Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[ManishH]

The other curiosity then is that in "classical" there is greater "diversity" and plurality of usage for the same concept compared to the Vedic. In every genetic evolutionary process, the greatest diversity would be found in the original or ancestral or founding region, while as migrations take place the descendant populations will have decreasing diversity.

The cause for expressive diversity (alankara) in Classical is a larger corpus of prose and poetry. All because (more) humans now have (more) leisure to apply intellectual faculties. Poets use creativity to compete for patronage.

Note that Classical has also (deliberately) lost diversity in other aspects, like grammar : the loss of verb moods like injunctive and optative, fewer special cases for nominal declensions.

[ManishH]

ManishH ji,

What about a case like modern Persian, grafted and transformed by the Arabic influence? Are the transformations of Pahlavi->Farsi consistent with the 'regularities' you describe for Vedic->Sanskrit?

Also, you mentioned that 'L' is absent in Avestan, where "R" is preponderant. I find that fascinating, if true. So then even ethnonyms like "Pahlavi", "Bahlika", etc were not known as such in Avestan?

Carlji,

For Avestan (Eastern Iran) consonants, see missing L in ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_la ... Consonants

Whereas Old Persian (Western Iran) was used in inscriptions of Achaemnid Empire which has the L sound (probably Semitic influence) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian#Phonology

I don't have any insights on how these transformed into later Pahlavi or Farsi languages; but probably orthogonal to Sanskrit

This old book on Indo-Iranian phonology talks about late R->L changes in Indic as well as Iranian ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=8jM3AA ... 22&f=false

[brihaspati]

ManishH ji,
for Bengali in particular, there is no pure classical pronunciation of "k(murdha)s" left - all transform to "kkh" (the "kkha") sound. What you point out as regularity - and say is not uniformity - is when you are consider the other phonetic bits in the word that come before or after or some apparently being stressed and more than others. Pakshi ->paakhi - might have changed the "pa" to "paa", but th real issue of "ksh" going to "kha" remains the same because the post vowel is merely being added on after the full transformation and giving less stress than "saakkhi" (saakshi). They have done the same with "wa" and "ba" - uniform transformation. Just as in ks - no exceptions found.

Moreover many parts of non-urban Bengalis still use "pakkhi". Urban Bengali language has become almost mongrel - forgive me.

[brihaspati]

The other curiosity then is that in "classical" there is greater "diversity" and plurality of usage for the same concept compared to the Vedic. In every genetic evolutionary process, the greatest diversity would be found in the original or ancestral or founding region, while as migrations take place the descendant populations will have decreasing diversity.

The cause for expressive diversity (alankara) in Classical is a larger corpus of prose and poetry. All because (more) humans now have (more) leisure to apply intellectual faculties. Poets use creativity to compete for patronage.

Note that Classical has also (deliberately) lost diversity in other aspects, like grammar : the loss of verb moods like injunctive and optative, fewer special cases for nominal declensions.

Words - more words also. Again you are assuming an inherent time line of development and succession and using assumed social structures to justify a hypothesis - like greater leisure and professional poets dependent on patronage. Language is not sown in infertile and arid fields. To appreciate such constructions people needed to be trained before and exposed to such stuff, which in turn implies a prior development than the period allegedly being ascribed to.

[member_20317]

Perhaps the reason why C.K. Raju claims that west had a bloody hard time trying to digest zero.

Acharya ji, if I claim that Darshan has as much to do with Philosophy as Dharma has to Religion and Raamayan has with say the best of hollywood, would I be stepping out of line.

I dont understand. Can you elaborate

Acharya ji, me just a stupid SDRE. Cannot even locate where and in what context I wrote that.

C.K.Raju part is easier though:

By C. K. Raju -
The question here is why did it take so many centuries for Europe to understand and accept the
Indian techniques of arithmetic? One way to understand this is that the Greek/Roman system
of numeration was additive: XXIII meant X + X + I + I + I, and from this perspective, 20 was
interpreted as 2 + 0 and felt to be the same as 2 or 2000. Hence, from sifr (= cypher), zephyr, to
zero, as connoting something mysterious and incomprehensible. Hence, also, 13th c. Florence
first passed the law, distrusting zero, that in a financial instrument (such as a cheque) numbers
must be written also in words (to avoid putting any number of zeros at the end). While this
difficulty is comprehensible, it is hard to understand why it took so many centuries to resolve.
Zero (or the place value system) may have been confusing for Europeans, but why was it so
confusing? This suggests that there are deeper issues here.

http://ckraju.net/papers/indarith.pdf

http://ckraju.net/blog/?p=38#more-38

Though I suspect you guru log already know all this. But still for the benefit of other interloping SDREs, lets just tolerate this post.

[SwamyG]

A documentary about what Bhagwad Gita is about. Good watch.
http://www.learner.org/courses/worldlit/gita/watch/

[abhishek_sharma]

From Narendra Kohli's "Mahasamar Volume 9"

1. He claims that Kunti wanted all five Pandavas to marry Draupadi. (She was not referring to food when she asked them to "share it among yourselves". Since she used to cook food, there was no question of asking them to share it.). She believed that Draupadi would keep her sons together. It is also claimed that she knew that her sons had gone to the swayambar.

2. Madri did not get the title of 'sati'. The term used for her action is "chita-rohan". (why?)

3. Becoming a Sati was not common in Mahabharat. Women like Satyavati, Ambika, Ambalika and Kunti lived after the death of their husbands.

Some parts of the book sound like CTs.

[johneeG]

The Riddle of Fate and Free-Will...

(A dialogue between His Holiness Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami and a Disciple):


[His Holiness was the Sringeri Mathadhipati 1912-1954.]

H.H. : I hope you are pursuing your studies in the Vedanta as usual?

D. : Though not regularly, I do make some occasional study.

H.H. : In the course of your studies, you may have come across many doubts.

D. : Yes, one doubt repeatedly comes up to my mind.

H.H. : What is it?

D. : It is the problem of the eternal conflict between fate and free-will. What are their respective provinces and how can the conflict be avoided?

H.H. : If presented in the way you have done it, the problem would baffle even the highest of thinkers.

D. : What is wrong with my presentation? I only stated the problem and did not even explain how I find it to be a difficult one.

H.H. : Your difficulty arises in the very statement of the problem.

D. : How?

H.H. : A conflict arises only if there are two things. There can be no conflict if there is only one thing.

D. : But here there are two things, fate and free-will.

H.H. : Exactly. It is this assumption of yours that is responsible for your problem.

D. : It is not my assumption at all. How can I ignore the fact that the two things exist as independent factors, whether I grant their existence or not?

H.H. : That is where you are wrong again.

D. : How?

H.H. : As a follower of our Sanatana Dharma, you must know that fate is nothing extraneous to yourself, but only the sum total of the results of your past actions.

As God is but the dispenser of the fruits of actions, fate, representing those fruits, is not his creation but only yours. Free-will is what you exercise when you act now.

D. : Still I do not see how they are not two distinct things.

H.H. : Have it this way. Fate is past karma; free-will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.

D. : But the difference in time is a vital difference which we cannot possibly overlook.

H.H. : I do not want you to overlook it, but only to study it more deeply. The present is before you and, by the exercise of free-will, you can attempt to shape it.

The past is past and is therefore beyond your vision and is rightly called adrishta, the unseen. You cannot reasonably attempt to find out the relative strength of two things unless both of them are before you. But, by our very definition, free-will, the present karma, alone is before you and fate, the past karma, is invisible.

Even if you see two wrestlers right in front of you, you cannot decide about their relative strength. For, one may have weight, the other agility; one muscles and the other tenacity; one the benefit of practice and the other coolness of judgment and so on. We can go on building arguments on arguments to conclude that a particular wrestler will be the winner.

But experience shows that each of these qualifications may fail at any time or may prove to be a disqualification. The only practical method of determining their relative strength will be to make them wrestle.

While this is so, how do you expect to find by means of arguments a solution to the problem of the relative value of fate and free-will when the former by its very nature is unseen!

D. : Is there no way then of solving this problem?

H.H. : There is this way. The wrestlers must fight with each other and prove which of them is the stronger.

D. : In other words, the problem of conflict will get solved only at the end of the conflict. But at that time the problem will have ceased to have any practical significance.

H.H. : Not only so, it will cease to exist.

D. : That is, before the conflict begins, the problem is incapable of solution; and, after the conflict ends, it is no longer necessary to find a solution.

H.H. : Just so. In either case, it is profitless to embark on the inquiry as to the relative strength of fate and free-will.


A Guide

D. : Does Your Holiness then mean to say that we must resign ourselves to fate?

H.H. : Certainly not. On the other hand, you must devote yourself to free-will.

D. : How can that be?

H.H. : Fate, as I told you, is the resultant of the past exercise of your free-will. By exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate.

By exercising your free-will in the present, I want you to wipe out your past record if it hurts you, or to add to it if you find it enjoyable.

I any case. whether for acquiring more happiness or for reducing misery. you have to exercise your free-will in the present.

D. : But the exercise of free-will however well-directed, very often fails to secure the desired result, as fate steps in and nullifies the action of free-will.

H.H. : You are again ignoring our definition of fate. It is not an extraneous and a new thing which steps in to nullify your free-will.

On the other hand, it is already in yourself.

D. : It may be so, but its existence is felt only when it comes into conflict with free-will. How can we possibly wipe out the past record when we do not know nor have the means of knowing what it is?

H.H. : Except to a very few highly advanced souls, the past certainly remains unknown. But even our ignorance of it is very often an advantage to us.

For, if we happen to know all the results we have accumulated by our actions in this and our past lives, we will be so much shocked as to give up in despair any attempt to overcome or mitigate them. Even in this life, forgetfulnes is a boon which the merciful

God has been pleased to bestow on us, so that we may not be burdened at any moment with a recollection of all that has happened in the past.

Similarly, the divine spark in us is ever bright with hope and makes it possible for us to confidently exercise our free-will. It is not for us to belittle the significance of these two boons--forgetfulness of the past and hope for the future.

D. : Our ignorance of the past may be useful in not deterring the exercise of the free-will, and hope may stimulate that exercise. All the same, it cannot be denied that fate very often does present a formidable obstacle in the way of such exercise.

H.H. : It is not quite correct to say that fate places obstacles in the way of free-will. On the other hand, by seeming to oppose our efforts, it tells us what is the extent of free-will that is necessary now to bear fruit.

Ordinarily for the purpose of securing a single benefit, a particular activity is prescribed; but we do not know how intensively or how repeatedly that activity has to be pursued or persisted in.

If we do not succeed at the very first attempt, we can easily deduce that in the past we have exercised our free-will just in the opposite direction, that the resultant of that past activity has first to be eliminated and that our present effort must be proportionate to that past activity.

Thus, the obstacle which fate seems to offer is just the gauge by which we have to guide our present activities.

H.H. : The obstacle is seen only after the exercise of our free-will; how can that help us to guide our activities at the start?

H.H. : It need not guide us at the start. At the start, you must not be obsessed at all with the idea that there will be any obstacle in your way.

Start with boundless hope and with the presumption that there is nothing in the way of your exercising the free-will.

If you do not succeed, tell yourself then that there has been in the past a counter-influence brought on by yourself by exercising your free-will in the other direction and, therefore, you must now exercise your free-will with re-doubled vigor and persistence to achieve your object.

Tell yourself that, inasmuch as the seeming obstacle is of your own making, it is certainly within your competence to overcome it.

If you do not succeed even after this renewed effort, there can be absolutely no justification for despair, for fate being but a creature of your free-will can never be stronger than your free-will.

Your failure only means that your present exercise of free-will is not sufficient to counteract the result of the past exercise of it.

In other words, there is no question of a relative proportion between fate and free-will as distinct factors in life. The relative proportion is only as between the intensity of our past action and the intensity of our present action.

D. : But even so, the relative intensity can be realised only at the end of our present effort in a particular direction.

H.H. : It is always so in the case of everything which is adrishta or unseen. Take, for example, a nail driven into a wooden pillar. When you see it for the first time, you actually see, say, an inch of it projecting out of the pillar. The rest of it has gone into the wood and you cannot now see what exact length of the nail is imbedded in the wood. That length, therefore, is unseen or adrishta, so far as you are concerned. Beautifully varnished as the pillar is, you do not know what is the composition of the wood in which the nail is driven. That also is unseen or adrishta.

Now, suppose you want to pull that nail out, can you tell me how many pulls will be necessary and how powerful each pull has to be?

D. : How can I? The number and the intensity of the pulls will depend upon the length which has gone into the wood.

H.H. : Certainly so. And the length which has gone into the wood is not arbitrary, but depended upon the number of strokes which drove it in and the intensity of each of such strokes and the resistance which the wood offered to them.

D. : It is so.

H.H. : The number and intensity of the pulls needed to take out the nail depend therefore upon the number and intensity of the strokes which drove it in.

D. : Yes.

H.H. : But the strokes that drove in the nail are now unseen and unseeable. They relate to the past and are adrishta.

D. : Yes.

H.H. : Do we stop from pulling out the nail simply because we happen to be ignorant of the length of the nail in the wood or of the number and intensity of the strokes which drove it in? Or, do we persist in pulling it out by increasing our effort?

D. : Certainly, as practical men we adopt the latter course.

H.H. : Adopt the same course in every effort of yours. Exert yourself as much as you can. Your will must succeed in the end.


Function of Shastras:

D. : But there certainly are many things which are impossible to attain even after the utmost exertion.

H.H. : There you are mistaken. There is nothing which is really unattainable. A thing, however, may be unattainable to us at the particular stage at which we are, or with the qualifications that we possess.

The attainability or otherwise of a particular thing is thus not an absolute characteristic of that thing but is relative and proportionate to our capacity to attain it.

D. : The success or failure of an effort can be known definitely only at the end. How are we then to know beforehand whether with our present capacity we may or may not exert ourselves to attain a particular object, and whether it is the right kind of exertion for the attainment of that object?

H.H. : Your question is certainly a pertinent one. The whole aim of our Dharma Shastras is to give a detailed answer to your question.

Religion does not fetter man's free-will. It leaves him quite free to act, but tells him at the same time what is good for him and what is not.

The responsibility is entirely and solely his. He cannot escape it by blaming fate, for fate is of his own making, nor by blaming God, for he is but the dispenser of fruits in accordance with the merits of actions. You are the master of your own destiny. It is for you to make it, to better it or to mar it. This is your privilege. This is your responsibility.

D. : I quite realise this. But often it so happens that I am not really master of myself. I know, for instance, quite well that a particular act is wrong; at the same time, I feel impelled to do it. Similarly, I know that another act is right; at the same time, however, I feel powerless to do it. It seems that there is some power which is able to control or defy my free-will. So long as that power is potent, how can I be called the master of my own destiny? What is that power but fate?

H.H. : You are evidently confusing together two distinct things. Fate is a thing quite different from the other one which you call a power.

Suppose you handle an instrument for the first time. You will do it very clumsily and with great effort.

The next time, however, you use it, you will do so less clumsily and with less effort. With repeated uses, you will have learnt to use it easily and without any effort. That is, the facility and ease with which you use a particular thing increase with the number of times you use it.

The first time a man steals, he does so with great effort and much fear; the next time both his effort and fear are much less. As opportunities increase, stealing will become a normal habit with him and will require no effort at all. This habit will generate in him a tendency to steal even when there is no necessity to steal. It is this tendency which goes by the name vasana. The power which makes you act as if against your will is only the vasana which itself is of your own making. This is not fate.

The punishment or reward, in the shape of pain or pleasure, which is the inevitable consequence of an act, good or bad, is alone the province of fate or destiny.

The vasana which the doing of an act leaves behind in the mind in the shape of a taste, a greater facility or a greater tendency for doing the same act once again, is quite a different thing. It may be that the punishment or the reward of the past act is, in ordinary circumstances, unavoidable, if there is no counter-effort; but the vasana can be easily handled if only we exercise our free-will correctly.

D. : But the number of vasanas or tendencies that rule our hearts are endless. How can we possibly control them?

H.H. : The essential nature of a vasana is to seek expression in outward acts. This characteristic is common to all vasanas, good and bad.

The stream of vasanas, the vasana sarit, as it is called, has two currents, the good and the bad. If you try to dam up the entire stream, there may be danger.

The Shastras, therefore, do not ask you to attempt that. On the other hand, they ask you to submit yourself to be led by the good vasana current and to resist being led away by the bad vasana current.

When you know that a particular vasana is rising up in your mind, you cannot possibly say that you are at its mercy. You have your wits about you and the responsibility of deciding whether you will encourage it or not is entirely yours.

The Shastras ennciate in detail what vasanas are good and have to be encouraged and what vasanas are bad and have to be overcome.

>When, by dint of practice, you have made all your vasanas good and practically eliminated the charge of any bad vasanas leading you astray, the Shastras take upon themselves the function of teaching you how to free your free-will even from the need of being led by good vasanas.

You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free-will be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas.

At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and that freedom is called Moksha.

Link

[sanjeevpunj]

The long drawn debate on Varna Ashram Dharma usually does not end, but if one sees things with a different perspective,this debate can be concluded. I found a very mature viewpoint on this issue.

The four Varnas are like the limbs of the same body. They have evolved out of the same Divine Body—the Brahmins from the face, the Kshatriyas from the hands, the Vaisyas from the thighs and the Sudras from the feet. Of course, these expressions have a deeper inner meaning. Those who teach like the Guru the principles of Jnana are the Voice. They are the Brahmins. The strong armed bear the burden of the Earth, they are the Kshatriyas. The social edifice is upheld, as on pillars, by the Vaisyas and so they are figuratively described as emanating from the thighs of the Divine Person. Like the feet that are engaged in going about on all kinds of activities, the Sudras are ever engaged in the basic tasks of society. The peace and happiness of society will suffer even if a single Varna is slack in its task. And all Varnas are worthwhile and valuable, as all limbs are important. There is no higher or lower. Hatred and rivalry in society are as harmful as the stoppage of work by all the limbs in anger against the stomach!

A sugar doll is sweet all over. Break off its head and eat it, it is sweet. Break off a leg and eat it, it is as sweet as the head. Then how can the Varnas which are the limbs of the selfsame Divinity be pronounced higher or lower? Limbs are different, but the very same red blood flows in all and animates all. There is no special variety for the hand or leg or face. The system of Varnas is ordained by the Vedas and so, there can be no injustice in it. It is not an artifice invented by man. So those who try to create differences and hatred, by their inconsiderate remarks about it, are only exhibiting their ignorance.

It looks as if those people who argue that, “the abolition of the Varna system will bring about human welfare,” are the only ones anxious to promote human welfare! They believe that those who consider the system to be beneficial are really eager to promote the downfall of the human society! Of course, both are delusions. But this much is true: Those who support the Varnas are really more interested in the promotion of human welfare. The others think that if Varna goes, they will be saving the country. That is a deluded belief. If only virtues and faults are analysed carefully and without prejudice, there will be an end of this uninformed campaign of hatred and enmity. Then there will be a great change in the attitude of people towards the Varna system.

Source:http://www.saicommunities.com/group/bha ... pic:123724

[abhishek_sharma]

From Narendra Kohli's Mahasamar Volume 9

In many books on Mahabharat, Karna is depicted as:

1. a great man who had very high ethical/moral standards. It is unfortunate that the society never accepted his good character.

2. a great warrior, probably greater than Arjun

Both claims are false. Karna was involved in many conspiracies hatched by Duryodhana to kill Pandavas (including the plot to poison Bheem, the plot to burn the house Pandavas were supposed to live in Varnavat and the disrobing of Draupadi).

Some have argued that Karna was a great tapasvi. This is not good logic because even Ravana was a great bhakt of Lord Shiva (and other demons worship Gods too).

It has been argued that Karna lost the war because Lord Indra took away his kavach and kundal. This is not tenable because he was defeated by Arjuna and Gandharva Chitrarath even when he had those accessories.

Regarding comparisons with Arjuna: Karna and other Kauravas were defeated by Drupad, whereas Arjuna and Bheema (with a few soldiers) easily conquered Drupad and brought him as a guru-dakshina for Dronacharya.

[ramana]

abhishek, Please do post more from Kohli's book. What language is it in and where is it published from?

[abhishek_sharma]

It is in Hindi, but it has been translated in Oriya and Malayalam.

[SwamyG]

gurujans, anyone know if our epics, texts ityadi were commercialized?

This is what I understand: For a long time, our tradition was oral hence it probably could not have been very easily commercialized. Granted some of our scriptures could be learned only through the Guru-Shisya sampradayams, while the laymen enjoyed the the itihasas, puranas and mahakavyas through various discourses from the mouths of countless swamis and gurus. All open-source and accessible (except a few like the Vedas)

Anyone know before the advent of printing, if people made money by selling these in written book formats? We do have the concept of 'dakshina' and I sense it is different from the actual selling of say a Bhagavad Gita or Hanuman Chalisa book.

I think the new technology (printing) and new economy (the European version) and resulting new age created massive change in how we consume our ancient wisdom, let alone our life style. I simply cannot imagine Valmiki making money out of writing Ramayanam.

It is not that making honest, decent money by any hard work is wrong. Poets, philosophers, artists, dramatists, rishis, munis all need patronage for spreading their art and philosophy. Sankara and Buddha went on foot - house to house so to speak. The times were clearly different, I do not expect if we can have a very similar times again.

When did the earliest commercialization of our scriptures begin, and by whom? Europeans?

[RamaY]

I simply cannot imagine Valmiki making money out of writing Ramayanam.

The society (the Kshatriya/Vyisya/Sudra varnas) took care of the Brahmanas who focused on developing knowledge. In return the knowledge was spread among the society. It was common to see gurukulas with thousands of students in them supported by the kings/rich.

There is an underlying assurance by the society that no one would die of hunger. Most of the society did not value money (the modern perspective) in those days. They valued wealth (in the form of Ashtha Laksmis - food, children, cows, happiness, etc.,) instead of money.

On the other hand, Vinodam (entertainment) was on sale. We have many references of poets dedicating their works to kings receiving lot of gold and agraharams in return. Lot of modern literature is entertainment.

Ramayanam, Bharatam. Puranas etc are knowledge not entertainment. However modern rewritings of these books are vinodam (entertainment) category - they are commentaries, often viewed from specific social-political angles, hence fall in entertainment category.

***

I will tell you a true story about my native place is an agraharam in west godavari dist. This happened >200 years ago.

One day the local feudal was going on the main road (about 1KM) and over heard the vedic chants emanating from this small hamlet. He felt so happy and called on to the Brahmanas. He told them that he was very happy to see their vedic-nishta and wanted to give them something as a humble gesture. The brahmins looked at each other and discussed among them on what to ask for. Finally their leader came forward and asked the king to provide them few kilos of Gooseberrys The king was even more impressed by their simplicity and offered them an Agraharam (>1000 acres) and asked them on whose name the donation-deed should be given. The brahmins asked him to write to on their leader's name. The leader later split it among 4-5 families.

The village is called "Narasinga Raja Pura Agraharam". It is near Undi, Bhimavaram.

[abhishek_sharma]

The society (the Kshatriya/Vyisya/Sudra varnas) took care of the Brahmanas who focused on developing knowledge. In return the knowledge was spread among the society. It was common to see gurukulas with thousands of students in them supported by the kings/rich.

There were certainly many exceptions. In particular, Dronacharya was pretty poor. He did not even have a cow (most people had cows in those days.) He gave Ashwathama a soup/syrup made of flour (as food). He sought help from Parsuram, who was pretty poor too. It has been argued that Drona, Ashwathama (plus Karna) moved towards Duryodhana because they needed financial help.

Dronacharya then met his childhood friend Drupad and reminded him of their friendship. Drupad refused to accept his argument and Drona was ticked off. It should be noted that like normal Brahmins, Drona did not seek help from a ruler like Drupad. (His behavior in Hastinapur was entirely different. He just sought financial hep from them. Bhisma and Dhristrasta assured him that the kingdom belongs to him too, but Drona never pressed his claims. He did not try/want to take any part of Dhritrashtra's kingdom.). However, he did everything to humiliate Drupad and forcefully snatched 50% of his kingdom.

----

Although Drona did give Arjun a vardaan that he would be the best archer, he hid certain skills from Arjuna and taught them to Ashwathama.
---

Regarding Karna's character: Generally p-sec writers praise Karna. We know that Duryodhana, Dushashana and Shakuni were Karna's best friends. It tells us what kind of company Karna enjoyed.

Some have defended Karna's role in Draupadi's disrobing episode by suggesting that Draupadi had insulted Karna by saying: "main soot-putra se vivaah nai karungi" (I will not marry the son of a charioteer.). Some have argued that "soot" (charioteer) is not an insult. Even King Viraat's wife and Sanjay belonged to that community. Keechak, a commander, was also a soot. In any case, even if it was an insult, honorable men do not disrobe a woman for an insult. Not only Karna wanted to disrobe Draupadi *completely*, he called her a prostitute. So much for his great morality.

---

Why didn't Bhisma play a more balanced role in persuading/convincing Dhritrashtra to do the right things? He is often silent when Kauravas played their games against Pandavas.

-----

When Pandavas escaped from a burning Lakshyagriha in Varnavat (the house made of inflammable substances), five bheels and their mother were found dead there. It gave an illusion that Pandavas and Kunti were killed. The bheels drank too much madira and slept while the house burned. It is too much of a coincidence that 5 men and 1 woman were found sleeping in the house, while 5 Pandavas and their mother escaped. A person like Yudhisthira would never sacrifice others for his own life. Kunti was ready to sacrifice her son for protecting the villagers from Bakasur. She would certainly not try to kill others for gaining some respite from Kauravas. The question is who sent the bheels and encouraged them to get drunk? The answer is not known.

Vidur sent a guy to dig the tunnel for Pandavas.

--

Pandavas were posing as Brahmins when they won the contest in Draupadi's swayambar, and Draupadi was ready to marry them. It provides evidence that Brahmins/Kshyatriyas did not marry inside their communities.

--
The character of Kunti is highly praised in the book. Kunti used to call Draupadi a 'sati' because she accompanied Pandavas during their vanvaas. Their other wives went to their parents' homes.

Source: Narendra Kohli's book discussed above.

[niran]

Dronacharya then met his childhood friend Drupad and reminded him of their friendship. Drupad refused to accept his argument and Drona was ticked off. It should be noted that like normal Brahmins, Drona did not seek help from a ruler like Drupad. (His behavior in Hastinapur was entirely different. He just sought financial hep from them. Bhisma and Dhristrasta assured him that the kingdom belongs to him too, but Drona never pressed his claims. He did not try/want to take any part of Dhritrashtra's kingdom.). However, he did everything to humiliate Drupad and forcefully snatched 50% of his kingdom.

Dronacharya, post graduating could not acquire sponsorship to open Gurukul(school main source of income for non Karmkandi Brahaman) his Brother in Law was already serving as kul guru of Kuru but
due to ego problems Drona refused his help, then when poverty became unbearable he put his wife and son in his BIL care while himself went to make a living, Drona went to his schoolmate Dhrupad.
Drona went directly in the Sabha one day and began displaying what long lost friends display when they meet, Dhrupad saw ridicule and mockery like "your langoti friend is a poor rahaman !ha!ha!he!he!"
so he refused to recognize Drona, later when they were alone gave a earfull to Drona.
Aswasthama was made the ruler of the half of snatched Dhrupad kingdom, Drona ruled Indraprastha
when Pandavas went into exile. some people think Drona unwillingness to give up Indraprastha was one of the many reasons of Mahabharat war.

The question is who sent the bheels and encouraged them to get drunk? The answer is not known.

they were personal aides 5 males for males Pandav 1 female for mata Kunti, appointed by Shakuni to ensure Pandavs stayed in their rooms on the fateful night.

[abhishek_sharma]

Regarding Drupad and Drona: Drona believed that Drupad had promised him to give 50% of his kingdom when he becomes a king. When he reminded Drupad of this promise, his suggestion was rejected. Drupad replied, "Mitra-ta kewal barabar ke logon me ho sakti hai, raja ki mitra-ta raja se hi ho sakti hai, aur gyani ki mitra-ta gyani se hoti hai". (Friendship exists between people who are roughly equal in some way. A king can be a friend of other kings. Learned people are friends of other learned people.)

In my personal view: If Drupad promised Drona, then he should have fulfilled his promise. Similarly, Drona should have forgiven Drupad like a true Brahmin. Showing mean vindictiveness was certainly beneath him.

[niran]

Regarding Drupad and Drona: Drona believed that Drupad had promised him to give 50% of his kingdom when he becomes a king.

kinda like "matey help me with this and i will give you this" all in youthful vigor, as still today adventurous student gives to industrious student. it was supposed to be forgotten not to persued.

[johneeG]

I am posting the relevant(of Drona) translations of Mahabharatha. It is long but definitely worth reading in full:

"Janamejaya asked, 'O Brahmana, how was Drona born? How and whence did he acquire his arms? How
and why came he unto the Kurus? Whose son also was he endued with such energy? Again, how was his
son Aswatthaman, the foremost of all skilled in arms born? I wish to hear all this! Please recite them in
detail.'
"Vaisampayana said, 'There dwelt at the source of the Ganga, a great sage named Bharadwaja,
ceaselessly observing the most rigid vows. One day, of old, intending to celebrate the Agnihotra
sacrifice he went along with many great Rishis to the Ganga to perform his ablutions. Arrived at the
bank of the stream, he saw Ghritachi herself, that Apsara endued with youth and beauty, who had gone
there a little before. With an expression of pride in her countenance, mixed with a voluptuous languor of
attitude, the damsel rose from the water after her ablutions were over. And as she was gently treading on
the bank, her attire which was loose became disordered. Seeing her attire disordered, the sage was
smitten with burning desire. The next moment his vital fluid came out, in consequence of the violence of
his emotion. The Rishi immediately held it in a vessel called a drona. Then, O king, Drona sprang from
the fluid thus preserved in that vessel by the wise Bharadwaja. And the child thus born studied all the
Vedas and their branches. Before now Bharadwaja of great prowess and the foremost of those
possessing a knowledge of arms, had communicated to the illustrious Agnivesa, a knowledge of the
weapon called Agneya. O foremost one of Bharata's race, the Rishi (Agnivesa) sprung from fire now
communicated the knowledge of that great weapon to Drona the son of his preceptor.

"There was a king named Prishata who was a great friend of Bharadwaja. About this time Prishata had a
son born unto him, named Drupada. And that bull among Kshatriyas, viz., Drupada, the son of Prishata,
used every day to come to the hermitage of Bharadwaja to play with Drona and study in his company. O
monarch, when Prishata was dead, this Drupada of mighty arms became the king of the northern
Panchalas. About this time the illustrious Bharadwaja also ascended to heaven. Drona continuing to
reside in his father's hermitage devoted himself to ascetic austerities. Having become well-versed in the
Vedas and their branches and having burnt also all his sins by asceticism, the celebrated Drona, obedient
to the injunctions of his father and moved by the desire of offspring married Kripi, the daughter of
Saradwat. And this woman, ever engaged in virtuous acts and the Agnihotra, and the austerest of
penances, obtained a son named Aswatthaman. And as soon as Aswatthaman was born, he neighed like
the (celestial) steed Ucchaihsravas. Hearing that cry, an invisible being in the skies said, 'The voice of
this child hath, like the neighing of a horse, been audible all around. The child shall, therefore, be known
by the name of Aswatthaman, (the horse-voiced). The son of Bharadwaja (Drona) was
exceedingly glad at having obtained that child. Continuing to reside in that hermitage he devoted himself
to the study of the science of arms.

"O king, it was about this time that Drona heard that the illustrious Brahmana Jamadagnya, that slayer of
foes, that foremost one among all wielders of weapons, versed in all kinds of knowledge, had expressed
a desire of giving away all his wealth to Brahmanas. Having heard of Rama's knowledge of arms and of
his celestial weapons also, Drona set his heart upon them as also upon the knowledge of morality that
Rama possessed. Then Drona of mighty arms, endued with high ascetic virtues, accompanied by
disciples who were all devoted to vows ascetic austerities, set out for the Mahendra mountains. Arrived
at Mahendra, the son of Bharadwaja possessed of high ascetic merit, beheld the son of Bhrigu, the
exterminator of all foes, endued with great patience and with mind under complete control. Then,
approaching with his disciples that scion of the Bhrigu race Drona, giving him his name, told him of his
birth in the line of Angiras. And touching the ground with his head, he worshipped Rama's feet. And
beholding the illustrious son of Jamadagni intent upon retiring into the woods after having given away
all his wealth, Drona said, 'Know me to have sprung from Bharadwaja, but not in any woman's womb! I
am a Brahmana of high birth, Drona by name, come to thee with the desire of obtaining thy wealth.'
"On hearing him, that illustrious grinder of the Kshatriya race replied, Thou art welcome, O best of
regenerate ones! Tell me what thou desirest. Thus addressed by Rama, the son of Bharadwaja replied
unto that foremost of all smiters, desirous of giving away the whole of his wealth, 'O thou of
multifarious vows, I am a candidate for thy eternal wealth,' 'O thou of ascetic wealth, returned Rama,
'My gold and whatever other wealth I had, have all been given away unto Brahmanas! This earth also, to
the verge of the sea, decked with towns and cities, as with a garland of flowers, I have given unto
Kasyapa. I have now my body only and my various valuable weapons left. I am prepared to give either
my body or my weapons. Say, which thou wouldst have! I would give it thee! Say quickly!'

"Drona answered, O son of Bhrigu, it behoveth thee to give me all thy weapons together with the
mysteries of hurling and recalling them.'
"Saying, 'So be it,' the son of Bhrigu gave all his weapons unto Drona,--indeed, the whole science of
arms with its rules and mysteries. Accepting them all, and thinking himself amply rewarded that best of
Brahmanas then, glad at heart, set out, for (the city of) his friend Drupada.'"

"Vaisampayana said, 'Then, O king, the mighty son of Bharadyaja presented himself before Drupada,
and addressing that monarch, said, 'Know me for thy friend.' Thus addressed by his friend, the son of
Bharadwaja, with a joyous heart, the lord of the Panchalas was ill-able to bear that speech. The king,
intoxicated with the pride of wealth, contracted his brows in wrath, and with reddened eyes spake these
words unto Drona, 'O Brahmana, thy intelligence is scarcely of a high order, inasmuch as thou sayest
unto me, all on a sudden, that thou art my friend! O thou of dull apprehension, great kings can never be
friends with such luckless and indigent wights as thou! It is true there had been friendship between thee
and me before, for we were then both equally circumstanced. But Time that impaireth everything in its
course, impaireth friendship also. In this world, friendship never endureth for ever in any heart. Time
weareth it off and anger destroyeth it too. Do not stick, therefore, to that worn-off friendship. Think not
of it any longer. The friendship I had with thee, O first of Brahmanas, was for a particular purpose.
Friendship can never subsist between a poor man and a rich man, between a man of letters and an
unlettered mind, between a hero and a coward. Why dost thou desire the continuance of our former
friendship? There may be friendship or hostility between persons equally situated as to wealth or might.
The indigent and the affluent can neither be friends nor quarrel with each other. One of impure birth can
never be a friend to one of pure birth; one who is not a car-warrior can never be a friend to one who is
so; and one who is not a king never have a king for his friend. Therefore, why dost thou desire the
continuance of our former friendship?'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Thus addressed by Drupada, the mighty son of Bharadwaja became filled
with wrath, and reflecting for a moment, made up his mind as to his course of action. Seeing the
insolence of the Panchala king, he wished to check it effectually. Hastily leaving the Panchala capital
Drona bent his steps towards the capital of the Kurus, named after the elephant.'"

"Vaisampayana said, 'Arrived at Hastinapura, that best of Brahmanas, the son of Bharadwaja, continued
to live privately in the house of Gautama (Kripa). His mighty son (Aswatthaman) at intervals of Kripa's
teaching, used to give the sons of Kunti lessons in the use of arms. But as yet none knew of
Aswatthaman's prowess.

"Drona had thus lived privately for some time in the house of Kripa when one day the heroic princes, all
in a company, came out of Hastinapura. And coming out of the city, they began to play with a ball and
roam about in gladness of heart. And it so happened that the ball with which they had been playing fell
into a well. And thereupon the princes strove their best to recover it from the well. But all the efforts the
princes made to recover it proved futile. They then began to eye one another bashfully, and not knowing
how to recover it, their anxiety became great. Just at this time they beheld a Brahmana near enough unto
them, of darkish hue, decrepit and lean, sanctified by the performance of the Agnihotra and who had
finished his daily rites of worship. And beholding that illustrious Brahmana, the princes who had
despaired of success surrounded him immediately. Drona (for that Brahmana was no other), seeing the
princes unsuccessful, and conscious of his own skill, smiled a little, and addressing them said, 'Shame on
your Kshatriya might, and shame also on your skill in arms! You have been born in the race of Bharata!
How is it that ye cannot recover the ball (from the bottom of this well)? If ye promise me a dinner today,
I will, with these blades of grass, bring up not only the ball ye have lost but this ring also that I now
throw down!' Thus saying, Drona that oppressor of foes, taking off his ring, threw it down into the dry
well. Then Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti, addressing Drona, said, 'O Brahmana (thou askest for a
trifle)! Do thou, with Kripa's permission, obtain of us that which would last thee for life!' Thus
addressed, Drona with smiles replied unto the Bharata princes, saying, 'This handful of long grass I
would invest, by my mantras, with the virtue of weapons. Behold these blades possess virtues that other
weapons, have not! I will, with one of these blades, pierce the ball, and then pierce that blade with
another, and that another with a third, and thus shall I, by a chain, bring up the ball.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Then Drona did exactly what he had said. And the princes were all amazed
and their eyes expanded with delight. And regarding what they had witnessed to be very extraordinary,
they said, O learned Brahmana, do thou bring up the ring also without loss of time.'
"Then the illustrious Drona, taking a bow with an arrow, pierced the ring with that arrow and brought it
up at once. And taking the ring thus brought up from the well still pierced with his arrow, he coolly gave
it to the astonished princes. Then the latter, seeing the ring thus recovered, said, 'We bow to thee, O
Brahmana! None else owneth such skill. We long to know who thou art and whose son. What also can
we do for thee?'
"Thus addressed, Drona replied unto the princes, saying, 'Do ye repair unto Bhishma and describe to him
my likeness and skill. The mighty one will recognize me.' The princes then saying, 'So be it,' repaired
unto Bhishma and telling him of the purport of that Brahmana's speech, related everything about his
(extraordinary) feat. Hearing everything from the princes, Bhishma at once understood that the
Brahmana was none else than Drona, and thinking that he would make the best preceptor for the princes, went in
person unto him and welcoming him respectfully, brought him over to the place. Then Bhishma, that
foremost of all wielders of arms, adroitly asked him the cause of his arrival at Hastinapura. Asked by
him, Drona represented everything as it had happened, saying, 'O sir, in times past I went to the great
Rishi Agnivesa for obtaining from him his weapons, desirous also of learning the science of arms.
Devoted to the service of my preceptor, I lived with him for many years in the humble guise of a
Brahmacharin, with matted locks on my head. At that time, actuated by the same motives, the prince of
Panchala, the mighty Yajnasena, also lived in the same asylum. He became my friend, always seeking
my welfare. I liked him much. Indeed, we lived together for many, many years. O thou of Kuru's race,
from our earliest years we had studied together and, indeed, he was my friend from boyhood, always
speaking and doing what was agreeable to me. For gratifying me, O Bhishma, he used to tell me, 'O
Drona, I am the favourite child of my illustrious father. When the king installeth me as monarch of the
Panchalas, the kingdom shall be thine. O friend, this, indeed, is my solemn promise. My dominion,
wealth and happiness, shall all be dependent on thee.' At last the time came for his departure. Having
finished his studies, he bent his steps towards his country. I offered him my regards at the time, and,
indeed, I remembered his words ever afterwards.

"Some time after, in obedience to the injunctions of my father and tempted also by the desire of
offspring, I married Kripi of short hair, who gifted with great intelligence, had observed many rigid
vows, and was ever engaged in the Agnihotra and other sacrifices and rigid austerities. Gautami, in time,
gave birth to a son named Aswatthaman of great prowess and equal in splendour unto the Sun himself.
Indeed, I was pleased on having obtained Aswatthaman as much as my father had been on obtaining me.
"And it so happened that one day the child Aswatthaman observing some rich men's sons drink milk,
began to cry. At this I was so beside myself that I lost all knowledge of the point of the compass. Instead
of asking him who had only a few kine (so that if he gave me one, he would no longer be able to
perform his sacrifices and thus sustain a loss of virtue), I was desirous of obtaining a cow from one who
had many, and for that I wandered from country to country. But my wanderings proved unsuccessful, for
I failed to obtain a milch cow. After I had come back unsuccessful, some of my son's playmates gave
him water mixed with powdered rice. Drinking this, the poor boy, was deceived into the belief that he
had taken milk, and began to dance in joy, saying, 'O, I have taken milk. I have taken milk!' Beholding
him dance with joy amid these playmates smiling at his simplicity, I was exceedingly touched. Hearing
also the derisive speeches of busy-bodies who said, 'Fie upon the indigent Drona, who strives not to earn
wealth, whose son drinking water mixed with powdered rice mistaketh it for milk and danceth with joy,
saying, 'I have taken milk,--I have taken milk!'--I was quite beside myself. Reproaching myself much, I at last resolved that even if I
should have to live cast off and censured by Brahmanas, I would not yet, from desire of wealth, be
anybody's servant, which is ever hateful. Thus resolved, O Bhishma, I went, for former friendship, unto
the king of the Somakas, taking with me my dear child and wife. Hearing that he had been installed in
the sovereignty (of the Somakas), I regarded myself as blessed beyond compare. Joyfully I went unto
that dear friend of mine seated on the throne, remembering my former friendship with him and also his
own words to me. And, O illustrious one, approaching Drupada, I said, 'O tiger among men, know me
for thy friend!'--Saying this, I approached him confidently as a friend should. But Drupada, laughing in
derision cast me off as if I were a vulgar fellow. Addressing me he said, 'Thy intelligence scarcely
seemeth to be of a high order inasmuch as approaching me suddenly, thou sayest thou art my friend!
Time that impaireth everything, impaireth friendship also. My former friendship with thee was for a
particular purpose. One of impure birth can never be a friend of one who is of pure birth. One who is not
a car-warrior can never be a friend of one who is such. Friendship can only subsist between persons that
are of equal rank, but not between those that are unequally situated. Friendship never subsisteth for ever
in my heart. Time impaireth friendships, as also anger destroyeth them. Do thou not stick, therefore, to
that worn-off friendship between us. Think not of it any longer. The friendship I had with thee, O best of
Brahmanas, was for a special purpose. There cannot be friendship between a poor man and a rich man,
between an unlettered hind and a man of letters, between a coward and a hero. Why dost thou, therefore,
desire, the revival of our former friendship? O thou of simple understanding, great kings can never have
friendship with such indigent and luckless wight as thou? One who is not a king can never have a king
for his friend. I do not remember ever having promised thee my kingdom. But, O Brahmana, I can now
give thee food and shelter for one night.'--Thus addressed by him, I left his presence quickly with my
wife, vowing to do that which I will certainly do soon enough. Thus insulted by Drupada, O Bhishma, I
have been filled with wrath, I have come to the Kurus, desirous of obtaining intelligent and docile
pupils. I come to Hastinapura to gratify thy wishes. O, tell me what I am to do.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Thus addressed by the son of Bharadwaja, Bhishma said unto him, 'String
thy bow, O Brahmana, and make the Kuru princes accomplished in arms. Worshipped by the Kurus,
enjoy with a glad heart to thy fill every comfort in their abode. Thou art the absolute lord, O Brahmana,
of what ever wealth the Kurus have and of their sovereignty and kingdom! The Kurus are thine (from
this day). Think that as already accomplished which may be in thy heart. Thou art, O Brahmana,
obtained by us as the fruit of our great good luck. Indeed, the favour thou hast conferred upon me by thy
arrival is great.'


"Vaisampayana said, 'Thus worshipped by Bhishma, Drona, that first of men, endued with great energy,
took up his quarters in the abode of the Kurus and continued to live there, receiving their adorations.
After he had rested a while, Bhishma, taking with him his grandsons, the Kaurava princes, gave them
unto him as pupils, making at the same time many valuable presents. And the mighty one (Bhishma)
also joyfully gave unto the son of Bharadwaja a house that was tidy and neat and well-filled with paddy
and every kind of wealth. And that first of archers, Drona, thereupon joyfully, accepted the Kauravas,
viz., the sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra, as his pupils. And having accepted them all as his pupils, one
day Drona called them apart and making them touch his feet, said to them with a swelling heart, 'I have
in my heart a particular purpose. Promise me truly, ye sinless ones, that when ye have become skilled in
arms, ye will accomplish it.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Hearing these words, the Kuru princes remained silent. But Arjuna, O king,
vowed to accomplish it whatever it was. Drona then cheerfully clasped Arjuna to his bosom and took the
scent of his head repeatedly, shedding tears of joy all the while. Then Drona endued with great prowess
taught the sons of Pandu (the use of) many weapons both celestial and human. And, O bull of the
Bharata race, many other princes also flocked to that best of Brahmanas for instruction in arms. The
Vrishnis and the Andhakas, and princes from various lands, and the (adopted) son of Radha of the Suta
caste, (Karna), all became pupils of Drona. But of them all, the Suta child Karna, from jealousy,
frequently defied Arjuna, and supported by Duryodhana, used to disregard the Pandavas. Arjuna,
however, from devotion to the science of arms, always stayed by the side of his preceptor, and in skill,
strength of arms, and perseverance, excelled all (his class-fellows). Indeed, although the instruction the
preceptor gave, was the same in the case of all, yet in lightness and skill Arjuna became the foremost of
all his fellow-pupils. And Drona was convinced that none of his pupils would (at any time) be able to be
equal to that son of Indra.
"Thus Drona continued giving lessons to the princes in the science of weapons. And while he gave unto
every one of his pupils a narrow-mouthed vessel (for fetching water) in order that much time may be
spent in filling them, he gave unto his own son Aswatthaman a broad-mouthed vessel, so that, filling it
quickly, he might return soon enough. And in the intervals so gained, Drona used to instruct his own son
in several superior methods (of using weapons). Jishnu (Arjuna) came to know of this, and thereupon
filling his narrow-mouthed vessel with water by means of the Varuna weapon he used to come unto his
preceptor at the same time with his preceptor's son. And accordingly the intelligent son of Pritha,
that foremost of all men possessing a knowledge of weapons, had no inferiority to his preceptor's son in
respect of excellence. Arjuna's devotion to the service of his preceptor as also to arms was very great
and he soon became the favourite of his preceptor. And Drona, beholding his pupil's devotion to arms,
summoned the cook, and told him in secret, 'Never give Arjuna his food in the dark, nor tell him that
I have told thee this.' A few days after, however, when Arjuna was taking his food, a wind arose, and
thereupon the lamp that had been burning went out. But Arjuna, endued with energy, continued eating in the dark,
his hand, from habit, going to his mouth. His attention being thus called to the force of habit, the strong-armed
son of Pandu set his heart upon practising with his bow in the night. And, O Bharata, Drona, hearing the twang
of his bowstring in the night, came to him, and clasping him, said, 'Truly do I tell thee that I shall do that
unto thee by which there shall not be an archer equal to thee in this world.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Thereafter Drona began to teach Arjuna the art of fighting on horse-back, on
the back of elephants, on car, and on the ground. And the mighty Drona also instructed Arjuna in
fighting with the mace, the sword, the lance, the spear, and the dart. And he also instructed him in using
many weapons and fighting with many men at the same time. And hearing reports of his skill, kings and
princes, desirous of learning the science of arms, flocked to Drona by thousands. Amongst those that
came there, O monarch, was a prince named Ekalavya, who was the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the
Nishadas . Drona, however, cognisant of all rules of morality, accepted not the prince as his pupil in archery,
seeing that he was a Nishada . But, O oppressor of all enemies, the Nishada prince, touching Drona's feet
with bent head, wended his way into the forest, and there he made a clay-image of Drona, and began to
worship it respectfully, as if it was his real preceptor, and practised weapons before it with the most rigid
regularity. In consequence of his exceptional reverence for his preceptor and his devotion to his purpose,
all the three processes of fixing arrows on the bowstring, aiming, and letting off became very easy for him.
"And one day, O grinder of foes, the Kuru and the Pandava princes, with Drona's leave, set out in their
cars on a hunting excursion. A servant, O king, followed the party at leisure, with the usual implements
and a dog. Having come to the woods, they wandered about, intent on the purpose they had in view.
Meanwhile, the dog also, in wandering alone in the woods, came upon the Nishada prince (Ekalavya).
And beholding the Nishada of dark hue, of body besmeared with filth, dressed in black and bearing
matted locks on head, the dog began to bark aloud.

"Thereupon the Nishada prince, desirous of exhibiting his lightness of hand, sent seven arrows into its
mouth (before it could shut it). The dog, thus pierced with seven arrows, came back to the Pandavas.
Those heroes, who beheld that sight, were filled with wonder, and, ashamed of their own skill, began to
praise the lightness of hand and precision of aim by auricular precision (exhibited by the unknown archer).
And they thereupon began to seek in those woods for the unknown
dweller therein that had shown such skill. And, O king, the Pandavas soon found out the object of their
search ceaselessly discharging arrows from the bow. And beholding that man of grim visage, who was
totally a stranger to them, they asked, 'Who art thou and whose son?' Thus questioned, the man replied,
'Ye heroes, I am the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas. Know me also for a pupil of Drona,
labouring for the mastery of the art of arms.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'The Pandavas then, having made themselves acquainted with everything
connected with him, returned (to the city), and going unto Drona, told him of that wonderful feat of
archery which they had witnessed in the woods. Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king,
Ekalavya, saw Drona in private and relying upon his preceptor's affection for him, said, 'Thou hadst
lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be equal to me. Why then is
there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, superior to me?"
'Vaisampayana continued, 'On hearing these words, Drona reflected for a moment, and resolving upon
the course of action he should follow, took Arjuna with him and went unto the Nishada prince. And he
beheld Ekalavya with body besmeared with filth, matted locks (on head), clad in rags, bearing a bow in
hand and ceaselessly shooting arrows therefrom. And when Ekalavya saw Drona approaching towards
him, he went a few steps forward, and touched his feet and prostrated himself on the ground. And the
son of the Nishada king worshipping Drona, duly represented himself as his pupil, and clasping his
hands in reverence stood before him (awaiting his commands). Then Drona, O king, addressed
Ekalavya, saying, 'If, O hero, thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.' On hearing these words,
Ekalavya was very much gratified, and said in reply, 'O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give?
Command me; for there is nothing, O foremost of all persons conversant with the Vedas, that I may not
give unto my preceptor.' Drona answered, 'O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, I
should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Hearing these cruel words of Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as
tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth and desirous also of keeping his promise, with a cheerful
face and an unafflicted heart cut off without ado his thumb, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the
Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, he found, O king, that
he had lost his former lightness of hand. And at this Arjuna became happy, the fever (of jealousy)
having left him.

"Two of Drona's pupils became very much accomplished in the use of mace. These were Druvodhana
and Bhima, who were, however, always jealous of each other. Aswatthaman excelled everyone (in the
mysteries of the science of arms). The twins (Nakula and Sahadeva) excelled everybody in handling the
sword. Yudhishthira surpassed everybody as a car-warrior; but Arjuna, however, outdistanced everyone
in every respect--in intelligence, resourcefulness, strength and perseverance. Accomplished in all
weapons, Arjuna became the foremost of even the foremost of car-warriors; and his fame spread all over
the earth to the verge of the sea. And although the instruction was the same, the mighty Arjuna excelled
all (the princes in lightness of hand). Indeed, in weapons as in devotion to his preceptor, he became the
foremost of them all. And amongst all the princes, Arjuna alone became an Atiratha (a car-warrior
capable of fighting at one time with sixty thousand foes). And the wicked sons of Dhritarashtra,
beholding Bhimasena endued with great strength and Arjuna accomplished in all arms, became very
jealous of them.
"O bull among men, one day Drona desirous of testing the comparative excellence of all his pupils in the
use of arms, collected them all together after their education had been completed. And before
assembling them together, he had caused an artificial bird, as the would be aim, to be placed on the top
of a neighbouring tree. And when they were all together, Drona said unto them, 'Take up your bows
quickly and stand here aiming at that bird on the tree, with arrows fixed on your bowstrings; shoot and
cut off the bird's head, as soon as I give the order. I shall give each of you a turn, one by one, my
children.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Then Drona, that foremost of all Angira's sons first addressed Yudhishthira
saying, 'O irrepressible one, aim with thy arrow and shoot as soon as I give the order. Yudhishthira took
up the bow first, as desired, O king, by his preceptor, and stood aiming at the bird. But, O bull of
Bharata's race, Drona in an instant, addressing the Kuru prince standing with bow in hand, said, 'Behold,
O prince, that bird on top of the tree.' Yudhishthira replied unto his preceptor, saying, 'I do.' But the next
instant Drona again asked him, 'What dost thou see now, O prince? Seest thou the tree, myself or thy
brothers?' Yudhishthira answered, 'I see the tree, myself, my brothers, and the bird.' Drona repeated his
question, but was answered as often in the same words. Drona then, vexed with Yudhishthira,
reproachingly said, 'Stand thou apart. It is not for thee to strike the aim.' Then Drona repeated the
experiment with Duryodhana and the other sons of Dhritarashtra, one after another, as also with his
other pupils, Bhima and the rest, including the princes that had come unto him from other lands. But the
answer in every case was the same as Yudhishthira's viz., 'We behold the tree, thyself, our fellow-pupils,
and the bird.' And reproached by their preceptor, they were all ordered, one after another, to stand apart.'"

"Vaisampayana said, 'When everyone had failed, Drona smilingly called Arjuna and said unto him, 'By
thee the aim must be shot; therefore, turn thy eyes to it. Thou must let fly the arrow as soon as I give the
order. Therefore, O son, stand here with bow and arrow for an instant.' Thus addressed, Arjuna stood
aiming at the bird as desired by his preceptor, with his bow bent. An instant after Drona asked him as in
the case of others, 'Seest thou, O Arjuna, the bird there, the tree, and myself?' Arjuna replied, 'I see the
bird only, but nor the tree, or thyself.' Then the irrepressible Drona, well-pleased with Arjuna, the instant
after, again said unto that mighty car-warrior amongst the Pandavas, 'If thou seest the vulture, then
describe it to me.' Arjuna said, I see only the head of the vulture, not its body.' At these words of Arjuna,
the hair (on Drona's body) stood on end from delight. He then said to Partha, 'Shoot.' And the latter
instantly let fly (his arrow) and with his sharp shaft speedily struck off the head of the vulture on the tree
and brought it down to the ground. No sooner was the deed done than Drona clasped Phalguna to his
bosom and thought Drupada with his friends had already been vanquished in fight.
"Some time after, O bull of Bharata's race, Drona, accompanied by all of his pupils, went to the bank of
the Ganga to bathe in that sacred stream. And when Drona had plunged into the stream, a strong
alligator, sent as it were, by Death himself seized him by the thigh. And though himself quite capable,
Drona in a seeming hurry asked his pupil to rescue him. And he said, 'O, kill this monster and rescue
me.' Contemporaneously with this speech, Vibhatsu (Arjuna) struck the monster within the water with
five sharp arrows irresistible in their course, while the other pupils stood confounded, each at his place.
Beholding Arjuna's readiness, Drona considered him to be the foremost of all his pupils, and became
highly pleased. The monster, in the meantime cut into pieces by the arrows of Arjuna, released the thigh
of illustrious Drona and gave up the ghost. The son of Bharadwaja then addressed the illustrious and
mighty car-warrior Arjuna and said, 'Accept, O thou of mighty arms, this very superior and irresistible
weapon called Brahmasira with the methods of hurling and recalling it. Thou must not, however, ever
use it against any human foe, for if hurled at any foe endued with inferior energy, it might burn the
whole universe. It is said, O child, that this weapon hath not a peer in the three worlds. Keep it,
therefore, with great care, and listen to what I say. If ever, O hero, any foe, not human, contendeth
against thee thou mayst then employ it against him for compassing his death in battle.' Pledging himself
to do what he was bid, Vibhatsu then, with joined hands, received that great weapon.
The preceptor then, addressing him again, said, 'None else in this world will ever become a superior bowman
to thee. Vanquished thou shall never be by any foe, and thy achievements will be great.'"

Summary:
1) Drona was the son of Bharadwaja. Their Ashram/hermitage was near the source of Ganga.
2) The King Prishata was the friend of Bharadwaja, father of Drona.
3) Drona and Drupada, son of Prishata, were also childhood friends.
4) Later, Drona married Kripi, the sister of Kripacharya. Drona's son was Ashwattaman.
5) Drona was learned, but was poor because he did not concentrate on wealth gathering.
6) Drona went to Parashurama who was gifting away his possessions to Brahmins.
7) Parashurama had already given away all the wealth, when Drona reached him.
8 ) So, Parashurama 'donated' his knowledge of weapons to Drona, who was glad to receive it.
9) Later, unable to bear the misery of poverty, Drona searched far and wide for a donator.
10) He wanted a milch cow to feed his child with milk. Drona did not want to take it from someone who himself possessed little(because he did not want to trouble his host).
11) Ultimately, Drona(along with his wife and child) went to his childhood friend Drupada, who was now installed as King of Uttara Panchalas (most probably Punjab).
12) Drona was insulted by Drupada in the court. (Drona did not ask for 50% of kingdom).
13) Drona retired to his brother-in-law's(Kripacharya's) house who was a teacher of Kauravas and Pandavas in Hastinapura.
14) Drona exhibited his skill before the princes, who related it to Bhishma. And Bhishma appointed Drona as the teacher of all the princes.
15) Pupils(specially princes) from all over the place flocked to Drona's school. Karna, of suta caste, was also the student of Drona.
16) Arjuna became the favorite of Drona by his skill, intelligence, conduct and devotion.
17) Drona promised Arjuna that he would make him the best of his students.
18 ) Ekalavya, the Prince of Nishadas, was rejected admission by Drona.
19) Ekalavya, with devotion to Drona, pursued and excelled in archery.
20) Arjuna complained to Drona that the promise of making him the best of Drona's students was rendered waste by the excellence of Ekalavya.
21) Drona asked for the right thumb of Ekalavya as fee. Ekalavya promptly did as ordered.
22) As a result, Ekalavya lost his excellence, even though he was still able to shoot. Arjuna was, now, the best student of Drona.
23) Duryodhana and Bhima were jealous of each other from childhood. Both excelled in fighting with mace.
24) Karna, encouraged by the Duryodhana, always disregarded the Pandavas. Karna was also jealous of Arjuna.
25) Arjuna came foremost in all the tests conducted by Drona.

Later episode consists of the famous display of skill by the Kauravas and Pandavas before the audience. It is in this episode that Karna challenges Arjuna and later is crowned by Duryodhana as the king of Anga. After that, Drupada is captured by Pandavas and hand-overed to Drona.

[KLNMurthy]

Emerson apparently referring to Purusha Suktam (unattributed)

It is one of those fables, which, out of an unknown antiquity, convey an unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he might be more helpful to himself; just as the hand was divided into fingers, the better to answer its end.

The old fable covers a doctrine ever new and sublime; that there is One Man, — present to all particular men only partially, or through one faculty; and that you must take the whole society to find the whole man. Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier. In the divided or social state, these functions are parcelled out to individuals, each of whom aims to do his stint of the joint work, whilst each other performs his. The fable implies, that the individual, to possess himself, must sometimes return from his own labor to embrace all the other laborers. But unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, — a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.

Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing, into many things. The planter, who is Man sent out into the field to gather food, is seldom cheered by any idea of the true dignity of his ministry. He sees his bushel and his cart, and nothing beyond, and sinks into the farmer, instead of Man on the farm. The tradesman scarcely ever gives an ideal worth to his work, but is ridden by the routine of his craft, and the soul is subject to dollars. The priest becomes a form; the attorney, a statute-book; the mechanic, a machine; the sailor, a rope of a ship.

[RamaY]

JohneeG garu,

Sri Kappagantuala Lakshamana Sastry's verbatim translation of Vyasabharata says that Drona taught Ekalavya how to release arrows using the remaining four fingers. you can find that version in Archive.org.

[abhishek_sharma]

Later episode consists of the famous display of skill by the Kauravas and Pandavas before the audience. It is in this episode that Karna challenges Arjuna and later is crowned by Duryodhana as the king of Anga.

There are question marks over the validity of Karna's coronation. First of all, Duryodhana was not even a yuvraj at that time. He had no powers to give any part of the kingdom to anyone. Even Dhritrashtra was filling in for Pandu, so even his decision/preferences could be questioned.

Secondly, did Kauravas control Anga at that time? Do we have any evidence that the boundaries of Kauravas' territory extended until Anga (or beyond)?

In Mahabharat, Karna is always shown to be in Hastinapur. Why didn't he go to Anga to rule/govern his province?

No one took Karna's coronation seriously. The duel between Arjun and Karna did not take place and Bheem continued to make fun of Karna.

Finally, Vanparv (254th adhyay, 8th sloka) discusses Karna's digvijay, in which he conquered Anga, Banga, Kalinga, Shundik, Mithila, Magadh and Karkkhand. While these series of conquests is questionable, why did Karna need to conquer Anga, when he was already Anga-raj? And if he conquered Anga now, what was he ruling before?

Source: Narendra Kohli's book discussed above.

[abhishek_sharma]

It has been argued that Karna lost the war because Lord Indra took away his kavach and kundal. This is not tenable because he was defeated by Arjuna and Gandharva Chitrarath even when he had those accessories.

Regarding comparisons with Arjuna: Karna and other Kauravas were defeated by Drupad, whereas Arjuna and Bheema (with a few soldiers) easily conquered Drupad and brought him as a guru-dakshina for Dronacharya.

After Draupadi's swayambar, Arjun and Bheem were attacked by all other kings who lost the competition. Arjun and Bheem single-handedly defeated all of them (including Karna). This was Karna's second defeat in a war with Arjun.

[ramana]

abhishek, Duryodhana gave Anga to Karna as he got it from his mother Gandhari and had exclusive rights on Anga. So in the tournament he gave it to Karna and crowned him as Anga Raj.

Also Anga seems like it doesn't need to be ruled as Duryodhana himself didn't got rule it.

I dont know about the latter points you bring up.

[abhishek_sharma]

Okay, I will keep that in mind. It is mentioned that Yadavas ruled Mathura and Jarasandh was in Magadh. He had defeated 99 rulers of provinces surrounding Magadha and thrown them in prison. According to Kohli, given this power dynamics, it is not likely that Anga and Champa nagari were in control of Kauravas. (they were too far from Hastinapur and too close to Jarasandh) However, Gandhari's role is not mentioned. It appears that the author overlooked this fact.

[ramana]

Actually it was 96 kings and he was waiting to defeat 4 more and sacrifice them all in a yagna.

[RamaY]

Sequence of events in time

- coronation of Karna as angaraja
- Lakshagruha dahana
- draupadi swayamvara
- separation of kingdom
- construction of Indraprastha
- killing of Jarasandha
- rajasuya - in this Bhima (who went east got acceptance by Karna at anga rajya)
- at rajasuya all kauravas accepted Dharmaraja as monarch along with other kings as there is no more
jarasandha
- dyutakreeda
- vanavaasa
- karna conquered any kingdoms only during pandava's vanavas

I collected the summary of Karna's character when this discussion came in Indian interests thread. Will post tomorrow.

[Murugan]

Ramay
is it Lakshagruh dahan (the second bullet?)

[RamaY]

Thanks Muruguan ji...

Karna is overly glorified in modern India by the leftist historians to show Bharatiya culture in negative colors. Karna is one of the key characters in Mahabharata that demands a sympathetic review from the reader. Karna demands the sympathetic review due to the origins and circumstance of his birth, his bravery in war, his daana-vrata (owe to never say ‘no’ to a begging hand), his unflinching loyalty to his friend and king, and his unwillingness to compromise on his loyalty even at the greatest odds (access to the entire kingdom, Draupadi and stopping a war of civilizational proportion). In spite of all these rare characteristics of Karna, the epic Mahabharata puts him in the club of “Dushta Chatustayam” (gang of four villians). How is it so?

In order to understand this dichotomy, we need to understand the core values of Mahabharata (Greater Bharat/India) and how Karna stands separate from it. At the core of Mahabharata stands the Sanatana (eternal) Dharmic system of Bharatiya society. Karna consciously chose to stand on the wrong side of this Sanatana Dharma as he couldn’t understand and appreciate the subtle balance between means and goals of this dharmic system.

Starting from his formative years, Karna’s emphasis always was on proving his power and being recognized as the most powerful archer. He joined Drona’s gurukula along with Pandavas, Kauravas and many other princes. His competition with Arjuna started here and it led him to Duryodhana’s camp. His ultimate goal is to defeat Arjuna and remain the most power warrior on earth. In this process he didn’t mind approaching his gurus thru deception (lies to Parasurama that he was a Brahmin).

Karna thought only might is important as we can see in his fascination with defeating Arjuna and be called the greatest warrior in the world. But what Karna missed in that obsession was that Arjuna's real power stemmed from his Dharmic behavior and most importantly Krishna's Dharmic guidance and not his Astras or Sastras.

Karna also failed to understand the subtler aspects of Dharma. That is why he thought it is always someone else's fault when they followed their "swa-dharma"; be it Drona or Parasurama or Bhisma etc., That is why he even resorted to deception w.r.t Parasurama to get new Astras - which he thought are the more important than Satya-Vrata. Same goes with all his saapa (curses) - he always tried to implement his world-view (even if it meant Daana) thru (sic) brute force, which we can see in the episode where he tries to squeeze spilled ghee out of earth.

The key point is what is the purpose of all this might the Karna is behind? Karna thought might alone is Supreme. We don't know if he wanted to usher Dharma after he brought entire world under his rule or not.

Karna's world view did not care about the natural balance and social etiquette. It didn't care for the human rights of Pandavas, Draupadi etc and they were branded enemies of the state (from his PoV). Yet he was portrayed as the down trodden - can he remain a low caste even after getting coronated as Anga raja?

Even with all his deviation from Dharmic path, there is the gap between Karna’s claims and capabilities. When he went out to capture Drupada for Drona, he got so beaten up by Drupada that he flees the battlefield. Following are few excerpts from Aranya parva (meaning Pandavas were in the forests)

• VYASA STOPS THE CRUEL PLANS OF KARNA, DURYODHANA AND OTHERS TO MURDER PANDAVAS WHEN THEY ARE IN WOODS
• KARNA INSTIGATES DURYODHANA TO DISPLAY HIS MATERIAL SPLENDOUR IN FRONT OF PANDAVAS TO DERIVE FASCIST PLEASURE
• KARNA AND SHAKUNI DESIGN PRETEXT OF CATTLE INSPECTION TO GET APPROVAL OF DRUTARASTRA
• DURYODHANA ATTACKS GANDARVAS; UNDER THE ILLUSION OF CHITRASENA KARNA IS DEFEATED AND FLEES THE BATTLEFIELD
• DURYODHANA DECIDES TO END HIS LIFE BY FASTING; KARNA DE-GLORIFIES ACTS OF YUDHISTHIRA STATING THEY WERE DOING THE DUTIES OF ORDINARY CITIZENS, WHICH IS TO PROTECT THEIR KING
• KARNA’S DECEPTIVE WAYS TO CONVICE DURYODHANA THAT PANDAVAS HAVE INDEED DONE THEIR DUTY; IDEALLY THEY MUST HAVE JOINED HIS ARMY EVEN BEFORE
• DURYODHANA RETURNS TO HASTINAPURA. KARNA SETS OUT ON A EXCURSION TO GATHER SUPPORT
• NORTH, SOUNT, EAST AND WESTERN REAGIONS CONQUERED BY KARNA. DRITARASTRA STARTS OVERESTIMATING THE STREANGTH OF KARNA
• DURYODHANA COMPLETES THE PLOUGH SACRIFICE; STARTS THINKING OF HOW TO KILL PANDAVAS TO PERFORM RAJASUYA SACRIFICE; KARNA OWES TO KILL ARJUNA

Karna’s philosophy has modern connotations too. A modern example of Karna’s mindset is the modern definition of progress - People argue that isn’t it what made the west successful and powerful? How does it matter if PRC is communist rule as long as the HDIs are moving up? We also see similar thought process within India - the dynasty brings stable and "peaceful" govt in india; others cannot.

The end result of this governance system would be complete collapse of natural social and echo systems. Remember, the rules of Ravana, Tripurasura etc, were very peaceful and wealthy but the dikpalakas (natural balance) were harassed. At the end the natural forces will have to correct themselves as it the system became "unsustainable".

That is why I ask people a question – why didn’t pre-independence India convert to Islam to stop partition?

In a geopolitical environment related to Bharat, Unkil is Duryodhana, Aunty Sakuni, TSPA Dussasana and PRC Karna. Kunti is Bharatamata, Dharmaraja is GoI, Bhima its military, Arjuna is its MIC, Nakula and Sahadeva are the Agri and commerce sectors. Bharatiya Sanatana Dharma is Sri Krishna. Modern Pandavas will not be able to achieve their glory until they find Sri Krishna (or Sri Krishna finds them).

[Yayavar]

RamaYji: Karana was vastly out-numbered by the Gandharva's and had to flee, but did Arjuna actually fight the Gandharva's? I think Vyasa muni leaves enough arguments on all sides to make it an ambiguous story.

[abhishek_sharma]

When Arjuna and Bheema went to fight Drupad, they were outnumbered too. It is not a big deal.

During Draupadi's swayambar, Arjun and Bheem were again outnumbered by other kings (other 3 brothers returned to Kunti). Karna was in the opposition and we know the result.

Kaurava's army outnumbered Pandava's army in the main Mahabharat war.

Arjuna also defeated Bhisma, Drona and Karna in a battle at Viraat Nagar.

[Yayavar]

ok . I asked because what I recall was that Karna actually had to fight the Gandharvas who were magical beings whereas Arjuna was on good terms (on the right Dharmic side?) and could prevail on them to let the Kauravas go. I do concede that I've not read any originals.

[putnanja]

ok . I asked because what I recall was that Karna actually had to fight the Gandharvas who were magical beings whereas Arjuna was on good terms (on the right Dharmic side?) and could prevail on them to let the Kauravas go. I do concede that I've not read any originals.

The pandavas do go and fight the gandharvas, with Bhima and Arjuna leading the charge. Finally, Arjuna defeats the Gandharva and gets Duryodhana released

Check Kisari Mohan Ganguly's original translation of Mahabharatha

[Yayavar]

putnaja: thanks, will read.

It though spoils my view - it is a much better if the heroes and their opposition are equally matches with some flaws here or there. When one side is so overwhelmingly better it takes away from the story. I did search the net a bit and as per some tellings, in the battle of Virata, Arjuna shoots an arrow which puts everyone to sleep. Well, at least it is not a direct battle then.

I still like Karna's story as a flawed hero who has to overcome odds, is conflicted by various ties, and makes some choices and then sticks to them. RamaY's broader description above makes sense but, one can view Karna as someone pulling himself from his bootstraps against all odds. He challenges Arjun and is scoffed at for his low-birth by Drona, Arjun does not intervene. It is a slight that marks him. He is the hero who is recognized by Pandavas as their own only when he becomes powerful, and is in the opposition. He is not a brother or son to Pandavas or Kunti before that. He chooses Duryodhana who gives him his due (Is he referred to as Duryodhana throughout Mahabharata? Dinakar refers to him as 'Suyodhan' in 'shakti aur kshama' ).

[ramana]

Viv, the idea of a hero with a flaw (hamartia) is a Greek construct. All Greek heroes have fatal flaws. This idea made its way into West via Greco-Roman inculturation.

In India we have matchless ideals like Maryada Rama and Arjuna the matchless warrior.
Karna with his fatal flwas is not the ideal to pursue for it leads to eventual defeat.

[RamaY]

I still like Karna's story as a flawed hero who has to overcome odds, is conflicted by various ties, and makes some choices and then sticks to them. RamaY's broader description above makes sense but, one can view Karna as someone pulling himself from his bootstraps against all odds. He challenges Arjun and is scoffed at for his low-birth by Drona, Arjun does not intervene. It is a slight that marks him. He is the hero who is recognized by Pandavas as their own only when he becomes powerful, and is in the opposition. He is not a brother or son to Pandavas or Kunti before that. He chooses Duryodhana who gives him his due (Is he referred to as Duryodhana throughout Mahabharata? Dinakar refers to him as 'Suyodhan' in 'shakti aur kshama' ).

You can have the heroes you want. Some people hero worship even Keechaka. It is one's prerogative.

What I was trying to correct was the wrong perception (sic) secular historians created about Karna in Indic society; a true hero who got the bad end of Hindu caste system. These (sic) historians tell us that they came to these observations based on the same texts I read, the Mahabharata. I presented the list of chapters Karna's name comes up in Aranya Parva and that shows Karna as a very bad person.

To your question about Kunti/Pandava's treatment of Karna -

It is very sad indeed that Karna was left alone by Kunti; but we should understand Kunti's position which demands same level of compassion from the reader (she wanted to test a Mantra out of childishness). However he must have gotten a very decent childhood by his adopted parents. He even got admission into Drona's Dhanur-university. That proves that he was treated on par with other Kshatriyas (actually princes).

On the other hand Ekalavya , the son of a true Nishada king, did not get admission into the same school.

Then during the demonstration of Kaurava/Pandava skills, Karna got coronated as king of Anga. With that he became a King even before any Pandava/Kaurava got coronated. With this Karna's underprivileged life, if any to begin with, must have ended.

Pandavas were unaware of Karna until after his death, so it is not fair to blame them.

- Karna lost his Dharmic compass when he thought he can learn knowledge by deceiving his teacher. From this point he is on a slippery slope.
- Karna lost his moral compass when he joined Kauravas in the plot to kill Pandavas in Vaaranavata
- He lost his human compass when he encouraged Dussasana to disrobe Draupadi

This all started because Karna, by nature, did not believe in mutual respect and compassion for others. He was obsessed with Power and didn't mind to achieve it in adharmic manner. His daana-vrata is his way of showing that he has everything and he is the one who gives (him violently pulling his natural armor to give it to Indra - is an asuric daana-vrata; even that purpose was lost when he took Shakti in return). A comparative example is Asuras cutting their limbs and head as part of their Tapas/Penance to gods. His joy came from paisachika deeds like disrobing a woman in the middle of royal assembly.

If you still want to hero worship him, good for you. One friendly request is that you let your children read Mahabharata and make their opinion about him.

[Agnimitra]

^ RamaY ji, thanks for taking this subject up and explaining it thus.

[Yayavar]

I still like Karna's story as a flawed hero who has to overcome odds, is conflicted by various ties, and makes some choices and then sticks to them. RamaY's broader description above makes sense but, one can view Karna as someone pulling himself from his bootstraps against all odds. He challenges Arjun and is scoffed at for his low-birth by Drona, Arjun does not intervene. It is a slight that marks him. He is the hero who is recognized by Pandavas as their own only when he becomes powerful, and is in the opposition. He is not a brother or son to Pandavas or Kunti before that. He chooses Duryodhana who gives him his due (Is he referred to as Duryodhana throughout Mahabharata? Dinakar refers to him as 'Suyodhan' in 'shakti aur kshama' ).

You can have the heroes you want. Some people hero worship even Keechaka. It is one's prerogative.

And some preach but dont practice too . Keechaka probably is the hero of fictional Bollywood villains but maybe you have met others who do think of him as the hero.

What I was trying to correct was the wrong perception (sic) secular historians created about Karna in Indic society; a true hero who got the bad end of Hindu caste system. These (sic) historians tell us that they came to these observations based on the same texts I read, the Mahabharata. I presented the list of chapters Karna's name comes up in Aranya Parva and that shows Karna as a very bad person.

And I've appreciated your description. My impression above has nothing to do with p-secs. It is looking at a life from a psychological perspective and of one trying to overcome various difficulties in the best possible ways to ones capabilities. In the end he fails of course. That does not mean that the dice is not loaded against him.

To your question about Kunti/Pandava's treatment of Karna -

It is very sad indeed that Karna was left alone by Kunti; but we should understand Kunti's position which demands same level of compassion from the reader (she wanted to test a Mantra out of childishness). However he must have gotten a very decent childhood by his adopted parents. He even got admission into Drona's Dhanur-university. That proves that he was treated on par with other Kshatriyas (actually princes).

And the same analysis can be applied to Karna. The Mahabharata or Ramayana have the ideal heroes and a lot of flawed heroes. These latter have reasons, personal flaws that limit them and illustrate why they eventually fail like you have described above. And in many ways they are more instructive in their contrast from the ideal hero perhaps.

Drona teaching Karna is not known in popular telling. What is known is that Drona stops him from competing with Arjuna, and it is then that Duryodhana crowns him Anga-naresh.
(btw, is it Duryodhana in original or Suyodhana which is later truned Duryodhana? or does Duryodhana mean something positive somehow??)

On the other hand Ekalavya , the son of a true Nishada king, did not get admission into the same school.

Then during the demonstration of Kaurava/Pandava skills, Karna got coronated as king of Anga. With that he became a King even before any Pandava/Kaurava got coronated. With this Karna's underprivileged life, if any to begin with, must have ended.

Pandavas were unaware of Karna until after his death, so it is not fair to blame them.

Krishna comes to Karna and asks him to join the Pandavas. Kunti comes to him and asks him to not fight Arjuna. Pandavas might have been kept unaware.

Certainly his under-priviliged days ended with the crowning but his hurt stayed. It is the hurt that is required for the story to build up and have some content in it. Otherwise it would be insipid story telling.

- Karna lost his Dharmic compass when he thought he can learn knowledge by deceiving his teacher. From this point he is on a slippery slope.
- Karna lost his moral compass when he joined Kauravas in the plot to kill Pandavas in Vaaranavata
- He lost his human compass when he encouraged Dussasana to disrobe Draupadi

Can you explain the first one: why is it not Parsuram's folly? Either the varna is from birth or it is from task. Parsuram is himself a brahmin and a kshatriya in that sense. How is Karna not a Shudra then by upbringing? I never understood why a Brahmin student would not steel himself to an insects bite if he too is to be a formidable warrior like Parsuram. Why must that indicate Karna to be a Kshatriya?

Why is this human compass intact for Pandvas, especially Yudhishtara, who put up his wife as an object to be given away?

This all started because Karna, by nature, did not believe in mutual respect and compassion for others. He was obsessed with Power and didn't mind to achieve it in adharmic manner. His daana-vrata is his way of showing that he has everything and he is the one who gives (him violently pulling his natural armor to give it to Indra - is an asuric daana-vrata; even that purpose was lost when he took Shakti in return). A comparative example is Asuras cutting their limbs and head as part of their Tapas/Penance to gods. His joy came from paisachika deeds like disrobing a woman in the middle of royal assembly.

This is a good insight.

If you still want to hero worship him, good for you. One friendly request is that you let your children read Mahabharata and make their opinion about him.

RamaYji: please re-read what I've written. You should not see p-secs or a-dharma everywhere.

There is a reason for Karna in the story and the story is good. Whether he is a good man or not is secondary to that story. From a Dharmic analysis he falls short, but that is a different aspect.

[RamaY]

Dont get me wrong, I weren't judging you.

Whatever impression (the victim) we got is from the (sic) secular historians and movies like (in Telugu) Dana Veera Sura Karna.

Drona teaching Karna is not known in popular telling. What is known is that Drona stops him from competing with Arjuna, and it is then that Duryodhana crowns him Anga-naresh.

Drona/whoever stopped Karna was for a reason. That day's demonstration was for Kuru-princes only (Pandavas and Kauravas). Not a duel to check who is the best in the world. The objective was to demonstrate the people that the next generation is ready to rule; not to prove that they are better than so and so.

Certainly his under-priviliged days ended with the crowning but his hurt stayed. It is the hurt that is required for the story to build up and have some content in it. Otherwise it would be insipid story telling.

How could he be hurt when he didn't know about his birth until Kunti/Krishna told him, just before the war?

The Mahabharata or Ramayana have the ideal heroes and a lot of flawed heroes.

The flawed heroes are called villains, sir. It is like calling Arjuna a arisen villain

Beyond a point, the language itself becomes a tool/hurdle

[Yayavar]

Viv, the idea of a hero with a flaw (hamartia) is a Greek construct. All Greek heroes have fatal flaws. This idea made its way into West via Greco-Roman inculturation.

In India we have matchless ideals like Maryada Rama and Arjuna the matchless warrior.
Karna with his fatal flwas is not the ideal to pursue for it leads to eventual defeat.

Yes, that is a good summarization. Thanks for the link to the Greek origins.

Reading RamaY's posts and your explanation it appears that a flawed protagonist might be of Greek origins, but the Indic story telling juxtaposes a capable but flawed character, or multiple of them (e.g.Ashwathama in addition to Karna) with the ideal one. The former illustrates the path to eventual defeat inspite of everything and the latter the one to emulate. It makes for a better and more wholesome story telling as well as a more complete education of right and wrong.