Was Karna good or bad?

[V.Balasubramani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

So I guess being good or bad is open to interpretation..but I agree with you that Karna was one of the best character in MB. It does not matter if he was good or bad..he was simply Karna.

Mam,

True. Karna was unique.

 

[renuka]

Mam,

True. Karna is unique.

And ever so beautifully portrayed by actor Shivaji Ganesan. I think that movie would have made enough people fall in love the character of Karna.

Somehow Karna had shades of both a Pandava and a Kaurava..after all he too was a Kaunteya.

That is what made him so unique.

 

[krish44]

among all the posts, PJ sirs posts were the most balanced and informative.

real five star posts PJ sir .keep it up.

 

[P.J.]

Thanks Krish Sir,

You are always a Support to me!!

 

[V.Balasubramani]

among all the posts, PJ sirs posts were the most balanced and informative.

real five star posts PJ sir .keep it up.

Krish Ji,

Does your assessment include post that was removed and the post that was deleted?

 

[krish44]

And ever so beautifully portrayed by actor Shivaji Ganesan. I think that movie would have made enough people fall in love the character of Karna.

Somehow Karna had shades of both a Pandava and a Kaurava..after all he too was a Kaunteya.

That is what made him so unique.

My knowledge of Karna is only from that film with shivaji ganesan playing karna, and NTR playing Krishna saying ' mannippu arulvayada' at the end.

 

[sangom]

Namaste Sir,

If I get it right, from your accusation above of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan, it seems the only 'mistake' of his is that 'his son' somehow seems to be connected with Muslims? How can that be Sri Velukkudi Krishnan's fault?

I have listened to a lot of lectures by the Swami and I salute to his very, very vast knowledge of scriptures which becomes apparent as soon as he opens his mouth - Sri Yoga Hayagriva's blessings has given him immense knowledge and a fantastic memory he is able to say everything as it is in the scriptures in a style similar to 'Manipravala'.

And, he has visited many foreign countries, but he is still so simple and humble, clad in plain white dhoti and lecturing to as small an audience as situation gives him opportunity to, only for the sake of doing kainkarya to Sriman Narayana! His devotion and humility are apparent!

I wish the swamiji more and more of success! I cannot think of any reason of you calling him a 'hypocrite'.

Thanks & Regards,

Smt. JR,

I have sent you a pm since there are limitations in what we can write in the open forum.

 

[sangom]

Fair enough Sangom ji...I myself sometimes cant digest stories where one party is shown as "Onnum Teriyatha Papa".

I remember once when I was teaching the Ramayan to my son aged 9 then..I was reading to him about King Dasharatha and his virtues.

Then the next line was about King Dasharatha who was hunting and accidentally killed a man who was taking water at the river thinking it was an elephant drinking water.

Right away my son asked me "I thought Dasharatha was a good person ..why was he hunting and killing animals?"

So you see it was a very valid question..and my son was not convinced that Dasharatha was a good person!LOL

So I guess being good or bad is open to interpretation..but I agree with you that Karna was one of the best character in MB. It does not matter if he was good or bad..he was simply Karna.

Smt. Renuka,

All these itihaasas were cooked up by some anonymous but gifted poet/s, for sure, and we had equally good or perhaps much more gifted poets like Kalidasa, Bhaaravi, Bhartruhari, Dandin, Bhavabhuti, and so on. These works were composed to subserve certain specific agendas of the priestly class; the Ramayana of Valmiki (whose history is shrouded in legends - so was he a real person?) projected a new divinity called Rama belonging to the Kshatriya class, but before him (Rama) they had created and tested two brahmin avataars, Vaamana and Parasurama, probably when the brahmins had the upper hand over the Kshatriyas of the times. But then, the Kshatriyas rose in revolt and recaptured their power over the rest of the society and, accordingly, Rama was brought forth. If one can see impartially, this is much like any automobile company launching newer models to suit the customer preferences which change with time!

The Krishna avataar probably was necessitated when the agricultural groups (the yaadavas) became very powerful and some of them even rose to become rulers of some provinces; additionally, Krishna with his black complexion, could also absorb the "maayOn" concept which was very prevalent in the Tamil region and around whom the Bhakti and Vaishnava cults grew. Today we will hear "maayOn" in some devotional songs on Krishna as one of the several names of Krishna. In the Mahabharata, Krishna makes his appearance as a young prince attending Draupadi’s wedding; no information is given in MB itself about Krishna's birth, his divinity, etc., and all these were added later on by Bhaagavatham and Harivamsam. If you look at Mahabharata alone, and analyse Krishna's role, you will find enough justification for Arjuna trying to kill Krishna on the charge that the latter was plotting for the complete destruction of the Kuru dynasty (Pandavas also were Kurus) so that his own Yadava kingdom in Mathura could annex the Kuru territory as well!

But religion being a very powerful brainwashing tool, and highly efficacious at that, many people still believe whatever is parroted out by our pravachanakartas on public platforms; for instance will you ever hear any pravachanakartha referring to Rama killing Shambuka? Probably not.

Hence, in my view no character in Mahabharata, including Krishna, is completely good or completely bad; all were more or less just like us, ordinary mortals and creatures of circumstances, but Karna stands out because Fate was against him right from Kunti's unwarranted experiment in motherhood and in that sense, Kunti was the most morally reprehensible character of all!

 

[renuka]

but Karna stands out because Fate was against him right from Kunti's unwarranted experiment in motherhood and in that sense, Kunti was the most morally reprehensible character of all!

Dear Sangom ji,


What I totally dislike about Kunti is that she went over to see Karna not becos she loved him but becos she was fearing the life of Arjuna.

I dont understand how any mother can do that. That is why Karna called himself Radheya till the end.He honoured the woman who brought him up.

Karna is a classic hero with a heart of gold..he never gave in to blood ties and sentiments..he was grateful to those who cared for him even if it meant being on the wrong side of Dharma.

It was long overdue that Karna needed to loved by his mother and she should have acknowledged him as her son to all when he was alive.

What is the use of her posthumous declaration?

It seems when everyone was dead and only her 5 sons remained..she did not mind revealing that Karna was her son. She was afraid of her own reputation.

That is why I totally dislike Kunti.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sangom ji,

Many years back there was a true story in the newspaper of a Non Indian Muslim boy who was born deformed and abandoned by his mother after his father died.

He was adopted by another couple and many years later he also met an accident where he lost his right leg and lost his job but he somehow managed to work again.

Then one day his birth mother came to see him..he said he was so happy that his birth mother finally came to see him and he was in for a shock when he found out that the reason she came is becos the property of his late father per Islamic laws will go the biological son and the mother wanted him to write the property to her second husband's sons!

He said even though he was in dire straits himself..he signed off the property to his half brothers becos he felt that his duty was to make his mother happy as her 1st born.

Today he has started a shelter for abandoned children so that they are cared for.

I feel he is a real life Karna.

 

[JR]

Smt. Renuka,

All these itihaasas were cooked up by some anonymous but gifted poet/s, for sure, and we had equally good or perhaps much more gifted poets like Kalidasa, Bhaaravi, Bhartruhari, Dandin, Bhavabhuti, and so on. These works were composed to subserve certain specific agendas of the priestly class; the Ramayana of Valmiki (whose history is shrouded in legends - so was he a real person?) projected a new divinity called Rama belonging to the Kshatriya class, but before him (Rama) they had created and tested two brahmin avataars, Vaamana and Parasurama, probably when the brahmins had the upper hand over the Kshatriyas of the times. But then, the Kshatriyas rose in revolt and recaptured their power over the rest of the society and, accordingly, Rama was brought forth. If one can see impartially, this is much like any automobile company launching newer models to suit the customer preferences which change with time!

The Krishna avataar probably was necessitated when the agricultural groups (the yaadavas) became very powerful and some of them even rose to become rulers of some provinces; additionally, Krishna with his black complexion, could also absorb the "maayOn" concept which was very prevalent in the Tamil region and around whom the Bhakti and Vaishnava cults grew. Today we will hear "maayOn" in some devotional songs on Krishna as one of the several names of Krishna. In the Mahabharata, Krishna makes his appearance as a young prince attending Draupadi’s wedding; no information is given in MB itself about Krishna's birth, his divinity, etc., and all these were added later on by Bhaagavatham and Harivamsam. If you look at Mahabharata alone, and analyse Krishna's role, you will find enough justification for Arjuna trying to kill Krishna on the charge that the latter was plotting for the complete destruction of the Kuru dynasty (Pandavas also were Kurus) so that his own Yadava kingdom in Mathura could annex the Kuru territory as well!

But religion being a very powerful brainwashing tool, and highly efficacious at that, many people still believe whatever is parroted out by our pravachanakartas on public platforms; for instance will you ever hear any pravachanakartha referring to Rama killing Shambuka? Probably not.

Hence, in my view no character in Mahabharata, including Krishna, is completely good or completely bad; all were more or less just like us, ordinary mortals and creatures of circumstances, but Karna stands out because Fate was against him right from Kunti's unwarranted experiment in motherhood and in that sense, Kunti was the most morally reprehensible character of all!

Dear Sir,

All these 'presumptions' and 'accusations' about 'what could have happened' or 'what did not happen but just an *imagination* out of blue sky', etc, make me feel that Iyers have come upon a way to discredit, undermine and put to disgrace all avataras of Sriman narayana and all that truly happened. I have no belief that these are made-up stories nor do I doubt the authors Valmiki muni and Vyasa muni. Somewhere I read whenever ramayana originated, that time itself, it is shown in clear-cut details all the path Sri Rama travelled all over India and that Geographical knowledge is not possible at that age and it agrees with the geographical pattern of today! I am not trying to 'prove' anything, we have a host of stories on Shaivite side too, that Lord Shiva did this and that, even that could be proven wrong by some clever-thinking Vaishnava, the fact is taht these are incorrect standings, one should act in a way to boost other peoples' faith and devotion but should not try to undermine others' efforts..

I will read the PM and respond to you in a short while, thanks for sending the same.

Regards,

 

[sangom]

What a Bull sh...t you have written!!

What authority you have to say "All these itihaasas were cooked up by some anonymous but gifted poet/s"

as if you have mastered our Purans and Ithihasaas ?

You have enough S...t on your back as well as the whole of your face and body, thrown by many members and public to whom you advice, but still you go on on on criticizing Lord Krishna and giving your filthy advices to others!!!

Enough is enough; you are already suffering physically and mentally and wish you drain off all your sins committed in this birth as well as in your previous birth, by suffering more till your death, so that you can start a fresh life to commit more sins!!!

Dear Shri PJ,

I will welcome such posts from you not because I like them (I am really pained to read these.) but because they do a good job of revealing the kind of person writing them. So, my sincere advice to you is to keep up your tempo of personal attacks and abusive language which seems to be your speciality.

 

[sangom]

Since you do not have anything to say about OP, but you only know how to spread rumors and gossips about Velukukudi and others you dislike, you wanted to send a PM so that it escapes deletion like your other filthy thread!!

Good People die, but you are still alive even after 72 years with ill health, because Gods wanted you to suffer more and more!!!

Even then you are not realizing how evil is your mind, you do not try to mend yourself.

Shut your posts here once and for all, so that Forum is relieved off a very bad member roaming here.

I request you to kindly take up the matter with Shri Praveen so that he bans me. I may be 72, but you are 74 or more; is it because the same Gods want you to go on abusing left and right and reveal your true culture and personality to every member and reader of this Forum? Who can overrule the Gods!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

All these 'presumptions' and 'accusations' about 'what could have happened' or 'what did not happen but just an *imagination* out of blue sky', etc, make me feel that Iyers have come upon a way to discredit, undermine and put to disgrace all avataras of Sriman narayana and all that truly happened. I have no belief that these are made-up stories nor do I doubt the authors Valmiki muni and Vyasa muni. Somewhere I read whenever ramayana originated, that time itself, it is shown in clear-cut details all the path Sri Rama travelled all over India and that Geographical knowledge is not possible at that age and it agrees with the geographical pattern of today! I am not trying to 'prove' anything, we have a host of stories on Shaivite side too, that Lord Shiva did this and that, even that could be proven wrong by some clever-thinking Vaishnava, the fact is taht these are incorrect standings, one should act in a way to boost other peoples' faith and devotion but should not try to undermine others' efforts..

I will read the PM and respond to you in a short while, thanks for sending the same.

Regards,

The question here is not whether Iyers are trying to discredit Vishnu or whether Iyengars can discredit the Saivites in a similar manner. All the puranas are the handiwork of brahmins only, imo. Nothing of the scriptures has come down straight from heaven. But, as I said earlier, you have every freedom to believe whatever you believe as true. But your freedom stops there; it does not extend to showing intolerance to different views, and I think this Forum allows it. Secondly, I had replied to Smt. Renuka and so it would have been appropriate if you had just ignored my post.

I have certain views on hinduism and I say what I truly believe in. You need not agree.

 

[JR]

The question here is not whether Iyers are trying to discredit Vishnu or whether Iyengars can discredit the Saivites in a similar manner. All the puranas are the handiwork of brahmins only, imo. Nothing of the scriptures has come down straight from heaven. But, as I said earlier, you have every freedom to believe whatever you believe as true. But your freedom stops there; it does not extend to showing intolerance to different views, and I think this Forum allows it. Secondly, I had replied to Smt. Renuka and so it would have been appropriate if you had just ignored my post.

I have certain views on hinduism and I say what I truly believe in. You need not agree.

Dear Sir,

Regardless of whosoever who replied to earlier, I have (and every Vaishnava too) a moral responsibility to standing up for what that is true and what that is agreed upon over the ages, when our faith is questioned and put to test. It is not 'some brahmanas' that came upon Ramayana and Mahabharata. They are munis of great caliber who were granted divine vision to see through things as they happened in the past. Shri. Veda Vyasa is an avatara of Sriman Narayana himself. Ramayana and Mahabharata happened and were written about for the common man and those of the 4th varnas and 'sthrees' (ladies) who cannot otherwise read or comprehend the vedas and puranas, to know about them and live their life in tune with them. And lastly, I am not the one who is showing intolerance, it is your kind self, Vaishnavas have all the right to believe that Mahabharata did happen and that Sri Krishna is real, and that Pandavas are good because that is the way Shri. Vyasa muni has written his ithihasa in his work. And his work is the *only window* to look through the past and know what happened. So if you cannot accept what Vyasa has to say regarding his work, and what learned panditas of Vaishnavism have to say regarding Vyasa's work, then it is yourself who shows intolerance, and coming upon your own versions or explanations and unprooved assumptions regarding 'what could have happened' only reveals intolerance on your part, not mine!

Thanks,

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

Regardless of whosoever who replied to earlier, I have (and every Vaishnava too) a moral responsibility to standing up for what that is true and what that is agreed upon over the ages, when our faith is questioned and put to test. It is not 'some brahmanas' that came upon Ramayana and Mahabharata. They are munis of great caliber who were granted divine vision to see through things as they happened in the past. Shri. Veda Vyasa is an avatara of Sriman Narayana himself. Ramayana and Mahabharata happened and were written about for the common man and those of the 4th varnas and 'sthrees' (ladies) who cannot otherwise read or comprehend the vedas and puranas, to know about them and live their life in tune with them. And lastly, I am not the one who is showing intolerance, it is your kind self, Vaishnavas have all the right to believe that Mahabharata did happen and that Sri Krishna is real, and that Pandavas are good because that is the way Shri. Vyasa muni has written his ithihasa in his work. And his work is the *only window* to look through the past and know what happened. So if you cannot accept what Vyasa has to say regarding his work, and what learned panditas of Vaishnavism have to say regarding Vyasa's work, then it is yourself who shows intolerance, and coming upon your own versions or explanations and unprooved assumptions regarding 'what could have happened' only reveals intolerance on your part, not mine!

Thanks,

I am not intolerant of your views but I am only disagreeing. If disagreement is intolerance, I stand corrected.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

Many years back there was a true story in the newspaper of a Non Indian Muslim boy who was born deformed and abandoned by his mother after his father died.

He was adopted by another couple and many years later he also met an accident where he lost his right leg and lost his job but he somehow managed to work again.

Then one day his birth mother came to see him..he said he was so happy that his birth mother finally came to see him and he was in for a shock when he found out that the reason she came is becos the property of his late father per Islamic laws will go the biological son and the mother wanted him to write the property to her second husband's sons!

He said even though he was in dire straits himself..he signed off the property to his half brothers becos he felt that his duty was to make his mother happy as her 1st born.

Today he has started a shelter for abandoned children so that they are cared for.

I feel he is a real life Karna.

More than Karna, he is a very great MAN!

 

[JR]

I am not intolerant of your views but I am only disagreeing. If disagreement is intolerance, I stand corrected.

I agree that we can all (respectfully) agree to disagree!

 

[krish44]

I agree that we can all (respectfully) agree to disagree!

ugh what an ending to a thread !

P J sir normally posts after a few hours more.

we have to take his concurrence .

and tomorrow is another day.

have you read "gone with the wind'

This is the last line of the great novel

This is what Scarlet Ohara had to say about Rhett Butler'

 

[JR]

Dear PJ ji,

I have one more question: it is said, when Karna was nearing his death, Sri Krishna in the form of a poor Brahmin, went to him and asked for all of Karna's meritorious deeds be donated to him as 'dhaana'. Why did god Krishna do this? What is the necessity?

Thanks,

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Karna was essentially a good person. But circumstances made him bad. A very good man does not fall victim to circumstances. He was an invincible warrior in spite of the curse of memory loss at opportune time. Moreover, that he felt slighted at being called a suta puthran in spite of being a great warrior. His ego won over his good mind. Above all he sided against Dharma. It is not Kauravaas, Sakuni and Duryodana brought about the War. Even Krishna was till then a spectator. Actually, Bhishma, Dronacharya and Karna bound themselves by their own "vachan" and forsake Dharma. Hence Krishna had to step in and defend Dharma. In fact everybody in Mahabharatha was adharmic. Thus in spite of some great qualities, he was a bad man. At the time of death he realized his mistakes and hence he gave the fruits of his good deeds as "dhaana" to Krishna. Now Karnan IS great.

 

[P.J.]

Well replied Smt JR JI

 

[P.J.]

Dear PJ ji,

I have one more question: it is said, when Karna was nearing his death, Sri Krishna in the form of a poor Brahmin, went to him and asked for all of Karna's meritorious deeds be donated to him as 'dhaana'. Why did god Krishna do this? What is the necessity?

Thanks,

Smt JR Ji

There are different opinions about Lord Krishna going to Karna for Puniya Dhanam; Assuming that Lord Krishna took all the puniams from Karna in the form of Dhanam, it is only to make his Karma 's account Nil.

As long as one 's accumulated Puniyam or papams is there, he can not come out of the circle of birth and death, nor he can reach Swargam; To make Karna's account Nil , and that is why Lord Krishna took all his puniyam so that Karna goes to Swargam and his Karma account is nil.


Although Karna did many Dhanams , he did not do it in the name of Lord Hari, by donating all accumulated punyams to Lord Krishna , he completed that also.

Lord Krishna also showed him his Viswaroopa Dharshan at the time of last moment, ( by which all his sins are nullified) Lord granted him Swargam, and that is more important.

Karna ultimately never went to Hell for all his actions by joining Duruyodana.



( I will come back about Kunti, why she did abandoning Karna after he was born, why she asked some Boons from Karna to protect other Pandavas etc, Please give me some time.)

 

[biswa]

Karna is like a great Shakespearean tragic hero. He reminds me of Macbeth. All tragic heroes have a fatal flaw which in Karna's case was jealousy that he did not get Kunti's love unlike the other Pandavas.

 

[biswa]

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?