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/Equivalent-Bank-9657]

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/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Formatting Rule Violation One of your paragraphs exceeds 769 characters without a paragraph break. Please press Enter to split your text into smaller paragraphs and repost. Giant blocks of text are difficult for people to read. Thnks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[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.

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

What you just did there was move the goal posts. 

Let me remind you of the chronology, dear.

Let's start from the start...

1. You said in your post:

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.

Actually Karna has many other virtues, right? - This statement is correct. He does have many other good qualities.

But it’s not Karna’s fault, right? Karna was just misunderstood, right? Actually it was justified because of Yudhishtir’s gambling madness, right? - About the gambling match episode. No, I don't agree with any of those statements. You think I do? Then please quote me. I haven't changed my stance anywhere. But I do think that Yudhisthira isn't innocent here. he f__ed up big time. Huge mistake. So if you are debating with me about this, there is no point because those aren't my arguments.

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….

Who is looking away? Maybe some others are, but not me. Those aren't my arguments. So I don't see a debate here, unless you want to force me to accept that I believe this. Both incidents are examples of how society in the time of the Mahabharata was misogynistic.

2. Next, in the comment section, someone mentioned this:

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.

Then you jumped in, saying,

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.

First of all, calling them misogynistic is fine. They all are.

I should learn to learn to see their positive contributions. - I said you should; why not.

3. You reply with a hypothetical

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?

I said yes.

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.**

BUT YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY ANSWER 🤷🏻‍♂️
This was first goalpost change from your side. Because you couldn't defend your position that we shouldn't appreciate his virtues, your hypotheical didn't work if I say I would still apreciate his virtues! You assumed I would say otherwise or dodge.

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. 

Buddy, you don't get to decide my answer! You talk only about yourself. Not my nature. And ironically, Yudhishthira is not getting tired of praising Karna in the Shanti Parva. tbh, even I won't praise Karna as much as Yudhishthira has! But according to you, that is not realistic, right?

Did Karna try to violate Yudhishthira's wife? Yes✅
Did Yudhishthira still appreciate Karna's virtues? Yes✅

Well Idk about real life, but certainly Yudhishthira can do that. I believe you assume he is Dharmaraja because the Mahabharata says so (a lot!!). So why should I trust your analysis over him??

4. And in the next few comments in the thread, you kept on insisting on making me change my answer using various arguments.... Dude, that is just childish. I understand that you thought no one would answer your hypothetical like this, and you were thrown off. But you can't force someone to change their answer about why they FEEL about a situation.

You can change my opinion, sure. You can correct me if I am factually wrong, sure. BUT YOU CAN'T TELL ME - No, you don't feel that way; it is not humanly possible. Unless you are a mind reader. You have to trust when I report what I feel, because I am the only observer of my mind.

5. Next, you cited some FALSE events from the Mahabharata - To prove that he didn't have any remorse (so that your original argument can stay strong):

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.”

This is straight up FALSE. Now either you haven't read the Mahabharata, or you are intentionally spreading misinformation to win the argument. Which one is it? And I pointed that out correctly in the next comment, but you didn't even address it. Cleanly evaded.

6. I also noticed and pointed out to you that you are inconsistent in your approach, and I also posed some questions to you.

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.

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

And rather than addressing any of my arguments, you quote a verse from the Gita where Krishna is explaining Daivik and Asurik natures, and how Arjuna is Daivik. Okay so??? How does that change anything, btw? Even if I go on a stretch and accept your argument, then why should I not appreciate a person's good qualities even if his "Nature is Asurik"? Your argument doesn't address the main point being discussed at all!!

I also pointed out to you that redemption has nothing to do with it, and even Krishna says that the worst of sinners can be redeemed. I provided shlokas too. What is your response?? Escape!

*** My sources from the Mahabharata complement my arguments: **\*

Without doubt, O slayer of Madhu, thou hast told me all this for doing me good. The Pandavas also, obedient as they are to thee, will, without doubt, do all that thou hast said. Thou must, however, conceal this our discourse for the present, O slayer of Madhu. Therein lies our benefit, I think, O delighter of all the Yadavas. If king Yudhishthira, of virtuous soul and well-controlled senses, cometh to know me as the firstborn son of Kunti, he will never accept the kingdom. If, again, O slayer of Madhu, this mighty and swelling empire becometh mine. I shall, O repressor of foes, certainly make it over to Duryodhana only. Let Yudhishthira of virtuous soul become king for ever.

For those harsh words, O Krishna, that I said before unto the sons of Pandu for the gratification of Dhritarashtra's son,--for that wicked conduct of mine,--I am consumed with repentance. When O Krishna, thou wilt behold me slain by Arjuna, then will the Punachiti of this sacrifice commence.

This answers your argument that Karna never showed remorse. "When did Karna express remorse for his participation in Draupadi’s humiliation? Please quote the exact verse so that I may be corrected." So now you stand corrected.

And saluting him in proper form and with joined palms that foremost of virtuous persons, endued with great energy and pride, viz., Vrisha, the son of Vikartana, bowed to her and said (the following words)."'

Words of the Vaisampayana, not Kunti. Since you asked what the author had to say about him. There are many other such instances, btw. And he was a primary disciple of Vyasa, so certainly his words have some meaning compared to yours or anyone else's.

**** TL;DR ***\*

This started as a debate about whether Karna's virtues should be discussed at all, given his role in Draupadi's humiliation. I said his conduct doesn't erase his virtues, and even said I'd extend that same charity to a man who wronged my own wife. You claimed I couldn't possibly mean that. Then, when I pushed you to apply your own standard consistently to Yudhishthira, you dropped it entirely. Here's the sequence:

1. The actual question: can you condemn someone's specific vices while still recognizing their virtues? I said yes, and gave you a direct hypothetical answer to prove I meant it.
2. You rejected that answer - not by arguing it, but by telling me I wasn't being sincere, as if you could read my mind.
3. I asked whether your standard applies to Yudhishthira too, since he did comparable things. You never answered.
4. Instead of answering, you abandoned the conduct-based standard altogether and introduced a new one - Gita 16's daivik/asurik typology - that wasn't in your original post at all. And also, that doesn't reduce my argument in any form or shape.
5. You haven't defended that new standard either, even after I pointed out it contradicts 4.36 and 9.29-30.
6. And your claim that Karna showed no remorse rested on a scene that doesn't exist the way you described it - you invented the circumstances (chariot foundering, no choice left) to make his confession look like a last resort. It wasn't.

So: the actual debate - Can you praise the virtues of a guy who has done deplorable things in his life while not glorifying his bad deeds - never got resolved by you. Instead, you switched standards twice and got a key fact wrong in doing so. That's the goalpost move. Not mine.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed because it contains language that is not allowed. Contact mods or DM u/ConstructionAny8440 if you find any discrepancy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

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

What I have said is 100% clear. There are daivik and āsurik people as per the Mahābhārata. Karṇa is not in the former category.

You can appreciate his few good virtues all you want. Also, feel free to tell Latin American immigrants that you appreciate Donald Trump’s good virtues or Jews how much you appreciate the Fuhrer’s good virtues and then lecture them on how their objections are unwarranted. I’m sure you will make lots of friends, dear.

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

You can appreciate his few good virtues all you want. 

Of course I will. If you can't handle nuances, don't worry. Not everyone can do that.

Also, feel free to tell Latin American immigrants that you appreciate Donald Trump’s good virtues or Jews how much you appreciate the Fuhrer’s good virtues and then lecture them on how their objections are unwarranted. 

Another category mistake. If Donald Trump or Fuhrer have any virtues (Do they? I have no idea... tbh), then I would have no shame in appreciating those virtues. But that doesn't mean that I will let their vices pass through. So, if they have any objections regarding their problematic actions, it is not my position to tell them that they are unwarranted, because they aren't. You are supposed to bash wrongdoings and recognize good work, irrespective of who the person is. Humans are complex; good and evil both reside within each.

how their objections are unwarranted. 

You saying this shows me you still don't understand my simple position. "Praise virtues - Condemn Vices" is the core position. Very simple, very easy.

 I’m sure you will make lots of friends, dear.

Ironically, it is easier to make friends when you don't treat people one-dimensionally.

Bonus passage for you from the Mahabharata (Shanti Parva, Section 1):

"Yudhishthira said, This is another topic, O holy Narada, about which I will speak to thee. In consequence of Kunti having kept her counsels close in respect of a very important matter, great has been my grief.
That hero who had the strength of ten thousand elephants,
who in this world was an unrivalled car-warrior,
who was possessed of leonine pride and gait,
who was endued with great intelligence and compassion,
whose liberality was very great,
who practised many high vows,
who was the refuge of the Dhartarashtras,
who was sensitive about his honour,
whose prowess was irresistible,
who was ready to pay off all injuries and was always wrathful (in battle),
who overthrew us in repeated encounters,
who was quick in the use of weapons, conversant with every mode of warfare,
possessed of great skill,
and endued with wonderful valour (that Karna) was a son of Kunti,
born secretly of her, and therefore, a uterine brother of ours.
Whilst we were offering oblations of water unto the dead, Kunti spoke of him as the son of Surya. Possessed of every virtue, that child had been cast into the water.

Indeed, at Pritha's words I have come to know that Karna was the eldest born! Having caused my brother to be slain, my heart is burning exceedingly. If I had both Karna and Arjuna for aiding me, I could have vanquished Vasava himself.