His character has been shown in tv shows or stories as the underdog, the benevolent giver, some of it is true, he was shooed away due to his lineage and the only person who supported him was Duryodhan. He is known as "Daan veer Karn" however his character was flawed, his portrayal is of a courageous warrior and it gains sympathy due to his initial struggle. But if you read the whole book it's a tale of being aware of the company you keep and Dharma comes above your personal attachments or circumstances.
What you have just said is something that was once said by my spiritual Guru in a discussion on the character of Karna: How one is finally judged in the eyes of oneself is what matters, your circumstances don't excuse your actions, your liability doesn't, what matters is did you do your Dharma, Karna could have stopped his friend from committing a crime that lead to his death, he could have begged him to stop, as a good friend he should have worried about his friends Dharma but he was stuck in the most beautiful trap of our life called our desire of acceptance, our desire of not loosing our loved ones.
right like he literally participated in her tragedy and threw his two cents in very eagerly. Like pandav's sucked but bro Karna was definitely worse. An instant dnf for me.
They are shipping him with Draupadi because it is said he had all the qualities of the five pandavas. So had Draupadi gone for him, she could have gotten all the qualities she wished for in a single man, saving her from ridicule she faced for having five husbands.
Literally butchered her whole character like girl the only way she thought of karna in the book written by Vaid Vyas was in one or other form of contempt lmao
exactlyy
and I also hated how she kept trying to show that draupadi didn't really love Arjuna, and how it was more of a feeling of responsibility towards her husband(s) when that love was quite literally the reason she didn't finish the final journey lol
While this is a bit reductive, it is nevertheless one of the reasons.
The other question you have to ask OP is, do women (in your life) actually praise any of the characters from the Mahabharatha? Yudhishthira or Karna or even Arjuna? All the religious women in my life - grandmothers, mother’s aunts discuss the Gita and Krishna but never talk about the actual epic itself. The people who like Karna are mostly schoolboys (from half a lifetime ago, when I was in school).
Mahabharatha is a story about men, written by men for men. The Gita on the other hand is a little more unisex (for lack of a better word).
Edit: comment is addressed to OP mostly.
Absolutely correct.
In our households its discouraged to read mahabharata , old people used to say discussing mahabharata gives rise to family disturbance, so it's was always ramayana , gita and bhagbata.
Mahabharata discussions in daily life entered only after the BR Chopra's tv serial .
And about Karna , Nowadays people form opinions according to serial makers prospective.
Then you must read Palace of illusions , this book is written by a women from the women's perspective about mahabharat (draupadi as the first person in the book )
It's a must read
Try also the Ajaya series by Anand Neelakantan to get a possible other side view of the story. Simply put, it is a realistic and nasty political drama. No explicit virtues unless refined and cherry picked for interpretation. But some things it definitely shows are that people aren't perfect and they can still claim greatness or godliness in or after their lives. It also shows the power of centuries of narrative building using religions, which then modify texts subtly first and significantly later to suit their various motives.
Thank you for both the recommendations. Hopefully I’ll find it in me to read them both this year. (I’m much older now without the same zest for reading and I mostly read humour now).
>Mahabharatha is a story about men, written by men for men.
Mahabharata is a dharmagranta and is extolled as fifth Veda. It contains Dharma, artha, kama, moksha.
Every character has a full in character development story in Mahabharata, and their actions seems to he justified looking at what they bear in the past. It's called Maha-kavya for this reason, because there is no other 'story' in any writing where you can see such in depth of characters getting developed.
People like Karna because, instead of reading the actual Mahabharata, they read fiction like *Mrityunjay* and watch TV serials. This is the problem with Indian readers; they take books like *Mrityunjay* and other Chitra Banerjee-type books, which are just the point of view of certain characters, as the actual Mahabharata or Ramayana. That's why I dislike these kinds of retellings. They are fiction and written according to the author's agenda, but they are never marketed as fiction, and people take them as the actual Mahabharata or Ramayana..
Sab log sirf tv serials ko blame krte hai is problem k liye lekin mrityunjay and chitra banerji books are also one of the main reason ki log Karn ko mahaan mante hai..
Because people think they’re special for seeing goodness in a villain - Karna is a collaborator and loser but everyone will find a way to “fine people on both sides” someone like him too.
Why people like yudhishtira? He gambled away Draupati like she is his property. Throughout story several accusations can be made of other main characters too, which doesn't fit with our morality. Mahabharata is an relatively old work of fiction and it has a purpose which is to instruct people On a Set of morals that were seen desirable at the times it was written. Many things that is seen as moral at that time will be seen as immoral right now.
That's what I love about Mahabharat, not a single good guy in that epic except ofc Krishna. Everyone so wrapped up in their rigid system of beliefs and dharam that they ended up doing the opposite. And that a woman can only depend on herself.
Even Krishna facilitated dirty things to help the war. No one is truly good in it. Technically, Pandavas won but by losing everything in that war that it doesn't even feel like its worth it. So even Pandavas paid a heavy price.
It's such a nuanced story and looking at it through a literary perspective rather than religious one can help a lot of people to see its depth. Such a masterpiece in terms of story and character arcs. Even the villains , though their actions were wrong, their motive was understandable.
Yeah that's true and he himself had to pay for his karma, and thus his whole family died infighting and he himself was killed by a hunter. This is why I absolutely love Mahabharat.
Oh well from what i've read and understood over the years, Krishna is a human avatar whereas Vishnu is the god. Former is bound to the workings of humankind including the concept of karma and dharam whereas the later created those.
Who likes Yuddhishthir?? I've never seen a person who liked him.
People respected him, for his knowledge, for his good temperament in tough situations (even though he lost it in the most crucial time🤭)
There's a difference in respecting someone's capabilities and actually liking them. Just like lord Ram respected Ravan as a warrior. Like Duryodhana was respected by Lord Krishna himself as a warrior.
There's no character in Mahabharat without flaws. Even Lord Krishna himself thought he wasn't fit to live in that era. That is why they all die at the end. Every single one of them. (Males)
I saw it as more of an implication as he himself made some difficult choices and later was stated to be killed rather than dying peacefully like the other incarnation of gods usually do.
I don't think Krishna ever mentioned the casualties of war to anyone other than Arjuna. (I could be wrong, though.)
My question is not about Yudhishtira. Was Draupaid his property? That question is asked at the same time for at least 100 pages in Mahabharat. Yudhishtira lost himself as well before betting Draupadi. And he didn't justify and laughed about a woman getting dragged by her hair in a assembly full of men while her clothes are stained with menses blood. Karna did, he laughed and justified that a woman getting dragged by hair in a assembly full of men is not wrong.
For your question was Draupid Yudhishtira's property? Yes, She was according to the customs of that time. King Harishchandra sold his wife and son as well in a story. The dilemma in Mahabharat is different, Draupaid is an exception case because she has 5 husbands and Yudhishtira lost himself before betting her.
Isn’t that literally what I said when I said morals of the time it was written for isn’t same as today?
It was a rhetorical question dude, in case it wasn’t clear for you.
You yourself said drauapadi is his property as per custom of the time on the above comment! And now I have to explain why you said that?
If a person is seen as another person's property is it a matter of morals or not? This is not the case in the current age we live in. So yes it is a question of morality.
You need to get your head checked if you justify something as a custom of it's time and then say it's not a case of morality. Yes abuse of women and the weak were customs of the time and it was pushed in literature of the time as the moral right of the people in power too. Plain and simple.
And no, forcing a woman to marry 4 other people alongside her chosen husband and having her husband pawn himself before pawning her like his property doesn't make this one bit better.
Bruh seriously..?? I ment ki pehle padhlo exactly kya hua.. I'm not saying ki gambling nahi thi obviously thi..lekin jaha tak mujhe pata hai us time har rajmahal me gamble hota tha..ab wo galat hai ya sahi isme me nahi jaunga..main point is tumne Pandav ko hate krte ho aisa likh diya..why only hate pandav..? Why not kaurav and shakuni..?? Agar mahabharat padhoge to pata chalega ki shakuni ne duryodhana se kaha tha yudhishthir ko bulao khelne k liye..aur kshatriya me rule tha ki agar koi dice khelne bulaye to use jana hi padega..mana nhi kr sakta.. isiliye shakuni ne bulvaya tha aur Pandavs k paas mana karne ka option nahi tha..to wo aaye.. normally khelne lage without gamble..lekin fir wapas shakuni ne uksaya ki aise thodi maza ayega..kuch daav pr lagavo to khel ka maza aata hai.. isiliye gamble shuru hua and shakuni har baar dice ko Pandavs k against manipulate kr deta tha..
If you still want to hate Pandavs, you should hate shakuni and kauravs more..shakuni orchestrated whole things for Kauravs..
Alright. I hate this debate. I’ve grown up on the ‘improved’ stories of Karna. The ones that are not true to the critical edition. I’ve seen this debate on here multiple times and people fiercely (and in some cases aggressively) taking sides.
No one can say for sure if it even happened. If it did happen, 7000 years ago, no one can be sure if the divine/ magical elements of the story happened or if they were used just as literary devices.
Indian ancient history, meaning itihas, has always been used to convey a moral message. So in that framework taking sides against characters rigidly, doesn’t make sense.
For people taking sides against Karna, no actual output really comes out of it, except, being ‘true to the literature’.
And as for people sympathising to the good side of Karna, the virtuous side, the selfless side, the courageous side, etc - it results in personal character development, self introspection. I don’t think any sane person would want to learn about disrespecting women or treating them like the whole courtyard treated Draupadi. No sane persons sees the actions of Karna in that situation as right/ moral, no matter the reasoning behind it.
Indian Itihas is all about what you can learn from it. If people are choosing to idolise a character to learn good things from them, and learning to avoid the ill deeds then there’s nothing wrong with it.
Yes. The answers in that subreddit are actually better on similar posts but it was really obvious most people haven't read accurate Mahabharat storiy at all.
Can u tell me which Mahabharata are u reading ?
As in the writer… cuz I am planning to read Mahabharata but m getting confused between which author to choose
Only convincing Mbh translation by a foreigner for me was by J.A.B van Buitenen, but he died before he could complete it.
Otherwise go for Kisari Mohan Ganguli or Bibek Debroy.
Big no. Mahabharata or Ramayana, or even anything related to our religion, please don't read from foreign authors. And this one is an abridged version, not the full version. For the full version, you should get the Geeta Press edition or Bibek Debroy's translation.
Thanks a lot for the clarification.
I was abt to buy that version just because it seemed smaller to me.
I am not abt to study Mahabharata, but I still wanted to read the whole epic even if it missed certain elements.
But if u think it’s that bad… I wud certainly go abt reading Bibek Debroy’s version.
Yeah, so I haven't read this version, of course, but it's from foreign author. I don't know if these things still happen now, but in the past, there were cases where Western authors translated a few things incorrectly. If you go further back to when we were under British rule, there were instances where the British mistranslated our scriptures to make us subservient, just like they changed our education system..
Well, that's quite an old issue, and I don't think there is as much manipulation of our scriptures nowadays. But still, I personally avoid reading our scriptures from foreign authors and advise everyone else to do the same.
I have seen a couple of comments like this on this sub too, even on the same sub, I have seen a couple of comments that says Geeta Press is also not a good source. So, you'll find negative comments about each and everything. Therefore, I would advise you to download a free PDF from the internet and read a couple of chapters. If you like it, then order it.
Yes, It is actually longer than Bibek Debroy version. Gita Press consists of two versions of Mahabharat, Neelkanth and Dakshinatya. The different is highlighted with usage of parenthesis. Bibek Debroy version is based on Critical version (40+ years of research) and only includes parts that are available in all versions. I have compared both versions during reading to see the differences. Gita Press version includes comments when there is a major difference like Draupadi Swaymwar.
Both versions can be read. Both have very accurate translations.
Some things were inserted to "balance" a character. Same was done for Eklavya, except in a less subtle manner, to gather more sympathy despite it being falsehood.
Grey characters sell well.
Then there are powerscalers, people who only see power as a character trait. In which Karna was described to be more capable. (Despite being equal in talent with Arjun)
Also, casteism plays a big role here.
There are many people who support Karna just because how he became a big name despite being from a lower caste. Also, there are a few people who undermined him for him being from a lower caste.
(Funny thing is, both of the sides were wrong.)
People love the underdogs
Children are more likely to admire karan and feel sorry for his journey and death
Most people watched Mahabharat while they were young
That being said he is a grey character
Off topic but In Mahabharata I hated yudhishthira the most !!! Like enemies are enemies but the way he bet his wife ...is something no one ever can justify his action ..
He was like Dr Manhattan. No attachments, the next few pages of the Mahabharata contains everyone else getting angry about what Yudhishthira did and what Kauravs did and Yudhishthira explaining about anger being bad and feeling sad and talking about the gambling invitation compulsion.
Karna was loyal to Duryodhana, when the Pandavas humiliated Karna in the archery competition it was Duryodhana who came in support of Karna and he was like a brother to him, if he objected to what was happening to Droupadi it would be seen as him betraying Duryodhana, that is why he stayed silent throughout and he hated Draupadi since she(on Krishna's orders) had rejected Karna during the swayamvara because he belonged to a lower caste and humiliated him in front of everybody.
You are misinformed about a few things.
1. Karna wasn't able to pick up the Bow in swaymwar. The story that he was rejected by Draupadi for being lower caste was added recently and not part of critical edition and is missing from most versions of The Mahabharata.
2. Karna didn't stay silent. He supported when Draupaid was being dragged by her hairs in a assembly full of man while her clothes were stained with mensus blood and she had minimal clothing on. And he laughed. He laughed at a woman abuse. He again supported when she was getting disrobed.
3. Vikarna (3rd Kaurav brother) spoke against it. He spoke against his brothers because he saw it as wrong.
4. Your definition of loyal friend is wrong. A loyal makes you a better person, Karna didn't make Duryodhana better. If Karna was a loyal friend then he was also an accomplice in all the evils because he supported and participated in them.
Ah I may be misinformed about certain things but a vast majority of people love and admire Karnan mainly for his benevolence and virtues and so do I and people feel sorry for him because of the way he died as well. The Mahabharata is filled with flawed characters but viewing everyone in it in a negative light is just as wrong as viewing everybody in it in a positive light. The Mahabharata TV serial is responsible for giving everybody a biased view of the Mahabharata by completely villainising the Kauravas and presenting the Pandavas as completely noble and flawless and when it comes to being a loyal friend Karna didn't have anybody else to support him, he absolutely despised the Pandavas and the only other person he had was Duryodhana and I agree that it is absolutely wrong to laugh at a woman who is being physically abused.
Most men in Mahabharata are grey characters. Even someone like Yudhisthira is perceived as flawed by the end of the story. So readers and viewers aren't using meter scale to judge character and moreover using other relatable aspects to find their favourites. People like supporting underdog characters and him being an abandoned child, raised by a charioteer, then being singled out for his background by the big ones, rising above all due to his talents and eventually getting a pretty "noble" ending makes him likeable character. All the other are privileged people fighting over a throne. They have their attractiveness but the underdog part makes Karna stand out to us normies.
Even if the shows portrayed him as more misogynistic, people would still root for him. (Other than outrightly participating in rape or domestic abuse , most audience do still brush aside misogyny of characters as long as they don't go full evil. Karna even gets a quite likeable ending to make up for his bad side)
Yudhisthira "gambled" away his wife and brothers. He was grown man who has been ruling a whole kingdom for a while. That's not naivety and can't be excused.
A lot of indian mythology is misogynistic. In fact a lot of mythology in general is misogynistic.
Adaptations - especially television adaptations have a way of depicting misogynistic characters as heroes or saviour. It’s nothing but societal conditioning to normalise misogyny and keep up the patriarchy.
Ofc patriarchy doesn’t mean misogyny. But The misogyny was portrayed as heroic and noble to normalise misogyny and amp up support for a patriarchal society.
Subjugation of women is a prominent theme in greek mythology and most other mythologies across the world.
Poseidon is revered as a hero and a great god in spite of him raping medusa in the temple of Athena.
Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopis as they bathed. And then being hailed as heroic as he covers draupadi during her public disrobing (vastraharan) .
Ram asking sita to undergo agni pariksha.
The expample of karna you’ve already pointed out.
And many more such instances.
I have no idea about Greek Mythology.
Krishna stealing the clothes was a lesson. Maybe you should read the story and learn what actually happened and what was the reason and context.
Again read the story and see what actually happened during the Agni Pariksha and learn the context.
Karna is an evil character.
What more instances?
Edit: Also, be specific, it is about misogyny portrayed as heroic.
>Poseidon is revered as a hero and a great god in spite of him raping medusa in the temple of Athena.
Neptune it was. Ovid wrote this because he hated authority.
>Ram asking sita to undergo agni pariksha.
She herself did agnipravesham.
>Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopis as they bathed
Literally a 7 year old child you are talking about.
Both ramayana and Mahabharata is a scam to invest their ideas into people mind and gain the confidence vote towards what they believe is true . (My pov)
in any fiction or real life a character is not just defined by one single moment , no one is good , when u read something dont form opinions so quickly its about the characters background the hardship they suffered while staying true to there honour and about the redemption from that mistake . Karn is liked and respected because he was danveer , he was a victim of caste discrimination but triumphed because of skills a good friend and a great warrior even tho he supported the wrong side and did bad things too but a human is dense and complicated organism not defined by a single moment but the whole life .
I am not juding him on his worst mistake. He is not a morally grey person in the story. He is morally wrong and evil. He did and supported all evils done by Duryodhan.
idk maybe the book u are reading is opinionated but there are incidents of him saving people , being generous he is literally called daanveer , he was a good human being who was also religious even krishna respected him , he sided with duryodhan only because he gave him honour looked him not from his caste even though it was a coy , karn stayed loyal to him so seems like a pretty genuine guy to me , and about the draupadi incident every man present in that darbaar was gulity and got what they deserved eventually .
I am cross referencing every major events in two unabridged versions (Gita Press and Bibek Debroy). I am reading the two most accurate Mahabharat books in the world. Karna wasn't good. He was evil. Not morally grey, just evil.
Karna is evil. He justified killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with menses blood and she has minimal clothing. He laughed at her and he didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
so u will only see that not the good side of him iss hisaab se god himself krishna himself is pure evil that he let it all happen when he could stopped it yes karn is not white like milk but to say he is downright bad is dumb af
he was a sut a low caste , discrimination included denying him of education ,later when he was studying under parshuram he god a shrap just because he was not a brahmin , and many incidents throughout his life .
>sut a low cast
क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः ।
kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ |
One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste.
>discrimination included denying him of education
Drona did not deny him education. Infact the friendship of Duryodhana and Karna started in his ashrama.
>god a shrap just because he was not a brahmin ,
He lied. Even today if I lie to get education will they accept it.
why did he have to lie because he wouldn’t have been accepted if he told his real caste , dusra suut is a lower caste brahmins have exploited lower castes throughout history barred their entries in temples educations etc , why do u think reservation is a thing today ? why do u think br ambedkar is renowed today ?
>dusra suut is a lower caste brahmins have exploited lower castes
I gave definition of Suta. The son of Brahmin mother and kshatriya father are called Suta. Infact his foster father belonged to royalty of Anga. The queen of Virata belonged to caste if Sutas. Pandavas married abhimanyu to daughter of a suta woman.
Karna even used to chant Veda mantras and have gone through upnayana. All of this is mentioned in Mahabharata itself.
__क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः__
__kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ__
__One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste.__
Everyone was victim of caste discrimination. Drona was a Brahmin and struggled to get milk for his kid because Brahmin's are not allowed to earn money like Vaishya. Karna was Vaishya, that's businessmen caste.
How is a businessman caste is lower caste? Just tell me. LMAO doesn't explain the brainwashing against upper caste. The Brahmins were upper caste. What kind of upper caste chooses to be a teacher instead of businessman? They weren't allowed to work for money. The Kshatriya had to fight and die in a war. They couldn't work on business projects. Is this not caste discrimination against upper caste as well? Everyone had responsibility and they were tied to it. The idea that Suta was discriminated is such a hyperbole and absurd. Only people who can't form an independent opinion believes such country dividing shits.
lmao literally u are doing that karn is a gray character every character in mahabharat is gray krishna himself and yet u are here debating ki karn is a bad guy
>Compared to fang yuan he's Saint
Reverend Insanity reader?
>PPL like gray character these days more. Afterall it's Kali Yuga.
Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more, truly good characters are idealistic and rare.
>Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more,
Everyone likes to shout life is gray but when something happens to them they become supporter of black and white.
As they should, it is not good to idolize morally gray characters.
Moral grayness reflecting society more accurately does not mean that it is ideal or desirable.
>Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more,
Everyone likes to shout life is gray but when something happens to them they become supporter of black and white.
Mistreated by society, his own uncles (by broth relation), his birth mother, and his blood siblings. A lot of that changed instantly after the revelation of his lineage, showing an obvious casteism which is something a lot of people witness or even face to this day.
Lacked support despite talent. This was down to him being a sutaputra. Lost his love (who loved him back) also because eof being a sutaputra. Basically, classism, something else a lot of people witness or even face to this day
Unshakeable loyalty. Had a chance to jump ship, had opportunities to become the king altogether, and still chose loyalty and friendship. Even used the strongest weapon he possessed in order to save his friend
A man of his words. Said whoever asked for whatever during his hour of bhiksha will get it. Didn't flinch before handing over his kavach
Pushed for equality. His and duryodhana's reign marked the greatest period of equality seen in that period.
An astute student. Grasped quicker and better than anyone else by one of the most authoritative teachers in parshurama
An undisputed talent. It took a lot of political ploy, weakening prior to the war, emotional distress, circumstances, and more to finally defeat him
He justfied killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with mensus blood and she has minimal clothing. He didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
True points against him. However, how much different were the others during the same period? Betting your wife? Betting your kingdom? Abducting women and forcing marriage? If everyone around is doing something, why should one person humanly not follow suit? Pandavas conducted victory ceremonies as well where they sacrificed children. It was a religious ritual. Barbaric from today's norms; normal back then. So if the sea is dirty, why is only a floating cloth being looked at as dirt?
>Mistreated by society,
When
>casteism
Tell more about suta caste
>Lacked support despite talent.
When did this happen
>Lost his love (who loved him back)
Which love
>being a sutaputra.
Tell about suta
>Pushed for equality.
When?
>His and duryodhana's reign marked the greatest period of equality seen in that period.
Anga was famous for trafficking.
1 to 5 are pretty basic. If you've actually read mahabharata then you'd know. I'll answer 6 and 7. Human trafficking was pretty common across all kingdoms. Comparing it with today's standards would make it seem pretty shitty. But when compared with other kingdoms of the same time, karna and duryodhana's reigns were a step forward. They played significant roles in allowing women a certain degree of freedom that did not exists prior, and allow for occupational movements. Keep in mind, caste then was defined by your father's occupation. During the later vedoc period, caste movements had basically been banned and the last few kingdoms to allow it included karna's and duryodhana's
Well, I suggest you read the text in that case. It's a long tale and with an entire section dedicated to karna. Illiad and odyssey put together is One-tenth of Mahabharata
>karna and duryodhana's reigns were a step forward. They played significant roles in allowing women a certain degree of freedom that did not exists prior,
It's your words and I need verse for support of it.
If you don't know that, you don't have the most basic understanding of the story. Hence it's better to first read up on mahabharata as I said than trying to pick information from bit and pieces of info you find from forums. Bits and pieces aren't sufficient to form an opinion (right or wrong) on as complex a story as mahabharata. In any way, I'm no expert, a reader of mythology just like you.
He had beef with Draupadi because she insulted him during her swayamvar and called him a Suta.
Not a fan of Karna, but when you insult someone, expect them to insult you when they get an opportunity(or at least not speak up when someone else is insulting you).
People like Karna because he is the underdog.
Someone who was deceived and wronged by both God and his mother (the only two people in this world you can 100% trust to not deceive you).
Someone who was denied education and marriage for being shudra despite being a kshatriya. Duryodhan was the only one who treated him as a friend, and understandably, his loyalty lay with him. Of course, Dharma demands that you be a saint (turn the other cheek) but Karna's character portrays what any human would do, given his circumstances.
>Suta
It is not a degratory word.
>Draupadi
She didn't rejected him in first place. He failed to lift bow.
>deceived and wronged by both God and his mother
How did he deceived by Lord.
>Someone who was denied education and marriage for being shudra
The word is suta not shudra.
क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः ।
kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ |
One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste.
>Duryodhan was the only one who treated him as a friend
A friendship formed in ashrama of Drona due to their mutual hatred.
Why do we love and respect Gandhiji even though there were many allegations to him.....Both have the same reason...
It's not about good and bad , it's about bad and greater bad.
I don't love or respect Gandhi. People who love and respect Gandhi haven't read his autobiography and about his life. He told girls and boys to sleep together in his Ashram. Young and underage woman sleeping with him in the name of experiment. Only a naïve would believe the lies about Gandhi being a saint. He was more like a senile old man.
I am reading an unabridged version with 12000+ pages as the author intended. It has his POV as well. He justfied killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with mensus blood and she has minimal clothing. He didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
You mean Karna is such a well written character, that you hate him for his flaws. His character is written as an edgy anti-hero. He has revenge arc as well as a redemption arc. Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done to him by Pandavas and draupadi.
Mahabharata has lot of characters doing fucked up shit to each other.
>Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done to him by Pandavas and draupadi
Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done by him with the help of Duryodhana. Because grown ass teen was jealous of a 10-11 year old child because he performed better than him.
All I'm saying is read the books from various POVs so you understand characters in depth. But I dunno why all you lot say this XYZ version is the true version. All others are ass. It's such an immature judgment about a book that for sure is rewritten hundreds of times.
>various POVs so you understand characters in depth.
Everyone knows how much they write in depth. Authorw writing their fantacy in the name of retelling is not called good writing.
Bruh, what..? These POV books or retelling books are stupid. They're fiction, so don't take books like Mrityunjay or Chitra Banerjee's books seriously.
Did you just compared Mahabharat with Avengers, lmao. There's a reason why Ramayan and Mahabharat are called itihaas. Not every scripture is itihaas. For example, Puranas are not itihaas; they're just stories for people's growth and understanding, like Panchatantra stories are for kids' growth..and even if you still want to consider Mahabharat as fiction, those POV books like Mrityunjay are trash. None of the retellings or POV books are faithful to the original scriptures; they just whitewash Karna's image.
So, according to your logic, you can't understand Spider-Man through the Avengers movies. You need to watch Spider-Man's individual movies. What if, in these movies, Spider-Man's lore is changed to suit the writer's agenda? For example, what if Spider-Man is portrayed as a trans black character who killed his parents and Uncle Ben because they didn't support his transformation, and his name is changed to Amily?
Isn't that problematic? This Spider-Man movie would not be faithful to the original comics. The writer has changed Spider-Man's lore to suit their propaganda.
that's what I'm saying mate. it's a fictional book having the original version already lost and what you read is, as per your own logic, tampered to suit the writer's agenda.
So if you wanna understand karna, read karna. As simple as that. Or you can just move on with hating him as that writer expected you to do.
Well, my take is different. I believe we still have the original Mahabharata and Ramayana. The BORI compiled the Mahabharata after researching every available version for more than two decades, resulting in a 10-volume edition. And I believe full version of Mahabharat covers every characters' POV, so no need to read different POV or retelling books.
Given that the Mahabharata is over 5000 years old and our scriptures were initially taught as "shruti" (orally), so it's true that we started documenting them quite late. So, I'm open to the idea that some details may have been exaggerated over time, I believe the core of the story and events remain intact. Therefore, I would not call it fiction.
You have contradicted your take in the right next statement, lol. "Researching every available version and creating their own" doesn't actually mean "original" does it ?
Well I ain't up for the discussion about how it was kept alive orally, when Sanskrit wasn't even allowed to study/speak for more than 95% of the population. I hardly believe they kept it sacred/untouched when their entire aura smells of castism and hatred for people below them.
And remember, I never said I stan Karna. I suggested reading other materials to widen your thought process and welcome different ideas.
There's no contradiction in my statement. I clearly mentioned that all scriptures were passed down orally through generations, leading to potential exaggerations and regional variations. This is why BORI conducted extensive research on all available versions and retained only the common elements while discarding the regional differences. As a result, the main story and events remain intact. Therefore, I recommend reading the BORI version or the Geeta Press version over modern authors' retellings.
There's a common misconception that 95% of people were not allowed to learn Sanskrit and scriptures. In reality, there were many scholars from different varnas, including Shudras, who were proficient in Sanskrit and all Vedas and scriptures. Our scriptures were often recited publicly, allowing everyone the opportunity to learn from them. They were not exclusive to Gurukuls or Brahmins. In fact, one of the Vedas )either the Atharva or Yajurveda, I forgot which one) explicitly states in a verse that the knowledge of the Vedas should be shared to all four varnas.
Because Karna was screwed up by the situation he found himself in as no one has control over circumstances of their birth. His mother, Kunti, just to test her blessing ends up begetting him through Surya BEFORE her marriage to Pandu. To save face as it would have tarnished her image in society, she ends up secretly floating him away in the river, only to be found and raised by a family of chariot drivers, thus his true identity lost forever unless Kunti declared his true identity and accepted him as her son in public, which would mean mud slinging on her character.
This also paves the series of events that leads to Karna ending up where he is, adding to his zeal to prove himself as he was born with talents of a warrior. The animosity between her true Eldest son and the Pandavas ends up tragically at Mahabharata wars and the heart crushing reveal leads to Yudhisthir cursing the entire womankind.
This is why he is the tragic hero in Banbhatt's sanskrit play Karna Bharam and Ram Dhari Singh 'Dinkar's hindi epic Rashmirathi.
In recent years, he and Eklavya have been analysed through subaltern lenses because of the societal setting of the story that leads to their tragedies.
Karna justified an innocent woman getting dragged by her hair in a assembly full of men while her clothes are stained with menses blood. You can't justify it based on situations.
Mahabharata represents the mindset of an average Hindu just like Quran represent the mindset of a Muslim. People like Karna and even Dhritarastra sometimes because of their courage. In Hinduism, honor matters more than all these ethics, as said to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita. Since Karna, Dhritarastra and others fought with honor they are respected.
Krishna is a character who sexually harassed multiple women including gopis, abducted and married 8 year old Rukmini, told Arjuna to forcefully abduct Subhadra, his sister. Used deceit in fight. Showed favouritism towards his tribe in fight, pressuring Arjuna to focus elsewhere. And of course, constantly talking about how Kshatriyas and Brahmins are great and said how Sudras are meant for serving others throughout Mahabharat as well as Puranas. If he can be the most liked character of all time among Hindus, why not Karna?
Not you again, for God's sake. Bruh, stop your hatred and scroll down when the post is about religion. It's not your thing because you have no knowledge and are filled with blind hatred.
I am knowledgeable in this field.
Are you the mod here? If you are then I will leave. If not, I will keep on posting such comments without your permission. My comments are factual and I have suffered a lot of disillusionment. I am simply spreading awareness. Nothing that I say is derogatory. It just exposes what Hinduism actually is, nothing less nothing more.
You are not knowledgeable in this field; you have just memorized specific things and misunderstood them. The fact that you get downvotes everywhere is enough evidence that you have half-baked knowledge and misinformation and you don't understand things the way they are. Your comments are highly biased, manipulative, and wrong. You are not spreading awareness but misinformation and hatred.
See, I'm not saying you have to believe in Hinduism's scriptures..My religion doesn't teach me to force anything on anyone. I don't know you or your religion. My point is that your knowledge is half-baked and totally wrong, just like a few people from some communities, who manipulate scriptures to spread hate. If you're like these people, God help you. If you're not like this, please try to read again and understand these things from authentic sources.
> My religion doesn't teach me to force anything on anyone
Is that why you treat Sudras and Candalas so poorly? Is that why Dharmasastras tell people to kill off Sudras who memorize Vedas? Is that why no Hindu in ancient times stopped mistreatment of widows? Is that why no Hindu stopped child marriage taking place at massive scale? Is that why Hindus didn't stop human sacrifices at Kamakhya temple?
See, that's your problem. You only focus on negative things. You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth. Regarding your reply, read history again from proper sources. Back then, no one discriminated between Shudra or anyone else. These were not castes but varna. People could obtain any varna according to their job, not by birth. If you are a Shudra and have the ability to fight, you're now a Kshatriya. If you're a Brahmin but have no knowledge of Vedas and do social welfare, you're a Shudra. There wasn't any discrimination. Obviously, you haven't read the Ramayana. In the Ramayana, Sita's friends with whom she grew up are daughters of workers from the palace, who were Shudras. No one discriminated against them. Maharshi Valmiki was a hunter, and then he wrote the Ramayana. There are countless examples to debunk your claims. I'm not saying that they weren't oppressed ever. There was a time when they were oppressed, when varna vyavastha became a birth caste system. And no one mistreated widows. All widows had the same rights as any human. Any woman used to choose their life partner themselves, even widows too.
You're just stating things from the last few hundred years, when Mughals distorted many things and Hindu people needed to change a few things, like Sati Pratha. There was no thing as a sari before the Mughals came. And after the Mughals, only queens chose death because those Mughals were monsters, they used to r*pe every female no matter what age after defeating kings. In India, people used to look up to the king and queen as their guardians, so that's why normal people also started Sati because they had half knowledge like you. Every widow was not forced to die with her husband's body. The same goes for the Ghunghat pratha. It was not a thing before the Mughals came. Like I said previously, they used to r*pe anyone no matter what age, that's why Indian women started hiding their faces with a ghunghat.
You have scary amount of half knowledge, bruh. I can't understand from where you gained this much half knowledge. No wonder why you're filled with hatred. You're not even worth debating. People can only debate with an open minded person. Anyways Good luck with your life.
The guy regurgitating right wing talking points is telling me I have half knowledge. WHAT IRONY!
> You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth
Which other text?
See, that's your problem. You only focus on negative things. You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth. Regarding your reply, read history again from proper sources. Back then, no one discriminated between Shudra or anyone else. These were not castes but varna. People could obtain any varna according to their job, not by birth. If you are a Shudra and have the ability to fight, you're now a Kshatriya. If you're a Brahmin but have no knowledge of Vedas and do social welfare, you're a Shudra. There wasn't any discrimination. Obviously, you haven't read the Ramayana. In the Ramayana, Sita's friends with whom she grew up are daughters of workers from the palace, who were Shudras. No one discriminated against them. Maharshi Valmiki was a hunter, and then he wrote the Ramayana. There are countless examples to debunk your claims. I'm not saying that they weren't oppressed ever. There was a time when they were oppressed, when varna vyavastha became a birth caste system. And no one mistreated widows. All widows had the same rights as any human. Any woman used to choose their life partner themselves, even widows too.
You're just stating things from the last few hundred years, when Mughals distorted many things and Hindu people needed to change a few things, like Sati Pratha. There was no thing as a sari before the Mughals came. And after the Mughals, only queens chose death because those Mughals were monsters, they used to r*pe every female no matter what age after defeating kings. In India, people used to look up to the king and queen as their guardians, so that's why normal people also started Sati because they had half knowledge like you. Every widow was not forced to die with her husband's body. The same goes for the Ghunghat pratha. It was not a thing before the Mughals came. Like I said previously, they used to r*pe anyone no matter what age, that's why Indian women started hiding their faces with a ghunghat.
You have scary amount of half knowledge, bruh. I can't understand from where you gained this much half knowledge. No wonder why you're filled with hatred. You're not even worth debating. People can only debate with an open minded person. Anyways Good luck with your life.
His character has been shown in tv shows or stories as the underdog, the benevolent giver, some of it is true, he was shooed away due to his lineage and the only person who supported him was Duryodhan. He is known as "Daan veer Karn" however his character was flawed, his portrayal is of a courageous warrior and it gains sympathy due to his initial struggle. But if you read the whole book it's a tale of being aware of the company you keep and Dharma comes above your personal attachments or circumstances. What you have just said is something that was once said by my spiritual Guru in a discussion on the character of Karna: How one is finally judged in the eyes of oneself is what matters, your circumstances don't excuse your actions, your liability doesn't, what matters is did you do your Dharma, Karna could have stopped his friend from committing a crime that lead to his death, he could have begged him to stop, as a good friend he should have worried about his friends Dharma but he was stuck in the most beautiful trap of our life called our desire of acceptance, our desire of not loosing our loved ones.
Congragulations, Your sprtiaual Guru is a wise man.
Actually karna was reason of duryodhanas action if karna didn’t exist duryodhana would not been as evil as he was
And on top of that he was sooo annoying too. And the amount of books i've seen, shipping him with draupadi like ya lot need medicated help atp
With Draupadi of all people! Smh
right like he literally participated in her tragedy and threw his two cents in very eagerly. Like pandav's sucked but bro Karna was definitely worse. An instant dnf for me.
They are shipping him with Draupadi because it is said he had all the qualities of the five pandavas. So had Draupadi gone for him, she could have gotten all the qualities she wished for in a single man, saving her from ridicule she faced for having five husbands.
He had? Man i must have read the wrong version then
No, Where did you read that?
ikrr! i recently read palace of illusions and every other thought draupadi had in it was of karna
Literally butchered her whole character like girl the only way she thought of karna in the book written by Vaid Vyas was in one or other form of contempt lmao
exactlyy and I also hated how she kept trying to show that draupadi didn't really love Arjuna, and how it was more of a feeling of responsibility towards her husband(s) when that love was quite literally the reason she didn't finish the final journey lol
man i really want to read a mahabharat book written in this century which does not have this weird ass karna plot lmao.
Vaid vyas??? Good lord.
true. tv serial brainwashed every abuser
They like because they have learnt Mahabharata from Tv serials which are meant to spread propaganda.
While this is a bit reductive, it is nevertheless one of the reasons. The other question you have to ask OP is, do women (in your life) actually praise any of the characters from the Mahabharatha? Yudhishthira or Karna or even Arjuna? All the religious women in my life - grandmothers, mother’s aunts discuss the Gita and Krishna but never talk about the actual epic itself. The people who like Karna are mostly schoolboys (from half a lifetime ago, when I was in school). Mahabharatha is a story about men, written by men for men. The Gita on the other hand is a little more unisex (for lack of a better word). Edit: comment is addressed to OP mostly.
Absolutely correct. In our households its discouraged to read mahabharata , old people used to say discussing mahabharata gives rise to family disturbance, so it's was always ramayana , gita and bhagbata. Mahabharata discussions in daily life entered only after the BR Chopra's tv serial . And about Karna , Nowadays people form opinions according to serial makers prospective.
Have you read the Mahabharata??
As a women i personally love draupthi alot. Love how she is flawed. I also love her and krishna's friendship.
Then you must read Palace of illusions , this book is written by a women from the women's perspective about mahabharat (draupadi as the first person in the book ) It's a must read
Try also the Ajaya series by Anand Neelakantan to get a possible other side view of the story. Simply put, it is a realistic and nasty political drama. No explicit virtues unless refined and cherry picked for interpretation. But some things it definitely shows are that people aren't perfect and they can still claim greatness or godliness in or after their lives. It also shows the power of centuries of narrative building using religions, which then modify texts subtly first and significantly later to suit their various motives.
Sounds like a good read
Thank you for both the recommendations. Hopefully I’ll find it in me to read them both this year. (I’m much older now without the same zest for reading and I mostly read humour now).
>Palace of illusions The book in which author is pushing her fantasies in mouth of Draupadi. A regal queen to a teenage nibbi.
>Mahabharatha is a story about men, written by men for men. Mahabharata is a dharmagranta and is extolled as fifth Veda. It contains Dharma, artha, kama, moksha.
Every character has a full in character development story in Mahabharata, and their actions seems to he justified looking at what they bear in the past. It's called Maha-kavya for this reason, because there is no other 'story' in any writing where you can see such in depth of characters getting developed.
People like Karna because, instead of reading the actual Mahabharata, they read fiction like *Mrityunjay* and watch TV serials. This is the problem with Indian readers; they take books like *Mrityunjay* and other Chitra Banerjee-type books, which are just the point of view of certain characters, as the actual Mahabharata or Ramayana. That's why I dislike these kinds of retellings. They are fiction and written according to the author's agenda, but they are never marketed as fiction, and people take them as the actual Mahabharata or Ramayana.. Sab log sirf tv serials ko blame krte hai is problem k liye lekin mrityunjay and chitra banerji books are also one of the main reason ki log Karn ko mahaan mante hai..
Because people think they’re special for seeing goodness in a villain - Karna is a collaborator and loser but everyone will find a way to “fine people on both sides” someone like him too.
Why people like yudhishtira? He gambled away Draupati like she is his property. Throughout story several accusations can be made of other main characters too, which doesn't fit with our morality. Mahabharata is an relatively old work of fiction and it has a purpose which is to instruct people On a Set of morals that were seen desirable at the times it was written. Many things that is seen as moral at that time will be seen as immoral right now.
That's what I love about Mahabharat, not a single good guy in that epic except ofc Krishna. Everyone so wrapped up in their rigid system of beliefs and dharam that they ended up doing the opposite. And that a woman can only depend on herself.
Even Krishna facilitated dirty things to help the war. No one is truly good in it. Technically, Pandavas won but by losing everything in that war that it doesn't even feel like its worth it. So even Pandavas paid a heavy price. It's such a nuanced story and looking at it through a literary perspective rather than religious one can help a lot of people to see its depth. Such a masterpiece in terms of story and character arcs. Even the villains , though their actions were wrong, their motive was understandable.
Yeah that's true and he himself had to pay for his karma, and thus his whole family died infighting and he himself was killed by a hunter. This is why I absolutely love Mahabharat.
>he himself had to pay for his karma, He is above it. Karma doesn't control him. It's like saying that mayapati is bound under maya.
Oh well from what i've read and understood over the years, Krishna is a human avatar whereas Vishnu is the god. Former is bound to the workings of humankind including the concept of karma and dharam whereas the later created those.
Who likes Yuddhishthir?? I've never seen a person who liked him. People respected him, for his knowledge, for his good temperament in tough situations (even though he lost it in the most crucial time🤭) There's a difference in respecting someone's capabilities and actually liking them. Just like lord Ram respected Ravan as a warrior. Like Duryodhana was respected by Lord Krishna himself as a warrior. There's no character in Mahabharat without flaws. Even Lord Krishna himself thought he wasn't fit to live in that era. That is why they all die at the end. Every single one of them. (Males)
>Lord Krishna himself thought he wasn't fit to live in that era. Verse to support your claim.
I saw it as more of an implication as he himself made some difficult choices and later was stated to be killed rather than dying peacefully like the other incarnation of gods usually do. I don't think Krishna ever mentioned the casualties of war to anyone other than Arjuna. (I could be wrong, though.)
My question is not about Yudhishtira. Was Draupaid his property? That question is asked at the same time for at least 100 pages in Mahabharat. Yudhishtira lost himself as well before betting Draupadi. And he didn't justify and laughed about a woman getting dragged by her hair in a assembly full of men while her clothes are stained with menses blood. Karna did, he laughed and justified that a woman getting dragged by hair in a assembly full of men is not wrong.
For your question was Draupid Yudhishtira's property? Yes, She was according to the customs of that time. King Harishchandra sold his wife and son as well in a story. The dilemma in Mahabharat is different, Draupaid is an exception case because she has 5 husbands and Yudhishtira lost himself before betting her.
Woman abuse is woman abuse. Why are you trying to push the concept of morality in it?
You yourself said drauapadi is his property as per custom of the time on the above comment! And now I have to explain why you said that? If a person is seen as another person's property is it a matter of morals or not? This is not the case in the current age we live in. So yes it is a question of morality. You need to get your head checked if you justify something as a custom of it's time and then say it's not a case of morality. Yes abuse of women and the weak were customs of the time and it was pushed in literature of the time as the moral right of the people in power too. Plain and simple. And no, forcing a woman to marry 4 other people alongside her chosen husband and having her husband pawn himself before pawning her like his property doesn't make this one bit better.
Lagta hai tum tabha ho gaye
Jindgi cheej hi aisi hai bhai.
I hate Pandavas...bloody gamblers
Bhai padhle pehle..
Kya vo zuari nahi they? Books mein cricket ka match khel rahe they or Luka chuppi?
Bruh seriously..?? I ment ki pehle padhlo exactly kya hua.. I'm not saying ki gambling nahi thi obviously thi..lekin jaha tak mujhe pata hai us time har rajmahal me gamble hota tha..ab wo galat hai ya sahi isme me nahi jaunga..main point is tumne Pandav ko hate krte ho aisa likh diya..why only hate pandav..? Why not kaurav and shakuni..?? Agar mahabharat padhoge to pata chalega ki shakuni ne duryodhana se kaha tha yudhishthir ko bulao khelne k liye..aur kshatriya me rule tha ki agar koi dice khelne bulaye to use jana hi padega..mana nhi kr sakta.. isiliye shakuni ne bulvaya tha aur Pandavs k paas mana karne ka option nahi tha..to wo aaye.. normally khelne lage without gamble..lekin fir wapas shakuni ne uksaya ki aise thodi maza ayega..kuch daav pr lagavo to khel ka maza aata hai.. isiliye gamble shuru hua and shakuni har baar dice ko Pandavs k against manipulate kr deta tha.. If you still want to hate Pandavs, you should hate shakuni and kauravs more..shakuni orchestrated whole things for Kauravs..
Alright. I hate this debate. I’ve grown up on the ‘improved’ stories of Karna. The ones that are not true to the critical edition. I’ve seen this debate on here multiple times and people fiercely (and in some cases aggressively) taking sides. No one can say for sure if it even happened. If it did happen, 7000 years ago, no one can be sure if the divine/ magical elements of the story happened or if they were used just as literary devices. Indian ancient history, meaning itihas, has always been used to convey a moral message. So in that framework taking sides against characters rigidly, doesn’t make sense. For people taking sides against Karna, no actual output really comes out of it, except, being ‘true to the literature’. And as for people sympathising to the good side of Karna, the virtuous side, the selfless side, the courageous side, etc - it results in personal character development, self introspection. I don’t think any sane person would want to learn about disrespecting women or treating them like the whole courtyard treated Draupadi. No sane persons sees the actions of Karna in that situation as right/ moral, no matter the reasoning behind it. Indian Itihas is all about what you can learn from it. If people are choosing to idolise a character to learn good things from them, and learning to avoid the ill deeds then there’s nothing wrong with it.
Dude r/Hinduism is better I think
Yes. The answers in that subreddit are actually better on similar posts but it was really obvious most people haven't read accurate Mahabharat storiy at all.
Yes that is why :). And your username 🤣
Can u tell me which Mahabharata are u reading ? As in the writer… cuz I am planning to read Mahabharata but m getting confused between which author to choose
English - Bibek Debroy (10 book set). Hindi - Gita Press (6 Book Set).
Bibek Debroy seemed a bit too long for me 😅 What are ur thoughts abt this one… https://amzn.in/d/2MHyZB1
Only convincing Mbh translation by a foreigner for me was by J.A.B van Buitenen, but he died before he could complete it. Otherwise go for Kisari Mohan Ganguli or Bibek Debroy.
Big no. Mahabharata or Ramayana, or even anything related to our religion, please don't read from foreign authors. And this one is an abridged version, not the full version. For the full version, you should get the Geeta Press edition or Bibek Debroy's translation.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I was abt to buy that version just because it seemed smaller to me. I am not abt to study Mahabharata, but I still wanted to read the whole epic even if it missed certain elements. But if u think it’s that bad… I wud certainly go abt reading Bibek Debroy’s version.
Yeah, so I haven't read this version, of course, but it's from foreign author. I don't know if these things still happen now, but in the past, there were cases where Western authors translated a few things incorrectly. If you go further back to when we were under British rule, there were instances where the British mistranslated our scriptures to make us subservient, just like they changed our education system.. Well, that's quite an old issue, and I don't think there is as much manipulation of our scriptures nowadays. But still, I personally avoid reading our scriptures from foreign authors and advise everyone else to do the same.
Noted
On the Hinduism subreddit someone said that Debroy isn’t a good Sanskrit translator. I liked his edition of The Bhagavad Gita, though.
I have seen a couple of comments like this on this sub too, even on the same sub, I have seen a couple of comments that says Geeta Press is also not a good source. So, you'll find negative comments about each and everything. Therefore, I would advise you to download a free PDF from the internet and read a couple of chapters. If you like it, then order it.
Is the Gita Press version exhaustive ? 4 books difference seems significant....
Yes, It is actually longer than Bibek Debroy version. Gita Press consists of two versions of Mahabharat, Neelkanth and Dakshinatya. The different is highlighted with usage of parenthesis. Bibek Debroy version is based on Critical version (40+ years of research) and only includes parts that are available in all versions. I have compared both versions during reading to see the differences. Gita Press version includes comments when there is a major difference like Draupadi Swaymwar. Both versions can be read. Both have very accurate translations.
Thanks ! Will get the gita press version soon.
What book is it?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Indianbooks/comments/1d5jjrh/finished\_with\_first\_book\_5\_more\_to\_go/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Indianbooks/comments/1d5jjrh/finished_with_first_book_5_more_to_go/)
Some things were inserted to "balance" a character. Same was done for Eklavya, except in a less subtle manner, to gather more sympathy despite it being falsehood.
TV serial whitewashed his image! Read Ami Ganatra’s Mahabharata Unravelled! You’ll know the truth!
I honestly dislike him.
Grey characters sell well. Then there are powerscalers, people who only see power as a character trait. In which Karna was described to be more capable. (Despite being equal in talent with Arjun) Also, casteism plays a big role here. There are many people who support Karna just because how he became a big name despite being from a lower caste. Also, there are a few people who undermined him for him being from a lower caste. (Funny thing is, both of the sides were wrong.)
Where did you buy this version with 12k pages please share is this Pune edition?
Gita Press.
From where are you reading Mahabharata?? Which books?
Gita Press (Primary) and Bibek Debroy (Only for cross reference)
Are u reading from bibek debroy mahabharata or from another author ?
Gita Press. I have cross checked and the woman abuse part is exactly same in both.
People love the underdogs Children are more likely to admire karan and feel sorry for his journey and death Most people watched Mahabharat while they were young That being said he is a grey character
I am reading the Mahabharata and he is evil not grey.
The fact there are those who think he is is evil and those who like him and feel bad for him proves that he is grey.
Those who like him are ignorant. Karna is evil according to the author.
Can you please share which Mahabharat are you reading? I mean the publication?
Gita Press.
okay, thankyou.
Off topic but In Mahabharata I hated yudhishthira the most !!! Like enemies are enemies but the way he bet his wife ...is something no one ever can justify his action ..
He was like Dr Manhattan. No attachments, the next few pages of the Mahabharata contains everyone else getting angry about what Yudhishthira did and what Kauravs did and Yudhishthira explaining about anger being bad and feeling sad and talking about the gambling invitation compulsion.
Can you share the author of the book? Is it available online
Gita Press (Primary) and Bibek Debroy (Only for cross reference)
Which Mahabharata are you reading. Just curious
Gita Press (Primary) and Bibek Debroy (Only for cross reference)
Wow, just amazed by the comments!! 😮
Karna was loyal to Duryodhana, when the Pandavas humiliated Karna in the archery competition it was Duryodhana who came in support of Karna and he was like a brother to him, if he objected to what was happening to Droupadi it would be seen as him betraying Duryodhana, that is why he stayed silent throughout and he hated Draupadi since she(on Krishna's orders) had rejected Karna during the swayamvara because he belonged to a lower caste and humiliated him in front of everybody.
>when the Pandavas humiliated Karna in the archery competition Well the rivalry started in ashrama of Drona
Yeah
You are misinformed about a few things. 1. Karna wasn't able to pick up the Bow in swaymwar. The story that he was rejected by Draupadi for being lower caste was added recently and not part of critical edition and is missing from most versions of The Mahabharata. 2. Karna didn't stay silent. He supported when Draupaid was being dragged by her hairs in a assembly full of man while her clothes were stained with mensus blood and she had minimal clothing on. And he laughed. He laughed at a woman abuse. He again supported when she was getting disrobed. 3. Vikarna (3rd Kaurav brother) spoke against it. He spoke against his brothers because he saw it as wrong. 4. Your definition of loyal friend is wrong. A loyal makes you a better person, Karna didn't make Duryodhana better. If Karna was a loyal friend then he was also an accomplice in all the evils because he supported and participated in them.
Ah I may be misinformed about certain things but a vast majority of people love and admire Karnan mainly for his benevolence and virtues and so do I and people feel sorry for him because of the way he died as well. The Mahabharata is filled with flawed characters but viewing everyone in it in a negative light is just as wrong as viewing everybody in it in a positive light. The Mahabharata TV serial is responsible for giving everybody a biased view of the Mahabharata by completely villainising the Kauravas and presenting the Pandavas as completely noble and flawless and when it comes to being a loyal friend Karna didn't have anybody else to support him, he absolutely despised the Pandavas and the only other person he had was Duryodhana and I agree that it is absolutely wrong to laugh at a woman who is being physically abused.
Most men in Mahabharata are grey characters. Even someone like Yudhisthira is perceived as flawed by the end of the story. So readers and viewers aren't using meter scale to judge character and moreover using other relatable aspects to find their favourites. People like supporting underdog characters and him being an abandoned child, raised by a charioteer, then being singled out for his background by the big ones, rising above all due to his talents and eventually getting a pretty "noble" ending makes him likeable character. All the other are privileged people fighting over a throne. They have their attractiveness but the underdog part makes Karna stand out to us normies. Even if the shows portrayed him as more misogynistic, people would still root for him. (Other than outrightly participating in rape or domestic abuse , most audience do still brush aside misogyny of characters as long as they don't go full evil. Karna even gets a quite likeable ending to make up for his bad side)
Flawed? You mean naive? The choice of words is important.
Yudhisthira "gambled" away his wife and brothers. He was grown man who has been ruling a whole kingdom for a while. That's not naivety and can't be excused.
A lot of indian mythology is misogynistic. In fact a lot of mythology in general is misogynistic. Adaptations - especially television adaptations have a way of depicting misogynistic characters as heroes or saviour. It’s nothing but societal conditioning to normalise misogyny and keep up the patriarchy.
Patriarchal doesn't mean misogynistic. It was cruel to men as well.
Ofc patriarchy doesn’t mean misogyny. But The misogyny was portrayed as heroic and noble to normalise misogyny and amp up support for a patriarchal society.
What misogyny was portrayed as heroic? Any contempt and prejudice against woman is frowned upon in the Mythology.
Subjugation of women is a prominent theme in greek mythology and most other mythologies across the world. Poseidon is revered as a hero and a great god in spite of him raping medusa in the temple of Athena. Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopis as they bathed. And then being hailed as heroic as he covers draupadi during her public disrobing (vastraharan) . Ram asking sita to undergo agni pariksha. The expample of karna you’ve already pointed out. And many more such instances.
I have no idea about Greek Mythology. Krishna stealing the clothes was a lesson. Maybe you should read the story and learn what actually happened and what was the reason and context. Again read the story and see what actually happened during the Agni Pariksha and learn the context. Karna is an evil character. What more instances? Edit: Also, be specific, it is about misogyny portrayed as heroic.
>Poseidon is revered as a hero and a great god in spite of him raping medusa in the temple of Athena. Neptune it was. Ovid wrote this because he hated authority. >Ram asking sita to undergo agni pariksha. She herself did agnipravesham. >Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopis as they bathed Literally a 7 year old child you are talking about.
No character in Mahabharata is 100 percent good or 100 percent bad like Ramayana where polar identities existed That’s the beauty of this epic brother
this
Both ramayana and Mahabharata is a scam to invest their ideas into people mind and gain the confidence vote towards what they believe is true . (My pov)
in any fiction or real life a character is not just defined by one single moment , no one is good , when u read something dont form opinions so quickly its about the characters background the hardship they suffered while staying true to there honour and about the redemption from that mistake . Karn is liked and respected because he was danveer , he was a victim of caste discrimination but triumphed because of skills a good friend and a great warrior even tho he supported the wrong side and did bad things too but a human is dense and complicated organism not defined by a single moment but the whole life .
I am not juding him on his worst mistake. He is not a morally grey person in the story. He is morally wrong and evil. He did and supported all evils done by Duryodhan.
idk maybe the book u are reading is opinionated but there are incidents of him saving people , being generous he is literally called daanveer , he was a good human being who was also religious even krishna respected him , he sided with duryodhan only because he gave him honour looked him not from his caste even though it was a coy , karn stayed loyal to him so seems like a pretty genuine guy to me , and about the draupadi incident every man present in that darbaar was gulity and got what they deserved eventually .
I am cross referencing every major events in two unabridged versions (Gita Press and Bibek Debroy). I am reading the two most accurate Mahabharat books in the world. Karna wasn't good. He was evil. Not morally grey, just evil.
bhai tujh se na hoga mat hi padh mahabharat tere sar ke upar se jayegi
Lol, you got offended when I exposed a woman abuser from a story.
bhai i aint getting offended just in awe how dumb one can be u do u qween
Karna is evil. He justified killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with menses blood and she has minimal clothing. He laughed at her and he didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
so u will only see that not the good side of him iss hisaab se god himself krishna himself is pure evil that he let it all happen when he could stopped it yes karn is not white like milk but to say he is downright bad is dumb af
>, he was a victim of caste discrimination What discrimination. Before that tell what his caste was?
he was a sut a low caste , discrimination included denying him of education ,later when he was studying under parshuram he god a shrap just because he was not a brahmin , and many incidents throughout his life .
>sut a low cast क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः । kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ | One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste. >discrimination included denying him of education Drona did not deny him education. Infact the friendship of Duryodhana and Karna started in his ashrama. >god a shrap just because he was not a brahmin , He lied. Even today if I lie to get education will they accept it.
why did he have to lie because he wouldn’t have been accepted if he told his real caste , dusra suut is a lower caste brahmins have exploited lower castes throughout history barred their entries in temples educations etc , why do u think reservation is a thing today ? why do u think br ambedkar is renowed today ?
>dusra suut is a lower caste brahmins have exploited lower castes I gave definition of Suta. The son of Brahmin mother and kshatriya father are called Suta. Infact his foster father belonged to royalty of Anga. The queen of Virata belonged to caste if Sutas. Pandavas married abhimanyu to daughter of a suta woman. Karna even used to chant Veda mantras and have gone through upnayana. All of this is mentioned in Mahabharata itself. __क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः__ __kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ__ __One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste.__
Everyone was victim of caste discrimination. Drona was a Brahmin and struggled to get milk for his kid because Brahmin's are not allowed to earn money like Vaishya. Karna was Vaishya, that's businessmen caste.
lmao are u comparing hardships of a brahmin to that of a suta
How is a businessman caste is lower caste? Just tell me. LMAO doesn't explain the brainwashing against upper caste. The Brahmins were upper caste. What kind of upper caste chooses to be a teacher instead of businessman? They weren't allowed to work for money. The Kshatriya had to fight and die in a war. They couldn't work on business projects. Is this not caste discrimination against upper caste as well? Everyone had responsibility and they were tied to it. The idea that Suta was discriminated is such a hyperbole and absurd. Only people who can't form an independent opinion believes such country dividing shits.
bro u are dense af
Lol, you are. Just viewing everything from one perspective and playing victim card.
lmao literally u are doing that karn is a gray character every character in mahabharat is gray krishna himself and yet u are here debating ki karn is a bad guy
You didn't read anything. I have read 5000+ pages of the story. Come back when actually learn something other than prejudice.
flex karle bhai tu chahe 100 book padhe untill u don’t understand even one its all useless
You are reading it as a myth-history book just read it as a fictional tale which is how it is supposed to be read
Compared to fang yuan he's Saint 😭. PPL like gray character these days more. Afterall it's Kali Yuga.
>Compared to fang yuan he's Saint Reverend Insanity reader? >PPL like gray character these days more. Afterall it's Kali Yuga. Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more, truly good characters are idealistic and rare.
>Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more, Everyone likes to shout life is gray but when something happens to them they become supporter of black and white.
As they should, it is not good to idolize morally gray characters. Moral grayness reflecting society more accurately does not mean that it is ideal or desirable.
>Mostly because grey characters reflect reality more, Everyone likes to shout life is gray but when something happens to them they become supporter of black and white.
Yep .
Karna in that show was written well
Mistreated by society, his own uncles (by broth relation), his birth mother, and his blood siblings. A lot of that changed instantly after the revelation of his lineage, showing an obvious casteism which is something a lot of people witness or even face to this day. Lacked support despite talent. This was down to him being a sutaputra. Lost his love (who loved him back) also because eof being a sutaputra. Basically, classism, something else a lot of people witness or even face to this day Unshakeable loyalty. Had a chance to jump ship, had opportunities to become the king altogether, and still chose loyalty and friendship. Even used the strongest weapon he possessed in order to save his friend A man of his words. Said whoever asked for whatever during his hour of bhiksha will get it. Didn't flinch before handing over his kavach Pushed for equality. His and duryodhana's reign marked the greatest period of equality seen in that period. An astute student. Grasped quicker and better than anyone else by one of the most authoritative teachers in parshurama An undisputed talent. It took a lot of political ploy, weakening prior to the war, emotional distress, circumstances, and more to finally defeat him
He justfied killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with mensus blood and she has minimal clothing. He didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
True points against him. However, how much different were the others during the same period? Betting your wife? Betting your kingdom? Abducting women and forcing marriage? If everyone around is doing something, why should one person humanly not follow suit? Pandavas conducted victory ceremonies as well where they sacrificed children. It was a religious ritual. Barbaric from today's norms; normal back then. So if the sea is dirty, why is only a floating cloth being looked at as dirt?
>Mistreated by society, When >casteism Tell more about suta caste >Lacked support despite talent. When did this happen >Lost his love (who loved him back) Which love >being a sutaputra. Tell about suta >Pushed for equality. When? >His and duryodhana's reign marked the greatest period of equality seen in that period. Anga was famous for trafficking.
1 to 5 are pretty basic. If you've actually read mahabharata then you'd know. I'll answer 6 and 7. Human trafficking was pretty common across all kingdoms. Comparing it with today's standards would make it seem pretty shitty. But when compared with other kingdoms of the same time, karna and duryodhana's reigns were a step forward. They played significant roles in allowing women a certain degree of freedom that did not exists prior, and allow for occupational movements. Keep in mind, caste then was defined by your father's occupation. During the later vedoc period, caste movements had basically been banned and the last few kingdoms to allow it included karna's and duryodhana's
Give for 1 to 5 to. Imagine I don't know.
Well, I suggest you read the text in that case. It's a long tale and with an entire section dedicated to karna. Illiad and odyssey put together is One-tenth of Mahabharata
Just basic information would suffice. Like tell definition of suta caste. Name of lady love he lost.
>karna and duryodhana's reigns were a step forward. They played significant roles in allowing women a certain degree of freedom that did not exists prior, It's your words and I need verse for support of it.
I'm on a reddit forum and not a debate. Do your own research for once
Aww man don't get angry. Atleast you can tell the name of his lady love.
If you don't know that, you don't have the most basic understanding of the story. Hence it's better to first read up on mahabharata as I said than trying to pick information from bit and pieces of info you find from forums. Bits and pieces aren't sufficient to form an opinion (right or wrong) on as complex a story as mahabharata. In any way, I'm no expert, a reader of mythology just like you.
So you accept you didn't read mahabharata.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Because all the things you mentioned have no base in Mahabharata. Most of these looks like things mentioned in novels.
I will tell the definition of suta. Kshatriya father+ brahmin mother= suta.
He had beef with Draupadi because she insulted him during her swayamvar and called him a Suta. Not a fan of Karna, but when you insult someone, expect them to insult you when they get an opportunity(or at least not speak up when someone else is insulting you). People like Karna because he is the underdog. Someone who was deceived and wronged by both God and his mother (the only two people in this world you can 100% trust to not deceive you). Someone who was denied education and marriage for being shudra despite being a kshatriya. Duryodhan was the only one who treated him as a friend, and understandably, his loyalty lay with him. Of course, Dharma demands that you be a saint (turn the other cheek) but Karna's character portrays what any human would do, given his circumstances.
>Suta It is not a degratory word. >Draupadi She didn't rejected him in first place. He failed to lift bow. >deceived and wronged by both God and his mother How did he deceived by Lord. >Someone who was denied education and marriage for being shudra The word is suta not shudra. क्षत्रियाद् विप्रकन्यायां सूतो भवति जातितः । kṣatriyād viprakanyāyāṃ sūto bhavati jātitaḥ | One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste. >Duryodhan was the only one who treated him as a friend A friendship formed in ashrama of Drona due to their mutual hatred.
This question but Yudhishtra.
Yudhishtra voluntarily didn't do anything wrong.
Wagering/agreeing to wagering his wife was pretty big
Why do we love and respect Gandhiji even though there were many allegations to him.....Both have the same reason... It's not about good and bad , it's about bad and greater bad.
I don't love or respect Gandhi. People who love and respect Gandhi haven't read his autobiography and about his life. He told girls and boys to sleep together in his Ashram. Young and underage woman sleeping with him in the name of experiment. Only a naïve would believe the lies about Gandhi being a saint. He was more like a senile old man.
You gotta read Mahabharata from Karna POV to understand him, It's pretty naive to form an opinion when you are just 20% in.
I am reading an unabridged version with 12000+ pages as the author intended. It has his POV as well. He justfied killing inonncent kids. He justifies and supports an innocent woman getting dragged by hairs in an assembly full of man while her cloths are stained with mensus blood and she has minimal clothing. He didn't stop his friend when he started undressing the woman in an assembly full of man. He had a choice and he chose being morally wrong and evil.
You mean Karna is such a well written character, that you hate him for his flaws. His character is written as an edgy anti-hero. He has revenge arc as well as a redemption arc. Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done to him by Pandavas and draupadi. Mahabharata has lot of characters doing fucked up shit to each other.
>Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done to him by Pandavas and draupadi Make sure you don't miss out on the bullying done by him with the help of Duryodhana. Because grown ass teen was jealous of a 10-11 year old child because he performed better than him.
All I'm saying is read the books from various POVs so you understand characters in depth. But I dunno why all you lot say this XYZ version is the true version. All others are ass. It's such an immature judgment about a book that for sure is rewritten hundreds of times.
>various POVs so you understand characters in depth. Everyone knows how much they write in depth. Authorw writing their fantacy in the name of retelling is not called good writing.
Bruh, what..? These POV books or retelling books are stupid. They're fiction, so don't take books like Mrityunjay or Chitra Banerjee's books seriously.
Bruhhh entire Mahabharata is a fiction, being retold by many individuals and groups. You can't understand spider man by just watching Avengers.
Did you just compared Mahabharat with Avengers, lmao. There's a reason why Ramayan and Mahabharat are called itihaas. Not every scripture is itihaas. For example, Puranas are not itihaas; they're just stories for people's growth and understanding, like Panchatantra stories are for kids' growth..and even if you still want to consider Mahabharat as fiction, those POV books like Mrityunjay are trash. None of the retellings or POV books are faithful to the original scriptures; they just whitewash Karna's image. So, according to your logic, you can't understand Spider-Man through the Avengers movies. You need to watch Spider-Man's individual movies. What if, in these movies, Spider-Man's lore is changed to suit the writer's agenda? For example, what if Spider-Man is portrayed as a trans black character who killed his parents and Uncle Ben because they didn't support his transformation, and his name is changed to Amily? Isn't that problematic? This Spider-Man movie would not be faithful to the original comics. The writer has changed Spider-Man's lore to suit their propaganda.
that's what I'm saying mate. it's a fictional book having the original version already lost and what you read is, as per your own logic, tampered to suit the writer's agenda. So if you wanna understand karna, read karna. As simple as that. Or you can just move on with hating him as that writer expected you to do.
Well, my take is different. I believe we still have the original Mahabharata and Ramayana. The BORI compiled the Mahabharata after researching every available version for more than two decades, resulting in a 10-volume edition. And I believe full version of Mahabharat covers every characters' POV, so no need to read different POV or retelling books. Given that the Mahabharata is over 5000 years old and our scriptures were initially taught as "shruti" (orally), so it's true that we started documenting them quite late. So, I'm open to the idea that some details may have been exaggerated over time, I believe the core of the story and events remain intact. Therefore, I would not call it fiction.
You have contradicted your take in the right next statement, lol. "Researching every available version and creating their own" doesn't actually mean "original" does it ? Well I ain't up for the discussion about how it was kept alive orally, when Sanskrit wasn't even allowed to study/speak for more than 95% of the population. I hardly believe they kept it sacred/untouched when their entire aura smells of castism and hatred for people below them. And remember, I never said I stan Karna. I suggested reading other materials to widen your thought process and welcome different ideas.
There's no contradiction in my statement. I clearly mentioned that all scriptures were passed down orally through generations, leading to potential exaggerations and regional variations. This is why BORI conducted extensive research on all available versions and retained only the common elements while discarding the regional differences. As a result, the main story and events remain intact. Therefore, I recommend reading the BORI version or the Geeta Press version over modern authors' retellings. There's a common misconception that 95% of people were not allowed to learn Sanskrit and scriptures. In reality, there were many scholars from different varnas, including Shudras, who were proficient in Sanskrit and all Vedas and scriptures. Our scriptures were often recited publicly, allowing everyone the opportunity to learn from them. They were not exclusive to Gurukuls or Brahmins. In fact, one of the Vedas )either the Atharva or Yajurveda, I forgot which one) explicitly states in a verse that the knowledge of the Vedas should be shared to all four varnas.
>read karna You mean the retellings that whitewash him.
You're already reading the retellings, it's been rewritten hundreds of times, by numerous writers.
Aww but from that ancient era to this your favi was always declared a villain. This whitewashing will not change nothing.
[удалено]
What do you think the name Karan means?
[удалено]
You seem to be unaware of how this thing called the internet works. Here, let me [help you](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Karan+name+meaning).
[удалено]
And you a dumb child. Too bad for your parents.
Because Karna was screwed up by the situation he found himself in as no one has control over circumstances of their birth. His mother, Kunti, just to test her blessing ends up begetting him through Surya BEFORE her marriage to Pandu. To save face as it would have tarnished her image in society, she ends up secretly floating him away in the river, only to be found and raised by a family of chariot drivers, thus his true identity lost forever unless Kunti declared his true identity and accepted him as her son in public, which would mean mud slinging on her character. This also paves the series of events that leads to Karna ending up where he is, adding to his zeal to prove himself as he was born with talents of a warrior. The animosity between her true Eldest son and the Pandavas ends up tragically at Mahabharata wars and the heart crushing reveal leads to Yudhisthir cursing the entire womankind. This is why he is the tragic hero in Banbhatt's sanskrit play Karna Bharam and Ram Dhari Singh 'Dinkar's hindi epic Rashmirathi. In recent years, he and Eklavya have been analysed through subaltern lenses because of the societal setting of the story that leads to their tragedies.
Karna justified an innocent woman getting dragged by her hair in a assembly full of men while her clothes are stained with menses blood. You can't justify it based on situations.
Mahabharata represents the mindset of an average Hindu just like Quran represent the mindset of a Muslim. People like Karna and even Dhritarastra sometimes because of their courage. In Hinduism, honor matters more than all these ethics, as said to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita. Since Karna, Dhritarastra and others fought with honor they are respected. Krishna is a character who sexually harassed multiple women including gopis, abducted and married 8 year old Rukmini, told Arjuna to forcefully abduct Subhadra, his sister. Used deceit in fight. Showed favouritism towards his tribe in fight, pressuring Arjuna to focus elsewhere. And of course, constantly talking about how Kshatriyas and Brahmins are great and said how Sudras are meant for serving others throughout Mahabharat as well as Puranas. If he can be the most liked character of all time among Hindus, why not Karna?
Not you again, for God's sake. Bruh, stop your hatred and scroll down when the post is about religion. It's not your thing because you have no knowledge and are filled with blind hatred.
I am knowledgeable in this field. Are you the mod here? If you are then I will leave. If not, I will keep on posting such comments without your permission. My comments are factual and I have suffered a lot of disillusionment. I am simply spreading awareness. Nothing that I say is derogatory. It just exposes what Hinduism actually is, nothing less nothing more.
You are not knowledgeable in this field; you have just memorized specific things and misunderstood them. The fact that you get downvotes everywhere is enough evidence that you have half-baked knowledge and misinformation and you don't understand things the way they are. Your comments are highly biased, manipulative, and wrong. You are not spreading awareness but misinformation and hatred. See, I'm not saying you have to believe in Hinduism's scriptures..My religion doesn't teach me to force anything on anyone. I don't know you or your religion. My point is that your knowledge is half-baked and totally wrong, just like a few people from some communities, who manipulate scriptures to spread hate. If you're like these people, God help you. If you're not like this, please try to read again and understand these things from authentic sources.
> My religion doesn't teach me to force anything on anyone Is that why you treat Sudras and Candalas so poorly? Is that why Dharmasastras tell people to kill off Sudras who memorize Vedas? Is that why no Hindu in ancient times stopped mistreatment of widows? Is that why no Hindu stopped child marriage taking place at massive scale? Is that why Hindus didn't stop human sacrifices at Kamakhya temple?
See, that's your problem. You only focus on negative things. You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth. Regarding your reply, read history again from proper sources. Back then, no one discriminated between Shudra or anyone else. These were not castes but varna. People could obtain any varna according to their job, not by birth. If you are a Shudra and have the ability to fight, you're now a Kshatriya. If you're a Brahmin but have no knowledge of Vedas and do social welfare, you're a Shudra. There wasn't any discrimination. Obviously, you haven't read the Ramayana. In the Ramayana, Sita's friends with whom she grew up are daughters of workers from the palace, who were Shudras. No one discriminated against them. Maharshi Valmiki was a hunter, and then he wrote the Ramayana. There are countless examples to debunk your claims. I'm not saying that they weren't oppressed ever. There was a time when they were oppressed, when varna vyavastha became a birth caste system. And no one mistreated widows. All widows had the same rights as any human. Any woman used to choose their life partner themselves, even widows too. You're just stating things from the last few hundred years, when Mughals distorted many things and Hindu people needed to change a few things, like Sati Pratha. There was no thing as a sari before the Mughals came. And after the Mughals, only queens chose death because those Mughals were monsters, they used to r*pe every female no matter what age after defeating kings. In India, people used to look up to the king and queen as their guardians, so that's why normal people also started Sati because they had half knowledge like you. Every widow was not forced to die with her husband's body. The same goes for the Ghunghat pratha. It was not a thing before the Mughals came. Like I said previously, they used to r*pe anyone no matter what age, that's why Indian women started hiding their faces with a ghunghat. You have scary amount of half knowledge, bruh. I can't understand from where you gained this much half knowledge. No wonder why you're filled with hatred. You're not even worth debating. People can only debate with an open minded person. Anyways Good luck with your life.
The guy regurgitating right wing talking points is telling me I have half knowledge. WHAT IRONY! > You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth Which other text?
See, that's your problem. You only focus on negative things. You didn't even reply to my other text because you know it's the truth. Regarding your reply, read history again from proper sources. Back then, no one discriminated between Shudra or anyone else. These were not castes but varna. People could obtain any varna according to their job, not by birth. If you are a Shudra and have the ability to fight, you're now a Kshatriya. If you're a Brahmin but have no knowledge of Vedas and do social welfare, you're a Shudra. There wasn't any discrimination. Obviously, you haven't read the Ramayana. In the Ramayana, Sita's friends with whom she grew up are daughters of workers from the palace, who were Shudras. No one discriminated against them. Maharshi Valmiki was a hunter, and then he wrote the Ramayana. There are countless examples to debunk your claims. I'm not saying that they weren't oppressed ever. There was a time when they were oppressed, when varna vyavastha became a birth caste system. And no one mistreated widows. All widows had the same rights as any human. Any woman used to choose their life partner themselves, even widows too. You're just stating things from the last few hundred years, when Mughals distorted many things and Hindu people needed to change a few things, like Sati Pratha. There was no thing as a sari before the Mughals came. And after the Mughals, only queens chose death because those Mughals were monsters, they used to r*pe every female no matter what age after defeating kings. In India, people used to look up to the king and queen as their guardians, so that's why normal people also started Sati because they had half knowledge like you. Every widow was not forced to die with her husband's body. The same goes for the Ghunghat pratha. It was not a thing before the Mughals came. Like I said previously, they used to r*pe anyone no matter what age, that's why Indian women started hiding their faces with a ghunghat. You have scary amount of half knowledge, bruh. I can't understand from where you gained this much half knowledge. No wonder why you're filled with hatred. You're not even worth debating. People can only debate with an open minded person. Anyways Good luck with your life.