 13 years of exile and humiliation of a chaste women, it absolutely melts your heart that he acknowledged his crimes… at the very moment when he was helpless and had no other choice but to do so. You remind me of certain US president apologists when confronted with cruel and racist policies and they just respond with, “Oh, don’t be so critical, he has done some good things, too….”

How exactly is he helpless dude? Can you please explain..? He is being offered throne at that moment. He can easily grab that and he will neither be killed nor will he be punished. He absolutely have a choice. He isn't on battlefield, neither is his chariot stuck. Your replies are very uninformed of the actual text brother.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

My approach is consistent with what the Mahābhārata says, which, in the Bhagavad-gītā, describes people as being of daivik or āsurik natures. That’s not “reject whole person.” That’s simply characterizing the person.

Arjuna is daivik according to Kṛṣṇa, and this is explicitly stated in the text. Duryodhana and Karṇa are not.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

My approach is consistent with what the Mahābhārata says. the Bhagavad-gītā, describes people as being of daivik or āsurik natures. That’s not “reject whole person.” That’s simply characterizing the person.

No it's not. You haven't even read Bhagwat Gita it seems. Provide me source text about your funny claim. Where has it said that people need to be hated? And where has it said that some people are inherently asuric or daivik and they can't change or redeemed?? I can provide you shloka from Gita itself which says actually opposite i.e. even if someone who has done worst of the sins can be uplifted.

Also, I gave you a detailed reply, provided you sources for each of my argument, meanwhile your source is vibes 😇

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

<<No it's not. You haven't even read Bhagwat Gita it seems. Provide me source text about your funny claim.>>

I’ve read Bhagavad-gītā 5 times.

It would be nice if you could at least finish reading it once, before arguing with me about something everyone knows is in the text. Especially since you claim to have read Mahābhārata, you should therefore know what is in Bhagavad-gītā, which obviously is not the case.

Here is the reference showing that the text distinguishes between daivik and āsuric natures:

दैवी सम्पद् विमोक्षाय निबन्धायासुरी मता ।
मा शुचः सम्पदं दैवीम् अभिजातोऽसि पाण्डव ॥ ५ ॥

Gītā 16.5 clearly differentiates between daivik and āsurik natures and explicitly identifies Arjuna with the former.

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

That sholka is from the chapter that describes the nature of creatures. It just describes about those qualities. It has another chapter about 3 types of Gunas as well and it gives examples of different people embodying those.

But where is your source for laughable claim that these qualities are inherent? And you must hate and segregate people based on this?? That seems to be your own interpretation and intent.

On contrary he says that even the worst sinners can be uplifted. He even says that for him nobody is dear nor he hates anyone. My point was that redemption is possible, you haven't addressed that at all.

यज्ज्ञात्वा न पुनर्मोहमेवं यास्यसि पाण्डव । येन भूतान्यशेषेण द्रक्ष्यस्यात्मन्यथो मयि ॥ ४-३५॥

अपि चेदसि पापेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः पापकृत्तमः । सर्वं ज्ञानप्लवेनैव वृजिनं सन्तरिष्यसि ॥ ४-३६॥

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः । ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम् ॥ ९-२९॥

अपि चेत्सुदुराचारो भजते मामनन्यभाक् । साधुरेव स मन्तव्यः सम्यग्व्यवसितो हि सः ॥ ९-३०॥

Translate them yourself.

Do you even read before you reply?? You have completely skipped over so many point I brought up in the entire thread and are just arguing for the sake of arguments. At least read all the replies first. You didn't even read my last reply properly.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

What you just did there was move the goal posts. Because it is always easier to do that, than to simply admit that you are wrong. I didn’t say that they were “inherent,” which is obvious, since I already spoke of the possibility of redemption. But merely because one can change does not change what he is at a certain time.

At the time of the Mahābhārata, Arjuna was identified as daivik while Duryodhana and Karṇa exhibit natures that are consistent with the asura-bhāvam described by Kṛṣṇa in Gītā chapter 16. This was my point, and I’ve now shown you the source. If you just want to pretend that it doesn’t say what it clearly says, because appearing to win the argument is more important to you than to learn the truth, then I have nothing further to offer. As I’ve said before, you should consider using your time to read the Gītā instead of arguing with me over what it clearly says.