Was Karna good or bad?

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Smt JR Ji

Why did Kunti abandoned Karna ?

- An immature girl got a Boon from Sage Durvasa, the worth of the Gift was beyond the maturity of her.
Like present day kids who open all birthday gifts as soon as they get a chance, she tests the Gift and there stands Sun God with all his illumination; the result was she got pregnant much to her dislike!!



What would an unmarried young prices do ? Let everyone know that she became pregnant even before her marriage thereby bring bad name to her adoptive father, bring disgrace Sun God, and invite the wrath of Durvasa?; or simply abandon the baby to protect everyone's name including hers ?

Even today if an unmarried young girl gets pregnant ( especially in India ) you all know how she will be treated by one and all; People will talk and abuse her in all possible way.

So they go to a remote relatives home or to a clinic to put an end to her shame;there they abandon the baby in church, dust bin or in specially created cradle for abandoning the baby.

Our Society treats men differently and women differently, and when it comes to her character.
If this is the position of women in present day, imagine the position of women during Dwapara yuga?

Kunti definitely faced far greater dilemma since she was a Princes;

.Assuming Kunti did not abandon her first born through Sun God, will the Society accept him with his curious Kavacham, and Kundalam? Will he not suffer the stigma of her mother, ever after ?

So what Kunti did by abandoning her first born baby in a boat wrapped in her cloth was the best option she had , for protecting everyone name including that of Karna.

 

[P.J.]

Why did Kunti meet Karna and asked for Boons ?

Why did Kunti meet Karna and asked for Boons ?

At the behest of Krishna, Kunti visits incognito Karna in his palace and reveals to him that he was her child. She also pleads with him to break away from Duryodhana and lead the Pandavas as the eldest of the brothers, as all the other five will gladly submit to his leadership out of love and respect. Karna is both happy and bitter at the same time, but refuses to Part Company with Duryodhana because of a sense of gratefulness and loyalty. He also asks Kunti of two boons, one ,not to reveal this fact to the Pandavas during his lifetime, and two, to keep his head on her lap and cry in acknowledgement of his parentage, if he were to be slain in the battlefield. In return he also asks Kunti to ask for two boons.

Krishna, being the Master He is, already foresees that Karna will not deviate from his path of loyalty to Duryodhana, and therefore forewarns Kunti to ask for two boons in the event of Karna's refusal to ditch Duryodhana in favor of Pandavas. So, as tutored by Krishna, Kunti tearfully begs for the two boons:

1. Karna should not kill his own brothers in the battle, and
2. Karna should not use the same weapon (ASTRA) twice in the war.

Karna readily grants the two boons, with just one exception: That he will not kill any of his brothers, other than Arjuna, saying famously that anyway Kunti will be left with five of her sons living, only it is either he or Arjuna.

Now imagine, Kunti did meet Karna and revealed her identity and granted him two boons, Pandavas and others would not have known the true parentage of Karna even after his death.

Assuming that Karna did not grant Kunti her boon not to kill other Pandavas except Arjuna, he would have surely killed anyone of them or all of them with his mighty weapons.

Secondly had he not given Kunti the boon of not using the same Astra Twice, he would have used the deadliest Nagastra again and again against Arjuna and would have killed him.

Assuming, he refused to give any boons to Kunti, and Karna wins the war for Kauravas, will that not show Adharma had finally won and Dharma lost its war?

Will that be good ending to the great epic of Mahabharata ?

Did Karna know that Kunti was his mother before the beginning of the battle of Kurukshetra? - Quora

 

[JR]

Thank you for the enlightening replies, PJ ji. Very interesting to know these facts.

but didn't Kunti test her boon several times, if I am right, each of the pandavas were born to a different father?

"Each of the Pandavas has a divine father, as Pandu was incapable of fathering a child as a result of a curse. The father of Yudhishtra is Yama, the father of Bheema is Vayu, the father of Arjuna is Indraand the fathers of the twins Nakula and Sahadeva are the divine Ashwini twins."

I can feel for the agony of Karna.

 

[P.J.]

Smt JR Ji

Kunti did test her boons only after her marriage with the knowledge of Pandu .

The Pandavas were born to Kunti and Madri by the boon of Rishi Durwasa which gave to Kunthi when she was a princess that she can have a son of any god which she respect without having any marital affair, After the marriage of Madri, Pandu's voluntary renunciation of royal life to do penance for having accidentally killed the sage Rishi Kindama and his wife. At his death Rishi Kindama cursed Pandu that he will surely die if he attempts to have sexual relationship with his wives. Because of this curse Kunthi had to use her boon to get sons. She got 3 sons, Yudhisthira from God of Dharma. Bhima from God of Wind and Arjuna from Lord Indra. At the request of Pandu she shared this boon to Madri also to get her sons, Twins Nakul and Sahadev from Gods Ashvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandava

 

[renuka]

Dear PJ sir,


It seems to me that you totally believe 100% all the stories you read.

I am not doubting God here.

What I am saying is I feel many of us Hindus fear to even think of rejecting any Puranic story they read.

Why is this so? I hope you dont mind explaining why you choose to believe everything.

I am talking only about stories not God.

For example when I was young when I used to be told that "Devas are good and Asuras are bad" I used to like Asuras instead becos I felt they were brave and fought themselves without resorting to running to Vishnu for help.

The Devas seemed too much helpless and wimpy. Devas never impressed me. In fact in Ramayan its Ravan who stands out more than even Lord Rama.

Reason is "Ravan is happening..he has all shades of good and bad in him"

I somehow liked the idea of a person who is happening and not afraid of anything and at the same time capable.

When I was a kid/teen my mother used to try to tell me that Ravan in not good..Rama is good.

I still liked Ravan even till now.

I was not afraid to not believe what I was told but at the same time I respect Lord Rama too as an Avatar of Lord Vishnu.

My preference for Asura boys in the stories did not affect my mind in anyway..I am basically a law abiding citizen of my country. So I dont think our perceptions affect our mind.

I am just curious to know your point of view as why and how you chose to adhere and believe 100% everything you read without rejecting anything.

I hope you dont mind answering becos it will be wonderful to know your opinion.

 

[P.J.]

renukaji

What I believe in or not is not important, and let us not discuss whether Puranas are based on real evens or not, let us understand how these Purans are helping those who believe in them

The Stories as you may call it , directs people’s mind towards devotion to gods; the battles between Asuras and Devas as narrated in various Puranas is actually the struggle within each person between the forces of ‘light’ and the forces of ‘darkness’.

The Puranas delineate the religious obligations by which each person is bound, and as such they are a guide to dharmic living.

 

[P.J.]

renukaji




Hinduism remains a vibrant, cultural and religious force in the world, but how long it will like that if Hindus themselves start attacking their own religious beliefs, questions the morals in their Ithihassas, Puranas, code of conducts etc.


The Itihasas give us beautiful stories of absorbing interest and importance, through which all the fundamental teachings of Hinduism are indelibly impressed on one’s mind.


We get a clear idea of Hinduism from these sublime stories.

The common man cannot comprehend the high abstract philosophy of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. Hence, the compassionate sages Valmiki and Vyasa wrote the Itihasas for the benefit of common people. The same philosophy is presented with analogies and parables in a tasteful form to the common run of mankind
The two well-known Itihasas (histories) are the epics (Mahakavyas), Ramayana and Mahabharata. They are two very popular and useful Sastras of the Hindus. The Ramayana was written by the sage Valmiki, and the Mahabharata by Vyasa.

The most important part of the Mahabharata is the Bhagavad-Gita. It is a marvellous dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjuna on the battle-field, before the commencement of the great war. Bhagavan Sri Krishna became the charioteer of Arjuna. Sri Krishna explained the essentials of Hindu religion to Arjuna. Just as the Upanishads contain the cream of the Vedas, so does the Gita contain the cream of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the cows. Lord Krishna is the cowherd. Arjuna is the calf. The Gita is the milk. The wise men are those who drink the milk of the Gita.


The Gita is the most precious jewel of Hindu literature. It is a universal gospel. The Gita teaches the Yoga of Synthesis. It ranks high in the religious literature of the world.


The Mahabharata contains also the immortal discourse of Bhishma on Dharma, which he gave to Yudhishthira, when he was lying on the bed of arrows. The whole Mahabharata forms an encyclopaedia of history, morals and religion unsurpassed by any other epic in the world.



The Ramayana and the Mahabharata speak to us clearly about the ancient India, about her people, her customs, her ways of living, her arts, her civilisation and culture, her manufactures, etc. If you read these two books, you will come to know how great India once was, and you will be inspired to make her great once more. No other country has produced so many great men, great teachers, great Yogins, great Rishis, great prophets, great Acharyas, great kings, great heroes, great statesmen, great patriots and great benefactors, as India. The more you know of India and Hinduism, the more you will honour and love it and the more thankful to the Lord you will be that you were born in India as a Hindu.

The Puranas are of the same class as the Itihasas; The Puranas were written to popularise the religion of the Vedas. They contain the essence of the Vedas. The aim of the Puranas is to impress on the minds of the masses the teachings of the Vedas and to generate in them devotion to God, through concrete examples, myths, stories, legends, lives of saints, kings and great men, allegories and chronicles of great historical events. The sages made use of these things to illustrate the eternal principles of religion.

The Puranas were meant, not for the scholars, but for the ordinary people who could not understand high philosophy and who could not study the Vedas.


All About Hinduism

 

[renuka]

The Puranas were meant, not for the scholars, but for the ordinary people who could not understand high philosophy and who could not study the Vedas.

Dear PJ sir,

I beg to differ becos Puranas sound so illogical.

These days even in Bal Vikas classes when one tells a child Puranic stories..they start laughing.

They say "this cant be true'

Even kids dont want to believe Puranic stories.

So I think Puranic stories were meant to instill fear and to cloud the intellect of the masses and make men just follow like a lamb brought to slaughter.

 

[renuka]

Dear PJ sir,

When my mum used to conduct Bal Vikas classes she was once telling the kids about the Sons of Shiva..Ganesh and Subramaniam.

One 12 year old girl stood up and asked "Why doesnt God have a daughter..is there gender discrimination?..if God cant have a daughter how come we girls exists?"

Then one boy asked my mother.."What was the need for Lord Shiva to attach an elephant' head to the body of Ganesha when his original head was lying there still..couldnt Lord Shiva just reattach the original head?"

Kids these days do not buy any of these stories.

 

[P.J.]

renukaji


So you post a question reading only the last line ?
What about earlier paragraphs ?

if It is your belief, no discussion on this further.

Let us not deviate from OP anymore, open a new OP, members can discuss on it if they wish.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Hinduism remains a vibrant, cultural and religious force in the world, but how long it will like that if Hindus themselves start attacking their own religious beliefs, questions the morals in their Ithihassas, Puranas, code of conducts etc.

PJ Sir,

Please don't fret. What you characterize as attacks on Hindu religion are tolerated only in this forum. Did you hear what happened even in west bengal, the bastion of communism? There, goddess Devi was maligned by JNU "scholars" much like how Rama and Krishna are maligned here in the name of freedom of expression. The JNU scholars described Devi Mahisashuramardini as a pr***** who took advantage of mahisashura for 8 days and killed him in the ninth day. That is their version of the story. They must have had some vicarious pleasure in telling this story, much like some members here, because they must have been aware of the emotional connection people have with their devatas, but Hindus there did not take such insults lightly. So don't get worked up over such stuff and extrapolate these attacks to demise of Hinduism etc..

 

[sangom]

PJ Sir,

Please don't fret. What you characterize as attacks on Hindu religion are tolerated only in this forum. Did you hear what happened even in west bengal, the bastion of communism? There, goddess Devi was maligned by JNU "scholars" much like how Rama and Krishna are maligned here in the name of freedom of expression. The JNU scholars described Devi Mahisashuramardini as a pr***** who took advantage of mahisashura for 8 days and killed him in the ninth day. That is their version of the story. They must have had some vicarious pleasure in telling this story, much like some members here, because they must have been aware of the emotional connection people have with their devatas, but Hindus there did not take such insults lightly. So don't get worked up over such stuff and extrapolate these attacks to demise of Hinduism etc..

Shri Kalabhairavan,

You are making wrong comparisons and false allegations. Devee Bhagavatham does not say for how long the battle between Chandika and Mahishasura went on. The linking of the navaratri with the killing of Mahishasura is a local custom in Bengal and Assam where the Shaakta Tantrika cults held sway, once upon a time. Hence there is no basis for assuming a nine-day war, nor giving that nine-day any twist.

But the remarks about Rama and Krishna are not similar and those comments have originated on the basis of Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata, etc., and many works have been produced by Indian literary authors. The work "Rendaamooozham" in Malayalam got the Jnanpith award in 1995; it portrays Bhimasena as a lone warrior who in the ultimate, Mahaprasthana, stops to take care of Draupadi. The superhuman elements of the characters are all omitted and all are portrayed as normal human beings with their faults and shortcomings. Though it can easily fall within the ambit of "insult", "attack", "vicarious pleasure" etc., still the Jnanpith jury did not think so.

I have read another book "Kumbhakarna" which shows Kumbhakarna in an entirely different light and as a much wronged warrior; vibheeshana comes out, in that book, as a traitor of his country and an ungrateful brother. I think this book was prescribed text for Tamil B.A. or M.A. in some universities. There are many such books which are revisionist creations. They only serve a good purpose and at least some of the students/readers will be motivated to read the original version or at least its translation.

Hindu religion will not collapse, although I don't think it is a vibrant religion now (it is in a state of decadency right now, I feel); it will become vibrant once again when our younger generations will question more and more (like Smt. Renuka's son) - unlike their previous generations which believed every word of it as true and were ready to even fight, abuse, kill etc., if someone differed or questioned their fondly cherished, but wrong and ludicrous notions - and reject all that is not logical and accept the remainder.

For example, does it not appear that the story of Durvasa granting six mantras to a virgin, unmarried princes Kunti, so that she will get pregnant, unnatural and perhaps reflecting the vicarious, twisted desires of the scribe who wrote that story? Does this mean that any unwed adolescent mother today will do well to float her child in secrecy in a river?

 

[JR]

For example, does it not appear that the story of Durvasa granting six mantras to a virgin, unmarried princes Kunti, so that she will get pregnant, unnatural and perhaps reflecting the vicarious, twisted desires of the scribe who wrote that story? Does this mean that any unwed adolescent mother today will do well to float her child in secrecy in a river?

No, it shows the following:

1. That such a thing really happened in the past which sage Vysa muni recorded in his work.
2. That doing such an act, will make you lose your own son to the point you cannot 'claim' your own motherhood over such a child in later years, and you would be burdened with guilt until you die.

 

[JR]

Smt JR Ji

I will come back on Dice game, how Yudhitra was addicted to it, and Karna did not appreciate Sakuni's plan and for direct confrontation to defeat Pandavas.

Dear PJ ji,

I never heard from you regarding the above. Eagerly awaiting!

Thanks,

 

[JR]

JRji,

This is my response to your earlier reply to me. Definitely I would not like to intrude on your religious beliefs. But do you think we have to conflate these mythological epics with the essence of Hindu religion. Would not Hinduism (and even Vaishnavism) exist without the existence of Ramayana and Mahabharata?

My question is that do we really have to base our religious leanings on whether Lord Rama or Krishna walked the earth in material form? Many Christians also obsess about whether Christ was a real person. Does it really matter? Don't their teachings stand on their own?

Biswa ji,

For some of us, the teachings and the value of the books hold true only when the characters behind them are also true - myself being on of those!

Besides, so many temples are dedicated to worship of Shri Hanuman, Sri Ram, Sri Krishna, all from these epics - our wise ancestors wouldn't have built and organized ceremonial worship for imaginary characters, IMHO!

 

[P.J.]

Smt JR ji

Please avoid answering irrelevant questions posted here about this Great Epic and the Wisdom of Veda VYASA; we will go ahead and share the greatness of this epic together.

Please give me time to post about Dice game and i am sure you will be astonished to know about them.

 

[JR]

Smt JR ji

Please avoid answering irrelevant questions posted here about this Great Epic and the Wisdom of Veda VYASA; we will go ahead and share the greatness of this epic together.

Please give me time to post about Dice game and i am sure you will be astonished to know about them.

Thank you, Sir. Awaiting... :grouphug:

 

[P.J.]

All about Dice Game

All about Dice Game

1. How many times Dice game was played by Yudhistra against Duruyodana supported by Sakuni?
2. How many times Yudhistra rolled/ handled the Dice and how many times Sakuni handled the dice on behalf of Duruyodana in each game?
3. How many times did Yudhistra win and how many times he lost in each game?
4. Did Yudhistra used/ handled the same Dice used by Sakuni or a different Dice for his play?
5. What was the stake Yudhistra pledged in his second game against Duruyodana
   Played by Sakuni?
6. Why Yudhistra did not stop playing after the first game of Dice which he lost?
7. When Sri Krishna could help Draupati from humiliation, why He did not stop Yudhistra from playing or helped him to win the Dice game

Answers by the great Vidya Raja Gopalan in Yahoo answers

1. How many times Dice game was played ..... by Sakuni?
   
   There are two dice game-episodes within the interval of few days.
   
   Draupadi freed Pandavas after first dice game.
   
   Duryodhana secured his doting father's reluctant and ominous approval to a plan to entice Yudhishthira once again to a game of dice for the second time.
   
   2. How many times Yudhistra rolled/ handled the Dice and how many times Sakuni handled the dice .... in each game?
   
   There is no mention of Yudhistra handled the dice in both the dice episodes of Vyasa Mahabharata.
   
   Sakuni’s dice throwing is clearly mentioned in the first episode on three times, at the beginning and at the stake of Nakula.
   
   At last, during the stack of Draupati, it is mentioned as Sakuni played the dice AGAIN.
   
   Sakuni played the dice in the single throw of the second dice-game episode.
   
   3. How many times did Yudhistra win ..... he lost in each game?
   
   Yudhistra lost all the stakes in the first dice episode and also lost the only stake in the second dice episode.
   
   First episode has twenty stakes by Yudhistra and has thus twenty dice throws.
   
   4. Did Yudhistra handle the Sakuni's Dice or a different Dice for his play?
   
   There is no mention of Yudhistra handled the dice in both the dice game-episodes of Vyasa Mahabharata.
   
   5. What was the stake Yudhistra pledged in his second game?
   
   The stake played for the second dice episode was that the defeated party should go WITH HIS BROTHERS into EXILE to the forest and remain there for TWELVE YEARS and spend the THIRTEENTH YEAR INCOGNITO. If they were recognised in the thirteenth year, they should go AGAIN into exile for twelve years.
   
   Needless to say, Yudhishthira met with defeat on this occasion also, and the Pandavas took the vows of those who are to go to the forest.
   
   6 Why Yudhistra did not stop playing after the first game?
   
   A messenger was accordingly dispatched after Yudhisthira who had taken his departure for Indraprastha. He came up with Yudhishthira before the latter had reached his destination and invited him on behalf of king Dhritarashtra to come back to play dice for a second time.
   
   On hearing this invitation, Yudhishthira said: "Good and evil come from destiny and cannot be avoided. If we must play again we must, that is all. A challenge to dice cannot in honor be refused. I must accept it." Truly, as Sri Vyasa says: "There never was and never can be an antelope of gold! Yet, Rama went in vain pursuit of what seemed one. Surely, when calamities are imminent, the judgment is first destroyed."
   
   Dharmaputra returned to Hastinapura and set again for a game with Sakuni, though everyone in the assembly tried to dissuade him.
   
   He seemed a mere pawn moved by Kali to relieve the burden of the world.
   
   7. When Sri Krishna could help Draupati from humiliation, why He did not stop Yudhistra from playing Dice game?
   
   (i) Lord Krishna was not present at Hastinapura during the game of dice.
   http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m030...
   
   (ii) Nobody can beat Lord Krishna in Gambling (Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10, Verse 36).
   
   IF Lord Krishna was at Hastinapura and IF Yadhishtra preferred his Uncle Krishna to play dice on his behalf, Mahabharata story could be different. The truth is the real Sutradhari Krishna took care of the course of the story.

Rules of dice games:

(i) Available facts:

Yudhishthira's first stake was wealth of pearls and Duryodhana first and only stake was many jewels and much wealth.

Afterwards stakes were mentioned only for Yudhishthira.

Sakuni rolled or played the first dice throw, fifteenth throw (Nakula) and twentieth throw (Draupati).

Before the Draupati was won Sakuni said, ‘Bid with with Draupati and by winning that You can be relieved by yourself.’

(ii) Assumptions made:

The first throw was done on mutual consent.

If the thrower wins any round, he would continue to throw for the next throw.

The stake is to be told by the loser alone to the subsequent bid. (If the loser wins in the next game he could have gained previous lost bid).

(iii) Deductions:

Yudhishthira was ready with His dice or play with Sakuni's dice, but He could not do that because he did not win even a single game.

These rules were rudiments and did not mention in Vyasa Mahabharata!!

https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111207083517AAiYoEQ

 

[JR]

Thank you for this knowledge, PJ ji!

Ofcourse, they say 'Vidhi valiyadhu' and I agree 100% the poor Pandavas were trapped in to its grip, especially the ever truthful Yudhishtira! but they say everything happens for good and if not for this incident, there would be no 'Bhagawad Gita' in the world today!

 

[renuka]

renukaji


So you post a question reading only the last line ?
What about earlier paragraphs ?

if It is your belief, no discussion on this further.

Let us not deviate from OP anymore, open a new OP, members can discuss on it if they wish.

Dear PJ sir,

The title of the thread is "was Karna good or bad?"

Swamijis and Guru jis try to tarnish the name of Karna someway or the other becos very few minds have the guts to explore the true nature of everyone.

Most people are scared to think differently and rationally and want to think that the Pandavas were some innocent babes.

Arjuna was such a jealous person..he was so jealous that Ekalavya was better than him.Deep down inside Arjuna knew that both Ekalavya and Karna were better than him.

The story goes in Mahabharat that it was Lord Krishna who mentally prompted Draupadi to pass the Suta putra remark to disallow Karna to try shooting the eye of the fish during her syayamvara..becos Krishna knew that Karna was a better archer than Arjuna and he would have shot it perfectly.

Arjuna did not think so highly of Krishna too many a times..there was one episode where Lord Krishna asks Arjuna to get down from the chariot and Arjuna did not like it becos its always the charioteer that should get down 1st.

Then Krishna insisted that Arjuna get down 1st and the when Krishna got down later the chariots blew up in flames.

As long as Krishna was there Arjuna was safe and even after getting the Geeta still Arjuna had an ego and wanted Krishna to behave like a charioteer!LOL So what is so great about Arjuna?

But Karna always respected Krishna..even while dying he was doing Dhanam for Lord Krishna who came in the form of a Brahmin.


So you see many people cant digest that the Pandavas were nothing all that great and Karna seemed better in many ways.

After all under the rule of Duryodhana the kingdom was well and prosperous.He was a good king too.

Even his real name Suyodhana is twisted into Duryodhana to make him sound bad.

So you see this was a weakness in the Mahabharat that Karna was way better than Pandavas..so some bright spark must have cooked up some Purana that Karna was some Asura in his previous life waiting to be killed by the Nara Narayana duo in this life(Arjuna-Krishna).

Most puranas are made up..like the one where Lord Buddha is made as the false avatar!

Lord Buddha led such a life where he gave up everything to guide mankind and he gets such a bad name as a false avatar of Vishnu..making both Lord Buddha and Vishnu liars!

So PJ sir..I think its high time Puranas be examined before we believe them.

 

[JR]

Sorry Renuka,

Your logic is still incorrect.

Nobody denied that the pancha pandavas were also, common men. As common men, they were also, perhaps, prone to jealousy or egotism at times.

BUT the point is, WHAT THEY DID TO KAURAVAS AS A RESULT OF THIS SO-CALLED JEALOUSY?

AND THE ANSWER WOULD BE *NOTHING*.

Whereas, the Kauravas robbed pandavas of all their belongings, tried to disrobe a woman in front of an entire assembly, and denied even 5 'pinheads' of land, which *rightfully* belonged to the Pandavas! Nobody, if they had atleast the least bit of conscience, would do this.

So the moral of the story is that - you may be, as a common man, be prone to jealousy or egotism, but if you are ultimately *good* like the Pandavas, you will still do nothing that hurts others, like the way the benevolent Pandavas had been.

(OR you can be demonic with your jealousy, egotism and hatred, as the kauravas had been).

(And that the Lord will support, and will be ready to even LIE for your cause, if you are benevolent, which is why he was partial to the Pandavas).

Regards,

 

[renuka]

(And that the Lord will support, and will be ready to even LIE for your cause, if you are benevolent, which is why he was partial to the Pandavas).

Regards,

Dear JR,

I never considered Krishna partial at all in the Mahabharat. That would amount to blasphemy.

I am surprised to read this.

For me I feel Pandavas were nothing great and Kauravas too had their plus points...but I never consider Krishna partial.

May I know why you feel Krishna was partial?

 

[JR]

Dear JR,

I never considered Krishna partial at all in the Mahabharat. That would amount to blasphemy.

I am surprised to read this.

For me I feel Pandavas were nothing great and Kauravas too had their plus points...but I never consider Krishna partial.

May I know why you feel Krishna was partial?

There is an incident wherein the Lord Sri Krishna visits Duryadhana at his palace, before the war, because Duryodhana has summoned for Sri Krishna's help.

Sri Krishna goes to the palace, at that time Duryodhana is asleep.

Sri Krishna does not want 'HIMSELF' to be chosen for the help... meaning, he does not want to side-up with Duryodhana.

So he stands on the head of Duryodhana, because as per Duryodhana's condition, whosoever he sees first on waking up, shall be 'his' (his side in the war).

When Duryodhana wakes up, he doesn't see the Lord. So his condition fails. When Lord Sri Krishna asks him what he wants next for help, Duryodhana, being 'petty' that he is, asks for the Lord's fleet and soldiers for his side. Lord agrees.

And the good Lord returns cheerfully back to his castle, that Duryodhana has failed to ask himself to be on his side!

 

[renuka]

There is an incident wherein the Lord Sri Krishna visits Duryadhana at his palace, before the war, because Duryodhana has summoned for Sri Krishna's help.

Sri Krishna goes to the palace, at that time Duryodhana is asleep.

Sri Krishna does not want 'HIMSELF' to be chosen for the help... meaning, he does not want to side-up with Duryodhana.

So he stands on the head of Duryodhana, because as per Duryodhana's condition, whosoever he sees first on waking up, shall be 'his' (his side in the war).

When Duryodhana wakes up, he doesn't see the Lord. So his condition fails. When Lord Sri Krishna asks him what he wants next for help, Duryodhana, being 'petty' that he is, asks for the Lord's fleet and soldiers for his side. Lord agrees.

And the good Lord returns cheerfully back to his castle, that Duryodhana has failed to ask himself to be on his side!

Dear JR,

Lord Krishna was never partial...God stays out of human pettiness.

To the "untrained eye" many might think that God will Lie for us..God will do anything for us if we are good. The harsh reality is we are totally on our own.

Technically if Pandavas suffered may be becos they would have had a compatible Karma to undergo suffering and Kauravas would have had the compatible Karma to enjoy for some time.

Ultimately both fought and destroyed themselves..after all even the victory of Pandavas were short lived..without Krishna they could not even fight invading hordes.

It was a big slap on their faces finally.

So if you ask me no one was the victor in Mahabharat.

Krishna as an incarnation of God never took sides..He came He saw and He Left.

And everyone fell for it thinking He took sides. The war was just an excuse to preach the Geeta nothing more.

The very fact that He chose to remain a charioteer showed that He never took sides.

For God there is no good or bad to support or to fight with.

God does not micromanage.

Its our own past Karma and present doings that runs our lives.

I dont see anything wrong in Suyodhana asking for Krishna's fleet..that is very normal..after all even the best of humans go to temple to ask God's fleet of well wishes.No one wants God..everyone wants God to provide.

 

[JR]

This is the right version of the story, my version is from vague memory.

Duryodhana's Big Mistake - Stories From Mahabharat

Duryodhana is so haughty he chooses to stand on Lord's head and thus loses Lord to be on his side (as Krishna expected).

Humble Arjuna stands on Lord's feet and wins over the Lord himself for their side!

The pandavas not only win the war, rule for a long time till their natural death, but also reach the heavens!

That is the moral of the ithihasa!