Who was right and why: Karna, Drona, Brishma or Arjuna?
The Mahabharata is in my opinion the greatest literature in the world. No other work brings out the complexity of human problems in such a profound and entertaining way. It shows us the application of philosophy when it comes to the deciding between the right and wrong in such cases where the answer is not straightforward.
Four of the most striking characters in the Mahabharata are Arjuna, Bhishma, Drona and Karna. These men were perhaps the four greatest warriors of the era and were also well learned and had firm principles by which they lived.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Dadichi… such anger in your words! no need for ‘foul’ language!
September 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I agree with Dadichi’s opinion on why the author is way off on Karna (not on horse-whipping; I would rather think someone that wants to horse-whip an author for expressing his opinion is highly uncivilized), but would like to add to his comments. Karna also resented, rightfully so, how Kunti and everyone else let him down. The whole society let poor Karna down. If I were in Karna’s position, I would have done exactly what he did, i.e., follow and help a loyal friend, instead of changing sides at the last moment, just because a teary eyed mommy walks up and says ‘help your real brothers’!
September 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Dadichi your the one that needs to be horsewhipped. What hypocrisy. The reason for the Mahabharata was duty to Dharma before everything. Arjun had to fight his own family to fight for what was right. Thats what it is not to blind loyalty.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Nonsense, blind loyalty is not what anything is about, our first loyalty has to be to Dharma not anything else & I agree Dadichi needs an asskicking (or horsewhipping) whichever he prefers.
By this stupid logic Jai Singh was right to be loyal to Aurangzeb cuz the later was the emperor, that’s nonsense, loyalty or anything else can never be higher than Dharma.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“KARNA - Is Hindu for his loyality to those who fed him. This is the way of the Aryawarth / The Aryan - The Noble Ones”
But there must be somewhere you draw the line and the loyalty stops.Suppose you find out your best friend turns out to be paedophile and a serial child killer lurking around for kids.Would you shop him in ? Or would you turn a blind eye and let him continue ? even if you know it could endanger your own children ?
September 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
‘Dadichi’ is yet another alias of known fascist and Texan cowboy ‘Deeno Sharma’, there is nobody else who says ‘Aryawart this and Aryawart that’.
Deeno mate, I’ve been hearing a lot about you…you dissapoint me.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The Karna logic by the writer is spot on!
Karna is the guy who was bullied all his life then takes it out on the world.
There is nothing Noble about that!
He was mentally unstable.
Karnas are like those who are influenced by bad boys on the streets, because they get respect or should I say he wants respect!
Falling into bad company is like Karna.
‘Take a gun, have fag, take a tick, let booze till we drop!’
These are offered by Duryodhans and Karnas fall foul of them because they get respect for being bad!!!
How wonderful!
Don’t be a stupid Karna.
If you were used and abused as a child or bullied at school or are weak and poor, or you get names called, don’t let others take advantage of you!!
Be an Arjuna, be a Chankya, be a Bhagat Singh, but never a Karna! Be strong minded.
Are you in debt? Is Duryodhans lending you the money?
Are you going to be forever in his debt? Think about it.
Karna is only great because he was related to the Pandavs and had a tragic life. His tragedy is no excuse to turn BAD. Ekalvya was equally better then Arjuna but his life story is dismissed because he was not related to the Pandavs. He was taken advantage of by another. Don’t let your circumstance make you fall foul of bad company.
If we all used some pathetic excuse in life to turn bad how do you think this world will look. Oh I forgot, there are already fools around the world feeling sorry for themselves and blowing other up in their self-righteous pity.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
who cares about loyalty..
duryodhana only made karna king because he wanted to exploit the situation during the contest. he wasn’t really a genuine friend of karna, but karna was indebted to him because duryodhana had apparently saved his face in the arena.
good lesson to learn about caste. how it divides society and lets evil people take advantage of caste…*hint*
September 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
i dont know why this m**on dadichi is getting so angry…do you got a chilli up your a*s?
September 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
History is written by the glorious. My reply may not have anything to do with the article - but have we ever wondered what the names Duryodhan, Dritarashtra, Duhshasan meant? Dur - essentially means negation. Duryodhan would mean a bad yoddha (fighter), Duhshasan would mean someone who is bad at shasan (ruling). Would someone name their kids this way? So why did Dhritarashtra name his children in a negative fashion??
One theory goes that they weren’t the true names. They were actually Suyodhan and Sushasan, but the Pandavas, being the victorious, and the subsequent influencers of history easily turned this fact around.
Su(dur)yodhan was the eldest heir to the throne, Yudhishtir or Arjun’s father was just a caretaker to the throne. So why the fight for the crown when they were just the children of a caretaker king?? How easily has mythology or history or whatever you want to call it twisted this fact and made it a dharm war? Duryodhan may be the one who did Draupadi’s vastraharan, but he wasn’t the man who bet his own wife in a game of chess.
Mahabharat is no doubt the greatest epic the world will ever see, but how adulterated is it when it has been handed over from generation to generation?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
there was never fight for any kingdom.
initially the pandavas had no interested in wanting the kingdom, they only asked for 5 villages.
duryodhana refused even this and proclaimed that he wouldn’t cede even one inch of land to them.
they are known as such because they tried to kill the pandavas, dishonored draupadi, etc etc.
“but he wasn’t the man who bet his own wife in a game of chess.”
it was a game of dice and you’re right. no one really displays a morally chaste character 100% of the time throughout the epic.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Nehal,
Firstly Im glad you have asked these questions.
Secondly the Hindu Voice gives us a platform to correct misunderstandings spread by people who wants to destroy our traditions or by those who just wants name and fame.
Its so easy to twist young minds on the internet these days, so don’t be taken by such comments.
Now to your questions.
The answers are long and is in three parts.
“History is written by the glorious.”
The history was written by the grandfather of the families.
It was not written by some foreign invaders or even another King of another city, so your theory that the history was written by the victorious does not stand here. The British has spoilt rotten our history so much that today you are questioning our own history. We are not like the British so please stop comparing our written historical truths in the same way as the British wrote our history. The British and Muslim invaders were evil and had only one purpose, to destroy our religion and loot our wealth. They looted our wealth; don’t let them destroy our religion!
Ved Vyas was the father of Dhrithrashtra, Pandu and Vidhur.
Their children are embroiled in a power struggle for the Kingship.
The names are easy to explain. In those days they were given different names for their different actions that they displayed. Arjuna had about 8 or 10 names, Krana had a few, Krishna had many etc. You can google these Im sure.
Duryodhan was probably the best name suited in the eye of his Grandfather who had the vision of seeing the future. In the end Duryodhan was a bad fighter. The story must have been written after the battle was over and so the most apt name for him would be Duryodhana.
Pandavs did not influence the history. History was told by the respected elder who was neutral in this battle. He did not influence or change the way the war was taking shape. He was a learned saint and stayed clear of politics. Once Vyas was asked to seat at the coronation of Yudhistira (Pandavs). He bluntly refused saying to sit at his coronation would be taking sides and he had no intention of doing that.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Part two
“So why the fight for the crown when they were just the children of a caretaker king??”
The seat of Kingship was given permanently to Pandu. He was not a caretaker King.
It was Dhrithrastra who was the caretaker King. You are getting your facts mixed up.
Dhrithrastra was blind and therefore could not become King. Bhisma wanted to make him King because he was the eldest but Vidhur reminded that the rules of Kingship does not allow a helpless King to the throne. In those days Judgement was made before a King. If he cannot see who he is judging then how can he be King? This was a fair and just rule.
So Pandu was made the permanent King. Unfortunelty he had to go to battle many times and never had time to rule the country. Since Vidhur refused to be King they had no choice but to make Dhrithrastra the caretaker King.
Pandu after his many battles went for a rest in the forest but he died there.
Dhrithrastra had a son who grew up thinking he was going to be the next King.
He was a spoilt child.
They did not tell him that Pandus children have first right since their father was the rightful King. Dhrithrastra was fulfilling his emotions through his son by telling him that he was the rightful heir.
This happens in families today. We don’t have to look very far as to see how families fall out with each other.
Im sure you know of brothers falling out with brothers. Actually there are a few famous cases also.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Part three
“How easily has mythology or history or whatever you want to call it twisted this fact and made it a dharm war?”
This is not a mythology so stop calling it mythology. If you don’t have faith in your own history then why do you expect others to? Why should we complain about Rama Sethu if you don’t have faith in history of Rama. Rama Krishna are not mythological.
So please don’t make this mistake again.
This is a Dharama yudh. A family at war is a war of Dharama. If Dharma cannot be established at family level then the destruction of Dharam is inevitable.
The history has not been ‘Adulterated’ as you put it. This is a bad choice of words.
It has been made grand over time and mythological aspects have been added. But that does not make the history mythological. It is a real history told in a very grand manner over the generations. Nothing wrong with that. News reporters do it all the time today! They really spice up the truth to sell their papers.
I would suggest to please read up the myths of today first before thinking our history is mythical.
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/08/05/justice-srikrishna-commission-report-media-myths-and-reality
Here are some reports on the number of people who were
part of “big” conversion program in Mumbai; May 2007!!!
NDTV reported
It was the biggest mass conversion in recent history
as over one lakh Hindu tribals converted to Budhism in
Mumbai on Sunday.
Reuters link
MUMBAI (Reuters) - About 50,000 Indian low-caste
Hindus and nomadic tribespeople converted to Buddhism
Associated Press link
MUMBAI, India: About 2,000 low-caste Hindu Indians
bowed before orange-robed monks
BBC Link
“We estimate that close to 5,000 Dalits have chosen
the path towards Buddhism….
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2007/05/rotfl-who-says-indian-media-isnt-biased.html
Now imagine the same being done 5,000 years ago! Is there any wonder then such mythological aspects have crept in.
It is difficult to separate the two today because they are so interwoven.
The Indian stories in those days were not spiced up out of spite or hate or malice or anything like that. It was more to explain the meaning of life to the rural folks who did not understand the difficult Sanskrit.
Well hope Ive busted some those myths for you.
Hindus PLEASE DON’T JUST ACCEPT THE FIRST TWISTED LIE YOU HEAR ABOUT OUR HISTORY. Many Hindu blog writers think they are so cool in writing negative things about our history. Be ware of these Greedy people who are only after name and fame. What else can they gain by posting lies about India.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Nehalji mentioned in his comment that …. he wasn’t the man who bet his own wife in a game of chess
Of course, nehalji was naming Yuhudshtir and yet this principal mover in the Mahabharata has been neglected by Patelji in his article.
The work of Hinduvoice is essential and necessary however we all need to be aware articles are just people’s opinions and comments and therefore can never be the last word on the subject.
Congratulations anyway to Hinduvoice for attempting to shine a light on our complex heritage.
On a different subject:
The article on the Chinamaya organisaton was so so right. Well done!!
September 30th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
just to clarify, duryodhana was an excellent fighter, the epic does not fail to mention this, he was supposed to be even better at wielding the mace than Bhima.
and duryodhana means “hard to conquer”, not bad fighter.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I know one thing. When your friend is taking a kicking. You do not bail. Karna stood there and took his kicking. This is loyality! And this is what the writer is attempting to instil in All us Hindus. Never bite the hand that feeds you.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I enjoyed readind this . How true is this it should be onces guide
October 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Dadichi you don’t know anything you idiot, you still haven’t answered people’s questions to you, loyalty can never be higher than Dharma.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Very interesting article and responses.
spirit, good posts and helped clear up the momentary doubt creeping in my mind. Dhritrashtra was caretaker but couldn’t bring himself to relinquish the throne for selfish reasons. Just as I had always thought.
Jai Sri Krishna
October 1st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Mr Duggirala
Is it idiotic to stand to serve those who allowed you home and security?
Those who have placed their questions should read the MB the answer is there. But Let me indulge them.
Answer
Karna made it to Heaven. (Anyone who does not know this please refer to Yama & Yudishtir when they visited hell)
Karna made it to heaven because he did not bail on his duty. His duty was to serve those whom had fed and sheltered him. He knew that those who were in opposition to lord Shree Krishna would lose but still he stood his ground. Duty is not to be chosen it is conferred on us.
Karna did his duty! Was Arjun higher in Dharm? Recall Arjuns enmity for Eklavya? Was the plan concocted by Arjun & Drona higher than Karns serving those whom had sheltered him?
The Chronology
Karn entered this affray at the Swyamvar. He was insulted by those present. Arjun could have befriended him. He did not. Duryodhan had the intellect to move to this position and so Karns’ doom was sealed.
Bottom Line - Serve with Honour and that is the highest Dharm. So in short Duty is Dharm!
Dhanyavaad
October 1st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
the likes of dadichi are numerous amongst our ppl, thats why we have so many servile losers in our country who will readily lick foreign hands if a few bread crumbs are thrown at their path.
“Is it idiotic to stand to serve those who allowed you home and security?”
no you comedian, read before you post trash. duryodhana and his cronies were adharmic people, therefore it wasn’t right to stand with those people, who used karna for their own personal gains.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
You m**on get this through your thick head, duty and loyalty can never be higher than standing up for Dharma.
Say someone helps you out a lot financially and you work for him, one day you discover that he is also a paedophile, would you turn him or no?
Just answer that question.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:48 pm
dadichi
“Is it idiotic to stand to serve those who allowed you home and security?”
No.
“Karna did his duty!” Karna made it to Heaven
Agreed.
You ask
“Was Arjun higher in Dharma? Recall Arjuns enmity for Eklavya?”
A promise kept is also the highest Dharma.
Drona made a promise to Arjuna that he would be the world best archer, a long time before Eklavya or Karna came into scene.
A promise is a promise even if made without realising the consequence of that promise. Just as Bhisma had vowed without realising the consequences of that vow.
Arjuna a mere child had to remind his teacher that he would make him the best is not an enmity for Eklvya.
“Was the plan concocted by Arjun & Drona higher than Karns serving those whom had sheltered him?”
‘concocted’ Your choice words are completely wrong and false.
As to your question, the comparison is nonsense too, but the answer is yes. The promise by a teacher to a child is greater then being indebted to someone. The teacher stands for Guru, who he is the highest code of Truth, Justice, Honesty, Knowledge. If this teacher should fail then Truth, Justice, Honesty, Knowledge would fail.
Failing a child would be to fail God.
Loyalty is duty bound, indebted. Even a servant of Duryodhan was probably as loyal as Karna. Loyalty can fail but a Guru cannot afford to fail.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
About The Chronology
Karna first met the Pandavs and Kuravs when his father brought him to Dronacharya to study. Drona was committed to making Arjuna the best and could not afford to take on another great tutor. He refused saying he was a ’sutaputra’ (ie he was not royalty.).
There was no caste conflict here which often many Hindus and nonHindus love to twist and demean with glee our culture. Drona was quite right in saying that this school was strictly for Royals only.
Karna replied that his son Ashvathama was also not of royal blood yet he was teaching him! Karna was hurt DEEPLY which he blamed partly on Arjuna and partly on his birth (ie he was not in a royal family).
He first entered the rivalry when the Princes had finished their Gurukul and were in an arena showing off their talents to their parents. Karna challenged Arjuna that he was better then him but was not allowed to because he was a charioteer’s son and the assembly was for royalty only. At which Duryodhan made him a King.
Because of this action Karna was forever indebted to Duryodhana. Many writers have confused this with loyalty.
Later in his meeting with Krishna he said the only reason why he could not join his brothers was because he was indebted to Duryodhana. He was loyal only because he was indebted.
There was loyalty only as far as the debt was concerned.
Indebted is different to loyalty.
Bhisma was loyal to any King of Hastinapur.
Drona was indebted
Karna was indebted
Kripacharya was indebted
Ashvathama was probably loyal.
Even if Karna was loyal in the true sense, I would not call loyalty to a Hitler to be something to be proud of.
But lets not forget, Karna was a saintly person, a righteous person and he could not betray even this Hitler.
He felt his debt had to be paid in full in this life time.
Often he was influenced by Duryodhan to do negative actions like calling Draupadi a whore. Again he admitted these actions to Krishna and apologised, to which Krishna forgave him. Krishna also remembers that Karna spoke out against the trickery and deceit and the devious plans by Shakhuni with the dice game.
But ultimately he was siding with Adharma and had to be killed.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Finally why is everyone talking with great anger!
Sounds like we are about to have another Maha Yudh.
As Hindus could we not talk with respect and decency our differences?
So what if one opinion is wildly different to others?
There is no need for anger.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
To Mr Duggriala & other paedophile obessed persons.
Duryodhan was not a Paedophile. This aspect of loyality rests on being loyal to those who have provided for you. Not Paedophilia. Maintaining your position re. paedophile etc. Do you suppose that Mother Kunti should have used your analogy to get her elder son to bail from the Pandavas?
Mr Duggriala - What should Karn have done? What was the Noble thing to do?
To - cheran senguttuvan
“the likes of dadichi are numerous amongst our ppl”. This is unique. I Dadichi maintain that you serve that which gave you respect and home. Let me explain. As a child of Bharat Desh - The Land that gave me heritage, home & security should be served before all others. Blind Faith!. This is what is missing in Bharat. What many here are proposing (the paedophilia brigade) is that we wane. Blind faith to Dharma is my proposition.
Crimes against Dharma
- Was not Suryas gift to his illustrious son Karna - Natural armor plotted to to deprive him of this. At the point of the Puja was there not an architect that pushed for this crime?
To Spirit - I quote you
‘concocted’ Your choice words are completely wrong and false.
As to your question, the comparison is nonsense too. The promise by a teacher to a child is greater then being indebted to someone. The teacher stands for Guru, who he is the highest code of Truth, Justice
Was it Justice to deprive Ekalavya of his ability?
A Guru is a man of intellect could he not have won Eklayva to Pandava alliance? Could he not as guru Dakshina insisted that he never raises arms against the Pandavas?
There is more. However, for the moment I am only interested in a strong allegiance and blind faith to this Great Faith. I will not wane.
Jai Shree Krishna
Dhanyavaad!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Mr. Dadichi you didn’t answer my question, please do.
Whether Duryodhan was pedophile or not is not relevant, he was adharmic & that is the main point & those who side with adharma (whether it is pedophilia or any other thing) are destined for a fall.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Mr Duggirala
Sir firstly I am not Mr Dadichi. Just Dadichi.
Secondly it would serve you well to avail yourself to the Grand Book of Jai Shree Krishna - The Gita. And your question will be answered. To speed matters up. I can help. Pls refer to Supriya on this same site. Quote extracted for your goodself and others that can appreciate the nuance of Nobility.
Supriya Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme God, is not affected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water. (BhagvadGita 5.10)
As all readers can see. This is not Dadichi’s words but from one of our most holiest of books.
“Duty surrendering results onto the Supreme Godhead. This is what Karn did”
Your question. The Paedophile. As the friends actions here have no respect for you. Then to distance yourself from people who do not respect you is the only option.
Now perphaps the gentlemanly for you to do is to offer an answer to my question. What should Karna have done?
Dhanyavaad
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Moderator’s comment: Dadichi (previously posting as Deeno Sharma) posted the following, using a different name (”Teena”) to complement/support himself. The IPs match - which confirms this. Please Dadichi/Deeno, don’t stoop to such low levels in the debate.
Can I join this debate?
I believe that Dadichi is right. His spirit is strong. And knowledge admirable. I enjoy reading his work. (It can be a little strong. Too much Testosterone Dadi. or cut down on your red meat)
I also support R Sharmas’ position.
Both these men seem to have a good vision and strength.
Hariaum
Teena Persaud
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
actually you can contact teena. my email is storm90@tiscali.co.uk write me and you can call Teena. Some of the girls have been watching this
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“Please Dadichi/Deeno, don’t stoop to such low levels in the debate.”
Well what to expect when he’s from Texas.He’s most probably J. R. Ewing’s cousin.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Dear Moderator
I work at storm90 PWR. I trust we will recieve your email. My father is ex-military and I has taught me to have a mind of my own.
Hariaum
Teena Persaud
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
When Krishna sent his army to join Duryodhana, should they have balked and said loyalty is secondary to dharma?
This is Hinduism. It is not the christo-islamic a-Brahmanical cults.
There is no simple right and wrong. The leela of Krishna is there as a reality to instruct us fools languishing in our complacent ignorance.
All the characters are ignorant of reality, Tat Sat. Krishna is the true cause and the true effect. Krishna is the consumer and the consumed. All else is but Krishna.
We see good in all persons and evil in all persons. We understand to separate the actions of Karma and the being of Atman. We are trapped by our circumstances, not just in our actions but even in the thoughts that lead us to beliefs of what is really going on. As Hindus, we identify with all the characters, we recognize their traits in each of us, we struggle to make ourselves more dharmic in our karma so that we can transcend the effect of action - the effect being Yudh.
An amazing insight as to the Gita is that it is not told to Arjuna. We, the audience, are not Arjuna. The Gita is told to Dhrtrashtra by Vidura. We are the blind rulers of our lives. We are lucky to have been given a friend with great vision that can recite to us the song of Brahman to his close friend. If we remain blind we are stuck in karma and the consequences; so be it. But, If we are enlightened by it we can transcend the samsara of our own avidya.
In the modern context, we must not judge a person but we most certainly should judge an idea, intent, or ideology so as to chose most freely what is good - karma leading to dharma.
hariaum
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Beautiful write-up, Rajesh.
But seeing readers responses, I felt really so sorry. As followers of Vaidic/Vedic Sanatan dharma, we are supposed to speak with moderation, decency, logic and reasoning. Our opinions can be different, but our goal is the same, goal to dharmic/righteous path, goal to noble path.
As Vaidic/Vedic rishis boldly proclaimed: “Aa nu bhadrah krotabhu antu vishvatah” (Let noble thoughts come to us from everywhere) (RigVeda). Noble thoughts always comes through diverse opinions and views, with logic, reasoning and decent language.
Four characters given in the article, have their own merits and demerits. But ultimately, it is the Dharma (Satya/Truth) that prevails. Upanisad boldly declared: “Satyameva Jayate, nanritam” (Truth alone triumphs, not untruth). No matter how much each one was righteous or dutyful in their own way, ultimately they had face the Absolute Truth, i.e. Eternal Dharma.
No true followers of Eternal Dharma could be lured and blinded by the material help or support. If one is blinded, it is due to his own tamas guna inherent in his own nature. Personnel vows are egoistic vows, comes out of raja and tamasa gunas, which blinded one with false ego of proud and brevity. Eternal vows are egoless, they are meant to protect dharma with selfless service to Ishwara (Bhagavan).
There is a beautiful woman character in Mahabharata, i.e. Gandhari. Let see what she did when Duryudhana (her eldest son) approached for blessings before the war began. Duryudhana knew, once he get the mother’s blessing, nothing can stop him from being victorious. Gandhari was a pious and dharmic personality, she knew all the bad-karmas of his sons. But she is also the mother, she have motherly affection to Duryudhana, as any other mother to their childrens. What she uttered in blessings, when Duryudhana bowed before her? It’s the essence of Dharma. She said:
“Yato dharma, tato Krishna; Yato Krishna tato jayah; Yato dharma tato jayaha” (Where there is dharma, there is Krishna; where there is Krishna, there is victory; where there is dharma, there is victory).
Duryudhana understood and left without further words. So friends, protect dharma; dharma in turn will protect us (Dharma rakshati rakshitah).
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“Was it Justice to deprive Ekalavya of his ability?” Dadichi.
Absolutely not and therefore Drona has been condemned by many for this action.
But the promise to make Arjuna the Best had to be 100% and foolproof. Drona was not worried about whether Eklavya would ally himself or not. He was more worried about if could keep his promise to Arjuna.
A daksina to ask him to even give up the use of weapons would still make Eklvya the best.
There is great injustice here.
The injustice arose out of a promise which Drona should have given more thought to.
But its easy to say that after the event. Similarly Bhisma did not fore see what kind of kings he would be supporting when he took his vow. Again he is blamed for starting this war but again its easy to say this after the event.
The situation of both men was such that their actions at the time were correct. Im sure we have all committed some actions then regretted it later.
This is a history of real men and not some made up characters or gods. They are allowed to make mistakes and yes they all did.
Both ended up on the side of Adharma for their staunch beliefs and were killed.
Bharat has summarised ‘Dharma’ well.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Spirit
“Both ended up on the side of Adharma for their…” I guess you mean Karn & Drona
Could you explain in lay terms what you mean by this?
Were they given hell?
Were they reborn as a lesser lifeform?
Your answers will help many readers in this gnarly issue.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Bharat
You have written about Ghandaris pre-battle encounter with her eldest son. However, your writing is short of the truth. The dutiful wife of the blind king had wrapped her vision since marriage to be the same as her husband. For this sacrifice (Gyaan) her powers had grown. She called her son naked before her to empower him unconquerable. I do believe someone persuaded him this was wrong to appear so before his mother.
He should clad himself about his torso. When Queen Ghandari released her wrap from her eyes she was shocked to see that her son had covered his thigh & waist. Her eyes conferred on every part of his body she could see unbreakable. Her strength could not protect the area he was advised to cover.
This is region that was finally struck to cripple him.
So Bharat - when you write so elaborately about Dharma what of its place here?
You maintain that she uttered her blessings. NO! Her blessing was the strength she conveyed on the seen parts of her sons body. She was dismayed by his cover and knew that would be his death. It does not correlate that she held Jai Shree Krishna in esteem. Indeed her crushing the iron mace was her true feelings.
Dharma was very much absent by the actions of others when Gandhari met with Duryodhan!
Your answer is also kindly awaited!
Jai Shree Krishna!
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Excellent start to what could be a series of great articles -
Here is my take on Bhishma
http://www.geocities.com/bhagwat_s/Bhishma.htm - he could have averted the war, but didn’t.
Here is my take on Drona and the different types of education institutions as described in Mahabharata
http://www.geocities.com/bhagwat_s/Gurukul.htm
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Dadichi
I can understand your side of the argument because our scriptures and the situation was such that it allows for such views. Your initial approach was what caused all the negative feedback and perhaps there is a lesson for you to learn here! You cant bully your opinions on anyone.
‘Loyalty to whom’ or ‘How far should you take your loyalties?’ was I believe the cause of this difference in opinions. Quite a complex topic but interesting nonetheless.
As to your question I was talking about Drona and Bhisma.
The fact that they went to heaven has nothing to with the comments by the author of this article. Even Ravan went to heaven! But the fact remains he was selfish and evil in many of the things he did.
Drona and Bhisma by their chosen paths took them straight into the side of Adharma. Noone is perfect. Karna on the other hand was forced into a situation and therefore is partly less to blame for choosing to stick with Duryodhana.
Again hes a complex character who was perhaps too far indebted to Duryodhan to pull out. In his eyes it was Adharmic for him to leave Duryodhana even though he knew Duryodhan was Adharmic in his actions. This was the same Karna who argued against the cheatings in the dice game (Dharmic thoughts) but partook of abusing Draupadi during the game (Adharmic actions).
October 5th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Spirit
Thanks for pointing out my limited knowledge on Mahabharat. My views were based on an write up I studied at school in India and the questions had been lurking in my mind every since. You have answered many of them.
My faith in Hinduism is unshakable. My faith in the existence of Mahabharata - maybe I’m too young and meek to comment on it’s existence or non existence.
Thanks again.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Comments mean that people still appreciate the essentialness of Sanatan Dharma.
It is pleasing to see so many comments on these matters of philosophy when clearly we all have more pressing matters to attend to.
Spirit’s and Navin’s and also others postings have contained very real wisdom. We should all be grateful to read and re-read their kind and intelligent comments.
Cheran says that “…the likes of Dadichi are numerous amongst our people, thats why we have so many servile losers in our country ……….” I do see the line Cheran is taking but if we do not allow Dadichi to ask difficult questions so we can lay those matters to rest if need be, then we may have to face those same questions from the more hostile Abrahamic religious forums and anyway, we are not ashamed of anything because we have many of those answers.
For those who have read Mahabharata and see it as good versus evil, then yes; they have got a lot of the conceptual ideas correct.
However, for me, Mahabharata is so much more than this.
We are surrounded in a media mad world where Hollywood portrays Bruce Willis taking on the forces of evil and wiping them all out in a horrendous cataclysm (feel free to fill in the bits in between!).
The truth is that in the real world we live in, there are good and bad Israelis and there are good and bad Palestinians. No side is ever blameless in a conflict.
The millennia-old Mahabharata reflect just this.
It is a FAMILY AT WAR.
The overall scope is indeed dharma versus adharma but within each character’s mindset of that exquisite epic, there exists the battlefield of dharma versus adharma.
At different times during their lives, the characters can be shown to have made errors of judgement or great decisions showing enlightenment.
This is the gritty realism which Mahabharata contains which the other worlds religious books fail to explore.
Sadly the seeming paradoxes which this may engender in the minds of some will cause misunderstandings, mis-statements, arguments and in some instances; personal violent infighting between groups of fellow Hindus.
I agree also when Spirit wonders why everyone is talking with great anger! I feel sure most of the contributors to these postings are more or less university class graduate material and it does us no credit that we sometimes reach for the dictionary of the school playground.
Thank you also Spirit for your subtle analysis of indebtedness and loyalty. You have commented that Karna was forever indebted to Duryodhana and that many writers have confused this with loyalty. This single point could keep a discussion forum going for quite some time!
The Mahabharata is relevant to the reader in 2008 because we ourselves are players in such battlefields and day by day we make dharmic and adharmic decisions.
Each and every one of us. This is the age of Kaliyug.
If we have a clearer understanding about why characters like Arjuna and Karna and Bishma and Drona made the decisions they did when they made those decisions, then we will be better able to deal with difficulties and troubles in our own lives and make us more better people, now and in the next life too.
I quote Navin and agree wholeheartedly with him when he says…
We see good in all persons and evil in all persons. We understand to separate the actions of Karma and the being of Atman. We are trapped by our circumstances, not just in our actions but even in the thoughts that lead us to beliefs of what is really going on. As Hindus, we identify with all the characters; we recognize their traits in each of us. We struggle to make ourselves more dharmic in our karma so that we can transcend the effect of action - the effect being Yudh.
Grateful thanks once again to Hindu Voice without whom there would be ‘no comment’.
Please visit the very informative Bhagwat Shah website at:
http://www.geocities.com/bhagwat_s/thoughts.htm
I visited it and I am so pleased that I have bookmarked it.
Satish
November 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I think they were all right in their own way Arjuna was fighting on behalf of King Yudhisthir of Indraprasth and Bhishma, Dron and Karna were fighting on behalf of King Duryodhan of Hastinapur- two kingdoms/countries. Having said that I think Bhishma and Drona should have done a lot more to prevent the war by clamping down on the Pandav-Kaurav rivalry at an early age . Karna shouldn’t have behaved so disgracefully towards Draupadi and Arjuna shouldn’t have been so arrogant.