• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

A relook at women in Indian mythology

Status
Not open for further replies.

prasad1

Active member
People in India and outside, who are familiar with the epics of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, know about female protagonists such as Sita, Draupadi, Kunti, and so on.

These women have been put on pedestals of honour, fortitude and what is regarded as ‘ideal womanhood’. But contemporary writers and creative performers are reading in between the lines and bringing out certain nuances in their characters that make them more human and more accessible, as a discussion on the epic women, held as a part of a recent literary festival in Kolkata, brought out.

Another refreshing aspect of this new look at the ancient scripts is that writers are training their literary lens at ‘lesser’ women characters, who have been otherwise overshadowed by the heroines.

Amish Tripathi, the writer of bestsellers including the Meluha trilogy that focuses on Shiva, points out, “Our epics are not one book, rather, a collection of books, written by different people at different times, and so sometimes values prevalent in the time are reflected in the portrayal of women characters.” Earlier, he says, women were not portrayed as subservient, which happened later for various reasons. “The further one goes back in time, the more one finds that women were strong feminists,” he articulates. For instance, he shares, “Parvati (Shiva’s consort) is no pushover. She has a mind of her own; she takes her own decisions and follows them. For example, she decides to go to her father’s ‘daksha yagya’ uninvited even though Shiva asks her not to.”

Pune-based author Kavita Kane’s best-selling debut book, Karna’s Wife: The Outcast’s Queen, is on Uruvi, the wife of Karna, the unsung hero of the Mahabharata. She is hardly visible in the magnum opus though she was an accomplished Kshatriya princess. She fell in love with Karna and stood by him in his times of distress, when he was ridiculed for his ‘low birth’.
Kavita has written on other lesser characters of the epics, like Urmila, Sita’s sister and Lakshman’s wife who was left behind when he opted to go to exile with his elder brother and sister-in-law Sita. “Lakshman is portrayed as a dutiful brother and protector of Sita in the jungles. Urmila was Sita’s sister, equally talented and beautiful. What did she do in those 14 long years in her husband’s absence? How did she take it when he left her behind as a new bride? Wasn’t he a husband to her, too?” she asks. Urmila, in fact, became a scholar and retired into ‘private exile’.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/537993/a-relook-women-indian-mythology.html
 
Last edited:
“Lakshman is portrayed as a dutiful brother and protector of Sita in the jungles. Urmila was Sita’s sister, equally talented and beautiful. What did she do in those 14 long years in her husband’s absence? How did she take it when he left her behind as a new bride? Wasn’t he a husband to her, too?” she asks. Urmila, in fact, became a scholar and retired into ‘private exile’.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/537993/a-relook-women-indian-mythology.html

Lakshmana did not care for the feelings of his wife!

He was obsessed with Rama!

Actually the Ramayan is weird at times...Rama is ever polite and shown to be a dutiful son and polite even to Kaikeyi but Bharata was rude to Kaikeyi and did not conceal his anger and disgust for her actions.

He did not honour her words and become the King of Ayodhya..so why is he praised when he did not honour his mother's words? Who is greater? Mother or Brother?

Technically Kaikeyi did not really do anything wrong cos Dasharatha had indeed promises Kaikeyi's father that he would make her son the King before he married Kaikeyi..so it was Dasharatha who was trying to break his promise and install Rama as the King instead.

So basically Kaikeyi should be hailed as the person who made Dasharatha stick to his promise and should not be despised for her actions.

I feel Kaikeyi got a real bad name for nothing at all when the culprit was Dasharatha who did not keep his promise of making Bharata king.It was Dasharatha who was Adharmic and not Kaikeyi.

I feel Kaikeyi never really trusted Dasharatha..she knew he would make Rama king and must have feared for her sons life in case someone would kill him so that the throne would go to Rama..that is why Bharata was never really around much in Ayodhya..he was always with his maternal uncle's kingdom.

Even right after Bharata got married Kaikeyi's brother came to take him away.
 
Which mythological character you [prasadji and renukaji] admire and wish/thought you could have been in older avathar of yours in case you believe in reincarnation.
 
Which mythological character you [prasadji and renukaji] admire and wish/thought you could have been in older avathar of yours in case you believe in reincarnation.

Among males I admire Karna.No one comes close to him in anyway.

Among females I like Ahalaya cos she had the guts to follow her desire and not follow convention.

Now coming to your question as whom I wished to have been if I believed in incarnation...well may be I wish to be Ravan!LOL

I like controversial characters that have a personality and not some silently suffering male or female!
 
Last edited:
The duty of Pshatriyas during Varna period was to rule the country and it was quite natural to have differences of opinion, among the rulers and their relatives. But, Ramayana story becomes very popular since it is being narrated thousands of years by Bs for their livelihood. The characters we come across in Ramayana can be found in any community now, especially among political class.
 
Why not Bheeshma Sravana ji? Had he not taken that " Bheeshma Pratigya" he would have ruled the country as its emperor, neither the Kaurava's nor Pandavas. He scarified all his entitled rights for the sake of his father's desire. On the other hand, Karna stood with Dhuryodhana as he tried to help him over come the tag of Sutaputra and made him the King of Angadesam. So the Karna's contribution could be treated only as thanks giving to Dhuryodhana. Again if we consider the sacrifices of both these personalities, I think the one committed by Bheeshma should be rated as greater.
 
Why not Bheeshma Sravana ji? Had he not taken that " Bheeshma Pratigya" he would have ruled the country as its emperor, neither the Kaurava's nor Pandavas. He scarified all his entitled rights for the sake of his father's desire. On the other hand, Karna stood with Dhuryodhana as he tried to help him over come the tag of Sutaputra and made him the King of Angadesam. So the Karna's contribution could be treated only as thanks giving to Dhuryodhana. Again if we consider the sacrifices of both these personalities, I think the one committed by Bheeshma should be rated as greater.

Dear Ganesh Ji,

Mahabaratha has a number of great characters. Yes Bheeshma was great as he sacrificed for the sake of his father. But Karna was renowned for many desirable qualities. Like Bheeshma he is known for his righteousness, but he stands out the most because he even sacrifices the fruits of all his dharma when the Krishna approaches him and asks for it. He is a giver more than anyone else and even without comparison
 
Why not Bheeshma Sravana ji? Had he not taken that " Bheeshma Pratigya" he would have ruled the country as its emperor, neither the Kaurava's nor Pandavas. He scarified all his entitled rights for the sake of his father's desire. On the other hand, Karna stood with Dhuryodhana as he tried to help him over come the tag of Sutaputra and made him the King of Angadesam. So the Karna's contribution could be treated only as thanks giving to Dhuryodhana. Again if we consider the sacrifices of both these personalities, I think the one committed by Bheeshma should be rated as greater.


Bheeshma was also great but his character in the Mahabharat was more of the Pita Mahan types so we viewed him as an older person.

But Karna was viewed as the good looking anti-hero with a heart and values....so he is appealing and more popular and can makes girl's heart flutter.

Any female reading Mahabharat would fall in love with Karna and not anyone else.

Bheesma is like a best actor in supporting role...sidey!
 
Last edited:
Dear Ganesh Ji,

Mahabaratha has a number of great characters. Yes Bheeshma was great as he sacrificed for the sake of his father. But Karna was renowned for many desirable qualities. Like Bheeshma he is known for his righteousness, but he stands out the most because he even sacrifices the fruits of all his dharma when the Krishna approaches him and asks for it. He is a giver more than anyone else and even without comparison

Apparently Shantanu could not, even when he had a son like Devavrtan, control his desire for Satyavati. Satyavati already had a son with Parasara rishi, and he was Veda Vyasa.

Shantanu sought the hand of Satyavati and the fisherman wanted that his daughter's progeny be the rulers. Since the king could not accept this, he went back empty handed and depressed. In other words, "sethu sunnambu aayitaar" that he could not marry the girl.

On seeing his dad in depression, the son asked the reason. So Shantanu explained the situation to Devavrtan who went to the fisherman to ask for the hand of Satyavati for his father. The fisherman wanted to ensure that his daughter occupied the prime position with the king, and not merely a concubine. And so he needled Devavrta until he took the vow of celibacy and came to be called as Bheeshma.

I presume it was a life changing event for a kshatriya to control his libido.
 
Apparently Shantanu could not, even when he had a son like Devavrtan, control his desire for Satyavati. Satyavati already had a son with Parasara rishi, and he was Veda Vyasa.

Shantanu sought the hand of Satyavati and the fisherman wanted that his daughter's progeny be the rulers. Since the king could not accept this, he went back empty handed and depressed. In other words, "sethu sunnambu aayitaar" that he could not marry the girl.

On seeing his dad in depression, the son asked the reason. So Shantanu explained the situation to Devavrtan who went to the fisherman to ask for the hand of Satyavati for his father. The fisherman wanted to ensure that his daughter occupied the prime position with the king, and not merely a concubine. And so he needled Devavrta until he took the vow of celibacy and came to be called as Bheeshma.

I presume it was a life changing event for a kshatriya to control his libido.

Yes that is a great sacrifice but I would see Karna as someone who whole life is marked by sacrifices and sorrows but yet was an example for others to emulate.
 
Yes that is a great sacrifice but I would see Karna as someone who whole life is marked by sacrifices and sorrows but yet was an example for others to emulate.

If you are friends with Bin Ladin, and helped him kill innocent, then you are not an example to anyone except a Jihadi. If your intellect is so clouded, that you do not know right from wrong, you are a failure.
Sadguru said:
In India, for people who are conversant with the Mahabharata, there is a whole culture where Karna is a kind of anti-hero. He is a sweet mango gone bad. He was a wonderful human being gone totally bad because he invested in bitterness. His bitterness took him into a disastrous life story. He was a man with a phenomenal sense of integrity and generosity but all this was lost. He died in the battle in a bad way.

He was resentful because he did not know whose child he was. But the people who brought him up, did so with utmost love. His foster parents, Radha and Athiratha, loved him immensely and brought him up very well, the way they knew. He always remembered how much his mother loved him. “That is one person who loved me for who I am,” he says. Out of his competence and the will of fate, he became Angaraja – the king of Anga. He got many things and was given a position and place in the palace. In many ways he was also a big king’s sidekick. Duryodhana held him dear and took advice from him. He had everything that life could offer. If you look at his life, the fact of it is that he was a charioteer’s son who became a king. He should have been really happy. A child who is found floating on the water grows up to become a king. Is it not a wonderful thing? But no, he did not give up his resentment. He was always unhappy and miserable because he could not come to terms with what he was being labeled as. Wherever he went, people referred to him as a suta or “low-born” because of his ambitions. Throughout his life he complained about this. All the time, he nourished bitterness within himself about his so-called low birth.
This bitterness made a wonderful human being into such a nasty and ugly character in the Mahabharata. He was a great human being and showed his greatness in different situations, but because of this bitterness, in many ways it was he who turned everything wrong. For Duryodhana, it did not matter what Shakuni said or did, it was Karna’s advice which always sealed the deal. After everything was decided, he would look at Karna, “What shall we do?” Karna could very easily have turned the direction of the whole story.
http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/yoga-meditation/history-of-yoga/karna/
 
[h=2]Sorry Renukaji,
A life full of wrong turns[/h] When Krishna came to sue for peace, he spoke to Karna. “Why are you doing this to yourself? This is not what you are. Let me tell you what your parentage is. Kunti is your mother and your father is Surya.” Suddenly, Karna broke down. He always wanted to know who he was and where he came from. He always wanted to know who it was who let him off in the river in that little box. Suddenly, he realized that he had been actively trying to nurture hatred towards the five Pandavas, even though it was not naturally so. Because of his gratitude to Duryodhana, somewhere, he believed he must hate these five people. Though there was no hatred in his heart, he worked it up all the time and came out meaner than anyone. If Shakuni said one mean thing, he would say the next mean thing. And he wouldn’t stop there because he was always working up his hatred trying to prove his loyalty and be grateful for what Duryodhana had done for him. Somewhere deep inside, he knew that everything he was doing was wrong, but his loyalty was so strong that he continued to do it. He was a wonderful guy but he continuously made mistakes. All our lives are like that – if we make one wrong choice, it takes ten years to recover, isn’t it? He never recovered because he made too many wrong turns.
http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/yoga-meditation/history-of-yoga/karna/
 
Karna fails to live up to his potential in the Mahabharata.
He could have been great, but, everytime he opens his mouth in the epic tale, he fails to impress.
A lot of people feel a great deal of sympathy for Karna and excuse all his insults to Pandavas and Draupadi based on the fact that he was abandoned at birth and that Draupadi along with the Pandavas kept calling him Suta-putra.
Lets look at some facts –
Being abandoned is no excuse for being mean to others –
Lots of people in the Mahabharta were abandoned at a young age – Bhishma, Kunti, Krushna, Krupa & Krupi, Vyasa etc.
Bhishma had a murderous mother, absent father whom he didn’t see till he was a teenager, gave up his right to life, wife or family for sake of his father, ineffectual brothers, quarrelsome grand-nephews and a king who was blind – physically, mentally and spiritually. He didn’t complain. He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Kunti was adopted and sent away to live away from her family. She was asked to serve the madcap Durvasamuni who no one else could tolerate, had an accidental encounter with a divine being resulting in a child she had to abandon – as countless teenagers have done before and since. She was married to an anaemic man, was widowed young and saddled with the twins of her co-wife, had to live as a “dependant” in the hostile environment of Kuru court, assassination attempts were made, had to suffer hardships to regain her status as a queen mother, lost it all due to a son addicted to gambling, lost all her grandsons. She didn’t complain. She made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Krushna was abandoned at birth, threatened with near death experiences many times over, was saddled with quarrelsome relatives, countless wives, strong headed sons and much more. He didn’t complain. He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Krupacharya and Krupi were also abandoned at birth. They didn’t complain. They made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Krushna-Dvaipayan-Vyasa was also abandoned at birth by his mother, reared by his forest dwelling father and went through plenty of other hardships. He didn’t complain. He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Karna was abandoned at birth. So – big deal. Lots of others were too. They got on with it. None of them persecuted good people in favour bad people. None of them called a queen a whore and asked her to be stripped in public.

For all his generosity and valor in the battle field, Karna was rude, crude and insolent. He was always interrupting elders and other advisers in the Kuru court. His sense of “injured pride” stopped him from supporting the war effort while Bhishma pitamaha was heading the army as its commander. His personal ego was so huge, he could not let anyone else take the honour of beating Pandavas ! If the elders called him Suta-putra, he certainly wasn’t taking it lying down, he called them plenty of demeaning names including impotent, eunuch, traitors and worse. Even by today’s standards, such open insult of elders and seniors would be insolent and considered bad manners.

No matter how many hundreds of reasons Karna might have had for rebelling against the inequalities of the world but – and its a crucial but – he had no reason to take out his frustration on a defenceless woman. His insult to Draupadi was the lowest point in his life. Even if he felt aggrieved at being denied the chance to marry her at the svayamvar, if he was a real man of honour, he would not have asked a married woman to be stripped in public. That was the real “blow below the belt”. To hit out at a woman when he could not harm her husbands shows how low Karna could go. Rape or incitement rape is sinful. Full stop.
This – above all is unforgivable.
Life is unfair.
Deal with it.
Karna never learnt to “deal with it”.
Karna raged and ranted at all and sundry for his own failures till he lost his moral compass and hit out at a woman. For all his other great qualities, Karna was failed by his own utter disregard for morality, especially when it came to Pandavas and Draupdi. What a sad waste of such great potential !

http://www.pushti-marg.net/bhagwat/Mahabharata/karna2.htm
 
Karna used all his strength to serve his friend Duryodhan, without even one selfish thought for himself. However, his loyalty was so blind that he would even follow his friend when he was doing something totally wrong, selfish and harmful to others. This shows that loyalty to another person can lead even a great man to a tragic end. Dharma, and the call of God, must always be greater than loyalty to another. Karna knew what he was doing was wrong and paid the price for it.
Karna put loyalty to Duryodhan as his highest loyalty. His tragic story warns us to choose loyalties wisely.

Following orders to do war crimes was not an accepted defense even in Nuremberg trials.


The comparison between Karna, Drona, Bhishma and Arjuna shows us that while we can admire a person’s loyalty to a friend, loyalty to their employer and dedication to their principles or promises, all of these things must never be allowed to become an obstacle in doing what is truly for the benefit of the greater good.
 
Last edited:
Dear Prasad ji,

Yes I am aware that Karna could have just joined the Pandava camp and be on the so called right side of Dharma..deep down he knew he was on the wrong side of Dharma..he was no fool yet he stayed on with Duryodhana all becos Duryodhana helped him when he needed help the most.

Karna would have surely known Duryodhana had an ulterior motive yet Karna was LOYAL enough to stay.

Krishna even tried to tempt Karna using Draupadi as a bait..telling that he could also have her as his wife since he is also a Kaunteya.

Any other man who would jumped for joy cos it would be a perfect pay back time to Draupadi who insulted him during the Swayamvara and rejected him and did not allow him to participate...it would be a big slap on Draupadi's face that the man whom she rejected has more right over her than anyone else cos he is the eldest of the lot...being elder even to Dharmaraja.

Yet he did not let lust get into his way...he did not want to bite the hand that fed him..he did not want to betray Duryodhana even though he could have had it all.

Karna knew he was supposedly on the dark side..but he stayed on...he didnt mind being even wrong as long he never betrayed the person who helped him.

This is a great character..no one would do this..everyone would think of personal gain and betray others.

A true man would not even fear being in hell as long he does not betray the person who helped him.

BTW he can not be compared to a Jihadi aiding Osama Bin Laden cos Osama was a coward that attacked civilians who were unarmed.

Duryodhana himself was a good king to his subjects and never killed innocent people.

It was a war....all those fighting were warriors.

Mahabharat was not an act of terrorism and Karna was no Vibheshana who betrayed his brother.
 
Last edited:
BTW hardly anyone names their children Duryodhona but you find many people with the name Karna/Karan.

That itself should make us realize that Karna is a person admired for his loyalty.
 
Karna used all his strength to serve his friend Duryodhan, without even one selfish thought for himself. However, his loyalty was so blind that he would even follow his friend when he was doing something totally wrong, selfish and harmful to others. This shows that loyalty to another person can lead even a great man to a tragic end. Dharma, and the call of God, must always be greater than loyalty to another. Karna knew what he was doing was wrong and paid the price for it.
Karna put loyalty to Duryodhan as his highest loyalty. His tragic story warns us to choose loyalties wisely.

Following orders to do war crimes was not an accepted defense even in Nuremberg trials.


The comparison between Karna, Drona, Bhishma and Arjuna shows us that while we can admire a person’s loyalty to a friend, loyalty to their employer and dedication to their principles or promises, all of these things must never be allowed to become an obstacle in doing what is truly for the benefit of the greater good.

As Renuka says Karna knew what he was doing. He knew he was on the wrong side of dharma and yet he also knew he had to pay back his friend first before anything else. Had he chosen to side with the pandavas he would be failing in his personal dharma which is what one needs to satisfy first. I think he had his priorities perfectly right.
 
As Renuka says Karna knew what he was doing. He knew he was on the wrong side of dharma and yet he also knew he had to pay back his friend first before anything else. Had he chosen to side with the pandavas he would be failing in his personal dharma which is what one needs to satisfy first. I think he had his priorities perfectly right.

Dear Sravna,

I agree with you...

I had written this in forum before:

Karna is the son of Surya the Sun God and hence displaying charitable attributes and most important Krtajna(Gratefulness).

The sun is described as Krtajna that is ever so grateful that even a mere worship of him is sufficient to ward off ill effects done by the worshiper.
 
Dear Prasad ji,

I prefer to look at each character in the Mahabharat without attaching too much importance to right vs wrong.

I do not want to see it as Star Wars or the Force Awakens..cos if we just see Good Vs Bad..we miss out the finer points of each character....We would just blindly support anything good without realizing that even the dark side has some admirable qualities.

I prefer to be a "Profiler" and view the mind of each character and try to understand how it worked....taking into account external and internal factors that led them to make decisions that were either Dharmic or Adharmic.

I do not really believe in judging too much.

Playing "profiler" would even benefit ourselves cos we would analyze our own positive and negative qualities and make decisions appropriate to time,place and person.
 
Last edited:
The moral of Karna's story is this:

One should be careful as to where he sows his seeds. And where it grows.

If this basic discipline is overlooked the result will be a monster causing havoc all around.
 
Last edited:
Kunti was adopted and sent away to live away from her family. She was asked to serve the madcap Durvasamuni who no one else could tolerate, had an accidental encounter with a divine being resulting in a child she had to abandon – as countless teenagers have done before and since. She was married to an anaemic man, was widowed young and saddled with the twins of her co-wife, had to live as a “dependant” in the hostile environment of Kuru court, assassination attempts were made, had to suffer hardships to regain her status as a queen mother, lost it all due to a son addicted to gambling, lost all her grandsons. She didn’t complain. She made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
I think this would not amount to "abandonment".

Krushna was abandoned at birth, threatened with near death experiences many times over, was saddled with quarrelsome relatives, countless wives, strong headed sons and much more. He didn’t complain. He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Again, Krishna was not abandoned. As the myth goes, even the waters parted for the "divine" child to be carried safely.

Krushna-Dvaipayan-Vyasa was also abandoned at birth by his mother, reared by his forest dwelling father and went through plenty of other hardships. He didn’t complain. He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.
Vyasa was supposed to be a divine child. He grew up to be an adult the moment he was born. And he left Satyavati after seeking her blessings. Not abandoned.

Karna was abandoned at birth. So – big deal. Lots of others were too. They got on with it. None of them persecuted good people in favour bad people. None of them called a queen a whore and asked her to be stripped in public.
Yes, the main reason why Karna had a grudge against the pandavas stems from a much different issue. The pandavas and kauravas after finished their "yuddha kalai" performed, before the public, all that they knew. After they had finished, and been applauded, Arjuna started his show of skill with the bow and arrow. The crowd was spellbound. And they roared in applause.

At that moment, Karna walked in and started to show his skill. He did all that Arjuna did and the people were astounded. Drona was shocked, and Duryodhana was jubilant. Then, they started to show their prowess against each other and no one was the winner. Arjuna at last, declared the possession of some astras with him (I dont recollect the name) upon which Karna withdrew, for he knew the power of the astras (and that were not with him).

Drona or Kripa, or Bhishma (again, I am not sure) says that a kshatriya can fight only with a kshatriya, and not a soota-putra (here goes to wind, all those claims made, in this forum and elsewhere that varna was by guna!), and asks about Karna's origins. At that moment Adhiratha comes and embraces him, and he is shamed by the "noble" assembly. He hangs his head in shame, and at that moment Duryodhana (seeing his moment) crowns him king of anga (to be noted that Duryodhana rebelled against the varna system at that point in time itself). For having saved him from extreme shame, Karna pledges his loyalty.
 
Last edited:
Drona or Kripa, or Bhishma (again, I am not sure) says that a kshatriya can fight only with a kshatriya, and not a soota-putra (here goes to wind, all those claims made, in this forum and elsewhere that varna was by guna!), and asks about Karna's origins..

One can argue endlessly and seek the support of the scriptures for his own deductions.

DronAcharyA was not a born kshatriya as per the narration in mahABhArathA. His father BhAradwAjA (by most accounts a Brahmin) went to the river Ganga to do ablutions and being unable to control his desire at the sight of GritAchi, an apsara, discharged reproductive fluid which was caught by him in a pot/vessel which was known as "DronA" at those times.

If a non-kshatriyA, DrOnachAryA could be a warrior of par excellence capable of vanquishing 60,000 kshatriyAs single-handedly there is no reason why a sUta-putrA could not do so.

Of course this aspect of DronA being a non-kshatriyA would be dismissed out of hand as a case of "exception " and the incidence of "karNA" would be touted as the case that proves the rule.

But if one were to even jockingly allude that DrOnAchAryA was the first case of a test tube baby the scientists in this forum would jump up demanding proofs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top