By Sri Chiraan 2009/05/17
Karna failed in Swayamvar. He failed to even string the bow.
Surya, counters Radha’s son is not KARNA but brother of Karna.“And that bow which Rukma, Sunitha, Vakra, Radha’s son, Duryodhana, Salya, and many other kings accomplished in the science and practice of arms, could not even with great exertion, string”.Views of Prof Pandurangi –HOD Sanskrit Bangalore University Rashtrapati awardee , MAHAMAHOPADHYAYA Tirupati Sanskrit University“First Shishupala tried and failed. Then, Jarasandha, Shalya tried and failed. In the case of Karna a ticklish point is raised. According to North India recession of Mahabharatha Draupadi remarked that “Naham Variyam Sutham” I do not like to marry a charioteer. On the other hand when Arjuna asks Dhristadyumna whether a Brahmana can participate in the svayamwara contest, Dhristadyumna replies that “Brahmano Vatha Rajanyo Vaishyo va shudra aeva va?” Whetehr one is Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra if he can wield the bow and hit the mark, I shall give my sister. From this it is clear that Karna lost the chance by his incapacity bit not on the ground of his caste. The North Indian version seems to be interpolation.…………..end of extract ……………….
C Rajagopalachary view Sisupala, Jarasandha, Salya, and Duryodhana were among these unsuccessful aspirants. When Karna came forward, all the assemblage expected that he would be successful but he failed by just a hair’s breadth and the string slid back flashing and the mighty bow jumped out of his hands like a thing of life.
Vivekananda ViewNow, there came kings and princes from different parts of India, all anxious to win the hand of the princess, and one after another they tried their skill, and every one of them failed to hit the mark. When all those princes failed in hitting the mark, then the son of King Drupada rose up in the midst of the court and said: “The Kshatriya, the king caste has failed; now the contest is open to the other castes. Let a Brahmana, even a Shudra, take part in it; whosoever hits the mark, marries Draupadi” Among the Brahmanas were seated the five Pandava brothers. Arjuna, the third brother, was the hero of the bow. He lifted the bow in his hand, strung it without any effort, and drawing it, sent the arrow right through the wheel and hit the eye of the fish. Then there was great jubilation. Draupadi, the princess, approached Arjuna and threw the beautiful garland of flowers over his head.
Krishnarpanamastu
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 15:46
ReplyDeleteKarna is evil beyond doubt ,
Look at the statement and laugh and encouragement he gives in disrobing DRAUPADI .
mark wods of KRISHNA
“Who is there capable of behaving so wretchedly towards his own honest kinsmen, that are ever engaged in the practice of virtue, that are untainted by avarice, and that are always correct in their behaviour? Language such as becomes only those that are heartless and despicable, was frequently repeated by Karna and Dussasana and also by thee . Thou hadst taken great pains to burn to death, at Varanavata, the sons of Pandu with their mother, while they were children, although that effort of thine was not crowned with success.”
…………………………………..end of extract………………….
Look at the lies to GOD . most tremble , yet he is unabashed . when truth could have got him education he still lies because he wants more .
Look at how he rejects his mother’s request .
Look at how he is a party to heinous crime of imprisoning Lord Krishna
……………………………extract……………….
And this was the resolution which Duryodhana and Karna and Suvala’s son Sakuni, with Dussasana as their fourth, arrived at, ‘This Janardana, quick in action, seeketh, with the king Dhritarashtra and Santanu’s son, to seize us first. We, however, shall forcibly seize this tiger among men, Hrishikesa, first, like Indra forcibly seizing Virochana’s son (Vali).
……………………………..extract………………………….
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05130.htm
This one incident is enough to prove he was evil , only evil thinks[foolishly] of harming GOD . Kansa ,shishupala ,jarasandh
We can add karna in this line for this error as evil .
I need your comments on this shri AMIT , as SURYA is not here for truth , he will make few more blunderous statement even to the extent of showing fault of KRISHAN just as he did with DRAUPADi and KUNTI . And I am sure that will be unacceptable to you as well
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 15:08
ReplyDeleteLessons learnt from KARNA is despite good education and fortunes , if you side with evil , You are going to lose all and even good fortunes as well and no success comes to YOU.
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 15:06
ReplyDeleteFourth portion is of Karna gaining Yudhisthir was incumbant KINg , But Yudhisthir did not get kingdom , he got only a forest opf KHANDAV prasth . They converted into a palace and KIngdom of their own by winning entire world , RAJSUYA is Proof of that . What KArna did he could not expand his kingdom beyod banga . he always remained in the east .
This proves YUDHISTHIR was self made he did not take kingdom in dana like KARNA and remained a slave . He won entire world on his own strnegth of his army.
Yudhisthir did not have father from young age , he got education late .
Karna got education from GOD himself and GOD gave him his BOW and boon , to show even if you fight with GOD’s BOW without reverence to him , KARNA cannot win ARJUn with relatively less bow.
Bheeshma says this many times to KARNA .
What more evidence do you want .
God gave him education not because he had lied , because parshuram was giving lessons to kshatriya as well [ BHeeshma is evidence] , He gave ducationa nd bow to sho w even with that he cannot eqqual ARJUN , that is what is debate.
There is no achievement Of Karna in getting education from GOD [ you are attributiing to his effforts is illogical] , GOD had he said I would not give education because you are lying [ HE is all knowing] , then Karna would not have come all this way also.
Its GOD who helped him [ its his good fortune and not an odd/stigma which he fought] If you say it is odd and KARNA lied ad got education it was ploy succesful; , for which KARNA has to be applauded ,then GOD and and his allknowing quality will be compromised .
{this is what is illogical ] about your statement .
ALL those people who struggle and succeed feel hardships were destiny and succees was due to pure efforts , this is again illogical .
Both succes and hardships are given aided by GOD ,
KARNA getting good education from GOD is testimony , God helps disadvantaged to the full .
But it is KARNA who feels he has achieved education rather then being granted.
chiraan said:May 30, 2009 at 14:53
ReplyDeleteWhole of KARNA support is based on the fact that he is abused as suta , this is pseudo sympathy as the word suta is not derogatory !
a debate on this aspect SURY is afraid to start and he runs away from it saying it is non starter , when he has staked his honour for karna , why he wants to run away from the debate . He can challenge but does not accept challenge and runs away .
Karna was similar HE ran away ion gandharva and virat wars to save his life ,
yet he KEEPS boasting of slaying ARJUN.
You are also running away from debate on major issue of suta and still maintain he was abused , either you come for debate on this else concede that suta is not abuse .
Amit Shukla said: May 30, 2009 at 09:42
ReplyDeleteRadhe Radhe !
As Sonu Said ::
>>Why don’t you get the passages you believe to be true matched to the original Sanskrit by somebody you trust? Or at least suggest people who are trust worthy and knowledgeable, with evidence though. (Showing their teachers and any lectures or workshops they have done).
I think each and everybody knows Swami Satyananda Saraswati here. So go through this link ::
http://www.yogamag.net/archives/2005/lnovdec05/radheya.shtml
Have a look at a book named “Mrityunjay” written by Shri Shivaji Sawant after an extensive research of 24 years.
I would like to say that I wanted to be a neutral jury and was here just to make it clear that Karna was not an evil or a bit less powerful to anyone, everything was happening as per Shri Krishna’s strategy. But Chiraan Ji has marked me as Jury as pro-Karna.
Anyways I would like to share that there is no any instance known as any other Radha’s Son (Apart from Karna) tried to touch the Bow. But it is well known that Karna has lifted the Bow and was ready to pierce Matsya eye, when Draupadi denied to choose him as he was a soota.
I disagree with Surya Ji for mentioning about any other Radha’s Son (However Vishsena was there along with another Kauravas ).
But I also disagree with Chiraan Ji who has mentioned that Karna was not able to lift that bow.
I will not mention any book because nobody here is giving any value to any bookish proof.
I request everyone here to use common sense (which is disgraced by Chiraan Ji). How is it possible for a person who is already holding the best Bow (Vijaya, which was far much superior to Gaandeeva ) given to him by Sage Parashurama, would not be able to lift that pity bow. Just think guys !!!
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 14:46
ReplyDeleteShri AMIT ,
I appreciate the fact you have taken a neutral stance ,
Kindly let me highlight certain issues ,:
In a debate , when a stronger evidence is present by vadi and prativadi should counter it with equal and powerful evidence , when a evidence is a fact and then it has to be evidenced with a fact only and not a feeling or assumption,
So Surya started debate saying GANGULY is authentic translation because it is acclaimed in Wikipedia .
I have changed WIKEPEDIA words , now it shows GANGULy is not authentic , so evidence is proved wrong ,
next he challenged me to show the passage where Karna did not string!
I have shown the passage at two places, at one place karna and all princes try and fail ,
in second vaishampayam mentions karna , ganguly translates radhs’s son ,failed is clearly written .
Now you have give verdict in favour
Now when challenge is proven ,
Now does this not show GANGULY is unauthentic as it has both stringed and non stringed version ,
now ganguly claims it is translation ,
he has shown from where it has been translated , incidentally in that Sanskrit text karna stringing is not written .
So with all logic and evidence we have shown that GANGULY is tampered text.
Do you agree with this conclusion ….
i have given alternate translation as well
from philosophy .ru its Russian philosophical library ,. how come this is not acceptable , it is also a site as sacred texts on internet and Russian library .
do you accept this as clear translation because all verses have been translated and there is no karna stringing bow.
SURY cannot claim karna stringing , because his text clearly shows that he has not strung and his text has ben proved wrong.
Now if you scan and show fine else I have ghorakhpir version I shall scan and show .
So kindly enlighten as with Sanskrit version , which shows Karna stringed the above ,
Please kindly remark as a jury when illogical statements are being made , you must immediately restrict .
BHEESHMA training , PANDAV varnavat etc saying K T pandurangi accepted are clearly illogical
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 16:22
ReplyDeleteIt has already been explained ,VIJAY was no doubt superior to GANDEEV, but it was boon of PARSHURAM that he can lift and use it ,
To give example ; even GANDEEV was WITH Brahma , during Tripurvidhwans , SHIVA got it , he could not lift it ,BRAMHA gave boon to lift , Then SHIVA gave iot to SOMA , SOMA to VARUNA all these subsequently could not lift , they lifted with boons , Similarly AGNI gave it ARJUN and he too could not lift only with boon he could.
This bow VIJAY was also offered to DRONA , but he refused saying what uses is a weapon for bramhana , he asked VIDYA instead.
So boons make one lift and string, DRUPADA had boon from SHIVA ,only ARJUN could string the bow [ common sense]
Chiraan said: May 29, 2009 at 12:06
ReplyDeletesurya says
who is more proficient in Sanskrit? Or is it about whether Karna is evil and whether Karna is an inferior warrior to the Pandavas?
———————————————
chiraan answer
So when a most proficient Sanskrit scholar has given his view K T PAndurangi , have you countered it with another Sanskrit scholars view , no you have plainly said this hypotheses is not acceptable , this is not tenable !
Does this word show you have countered
Then I can just go on saying This is not tenable to every your statement and say I have countered and I am correct that is not debate .
Here Jury has accepted GANGULY says KARNA has not strung the bow !
You have also accepted this point .
Then JURY is giving personal opinion that he somehow feels KARNA might have strung the bow !
It is here I am asking him to give verses . [ since it is his personal opinion ] he has already negated your opinion .
SO where has the Jury's role changed . I am asking the verses . because by saying He feels Karna has strung the bow , Draupadi abuse is going to spring up again in the debate in future , This will remain unresolved ,
SO if Jury shows Verses , Then this point is resolved once for all . I will have to accept that Draupadi said those sentences
Unfortunately these verses are not there in GANGULY Sanskrit at Sacred text . But we are aware [ surya is not aware ] it exists in a NORTH INDIAN version .
That’s what is prompting JURY AMIT to have those feelings about KArna .
SO if he shows his text , we can settle that comparing vis a vis Ganguly SANSKRIT . and other SANSKRIT
This is the way the authenticity can be established .
Surya said: May 29, 2009 at 14:22
ReplyDelete>>So when a most profiecient sanskrit scholar has given his view K T PAndurangi , have you countered it with another sanskrit scholars view , no you ahve plainly said this hypostheses is not acceptable , this is not tenable !
—————–
Ha ha, why should I counter it with another sanskrit scholar’s view, when I completely accept the facts produced by Pandurangi? It is you, who’s scrambling for cover. Mr Pandurangi clearly states that Draupadi rejected Karna shouting “NAHAM VARIYAM SUTHAM”. Do you accept that? No. Pandurangi clearly states that Dhristadyumna declared that even Shudras can participate in the competition. Do you accept that? No. Then why do you swear by Pandurangi? I accept all these facts produced by Pandurangi. It is you who do not accept it.
Chiraan said: May 30, 2009 at 16:15
ReplyDeleteIf you accept all the facts of PANDURANGi then you indirectly accept that GANGULY is not authentic translation , because these verses are not there in GANGULY Sanskrit version from which he translated .
So you yourself are accepting that what all crap you were basing on ganguly is not authentic. So where is the debate , you have already conceded twice by now , one while ABHIMANYU stanza and now with PANDURANGi you have fallen in the web of your own words.
I have shown alternate translation from PHILOSOPHy.ru of Russia that neither Draupadi said those words and noir KARNA string
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/itihasa/mahabharata/eng/01_adi.html
Hariprasad said:May 29, 2009 at 10:49
ReplyDeleteNamaskara All,
Sri Surya says that I accepted two points about Karna not going to Parasurama and not going to Duryodhana if Kunti had not abandoned him.
Please note that I was saying yes to the logic of the hypothesis. In numerous other comments, I have mentioned that, due to the influence of Narakasura in Karna, he would have always taken the route of evil. If not Duryodhana, someone else. Those points have not been highlighted.
If Sri Surya now says for e.g. that if Yudhishthira was not born, Bhimasena would have been first Pandava, I will say yes. Such hypothesis and their acceptance have no relevance to the debate on Superiority of Karna.
Since the blame for all of Karna’s miseries lies elsewhere and not on him, why not blame Satyavati for Karna’s miseries? If she had not laid down those conditions, Bhishma would have been King. These questions would have not arisen at all.
Or if Shantanu had not desired Satyavati, Vichitravirya, Pandu and Karna/Pandavas would not have been born at all. Why not blame Shantanu?
If Bhishma had not accepted Satyavati’s conditions, he would have married and Satyavati would not have married Shantanu. Why not blame Bhishma for Karna’s problems?
Or if Kripa and Bhishma had allowed Karna to participate in the tournament overruling objections, Duryodhana would not have given Kingdom and in bargain got Karna’s friendship at all. Why not blame Kripa for Karna’s miseries?
The only relevant point in the set of questions raised by Surya was about Karna stringing the bow. We have had a lengthy debate on that issue. As a pro-Arjun jury, I will state that Karna failed to string the bow.
By the way, I did some more research and found that the “Critical Edition of the Mahabharata” by Pune’s Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is widely accepted as the most authentic and comprehensive Mahabharata source. Many scholars have based their work on this critical edition. I have given link to electronic version of this earlier.
I have checked in that text too. Karna did not string the bow. Of course, Sanskrit is not acceptable to Sri Surya. I am trying to see if I can arrange English translation of same. But of course, it is perfectly clear that Karna did not string the bow. Not having an English translation at hand does not change that fact!
Regards, Hari
chiraan said: May 29, 2009 at 11:28
ReplyDeleteDear Hariprasad , when a person writes something illogical and claims he is speaking logically and dogmatically persists that he has countered all the points despite people repeatedly showing his mistakes , he claims he has not made those mistakes , it is hallucination ….. For all the points he gives hypotheses and imaginative scenario and when A Sanskrit scholar gives hypotheses on sound ground , he says it is not acceptable without giving reason …… He accepts he does not know Sanskrit …….yet he cannot accept eminent people ……………what can be made of this person ???? the purpose of Jury to be brought in is to decide on the merits and demerits of a debate .
All along he is debating existence of KARNA’s brother and this suta has not been rejected but karna suta has been rejected , blaming Draupadi of inconsistent behaviour and speech . Now when Jury AMIT has negated his point he says this was not the debating point .
So what was the debating point ?
Ganguly says son of radha did not string the bow !
debate goes:
Surya says Son of Radha is Karna’s brother !
Two out of three Jury says it is Karna and not his brother ,
So ganguly says Karna has not strung the bow !!!
Is this not the JURY verdict !!!!!!
ponit 2 : Draupadi did not utter ” i will not marry”
when Ganguly says Karna did not string naturally this abuse did not occur ,
If jury has struck first point then second point is also struck .!!!!
can there be again a debate on this !! I am sure Surya will again give his comment on this and say Jury did not mean this .
Niraj said: June 3, 2009 at 17:23
ReplyDeleteShree Chiraan
My salutations. I am Niraj and I have had the pleasure of
communicating with you about Karna. Respected Sir in
my very first message I had mentioned that the character of
karna has been sanctioned by none less than swami vivekananda
and I had mentioned that there is a temple of karna at a place
called karnaprayag which swami Vivekananda had paid respects but Swami Vivekananda was not well received by your good self
now you have included his sayings about the swayamvar above which does appear little double standards. I apologise if I am sounding offending. Please clarify.
best regards
Niraj
Chiraan said: June 4, 2009 at 14:33
ReplyDeleteNeeraj, We have not accepted Vivekananda version, I have already stated it is silly translation but still I said even he also does not contribute to Karna being abused In a debate we can always use the opponents words to our advantage there is nothing wrong in it.