Karna: Wronged hero or wrong hero: Chaitanya Charan on Kishori Jani M’s podcast

Podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna everyone. Hare Krishna, Jai Sunil Chaturvedi. Namrata Pranam.
Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you for giving us your time and energy and discussing very relevant topics.
Very grateful. For those of you who are listening and not new to our channel, Sharan Prabhu has been around many times on here. Today we have a very special topic about Karna and how to understand his dilemma, his difficult situation.
You know, it’s a very sad story to hear. Was he wrong? Was he a wrong hero or was he a wronged hero? How he was unlucky or was unfair. We feel that many times in our own life when we’re put into very difficult situations.
And understanding his story can really help us navigate our own life and make possibly better choices. Because was it just a matter of his destiny or did his decisions and choices, did that change the outcome for Karna? So thank you so much, Sharan Prabhu. I’m going to let you take it away because this is something very close to you.
Thank you. Thank you for taking up this topic also. First of all, when I started reading the Ramayana Mahabharata for the first time, this was I watched Mahabharata as a child on TV.
Then I read Amar Chitra Katha. Then I started reading the book. This was long before I was introduced to a specific spiritual path.
So the character I empathise the most with was actually Karna. So that fact that life was so unfair to him, that he had to fight against the world. He was deprived of what was right for him because of his birth.
That was in one sense relatable. We all have certain things, certain ways in which we feel life has been unfair to us. Some of us may not be born in a very wealthy family.
Some of us may not have a very high IQ. Some of us may not have the greatest of looks. Some of each of us can find out some way in which we could say life has denied us something important.
So that itself leads to us facing an uphill battle in life. So in that sense, Karna is an extremely relatable character. And over the years as I started connected with the Vaishnava tradition, the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, and I started reading the broader context, then it struck me that the Mahabharata actually goes beyond black and white.
It doesn’t say this character is black, this character is white. There are, of course, there are, say, in the Ramayana, relatively speaking, Ravan is an evil character. And Ram is a virtuous king.
There may be a few incidents which may be questionable here and there. But overall, the Mahabharata is much more nuanced. So when I actually read the Mahabharata, it struck me that, yes, life was unfair to Karna.
He was born in royalty as Kunti’s son, but he was given the honour of a Kshatriya. Then if you look at it, was life not unfair to Arjuna also? You consider from that perspective, Arjuna was born in royalty. But what had happened is father had already renounced.
Pandu had retired from the world. And I was living in the forest when the Pandavas were born. And the Pandavas did not get any royal comforts when they grew up.
Then when the Pandavas came, because their father died. So now the death of a father practically meant they became like orphans. They had their mother, of course, but they were in a forest, a dangerous place.
And when they came back, what happened? Duryodhana saw them as a threat. Duryodhana tried to not only undermine them, but have them assassinated. He then tried to have them burnt alive in Varanasi.
So the point is that what had the Pandavas done wrong to face a constant threat to their lives? To face such constant animosity? Yes, Karna had it bad. Yes, he did not get his royal rights. But did the Pandavas have it great? Did Arjuna have it great? In one sense, life at one level, we can say from this life’s perspective, everybody can point out ways in which life has dealt with us unfairly.
Right. For that matter, Karna, his adopted parents, the parents who adopted him, he never lost his father. He always had his parents.
He never lived in his own home in the threat, will the next meal be poisoned? Are my relatives trying to assassinate me? So in that sense, I’m not saying Karna had it easy. But the point is Arjuna also didn’t have it easy. So one of the things which teachers begin with is that life in the world is, you could say, not easy for anyone.
It’s not easy for anyone. And now which unfairness is greater? The way that he lost, he didn’t get his royal rights as a Kshatriya, or that Arjuna had to live with constant threat to his life without a father. This is very difficult to decide.
So that would be the starting point I would like to make before we can go further into discussion. That’s a really good point, because I think that is truly the lesson here. Because instead of focussing on how wrong, how I’ve been wronged in life, if that becomes our meditation, then it’s almost insurmountable.
There will always be something more that is unjust and unfair in our life. But if we can actually assess the reality around us that everybody, it’s just the nature of the material world, of samsara, is truly a place of suffering and injustice. Even in Duryodhana’s life, you can actually empathise in some way.
Sometimes you can look at his situation and really think, Oh, poor Duryodhana, there’s a part of you that can empathise. Actually, this point that you make is very relevant, that we should be able to be a bit objective about our own pain and suffering. Yes, that is true.
Now, one reason that it works out like this is that sometimes our view of history is shaped largely by our particular, you could say, political perspective or even our driving narrative. So what happens is Karna’s, the unfairness that Karna suffered, it plays into the mainstream narrative that India had this terrible caste system and it discriminated against people, deprived them of so many people, so many things in their life. And then in one sense, Karna becomes the poster child for the discrimination of the caste system.
And therefore, the injustices for his life, the difficulty that he went through in his life, they become highlighted quite a bit. And the other discriminations become not so highlighted. Right.
It’s used as a scapegoat, as kind of like something to bring down the Sanatan Vedic Dharma, Vedic philosophy. You know, I was just reading a headline recently that there’s a lot of conversion going on within the Sikh community in Punjab. And one of the headlines was Sikhs escaping casteism.
They’re escaping the discrimination amongst this Varna and the caste system of the Hindu or the Sikh community. So it really is a contentious topic, very much at the heart of politics, like you say, in the narrative that we are hearing and maybe also repeating without realising that, you know, you say it enough times that the caste system, the Varna system is against, you know, maybe the lower caste. And immediately that’s the story.
That’s our viewpoint in life. And that becomes our reality. Good point.
Yes. So two things are there. Firstly, I would like to categorically assert that the caste system, that the way it exists today is terrible.
It should be eliminated. It should be done. There’s no no two thoughts about it, that the way it exists right now is often highly discriminatory, highly exploitative.
And it is something which in many ways would have automatically gone away with the flow of history. Because even in the West also, even if you say now you are in Britain, Britain itself had a hierarchy. It may not exactly be called the caste system, but even now there are TV series like say Upstairs, Downstairs or Downton Abbey, which depict the life of aristocracy and the life of the working class.
Absolutely. Quite rigidly hierarchical. That was there.
But as you could say, society has changed. People’s ways of earning a livelihood have changed. That has got dissolved.
Now that could have happened in India. And to some extent that has largely happened in urban India. Right.
Now they say it’s economical tyranny. Before it was maybe in India, we may have had caste problems. You know, maybe now it’s but now it’s all a capitalist caste system.
So it depends. Right. What are we being subjugated by? Yes.
So unfortunately, in the rural areas, still the caste has become a means by which political power can be won over. It has become like a defining reality in all real political calculations. So, yes, the caste system is terrible.
But in some ways we have perpetuated the caste system. And even to some extent, we could say exaggerated the evils of the caste system. With all due acknowledgement of the discrimination that happened to the caste system, we have to see that.
We could discuss this separately in another podcast. But I think it’s very important, especially because Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON, we do want to bring back the Varanasi system. It is a very big project for Srila Prabhupada, very close to his heart that we actually understand what is the true meaning, you know, when Krishna says, I have created these four classes of men.
Why has he done that? To understand it better, I think we should have a maybe the next podcast can be about it in depth because there is a world in which that had a purpose and it was not meant as a discrimination. It was not a birth right. It was not that it’s guna and karma vibhagasha, not janma.
Yes, very true. So, yes, we could discuss that in future. So we could focus right now on Karna, if you’re OK with that.
Yes, Karna was deprived. But rather than saying that he alone was a victim of an unfair society, we could say at one level, everyone faces unfairness in life. It’s just at different levels.
You say, like, how do we come in today’s world? Let’s compare a child who is born in a very wealthy family where the parents are too busy, have to have time for the child. The parents don’t even get along with each other. It’s a wealthy but very old family.
On the other hand, a child who’s born in a poor, but relatively loving family. So who is better off? Exactly. Once we start stacking unfairness, it’s very difficult to stack that.
In one sense, you could say we are discussing our topic of destiny, that we are all given a certain set of cards. And our life is determined to some extent by the cards which we have got, but that nobody gets a perfect set of cards in life. So nobody gets that.
We all have a certain set of cards and our life’s trajectory is determined largely by how we play the cards that we have. So we could focus on that. Yes.
Wonderful. So I’m just repeating what you said. We all have an unfair set of cards, a different version, possibly.
But truly, what will affect the outcome is how we deal with that. But what do we do with that deck of cards? That’s. Yes.
In this case, you know, in one sense, because we could look at Karna’s life, but I would like to look at the parallel trajectories of Karna’s and Arjuna’s life so that we can we can understand that, yes, because their rivalry in one sense defines the Mahabharata. So first thing is both of them are heroic characters. Both of them went on to become great warriors.
And both of them did make something worthwhile and even impressive out of their lives. So Arjuna, let’s look at Karna. Karna, he did not have that royal privileges, royal advantages, but still he searched around and he found a guru who would accept him.
So he found a guru. So now he faced rejection from Drona and eventually he was accepted by Parshuram. Now, there are definitely certain things which we could say were unfair.
At one level, he went to Drona. Drona said that Drona, he realised that Drona may not teach him. So now there are different versions of the Mahabharata.
So how, whether he categorically approached Drona and Drona refused him or he just decided not to approach Drona. Whatever it is. So he did not get trained in Drona’s academy, but he eventually did get trained with Parshuram.
Now, at this point, he went on to become a great archer. Now, Arjuna also, as I said, they lived in an insecure home because throughout, the Pandavas, they knew that Bhishma loved them. Bhishma loved them as their grandsons.
But at the same time, Bhishma was always bound by vow to the Kauravas. So when they came to know about the attempt that Bhima had, that Duryodhana had made to kill Bhima, and they came to realise that they had tried to kill us at Varanavar also. Now, they never were able to open this, open to, open their hearts to Bhima and take his guidance.
Bhishmadev. To survive in that kind of atmosphere without a father figure. Now, Vidura did become like a surrogate father for them to some extent, but Vidura didn’t have much influence.
Dhritarashtra never listened to him. So the, we could say that the family tree is that Dhritarashtra and Pandu were the two, you could say, patriarchs over there. Pandu passed away.
From Dhritarashtra, we had Kauravas. Duryodhana was their head. And then from the Pandu, we had the Pandavas.
So the Pandavas never really felt at home in Hastinapur. Right. So even amid that insecurity, Arjuna found his security in his archery.
He is, of course, at one level, he was a great devotee. But at this point, he also put aside all the turbulence that was there at his home. And he focused and trained himself.
So the fact that both of them grew up to be great archers, that shows that they played their cards well. So Karna played, Karna had difficulty, Arjuna had difficulty. And both of them faced those difficulties well to actually grow up and become great archers.
Right. Great point that the handicap in one sense of Arjuna and the Pandavas was that they had no patriarchal support or maybe they had their mother, but in terms of political and family support around their home situation, security, that’s a huge disadvantage for someone who is trying to, you know, who’s part of the royal succession. So that’s a very good point that sometimes we may forget that that’s a great disadvantage to Arjuna.
But he has also overcome that just like Karna has found a guru despite him being classed, labelled and to really rise to the occasion. Rupada was a very powerful ruler. That’s when the dynamics changed for them.
So maybe we could we could move forward in this change of change of dynamics. You can look at them. How you could say, you can say fate favoured them or how their fortunes changed.
So for the Pandavas, for Arjuna, it was in Draupadi’s swayamvar that, and it’s a whole long story. We won’t go into it. They were dressed, these guys as the brahmanas.
But as a brahmana, Arjuna won the hand of Draupadi and then eventually they, all the five Pandavas got married to Draupadi. But that time, that was in one sense, the time when the Pandavas fortunes started changing dramatically. In that meeting or at that place in Draupada’s Panchala, they not only allied with Draupada and he became their father-in-law and actually protecting his daughter means protecting his son-in-laws also.
So the Kauravas also realised we cannot just fool around with them. But another thing that happened that it was in Draupadi’s swayamvar that Arjuna and Krishna met for the first time. In fact, Krishna came forward and introduced himself.
I am Krishna. And the Pandavas said, we know you. Everybody knows you.
No way. Oh, I didn’t know that. Very interesting.
Oh, wow. Right. So that was the change.
You could say the change in fortune for the Pandavas, Arjuna specifically. Now that came by Arjuna’s archery skills. He was such a great archer that he was able to hit the target even when nobody else could hit it.
And now if you consider, let’s look at Karna. His fortune also changed dramatically a little before this. When the Pandavas and the Kauravas completed their education in the academy of Drona, at the end of it, there was like a graduation ceremony.
And the graduation ceremony centred not just on them getting like some degrees or certificates, but it centred more on them exhibiting their skills. So the martial exhibition, that’s a whole chapter in the Mahabharata. It’s quite a dramatic chapter.
The idea of that was multiple things for the students to exhibit the skills that they have learned. It is also to reassure the citizens because citizens would have said, these are going to the heirs to our kingdom. And they are competent.
They are great at their job. And therefore, they are worthy of giving us protection. So they are worthy to be served.
So the martial exhibition served many purposes. It was primarily from Drona’s academy, Dronacharya’s Gurukul. So at that place, all the Kauravas and the Pandavas exhibited their skills.
So Duryodhana was great at mace fighting. Abhima was also great at mace fighting. And then Arjuna was fearless at archery.
So in one sense, Arjuna was the champion over there. His archery skills stunned everyone. And as everybody is applauding, suddenly they heard almost thunderous footsteps of some figure coming in.
In fact, that is in the Mahabharata, the first entry of the adult Karna. He appears at Dronacharya’s Gurukul’s martial exhibition. And he says, whatever Partha has done, I can exceed that.
Do I have such a mission? So everybody is surprised. Who is this person? He said, okay. And he started exhibiting.
Now he was brilliant and he used the full gamut of his skills. And he equalled Arjuna. He couldn’t exceed Arjuna.
And because he wanted to exhibit his skills, can I have a duel with Arjuna? At that time, Drona was asked, what are your antecedents? So Karna’s head fell because he was not born in royalty. So at that time, Duryodhana came to his help. And Drona said, you know, can’t you see? Can’t you see his abilities? Can’t you see his figure? Can’t you see his personality? How can a person like this not be a Kshatriya? Do you think he used quite eloquent speech over there? He says, can a mouse give birth to a lion? He must be born of a Kshatriya family.
He was a Kshatriya. And he says, if that is the qualification over here, then I will make him a king. And he gave him the Anga Pradesh.
He made him the king of Anga. And at that time, there itself he was enthroned as the king. So now on seeing this, Karna’s father, Adhirath, was also there in the audience.
And he came rushing forward to see this fortune. His son has become a king now. Adhirath offered his preferences to him.
And then some of the people in the audience started, oh, he’s actually the son of a charioteer. He’s not a Kshatriya. But Duryodhana was categorical.
He’s a Kshatriya now. He’s a king. And then when the ceremony was completed, they’re about to start fighting.
But the sun set at that time. And then the duel didn’t happen. But at that time, Karna felt very touched by Duryodhana’s gesture.
And he said, you have saved my honour today. How can I ever repay you? And Duryodhana said that I don’t want anything from you except your friendship. And Karna was even more touched by this.
That you will have from me till my last breath. So this was a turning point for Karna’s life. Karna also, by exhibiting the archery skills, formed, got an ally in Duryodhana.
And just as Arjuna got an ally in Drupada. And that’s how their life’s trajectory started moving towards a more positive direction. So both of them did this by their archery skills, by their expertise.
Great. Can I just interject with a question at this point? You know, when Draupadi rejected Karna and said that she would not allow him to participate in her swayamvata, you know, she basically rejected him because he was not a Kshatriya. And on this hand, we are seeing that Duryodhana is making a very valid argument, just like I made a little earlier, that it’s not by birth, but it’s by your qualities, your guna and karma.
So it’s very difficult to swallow the idea that somehow Dronacharya and all of the committee that was deciding it were technically wrong in one sense. And somehow Duryodhana managed to make valid arguments on behalf of Karna. And somehow Draupadi rejecting him seems quite superficial and a little bit mean.
It seems that if he’s qualified, he should be allowed to take the, you know, the challenge in the swayamvata. How would you help us to reconcile the idea that somehow Duryodhana could be right in this instance in one sense? Or is he? Yes. OK.
Well, there are two things over here. First is good that you asked this question. And let’s look at the two incidents.
Even in the martial exhibition, at one level, what was the purpose of the martial exhibition? It was to exhibit the skills of Drona students. So in one sense, it was that their graduation ceremony. Say, if you consider in any way, if you look at it, if there is any institute, any institute which is teaching a particular skills, say if there is an institute which is debating skills.
Now, they would like to show how well they are able to debate if somebody is playing fencing, somebody’s playing golf, somebody’s playing cricket. Well, you could have somebody else coming in and there are competitions where others can participate. But here it was an exhibition for his students.
So in that sense, Karna was, you could say, a gatecrasher. He didn’t belong there. Now, of course, you could say that was the moment for him to exhibit his glory, whether he would have got an opportunity again or not, that is open to question.
But the point is that was he deprived simply because he was not from a Kshatriya family? If that had been the case, then they might not have allowed him first itself to exhibit his skills. It was only when he asked for a duel, it was only when he asked for his duel, for a duel. That time they asked, OK, what are your antecedents? So the point is that it is.
Yeah. First of all, it was just an exhibition of the skills of Drona students. And secondly, if it’s if you’re going to have a duel, you need to know even today, say, if there is some world champion tennis player.
And that person says now the Australian Open in tennis is going on and suddenly some unknown player comes. I want to challenge you. OK, which country are you from? Where do you come from? That asking doesn’t necessarily have to reflect a discriminatory caste system.
Wanting to know the antecedents of a person is natural. Generally, if you want to speak in a public forum where there are different opinions on a very divisive and important issue, one of the things people will ask, whom are you speaking for? Whom do you represent? Right. So that’s a natural question.
So now it could be because of the caste system, but it doesn’t have to be like that. OK. And having said that, yes, Duryodhana did get this right.
In terms of rhetoric, he was definitely right. However, we also have to look beyond the words to the intentions. Duryodhana was always a politically calculated person.
And here at this particular point, he felt confident that if there is a confrontation between me and the Pandavas, I can take Karna. Yeah. To help me defeat the Pandavas.
In the back of the mind, it’s always like, OK, who can I who is my ally? He didn’t have anyone who could actually counter Arjuna. Right. And he saw in Duryodhana the exact person who served his political needs.
So he may have had the right rhetoric, no doubt about it. But now, yes, when the others ask the question, they might not necessarily have been motivated by caste considerations alone. We can’t look into people’s hearts.
And that question will be a reasonable question even in a normal contest, even if there are no caste considerations at all. And was Duryodhana a champion of equality as such? For him, that rhetoric of equality was simply a tool. Yeah.
Yeah. It was just a tool to win Karna over to his side. So.
So in that sense, yeah, Duryodhana used. So what do they say in the Christian tradition? They have even the devil can quote the Bible. So somebody can speak the right thing.
But do they have the right intent in the intention? Right. So that is something which we will we will discuss as we move forward. So now coming specifically to the question about Draupadi, there are two things.
Sometimes what happens is there is the original narrative of the Mahabharata text and then there are dramatised retellings. They may be on television. They may be in novels, historical fiction.
So most of us, we read the dramatised retellings of the Mahabharata and we don’t actually read the original text. So now even the original text, you can say that there are some recensions in the Mahabharata is a very, very big book. It’s 110,000 words.
So to preserve every single verse, 110,000 verses makes it like the longest poem in world history, poem in the world history. So there might be some change, some some slightly different versions at various places. But overall, I’ll talk about two, three different scenarios.
What exactly happened? According to Madhvacharya, who has written a commentary called the Mahabharata Parinirnay, where he gives an analysis of what happened and how it was fair or unfair. So what he said over there was that he was, when Karuna came out, I’m talking about Draupadi and Karuna here right now, that when he came to the Swayamvara to shoot the target, he was laughed at by the other kings. He’s not a Kshatriya.
And maybe Draupadi also looked disapproving at her, at him and that disturbed him, that angered him. And he shot, but he missed the target. That’s one version of the story.
The other version of the story is that, that actually Drishtadyumna was, who was in one sense, like the master of the ceremonies over there. Draupadi was the king and Drishtadyumna was presiding. So, for example, every time a king would come forward and he would shoot.
So now this king is coming forward. So Drishtadyumna himself said that, you know, I don’t want my sister to marry a suitor. Now the third version is that Draupadi herself said that.
Now Drishtadyumna, I don’t want to marry him. So that’s the third version. But whatever it is, let’s look at how Arjuna approached the situation.
We remember that Arjuna was in a Brahmana vesh at that time. So when Arjuna came forward, the first thing he did was that he asked Drishtadyumna, I know that this is a swayamvar for Kshatriyas. So are Brahmanas allowed to participate in this? So Drishtadyumna looked around, he looked at his father and his father nodded.
He said yes. He said the Brahmanas are always respected by Kshatriyas. So you can participate.
And people mocked him also. This Brahmana has become infatuated with lust on seeing the beauty of Draupadi. How can he win a contest which Kshatriyas can’t win? But the point I’m making is, although Arjuna in one level was born a Kshatriya, second level he was wearing the dress of a Brahmana.
But he didn’t presume. That he had a right to automatically be allowed. Interesting.
He didn’t presume, he asked. But unfortunately, Karna didn’t do that. Karna just presumed that I’ll be entitled to fight.
And beyond whatever happens, for whatever reason, he might have not been able to put forward his suit for Draupadi. It’s not that, at least in none of the versions of Mahabharata, does Draupadi go about on a vitriolic series of insults of Karna. She says, OK, I don’t want to marry him.
That’s what she says. There are multiple versions of the story. But even if you take the version that is the least charitable for Draupadi, then she said, I don’t want to marry.
OK. Ultimately, it is her swayamvar. Yes.
Swayamvar. I choose. My choice.
Yeah. So there may be some criteria which may be set. But beyond the criteria, the fact is that the swayamvar.
It is swayamvar. So it’s a swayamvar. Rather than seeing this as Karna being discriminated against, we can see that as Draupadi asserting her right to choose.
So, again, it goes into the narrative. If you want to see the narrative as anti-Vedic, how it is caste system, how the caste system is so discriminated, focus on the fact that Karna was discriminated against. But as you can see, Draupadi, Draupadi’s right to choose.
And she chose. It’s very, very appropriate to actually be mindful of what are what are we prioritising in our narrative? Because she’s absolutely entitled to choose. If she if she doesn’t like the character, maybe attitude, external looks of someone, she’s she’s allowed to say no.
Yes. Very, very good point. OK.
So moving. So the point I was making here is that that particular thing was. Yeah, it was unfair.
It was painful. It was it was distressing, but definitely not a pleasant experience. But again, do we have to drag this down to the caste discrimination alone? That is open to question.
But in every social society, there are certain norms. We have to be mindful of those norms. You know, say even today, if, say, if, say, if an Indian student wants to get admission in the UK university, the rules are different for somebody who is, say, a British citizen or English citizen and somebody is an Indian citizen.
Well, an Indian citizen can’t just demand the same rights which a British citizen has. And you say that discrimination is based on nation. I didn’t choose to be born in India.
Why are you favouring British students? Exactly. Well, you know, it’s quite different in terms of the rates and the charges and the various requirements for an international student to get admission in America or the UK or even Australia or any of the countries that people want to go for education. OK, much more, much more.
So, you know, we can’t just expect that for my sake, because I’m so competent, all social norms will be neglected. And if those social norms are not being neglected, that indicates how terribly unfair the society is. Well, not necessarily.
So you were drawing parallels between Arjuna and Karna’s life. That’s where we were. We began when you were saying that they both, you know, made the most of their situation and their lives turned at different points when Arjuna got support from Blupada and Karna got support from Duryodhana.
And then moving forward, what they did with that support. That’s very important. Yeah.
So now we could, if you want, we can move ahead further. There are two incidents now which I told about what is the actual story and what is the dramatised retelling or dramatised depiction of the story. So later on, when the Pandavas performed the Rajasuya Yajna, they built Indraprastha.
At that time, the Kauravas came to visit. And then, you know, the story in the Maya Sabha, Duryodhana slipped and fell. Duryodhana couldn’t make out, oh, is this land or is this water? Where it was land, he thought it was, where it was water, he thought it was land.
And he slipped and fell. And then at that time, seeing him, Draupadi and other palace ladies laughed. Now that is true.
So that is true. But it’s one thing is very categorical. Whatever versions of the Mahabharata I have seen till now, I see there are some differences.
But no version of the original text of the Mahabharata says that, says the dialogue that is attributed to Draupadi. The son of a blind person is a blind person. That line makes her seem like a vicious person, like somebody who is quite, you know, malicious and really hateful towards him.
That is, I haven’t found that anywhere. That’s a complete dramatisation. And if you look at overall Draupadi’s character, she is, her character is very different from Sita.
Sita is very mild and Draupadi can be very assertive, sometimes aggressive also. But although she’s aggressive, she’s never ill mannered. She’s not uncultured.
So when she feels there is any injustice or discrimination, she will raise her voice strongly. But it’s not that she is ill mannered to speak something like this. So that statement is actually not in harmony with her overall character also.
So not only is it not in Mahabharata, but it is also not in harmony with the way her character is. Now we may say still, if somebody has fallen, why would you laugh? You may say that even in today’s civilised world, if somebody falls, we may not laugh. Why would she laugh like that? When she laughed, the broader context was Duryodhana, on seeing the prosperity of the Kauravas, of the Pandavas, was extremely jealous.
Out of that jealousy, see when somebody is insecure, they often demand more respect. And they take offence where there is none. Like somebody acts very pompous and conceited.
They demand respect from everyone. So he would snap at the servants. He would not behave in a proper way.
He was himself, because he was feeling insecure. These Pandavas have got so much wealth. He was trying to put off that.
And generally, normally, if somebody falls, cultured people will not laugh at that. But generally, if somebody is putting on a lot of airs and then they are exposed, then serves you right. It is like that.
It is like somebody pretends to be something that they are not and then their pretence is exposed. So it was not exactly malicious. It was a contextual reaction.
At the Mahabharata, it does not praise Draupadi for laughing. It does not say it was a good thing. Yudhishthira tried to stop her also.
But it was a natural reaction, not malicious. The way he was behaving in that situation, because he was acting like a pompous, you could say, a stuffed up person kind of thing. So that was a natural laugh.
But it didn’t mean bad thing. It did not mean anything evil. So that was just another example of dramatisation, which leads to a distortion of both the mood and the narrative.
Right. We tend to do that just to serve our own prejudices in some way. Very interesting.
So if I could maybe ask, was it, you know, because in the Vedic culture, we talk very highly about gratitude, you know, and now we are speaking about Duryodhana and, you know, Draupadi having a, maybe the whole Mahabharata happened because some may even pinpoint this point, that where he wants to now disrobe her, disrespect her, is very angry with her. But if you come back to Karna, he now is bound in his gratitude with Duryodhana because Duryodhana has helped him. Is there any version of the Vedic system where he would be allowed to forego that gratitude? Forego that we now owe him? He kind of owes Duryodhana.
Wouldn’t it be wrong if he one day woke up and realised Duryodhana is not on the right side? I should, I should now, you know, switch sides because Pandavas are actually correct. So where do we draw the line with gratitude? That is a very important question. So now let’s look at some incidents because when we talk about drawing lines, let’s look at specific incidents.
See, Duryodhana was a manipulative person. He was, he was good at politics. In fact, if you read the first chapter of the first 10 verses of the Bhagavad Gita, there also is political tendency comes up.
How to, how to satisfy this person? How to praise this one? How to pander to the various interest groups? Yeah. He speaks very highly of his elders and he tries to pump. And now the result of this is at one level Karna’s gratitude is laudable.
If somebody has given such a great chance to Karna, changed Karna’s fortune, then that’s definitely praiseworthy. That person’s action is something which Karna should feel grateful for. That’s true.
Having said that, let’s look at a few more subtleties. See, first of all, when Duryodhana made Karna the king of Angadesh, so at that time itself a question comes up, did Duryodhana have the right to do that? Because at that point who was the heir to the kingdom was not yet decided. Dhritarashtra was the king.
And would Yudhishthira become the king or would Duryodhana become the king? Very good point. So whether he even had the right to offer a kingdom to Karna is open to question. Wasn’t Yudhishthira already the expected crowned prince? I don’t know.
Maybe I just watched it in one of the cartoons. See how it happened was that Duryodhana grew up in the royal household expecting to become the king. Because what had happened was Pandu had renounced the world and Pandu, because of an unfortunate incident while hunting, he had been cursed that if he ever tries to unite with his wives, with any women for that matter, he would be cursed to die.
So it was expected he would not have any children. So Duryodhana grew up with that entitlement mentality that I’m going to be the king. Now, in the meanwhile, Pandu, there was this in the past succession and having a heir was very, very important.
So there was a ritual that if a man can for some reason not impregnate his wife, then in certain sanctified situations, the wife could be impregnated by someone else. And it is only for that purpose they would unite. And the child would be considered, not that person’s child, but rather the family’s heir.
So that was called the Yoga ritual. So Pandu thought that maybe I should do this with the sages. Then Pandu was delighted and he said someone called the best of the gods.
And that’s how the five Pandavas were born. So now through this process, Yudhishthir was born slightly before Duryodhana. In that sense, if you consider the hierarchy, the principle of primogeniture that the oldest son usually becomes the king.
So you could say Yudhishthir was entitled to be the king. But then what happened was Duryodhana had his own spin. Duryodhana said that Pandu had this curse by which he could not have children.
So how do we even know that the Pandavas parentage is valid? So he’s cast as a person in the Pandavas parentage also. So, of course, most people accepted because when Kunti came back from the Himalayas to the Kuru kingdom, many of the leading sages from the forest came there with her. They said, you know, we know what happened actually.
So in that sense, there was no dispute about that. But the point I’m making was that succession lines were not very clear at that time. In one sense, Duryodhana had grown up expecting I would be the king.
I would be the prince and the king eventually, the heir apparent. But Yudhishthir was more in terms of line entitled for it. So it was not clear.
Even if we agree that, OK, Yudhishthir was not the natural successor, but still Duryodhana couldn’t just give the kingdom like that. But when he gave a kingdom, the Pandavas saw that as a matter of the honour of their whole family. That is, in general, Kshatriyas, one of their characteristics is to give charity.
Right. So they didn’t contest it. They were happy to help Karna.
They were not envious of Karna for no reason. Yeah. Let the world never say that somebody from the Kuru vamsha gave charity and then didn’t promise to give charity and didn’t give that charity.
So the Pandavas went along with that. So it was not just Duryodhana’s kindness. It was also in one sense the Pandavas went along with it.
That’s the first point. Good point. Second point is that with respect to the Duryodhana-Karna friendship, it is that Duryodhana, this friendship is a very, you could say, sad example of how a good person can become bad by bad association.
A good person can become bad by bad association. So Karna, till this point, has not really done anything which is questionable, which is immoral. But what happens is that Karna was always looking for acceptance in the Kshatriya community.
And for that, when Duryodhana gave him that acceptance, he time and time again just wanted to please Duryodhana. Now, initially he opposed. Say, for example, when after this Duryodhana made the plan that let’s send the Kauravas, Pandavas away and burn them alive.
Have them burned in Dwaranavat. So Karna said, why do you have to do such things? Just challenge them for a fight. Defeat them and we will win the kingdom.
So Duryodhana was, see, if you consider the power dynamics, Karna was indebted to Duryodhana. So Karna could only suggest. Karna couldn’t impose.
And Duryodhana was much more influenced by Shakuni than by Karna. And Shakuni said, you know, war should never be fought if you can win by other means. So Karna was again and again neglected by Duryodhana.
And then after some time he realised that generally in any friendship, any relationship, no matter how good the relationship is, if we give some suggestions and they are met with disapproval, they are shot down, then what happens is we start, you could say, censoring ourselves after some time. Maybe I shouldn’t speak. This is not going to help.
So that’s what started happening. And in order to gain acceptance within Duryodhana’s circle, Karna also started adopting some of Duryodhana’s ways. It’s like, say, if you consider a child who has been brought up in a very cultured family, no bad habits.
And the child goes to college to hostel. And then everybody is maybe drinking over there, doing drugs. And then you are just a baby who is still drinking your mother’s milk.
And they tease him. And sometimes that child may get under pressure. Just have a sense of acceptance in that social circle.
The child may also start doing those things even though he doesn’t want to do those things. So something like that happened with Karna. That initially he was opposing Duryodhana, but eventually he stopped opposing Duryodhana because he wanted to be accepted in Duryodhana’s inner circle.
And not only stopped opposing, but he started actively going along with Duryodhana’s plans. And you could say perhaps Karna’s darkest moment in the entire Mahabharata comes in the Asat Sabha, in the assembly, in the gambling match when Duryodhana lost everything. When Draupadi was taken, Draupadi was also lost.
At that time, in most dramatisations of the Mahabharata, this part is neglected. That it was actually Karna who suggested. Wow.
Incredible. How the tables flipped for him. He had good sanskaras, good parenting and all that.
And yet he completely, not only just flipped, but truly went to the dark side. Yes, that’s a good way. That’s a Star Wars thing.
He went to the dark side. That’s true. That’s true.
Now, of course, to his credit, later on Karna does say, he says to Bhishma and he says to Krishna also that I regret what I did at that time. What I did with Draupadi. There is never, Duryodhana never says that I regret it.
There is never a single expression of regret from Duryodhana. But at that time, Karna does say that. It is, let Draupadi be dragged into the assembly and let us dishonour her.
Now, that dishonouring, when she was being disrobed, the attempt was made to disrobe her actually. Was that because of lust or was that because of simply power? It’s difficult to discern. If they just wanted Draupadi for themselves, they could have had her separately also.
But that they tried to disrobe her in public, in front of the Pandavas, that was, Draupadi in one sense was a tool for them to humiliate the Pandavas. They are humiliating Draupadi, humiliating the Pandavas also. So now we could say at one level that Karna had been humiliated by Draupadi and therefore he was getting back at her.
OK, but still there is a sense of proportionality. One of the principles in justice is that punishment should be proportional to the crime. So even if we say Draupadi committed a crime or Draupadi did something wrong by refusing Karna’s suitorship, rejecting him as a suitor, well, OK, that is bad.
But is this a proportional thing to actually disrobe a vulnerable lady in public? It is worse than death. It is like the stuff of the worst nightmares for a person. Most people, most women would not be able to survive such a thing, especially in those times.
So this is where even if Karna had a reason to be angry with Draupadi, but he’s suggesting this was heinous and that is an influence of the toxic association of Duryodhana. So we should be grateful, no doubt, if somebody has helped us to be grateful. But gratitude is one virtue.
It is not the only virtue. And gratitude for one thing which somebody has done, should that lead us to the rejection of all other virtues? By being grateful to one person, should we just give up our confidence, our sense of decency? Well, maybe gratitude also has its limits. I give an example for this that, say, if you consider terrorism, Islamic terrorism, if you want to say, most of the people who become Islamic extremists, they are largely from Afghanistan and Pakistan and especially the impoverished parts of those countries.
So imagine there is a child who is growing up impoverished and the child doesn’t have any means of living. The child may die. And at that time, some of these radical right-wing madrasas, those who are factories of terror, they take up such a child.
They say, we will feed you. We will give you comfort. We will give you comforts.
And then the child grows up. At that time, for that child to be grateful to those who have provided the necessities of life for him, that’s good. That’s the actual quality.
But as the child grows up, the child starts realising, oh, these people are training me. They are expecting me to go out and kill innocent people. Just because somebody did one good thing for me, it is a very important good thing.
But does that mean that I am lifelong bound to them? That in my gratitude to them, whatever they want, I should be doing? That is the key question. So in one sense, the Mahabharata, the driving question of the Mahabharata is, what is dharma? Dharma means what is the right thing to do? That’s the key question. Dharma is not just religion.
Dharma is just not some ritual. Dharma is, of course, dharma can mean those things also. But in this context, dharma means the right thing to do.
And what makes the Mahabharata multilayered is that many of the characters, when they do the wrong thing also, it is not because they are evil, but it is because they prioritise a lower value over a higher value. They prioritise a value which should be lower. Say, for example, in this Karna, he, now this is not just Karna, we can look at several other characters also.
Like Bheeshmadev. Like Bheeshmadev also. Even Yudhishthir is going along with the gambling.
Did he really have to gamble? He knew what was going to happen. He says, you know, Kshatriya, when he is cringed, cannot say no to gambling. Yes.
OK. But then did he have to keep gambling so much that he lost everything, and his stake, even his family? Well, so now we have to be very careful to acknowledge that Yudhishthir was not a gambling addict. He was not a compulsive gambler.
But at that time, he felt that the Kshatriya value of being challenged, I cannot refuse. I should not come off as coward. When I’m in challenge, how can I stop? But was that the most important value? Is it the Kshatriya’s virtue of not appearing cowardly? That’s a virtue.
That’s the only value to be prioritised. So this is the tension in Mahabharata where characters often prioritise a lower value over a higher value. So we could say Karna ended up prioritising his friendship with Duryodhana above his own character, his own natural virtues, his own conscience, his own decency.
And that was the cause of his undoing. That’s how he ended up going on the dark side. Yeah.
Very, very interesting because it almost seems impossible. When you hear these stories, you think, how are we going to make the righteous? If Bhishmadev, if Yudhishthir Maharaj, if Karna, if Arjuna, if they are making, if they’re getting confused about their dharma, about what is the right thing to do in the right time, then what hope do we have? Yes, that’s a tough question. I’m not sure whether there’s any easy answer to that.
We can only, broadly speaking, what if you see the Bhagavad Gita also does this. Although in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is there right next to Arjuna and Krishna is there to guide us. No, but after that, Krishna doesn’t just give a straight answer to Arjuna.
I am God. Obey me. Fight.
At least the Bhagavad Gita has these words. What Krishna is doing is basically through the Bhagavad Gita, he’s doing two things. He’s giving us knowledge and he’s giving us processes.
And what are these two for? The knowledge and the processes by which we can connect with the Paramatma within us. We can develop our own conscience. We can develop our Viveka Buddhi.
So Viveka Buddhi conscience. Ultimately, each of us has to take that decision ourselves. We can have our spiritual guides.
We may have our Guru Varga. We have various other external resources which we can definitely turn towards. But ultimately life situation is so individual and so complex that each of us has to take our decision.
And taking that decision means that we need to have developed our conscience. That’s why, if you see, the Mahabharata’s answer is dharmasya tattvam nitham guhayam. The dharma, the truth of dharma, it is secret.
It is hidden in the cave of the heart. And it’s hidden in the cave of the heart and mahajano yena gatah sa pantha. That means, it says, follow the path of the mahajanas.
Follow the path of the great souls. Now this comes in the Bhagavatam. This comes also in the Mahabharata.
Now what does this mean? That the great souls have faced greatly bewildering situations. And how they acted in those situations, we can learn principles from those and then apply them in our lives. It is very difficult.
Choosing the right thing is not easy. And in one sense, Karna’s predicament was difficult. At the same time, in my understanding at least, no matter how much a person values friendship, that act of attempting to disrobe Draupadi is completely unconscionable.
It’s quite black and white. It’s not much grey area there. If Karna ever wanted to be really a Kshatriya, he says, oh, you people don’t accept me as a Kshatriya.
The world doesn’t accept me as a Kshatriya. Well, what defines a Kshatriya? The literal meaning of your Kshatriya is shata, trayate iti kshatriya. Shata is hurt, injury.
Trayate is protects. That means one who protects people from harm, people from injury. So one who protects citizens, citizens, but in general, those who are disempowered, those who protects them from injury, from hurt.
So here would have been the best example for Karna to actually exhibit a Kshatriya characteristic. Like that, Karna could have put his foot down. No, you cannot do this.
This is against Kshatriya principles. Far from that, it was Karna who suggested that. So we can say that here, Karna, the same Karna who so much wanted to be accepted as Kshatriya, was unable to truly follow the principles of being a Kshatriya.
This word that you explained, Kshatriya, is very powerful. It’s very interesting that you think to protect one from hurt, but is somebody who takes up arms. So to hurt someone, to protect someone, you must hurt someone.
It’s almost like you have to be ready to fight to protect. Yeah, that is true. Very interesting.
It’s like almost a paradox, oxymoron. Anyway, sorry. Yeah, it is one of the ironies of life.
Like even the United Nations sometimes sends peacekeeping force. So you want peace, but you need force to keep peace. So I think an American president said that we will have a strong army and that will prevent wars.
I won’t say that is true, but to some extent, yes. That if the other party knows that there will be consequences if I try to mess with these people, then that also creates a level of deterrence. So, yes, Kshatriyas have to be ready to use force, have to be ready to inflict violence to prevent others, prevent social disruptors from taking the law in their hands, from inflicting violence.
Very interesting. So just to get a sense of how much Karna’s compass went off, just to get a sense of that, how much Karna’s compass, moral compass went off. Let’s try to understand what is happening.
Now, say here, suppose there have always been, say, lusty, abusive men throughout human history who have abused women. That is there. But normally somebody who does something like this will do it in a dark, secret place where that person will not be caught.
But if somebody does something like that, not in a dark, secret place, but in public, that means that person is not only doing something wrong, but that person has no fear that I will be held accountable for doing this wrong thing. Now, what do you think of that? If somebody does a crime like this in the police station itself or in the court room itself, then that means that person has become completely brazen. They have become so drunk with their own power that they are flouting all the systems of law.
Now, to make this worse, if a policeman, maybe a police inspector or someone does a crime like this inside the police station, how heinous would it be? Now, in math, you have like a number, you have a number squared, number cubed, and you get a number quadrupled. So, for a policeman to do a crime like this or a police inspector to do a crime like this inside a police station, would be a gross misconduct. This is beyond, beyond reprehensible.
So, it’s like a fourth level crime. So, in one sense, what Karna did over there, what Karna, he instigated over there with Draupadi was that horrendous, that heinous an action. So, that was the extent to which, unfortunately, his moral compass went off by bad association.
Would you say that this is the reason why Shri Krishna, you know, Bhagwan, he’s still, even after understanding that, you know, maybe Karna is not fully to blame, his bad luck, you see that Krishna still does not cut him any slack. You know, he allows some cheating behaviour to happen so that Karna can be, you know, taken to task. So, if you could explain, how does Krishna, you know, he’s supposed to be neutral, he’s supposed to be everybody’s friend, why is he then, in one sense, taking sides? Yes, maybe before we go to that, actually, we can look at how Karna, in spite of all that he had done, still got a chance from Krishna.
When Krishna came as Shanti Doodh, with a peace proposal to Duryodhana, he offered peace on the most accommodating of terms. In fact, he said that, you can just give the Pandavas five villages. They are five Kshatriyas, let them rule over five villages.
That’s all that they want. And then Duryodhana replied that, I won’t give them enough land, even to put the tip of a needle through. So, it is, there is one thing is saying no, and the other is saying, like slamming the door in the face of someone.
If we invite somebody for a programme, they say, you know, I have this, I have this thing to do, I have that thing to do, so I can’t come for the programme. Now, it may be a lie, but they are making some excuse so they don’t come for the programme. But imagine if somebody says, imagine somebody says, you know, even if I die, my dead body will never come to your programme.
Yeah, vengeful, just over the top. So, Duryodhana’s rejection was like that. Now, when Krishna offered the peace proposal, actually Krishna’s proposal was so persuasive that not only all the elders, none of the elders like Bhishma or Drona wanted the war, but even Dushasan was temporarily swayed.
Dushasan said that, Duryodhana, if Duryodhana doesn’t agree with Krishna, we will arrest Duryodhana and hand him over to Krishna. Duryodhana was alarmed. Krishna is influencing too much.
Duryodhana just walked out. And when Duryodhana walked out of that assembly, then all his brothers started saying, should we follow Duryodhana or should we follow Dushasan? And then Duryodhana was the natural leader and Dushasan was the second leader. All the other 98 brothers went with Duryodhana.
Dushasan was left all alone. And Dushasan was left all alone. What happened? Dushasan said, I’ll also go.
And now Duryodhana was an expert manipulator. And Duryodhana could sense that Dushasan is coming in now. He could have blasted at Dushasan.
How dare you betray me like this? But he sensed that Dushasan is outside the door thinking of coming inside and Duryodhana said, Krishna is a great word juggler. He can fool everyone. The way he speaks, even intelligent people can be misled by his words.
Isn’t that what happened to Dushasan? I turned towards Dushasan. Now what happened is that Dushasan got a face saving excuse over here. So the point I’m making is that Krishna’s peace proposal was very, very persuasive, but Duryodhana rejected it.
So then the next day, when before Krishna was going back, Krishna told Karna, I want to meet you. And he told Karna the truth that you are actually the son of Kunti. You are actually the first son of Kunti born before her marriage.
And therefore, actually you deserve to be the king. Now what Duryodhana has given you, you by your birth deserve much more. You will have a position greater than Yudhishthira.
The person whose respect you wanted, Arjuna, that Arjuna will be, you will be the older brother of Arjuna. Arjuna will follow you the way the Devatas follow Indra. He says reclaim what is yours by birth.
Reclaim the right that is yours and come on the side of the Pandavas. Come on the side of virtue. This particular proposal is actually remarkably accommodating of Krishna.
And now somebody might say that Karna refused the proposal. But it’s interesting what all Karna says at that time. He says, Krishna, what you’re saying is true.
I have had ominous dreams. He had an inkling that something was. Duryodhana is wearing white and is in a chariot that is taking him towards the heavens.
And Duryodhana is dressed in black and is in a car that is taking him downwards. So that indicates that Krishna is going to be, that Yudhishthira will be victorious and Duryodhana will be defeated. But he said that Duryodhana helped me when no one would.
I cannot betray him now. It is by his confidence in my faithfulness to him, in my military prowess that he has challenged the Pandavas. So how can I say no to him now? I cannot let him down.
He said, I have made a life here. I have my parents here. I have a wife.
I have children. I cannot reject it all just to become a part of the Pandava family. So he, in one sense, again, claims that his choice is virtuous.
Again, it’s like between two virtues when we have to choose which is a higher virtue. That is something which is not an easy decision. So now, yes, as a friend, you have to be faithful to a friend.
But to what extent? If that friend is going on a wrong path, what does our friendship mean? Does it mean we go on the wrong path with them or that we stop them from going on the wrong path? Now, in many ways, if Karna had chosen to come on Krishna’s side, on the Pandava side rather, then it could have actually broken the back of Duryodhana’s antagonism. Because although Duryodhana had very powerful warriors, he had Bhishma with him, he had Drona with him, he had Ashwathama with him, but none of them shared his animosity towards the Kauravas, towards the Pandavas. So none of them, they were always kindly disposed towards the Pandavas, but they somehow circumstantially had to fight on the side of Duryodhana.
So the only person apart from his brothers who shared his animosity was Karna. And if Karna had gone on the side of the Pandavas, maybe the whole war could have been avoided. Or at least the war wouldn’t have been that bitter.
So Krishna gave Karna that choice. And in one sense, Karna could have been a truer friend to Duryodhana by stopping him from a war that would lead to Duryodhana’s death, it would lead to the death of all his 99 brothers, that would lead to the death of thousands and thousands and thousands of warriors. So maybe that would have been a better way for Karna to show his friendship to Duryodhana.
Of course. So now that’s one thing. And as far as parents and his family is concerned, even there Krishna was not telling Karna to reject his family.
It is that there is no rejection of his family. Just like if you look at Krishna’s own example. He has two sets of parents.
So Krishna never rejected Yashoda and Nanda Maharaj. So similarly Karna wouldn’t have rejected Adhirata and that family just because he became a part of Kunti’s family or the Kuru family. So on one side, you can say that he got his ethics terribly wrong over here.
So he got that terrible decision. And that’s why you could say at this point, Karna sealed his fate. It was this decision to stay on with the Kauravas when Krishna had given him the opportunity to come to the virtuous side.
That is when he went terribly wrong. So I have written an elaborate set of articles, which I hope in future to make into a book about Karna. But this particular choice, it was a choice between the word of honour and the life of honour.
Choice between the word of honour. The word of honour is he has told Duryodhana, you will have my lifelong friendship. So is the word of honour important or is the life of honour? Life of honour means that he lives true to his own values, true to the values of decency and dharma or he goes along with somebody who is very adharmic.
So that is the choice he had because this unfortunate choice sealed his fate. Well, wouldn’t we say that Bhishma Pitamah had the same dilemma and he also chose the wrong path. But how did he then achieve liberation and the love of Krishna? Because he also had the same dilemma.
He had to keep his Pratigya. That is the only reason why he was fighting. That is true.
That is true. Now, you know, Bhishma is himself a very complex character. Quickly I’ll mention that.
Two things that first is, although Bhishma went along with Duryodhana because he felt I was bound by my vow. But still Bhishma made his concerns, his objections known at every occasion. Time and time he told Duryodhana that you cannot win against Krishna.
You are against the side of work. From beginning to end he was doing that. So now, see, there is a very devotional way of looking at it and there is a, you could say, analytical or karmic way of looking at it.
So one sense from the analytical or karmic way of looking at it, Bhishma also did a very great wrong when he watched on when Draupadi was being dishonoured, when he chose to fight on the side of Kauravas. And the consequence of that was that he suffered great bodily pain. He had to lie on that arrow bed for weeks together.
It was excruciatingly painful. That is a karmic way of analysing it. He did a wrong and he had to get results for that.
At the same time, his heart was in the right place. His heart was in the right place, although his head made a wrong calculation. He was always devoted to Krishna and Krishna understood that.
And in one sense, Krishna used Bhishma Pitamaha to illustrate a principle that no matter how powerful you are, if you go against the cause of Dharma, you will eventually be destroyed. So you could say Bhishma, he was used as an illustration for that service. So now we can say that Krishna did not overlook his wrong choice because of his bhakti, that he made a wrong choice and there were consequences for that wrong choice.
Krishna also did not overlook his bhakti because of his wrong choice. You were a devoted person and that is why Krishna, you’ve made one wrong choice, but that does not mean that I reject you. Krishna came with Bhishma at the last time in his life and was there with him to help him have the most perfect departure from the world.
Yes. So you could say there are degrees of wrong choices also. And is it like one wrong choice within a whole life which has gone on the wrong track? Or in one wrong choice within a life, which one is on the right track and one is trying to get out of the right track? So that is the difference between Krishna and Karna.
Great. Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah. Great clarification. Yes.
Yes. So, yeah, go on. Well, I was just going to say that, you know, sorry, there’s a delay there.
Well, you know, we’re at one an hour and 25 minutes. So I’ll let you, you know, maybe finish the last few topics, last few points that we have on here. And we’ll have to possibly come come back another day for the questions, because there are many questions.
But I’m conscious that you have another programme today as well. Yeah. So maybe I’ll just take two points.
The first is about was Karna. You know, why did Krishna eventually have Karna killed unfairly? I can see that there’s a comment over here that Karna didn’t know Krishna was God. Well, that is that’s true.
But, you know, nowhere in the Mahabharata does Krishna make the case that I am God. So you have to, you have to obey me. That could be one argument, but that’s not the only argument.
And, you know, even if he didn’t know that Krishna was God, Krishna had just shown his Virata Rupa, his Vishnu Rupa in the Guru assembly. So he could have shown this would be extraordinary. Certainly.
My point is that that even if he doesn’t accept Krishna as God, still, from the point of view of ethics, what Krishna said made ethical sense. Unfortunately, except that. So then eventually, when Karna was killed unfairly, that let’s quickly recap the incident.
So this was the 17th day of the war. And Karna’s chariot started sinking into the ground. And he realised that I cannot fight if I am immobilised.
So he got off his chariot and he tried to pull the wheel out. And at that time, he told Arjuna, Arjuna, don’t entertain thoughts which are entertained by cowards. Remember the codes of morality and wait for me till I’m ready to fight.
So Arjuna beautifully put his bow down. And at that time, Krishna said to Karna, Oh, Karna, it is fortunate indeed that today you remember the codes of morality. Was it the codes of morality by which you suggested that Draupadi be disrobed? Was it the codes of morality by which you conspired with the Kauravas to have the Pandavas along with their mother burnt alive? Was it the codes of morality by which you along with five other warriors ganged up on the 16 year old Abhimanyu and killed him? Krishna went on and gave a list of all the wrongdoings which Karna had been a part of.
And he said, if you follow those codes of morality, Arjuna will follow those same codes of morality today. And Arjuna shot. And Karna was beheaded.
So the point I would like to make is here, Krishna is teaching one particular principle over here. You can say Chanakya Pandit calls it Shatho Shathyam. With the cunning, be cunning.
Don’t be cunning on your own. But with the cunning, don’t be naive. Don’t be naive.
If the opponent is cunning, be cunning with them. Now specifically the killing of Karna from the codes of morality could seem to be immoral. But actually Karna had himself done the same thing to Arjuna’s son.
Abhimanyu’s chariot had been destroyed and Abhimanyu was on the ground. Karna had been among the warriors who had been shooting at him. Abhimanyu had been defenceless.
He had been defenceless and Karna shot at him. Abhimanyu was trying to grab a wheel and grab a mace, whatever he could and he could fight. So in one sense, Arjuna was not the first wrongdoer over there.
Arjuna did to Karna what Karna had done to Arjuna’s son with fatal consequences. So in one sense, karma hits you back. What he did came back to him.
Another point is that some people say that Karna was actually a better archer and Arjuna couldn’t have killed Karna by any honest means. And that’s why he had to use this. Well, not necessarily.
Now I won’t go into the full history but I’ll quickly recap the incidents when they had an encounter. So if we keep a score, I talk about the martial exhibition, Karna equated Arjuna but he couldn’t exceed Arjuna. So it was Karna 0, Arjuna 0. Then after that when Drupada wanted his Guru Dakshina, he said you arrest Drona and bring him before me.
So Duryodhana went and attacked Drona and Karna also went with him. But Drupada defeated Duryodhana and Karna together. Then after that the Pandavas went and they attacked Drupada and Pandavas defeated Drupada.
So it was not a direct match between Karna and Arjuna but Arjuna defeated Drupada. So you could say Arjuna won, Karna 0. Then after that, during Draupadi’s swayamvar, after Arjuna won Draupadi’s hand, they attacked. So when all the Kshatriyas attacked, at that time Arjuna and Bhima, they fought.
So eventually it became like a face off between Arjuna and Karna. And Karna was initially fighting lightly because he didn’t want to injure a Brahmana. But Arjuna soon countered all his arrows and Karna realised I can’t win over here.
And Karna just put down his bow. So that was again a draw. Neither of them won.
Then after that, so that was the third encounter, the fourth encounter between them was at Virat. When the Pandavas got over, at that time Arjuna was alone on one side and the entire Kaurava army was there on the other side. And Karna was also there in that army.
So at that time Arjuna defeated all of them including Karna. So this is Arjuna 2, Karna 0. So there is not a single incident in the Mahabharata where Karna came anywhere near defeating Arjuna. So that means that when Krishna told Arjuna to kill Karna while he was charioteer of his chariot, that was not because Arjuna was not competent of defeating Karna.
It is more that Krishna wanted to teach a message, teach a lesson, send a message that don’t be naive while dealing with cunning people. With the cunning, you can be cunning. So yes, that cutting off his head that has become immortalised.
That you know how is unfair. But maybe we have to immortalise Abhimanyu’s killing of which Karna was also part. So Karna is overall.
Yes, life treated him unfairly, but life treats everyone unfairly. Ultimately, karma was not doomed by his by the unfairness that with which his life began. Karma was doomed by the wrong choices that he made.
So in that sense, that’s why I said Karna. Yes. Was he a wrong hero? Well, yes.
Everybody is wronged by life in some way or the other. And he was terribly wrong. But everybody is wrong.
But ultimately, he’s a wrong hero. He made wrong choices. And that’s what led to terrible consequences for him.
Wonderful. I know there’s so much ground to cover today, but I really appreciate it. I’m just going to answer this one.
Sorry, this one here. Because it seems that this somehow becomes a standard. Koi doodh ka dhula hua nahi tha.
Matlab Pandav bhi utne hi kharab the aur Gaurav bhi utne hi kharab the. You know, someone might say that that’s the conclusion. But actually, that’s not what we’re saying at all.
That is the opposite of the conclusion here. No, because doodh ke dhula hua hone se kya paida? Dharma ki path par chalne ka point hai. The point here.
Complexity means that, yes, it is true that nobody’s character is completely spotless. Because reality is complex. We all have to make decisions.
And sometimes even the best among us may make decisions which may regret. But just because, you know, there are everybody that there is no that nobody is white. That doesn’t mean nobody spotlessly white.
That doesn’t mean that everyone is equally grey. Exactly. That is, there are, you could say, if you want to put a moral compass, Yudhishthir and the Pandavas were quite virtuous.
Duryodhana was quite vicious. Shakuni was quite vicious. Karna could have been on the side of virtue.
But by his actions as the Mahabharata narrative moves forward, he moves from the side of virtue more and more towards the side of vice. So, yes, there is moral complexity. But moral, there is a difference between moral complexity and moral relativism.
Moral relativism means there is no right or wrong. Moral complexity means nobody, it’s not that every one person is absolutely good. Another person is absolutely bad.
There is moral complexity, but that doesn’t mean moral relativism. Relatively speaking, Arjuna did act much more virtuously throughout his life. And Karna did make choices which were completely against virtue.
Right. Right. Thank you.
And I think that was a great point to just highlight. Would you like to just summarise everything or are you running out of time? Yes, thank you for that. OK.
Oh, maybe one point is about Kunti. I just mentioned that. Now, was Kunti wrong in abandoning her son in their childhood? Very difficult to decide.
What could she do? She was just a teenage girl at that time and she had prayed to Suryadev and she got a, she got the son. She didn’t know what to do with him. So now it is not that she simply abandoned the son.
That is something in those situations for a woman to have a child outside marriage. Even today, it is not, it is not very easily accepted in most societies. But at that time, it was, it would have been very, very difficult.
So she didn’t really have much choices. But even then, she didn’t simply abandon the child. Actually, she got a very good, very good, safe, sturdy wooden basket.
She filled it with not just blankets and other things to comfort the child. She also put a lot of precious jewels over there from her own jewellery so that whoever found this child, they would know that he is not an ordinary child. He’s from a royal family or he’s from an illustrious family and they would take care of the child.
And then when she put that child, she put that child in the water, in the river. At that time, she put the child in the river at a time when the river tides were relatively gentle. She didn’t drown the child.
And she prayed to Suryadeva, this is your son. Please take care of him. She prayed to Vayu, please take this child to a loving, to a set of loving parents.
And she prayed to Lord Vishnu, please. Please take care of this child. So Kunti didn’t simply heartlessly abandon her child.
That’s one thing. And then even when Kunti, she told Karna, just before the war, that actually you are my son before and I had you before my marriage, told her what all had happened. So this was, some people say this was just Karna, Kunti’s attempt to weaken Karna’s morale.
She didn’t tell the Pandavas, but she told Karna. Why did she do like that? So Karna knew, so Karna couldn’t fight wholeheartedly against the Pandavas. Because he knew they were his brothers.
Well, there is, as far as the Mahabharata narrative goes, there is no indication that Karna’s resolve to fight weakened. Now, she just wanted to save her sons. Well, is that a bad desire? For every mother, she will want to protect her children.
So she wanted to save her son. And Karna told her, now Karna had a reputation of being dhanavir, a person who is very charitable. So he told her that you have come to me with a request.
Kunti’s request was, you come on the Pandavas side. I will tell Yudhishthira, you come on the Pandavas side. You don’t fight with Duryodhana or fight on Duryodhana’s side.
She said, I can’t do that. But I, anybody who comes to me, that person will never go disappointed. So I give you a promise that you will always have five sons.
I will not kill any of your other four sons. I will. I have a lifelong rivalry with Arjuna.
But he would not attack any of the other sons. Generosity. But that was not what Kunti had asked him.
That’s very important to understand. Kunti’s hope was to avoid a war between her sons. But was it by weakening one son? No.
And Karna told her, don’t tell your other son, don’t tell Yudhishthira, don’t tell the Pandavas. No, that he said that I want this to be a fair fight. I want to show the world that I am better than Arjuna.
If Arjuna knows this, if Yudhishthira knows this, they will not fight. So it was not that Draupadi selectively chose to manipulate Karna. That’s one thing.
And yeah, so it is not that Kunti actually. So Karna was charitable, no doubt. There is this comment about Karna gave his Kavach and Kundal to Suryadev when he came.
Indra came as a Brahmin and asked him for charity. So he had a Kavach which made him undefeatable. And he gave that Kavach in charity.
Well, you know, there are two different things over here. There is not being defeated and there is winning. Or not being defeated and not being killed.
Not being killed and winning. Actually, I forgot one more incident that before the Kurukshetra war, when the Pandavas were in the forest, at that time Duryodhana came to parade his wealth before the Pandavas. Just see how wealthy I am, how poor you are.
And at that time, they were in Kamyavan. And the place where the Pandavas were staying, on the other side the Gandharvas were staying. The Gandharvas were sporting basically.
And Duryodhana said I am the king of the earth. So all of you Gandharvas, get out of here. I want to enjoy.
Gandharvas said no, we don’t obey you. We are Gandharvas. Duryodhana got into a fight with them.
And when Duryodhana got into a fight with them, at that time the Gandharvas effortlessly defeated Duryodhana, Dushasan, Karna, Shakuni. In fact, Karna fled at that time. And Duryodhana was arrested.
And at that time, one of Duryodhana’s soldiers, he ran over Duryodhana. Duryodhana has been arrested. Then Yudhishthira said, oh, he is a member of our family.
He had come with the royal ladies also, his queens and others. They have also been arrested. Bhima and Yudhishthira, you and Arjuna, you go and save him.
So then Arjuna went and defeated the Gandharvas. So the point I am making is that the Gandharvas defeated Karna and Arjuna defeated the Gandharvas. So you could say even before the final match, the score was 3-0.
But I was reminded of this point was that his armour meant that he would not be killed. But that did not mean he would not be defeated, he would not be wounded. In fact, in the fight with the Gandharvas, he was so badly wounded that he just had to retreat.
And he turned away and retreated. You could say he fled. So he could be defeated.
So, yes, was it a charity? Well, you could say at one level it was a charity. He gave up his protection from death. But in exchange, he got a blessing.
And what was it? A blessing was the Shakti weapon. The Shakti weapon was something which is an arrow which nobody could counter. And with that arrow he hoped to kill Arjuna.
So in one sense, was it a charity or was it like a deal? Was it a swap? I give up my protection from death so that I can get a tool by which I can ensure my enemy’s death. Well, that’s not exactly charity. It’s a deal.
And Arjuna, when he gave that charity also, he said later on, he said, I know, I know that you are, you are Indra and you have come. In fact, Suryadev had come and told me that Indra will come like this and you don’t give him that charity. So in that sense, he he expected that Indra will also Indra is a devata.
So he’ll also be expected to do something to me in return if I do something for him, if I propitiate him. So in that sense, he was charitable. But at least in this case, his charity was also calculative.
I’ll get something in return. Right. So I think that is just one part of the question.
So we could go on, but I think I’ll summarise with you. Yes. Yes, please.
Are there any specific questions about Karna that you see in the chat? There’s quite a few, but not not any, not any particular for Karna. No, not at the moment. I think you’ve addressed most of them.
Yes, I think we are discussed mostly about Karna quite comprehensively now as possible. So I’ll summarise. So I started by discussing about.
Yes. Was life unfair to Karna? Yes, definitely it was. Although he was born in the royal family, he was given away by his mother who had him before birth.
So you didn’t get royal privileges. But then life is unfair to everyone. Ultimately, just in different ways.
Arjuna also didn’t have it easy. He lost his father. He was threatened while with his life, lived under constant threat of life, even while at home.
So in that sense, life makes it tough. Everybody can complain about how life has been unfair to them. And because Karna’s, the unfairness that Karna was subjected to plays into the narrative that India had this terrible caste system which discriminated against people.
So he becomes the poster child for that. But but everybody gets a bad set of cards. Nobody gets a perfect set of cards.
How we played is what matters. And to a particular point, both Karna and Arjuna played their cards well. They both, despite obstacles, went on to become great archers.
And both of them did get a game changing moment when they formed the powerful alliance. Arjuna with Drupada and Karna with Duryodhana. And that turned their fortunes.
Unfortunately, what happened was Karna, Arjuna’s alliance with Drupada didn’t in any way corrode his character. But because Karna was allied with Duryodhana, who was significantly evil. So Karna became an example of how a good person becomes bad by bad association.
And then Karna, out of his commitment or gratitude to Duryodhana, started losing his moral compass. So much so that instead of opposing Duryodhana’s vicious activities, he assisted in them. It was he who unfortunately, so we could say that he felt insulted by Draupadi’s refusing to consider his stuteer as a swayamvar.
And yeah, but again, was that solely because of caste or was it just Draupadi asserting her right as a bride who can choose her groom? So even if he had felt insulted at that time, there is always a proportionality for him to suggest that Draupadi be disrobed. That was the lowest moment of his life. That was his going to the darkest in the dark side.
And it is like a person who always wanted to be a Kshatriya, which means a protector of people, ended up doing the very opposite of protecting people. And that was a very heinous act. You could say like a person trying to dishonour a woman, not just dishonour a woman in secret, in public, but in the house of law, in the assembly where law is to be, code where law is to be established.
And that is not just a person, but a person who is meant to be a protector. So it’s like you could say wrong action quadrupled, not just wrong cube, but wrong quadrupled. And even after that, Krishna gave him a chance.
And so Karna’s tragedy is that, Karna’s tragedy reflects the moral complexity of the Mahabharata. What is the right thing to do? So it is when there are two options which are right, then it becomes problematic. Is one more right than the others? So Karna, should he have been faithful to his friend lifelong? Or should he have stayed true to his own virtuous character? And stuck to decency, stuck to culture, stuck to actual Kshatriya virtues.
This one person who gave him official or formal respect as a Kshatriya, but that very person actually took away his Kshatriya character, prevented him from actually being a protector of people. His choice was a life of honour or the word of honour. So there are certain distortions and dramatised depictions of the Mahabharata.
Draupadi never went out of her way to insult Karna. And Draupadi didn’t insult Duryodhana specifically also, by saying Andhika beta andha. And even if Karna felt insulted by Draupadi, there is a proportionality.
She not accepting her suit and then he trying to dishonour, disrobe her in public. It’s completely disproportionate. So then when he rejected Krishna’s proposal, there also he prioritised friendship or gratitude over all other virtues.
It’s like, say, a child whose life is saved by a terrorist organisation. That person says, oh, because I’m grateful. So lifelong I’ll become an instrument of terror and kill innocent people.
You have to go that far. And even if he said that I have a life with my parents here, Krishna was not telling him to leave that. He could have had dual parents.
So it was his own choice that sealed his fate. And finally, when Karna was killed unfairly, well, three things in that. First of all, Krishna, Arjuna could have killed him fairly.
We talked about how in their overall peace-offs, Arjuna’s score was 3-0. Karna was never the better archer. But Krishna wanted to illustrate that with the cunning, you can be cunning.
So what Karna had done to Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu, Krishna told Arjuna to do that to Karna. So Karna is a hero, is a complex. He reflects the moral complexity of the Mahabharata.
But moral complexity doesn’t mean moral relativism. Everybody, nobody is white. So everybody is.
Yes, nobody may be spotlessly white, but that doesn’t mean everybody is black. There are lesser and more white or black. Karna was a person who could have been white.
But by his bad association and by his bad choices, he went more and more on the dark side. And that’s because life may have wronged him. But eventually, he was not just a wrong hero.
He became a wrong hero. That’s how he was. Our reference to black and white has nothing to do with skin colour.
It was just a comment that was left here. Where the commenter was saying that, oh, nobody is Dhulahua. No one is as washed as white as, you know, as we imagine the Pandavas should be.
Meaning he was referring to the kind of deception that Krishna and Arjuna may have used to kill Karna. Not deception, but killing him when he was down in one sense. Anyway, so we just want to make that.
Thank you so much, Guru. Really, really good questions. I have spoken on this topic many times before, but your discussion brought your questions brought up many more points than what I have spoken before.
Thank you so much. Very, very grateful. We’ll be back soon.
And maybe next time we can address actual Varna, the Varna system and how it’s applicable in today’s world. I think that would might be very relevant. Thank you for everyone listening.
Please do share it. And yes, thank you again, Guru. Please pray for us.