Summary of Debate on Arjun vs Karna - 1

By Sri Chiraan 2009/06/04

Debator
Surya | Chiraan
Jury
Hariprasad, Amit, Nilambar
Obsever
Sonu, Nilesh

Chiraan invites Surya to a debate on:

Whether is Karna is Superior to Arjun? 
Was Karna Evil?
Chiraan starts the debate with invitation to decide which is authentic translation of MAHABHARATA! Surya refuses to be drawn into debate on what is authentic, and what is unauthentic? He also refuses to be drawn into deciding what is evil?

Chiraan concludes that authentic translations should not contain anomalies, and should remain faithful to the original Sanskrit Mahabharat by Vyasa, and translation should conform to traditions of India.

Chiraan offers Surya to raise questions!

Surya opens debate with the birth of Karna:

1. Had Kunti not abandoned Karna at birth, Karna would have been taught by Drona .Would not have attracted curses.
2. He would have occupied the throne.
3. He would not have been abused racially.
4. He would have married Draupadi.
5. Duryodhan would not have waged war.
So Kunti is irresponsible mother and the main reason for the debacle of Karna.

Chiraan argues:

1. Kunti is solely responsible for betterment of Karna. She is one woman who never had sex in her Life. Karna was not born out of premarital sex, but as a boon from Durvasa through SUN, who himself incarnated through her womb. Both Karna and Sun were uninvited guests to her house, she was all but six years of age. When she was not in a position of raising the child, she ensured him better upbringing:
a. By giving him Kavach Kundal [physical protection].
b. Protection of Father [Sun always spoke to Karna in distress].
c. Enough money / diamonds to ensure RADHA raises him.

Surya argues: Had she confessed to Pandu about her son, he would have agreed to make him King.

Chiraan: Even if she had agreed, Karna would not become King as he is not son of Pandu.

Kunti having given him up saved him from being called KANIN, and people of Hastinapur would not accept a KANIN to be a King, as was evident when Duryodhan raised doubts over Yudhisthir none objected until Vedavyasa came, and told that they were born in presence of PANDU.
Since he was not suspected as KANIN, Karna got best education from Parshuram [GOD] himself better than Arjun.
He got best astras and weapons than ARJUN.
He got better education is known from the fact that he exhibited all that Arjun exhibited during tournament.
Karna could not have become KING.
Duryodhan made him a king against the rule of land.

Surya: when his archery was exhibited why was he not eligible to become a king. Why did Bheema abuse him.

Chiraan: A suta is not kshatriya, he is charioteer but a higher caste. A suta cannot become King. only kshatriyas become King, a caste is determined not by birth but by sanskar [rites] that are performed. Karna had rites of SUTA so he remained a suta. A suta cannot challenge a Prince, so unequal warfare was stopped between Karna and Arjun.

Surya Drona rejected Karna on grounds of caste? Injustice.

Chiraan: Drona did not reject Karna on basis of Caste, but he rejected him because the he was teaching only princes of Hastinapur.

Surya: Parshuram would have rejected Karna had he told he was Kshatriya or suta, so he lied to him as Bramhin and got education ! He was smarter.

Chiraan: God is all knowing, he knew Karna was Kshatriya and hence he taught him, but since he lied, he was cursed. Had he told he was suta he would have got education as suta is higher caste and given education in gurukul.
But Karna wanted to excel in astra vidya more than other kshatriyas, hence he lied as Bramhins had more astra vidya than kshatriya. Proof Ashwaththama showed more proficiency in tournament than Karna and Arjun.

Surya : What’s wrong in zeal ?

Chiraan: Teacher never teaches looking at zeal of the student, but at the capacity of the student, zeal is not virtue!

So it was good fortune of Karna he had better education than Arjun, and God gave him so, and not because Karna tricked him, else that would raise doubts over all knowing quality of GOD, which is clearly unacceptable.

Surya: Karna would have married Draupadi, as he would not have been rejected by Draupadi as suta, and he would have hit the fish in swayamvar.

Chiraan: Karna failed in Swayamvar, he could not string the bow leave aside hitting the mark.
Surya has been all along debating upon relying on Kisari Mohan Ganguly Translation of Mahabharata.
But the same translation shows in one passage Karna as being rejected by Draupadi, just as he strung the bow and was ready to hit the mark. In the very next passage Ganguly writes Karna along with Shalya failed in stringing the bow.
This constitutes anomaly and renders the translation as unauthentic.

Surya: The verse where People failed to string the bow are: Radha’s son, Vakra and Shalya, here Radha’s son is another son of RADHA [Karna’s brother and not Karna].

Chiraan: Was this Radha’s son not suta, then how Draupadi did not object to this one participating .

Surya says Draupadi had a double standard.

Chiraan: If Ganguly’s version is translation, then in original Sanskrit it is written as “KARNA’ and “SHALYA” as failed to string and not Radha’s son. Ganguly has tampered the text by translating KARNA as Radha’s son .

Surya accuses Chiraan of being like mullahs and evangelist, who resort to Arabic or Hebrew when cornered.

Chiraan: Whether Hebrew or Arabic or Sanskrit, a word Karna would mean Karna only.

Chiraan gives alternate translation from Russian library and ISCKON writings. This version of ADI parva Mahabharata says Karna did not string the bow, and failed in Swayamvar and there was no abuse from Draupadi.

C.Rajgopalachary renowned Sanskrit scholar says Karna did not string the bow but failed by hairs breadth.
Swaminathan in his book also says Karna failed. This book is read in universities.
Swamy Vivekananda expresses Karna was not rejected by Draupadi.

Surya says, these are all abridged versions and drawn from internet dustbin, and cannot be taken as authentic. Ganguly is authentic because it is approved by Wikepedia.
Chiraan shows Wikepedia is not authentic as anyone can change contents.

Jury Amit agrees Radha’s son is Karna only. But raises a doubt if Karna could string VIJAY a bow given by Parshuram then how could he not string relatively lesser bow. So common sense suggests Karna strung the bow.

Chiraan: Though Vijay is superior bow, it is a boon from Parshuram and Karna could lift it with boon. So could Arjun lift Gandeev because of boon, so also Drupad’s bow was presented with a rider only Arjun could string. Moreover Gandeev and Vijay were celestial bows did not require stringing as they were auto strung.

Surya says: Karna stringing is there in authentic RC DUTT translation, why it cannot be deemed that Chiraan is fabricating incidents, rather than Ganguly who is acclaimed by scholars?

Jury Hariprasad says, R C Dutt has also fabricated as, instead of Radha’s son, he has written Shishupal, if Ganguly is authentic then it becomes Radha’s son as failed, and RC DUTT says Shishupala. How come two authentic translation give different translation of same verse.
It shows anomaly. He gives verdict as Karna did not abuse and did not string the bow and failed in swayamvar.

Chiraan says:
The whole of Mahabharat is recited by SUTA, the son of Lomaharshan. The very first verse in Mahabharata starts with Saunaka asking Oh Son of Suta, please recite Mahabharata.
Suta is born to Bramhin mother and Kshatriya Father. If both parents are higher caste, how s the child relegated to be abused caste. Then how come Saunaka rishi and other Bramhin rishis are learning from SUTA the great epic of Mahabharta.

The Ganguly text translates the first verse as SAUTI say's instead of Suta uvacha.

The first verse itself has anomaly. So Suta is not a racial abuse, and pseudo sympathy for Karna as being abused as SUTA does not stand logically as he never was abused.

He clearly failed in Swayamvar. If Draupadi were not interested in him, then he would not have been invited, twice DRUPAD and Dhristadhyumn mention his name as invitee to the swayamvar. If he was unwelcome his name would have been struck or never mentioned. After mentioning his name, Drupad and Dhristadhyumn makes a vow that whoever strikes will get Draupadi. So Draupadi could not have gone against the words of Father and Brother as she was epitome of virtue.
So Karna clearly failed in Swayamvar and thus HE was inferior to ARJUN.

Neutral Jury Nilambar upholds the view of Chiraan. Observers Sonu and Nilesh also feel the arguments by Surya are insufficient to Prove Karna succeeded in Swayamvar.

Krishnarpana

Ekalavya - The Guru Drohi

By Sri Chiraan 2009/05/07

Ninth lord if in mruduswabhava rasi or in aspect or association of Jupiter, the native will have Gurubhakti. If associated with malefics the native will go against Guru. 

Ninth lord in navasmsa if placed well, the navamsa lord if aspected by Jupiter, the person will be endowed with guru bhakti, if afflicted the person will offend his preceptors.

• Ekalavya is known for the Guru bhakti in the popular history.
• His story has been celebrated as cruelty on part of Guru Dronacharya.
• Also Ekalavya has been portrayed as that of being a victim to the partiality of Acharya Drona, for his love towards Arjun.
• Ekalavya is supposed to have learnt everything all by himself.
• Ekalvya is portrayed as one from lower caste and untouchable.
• Ekalavya is seen as another victim of Pandav favouritism, just like Karna.
• Incidentally Ekalavya is brother-in law of Karna.

Contrary to the above popular belief let me give you the real facts to uncover the myth about EKALAVYA.

Before venturing into the character named Ekalavya, it is important to know the greatness of Acharya Drona.

Dronacharya was a man without desires, he used to live on shillonch vrutti [that which prohibits one to ask anything from anyone].

• He was taught astra Vidya By Lord Parshurama [not different from Krishna].
• He was very devoted to Lord and his Guru.
• He was true to his profession of teaching and to his employers, and kept his words always.
• Arjuna had promised to carry his mission [to conquer Drupad], and thus HE had promised Arjun to make him the greatest Archer.
• Archery consists of plain skill of holding bow and relieving arrows + knowledge of astras [missiles].
• Without knowledge of missiles plain archery is of limited use.
• Astras involve usage of Vedic techniques. [These can be learnt only from Guru].

Drona was divine personality, his grace would make anyone a great. Now let us move to Ekalavya.

• Ekalavya was not a lower caste, he was nishada prince [a son of nishad king].
• Nishada is a caste sprung from the intermixing of Bramhins and Sudras[parasava + kshatra]. These are tribes that dwell in forests and are adept in various skills from hunting to boating. They form an important part of forest life and governance in general, as they are chieftains over which a kingdom stands.
• Ekalavya and his father etc were in the service of Kashi raja.

Ekalavya went to Drona to learn Vidya Why?

• Ekalavya had a inherent hate towards Lord Krishna.
• Ekalavya was the incarnation of demon Manimanta.
• He had gone into deep forest to learn astras from Pisachas. [Paisaach vidya and paisaach astras].
• He had used them against Krishna, but could not succeed, thus he understood that he should acquire Deva astras.
• Only Guru Drona could impart such Knowledge.
• Thus he Approached Drona.

Why did Drona reject Ekalavya?

• Drona knew he was inherently a hater of Lord Sri Krishna. [His Guru not different from Parashurama].
• Entertaining him would be to go against his Guru.
• Secondly By then Guru Drona was in the service of teaching Princes of Hastinapur.
• School where Princes are taught, ordinary citizens are not allowed to learn by their side.
• Only Royals and Brahmins in Royal service could enrol themselves in such schools.
• This is the reason why even Karna was rejected.
• Those were the days when Governance itself was based on a caste.
• Hence an outcaste could not have dared to go to a Bramhin. [A Royal service men in the service of Monarch of the world] to teach him if it were against rules. So Ekalavya was not an outcaste. neither a low born because astra vidya could be taught to only higher caste warriors.

Disappointed Ekalavya went to the forest, prepared a IDOL of Dronacharya and started practising the archery.

• This gave him profound mastery in archery.
• This is not the greatness of Ekalavya, but greatness of Dronacharya himself, that even worshipping his idol too gave extraordinary brilliance in the vidya. If this was not so, then Ekalavya could have practised all by himself without the idol. But he knew the greatness of Drona, and thus resorted to this form of practise.
• This shows extreme determination of Ekalvya to gain the vidya [determination to kill Krishna].
• But all daitya [rakshasas, demons] are known to have done tapasya earlier, and gained boons from Shiva and others, this is just another example of Ekalavya doing tapasya to Dronacharya.

Dronacharya asked his right thumb

• When in the forest, royal dog was stopped from barking by Ekalavya [without hurting the dog, Ekalavya had gagged the dog with the arrows].
• This created a concern in the mind of Arjun and asked whether Drona was true to his words.
• Drona to keep his words and to prevent Ekalavya from going against his guru [Lord] and principles, asked for his right Thumb as Gurudakshina.

Ekalavya cut off his thumb

• Because, he knew refusing Gurudaksina would render his Vidya useless [just as Karna had suffered]. Thus it is better to give up the thumb rather than risking curse.
• Dronacharya was divine from the fact that he restored The THUMB equivalent to Arjun in plain archery and less stiff when using astras .
• This way Acharya Drona fulfilled his words and also kept his duty .

Later on the mount Raivat Dronacharya taught Astra Vidyas to Ekalavya. Equipped with the Astra Vidya. 

• Ekalavya along with Paundraka Vaasudeva [another son of Vasudev from the diti] attacked Dwaraka in the night.
• Krishna had gone to Kailash to beget a son.
• Satyaki and Balaraam along with the army fought with the Ekalavya and Paundraka Vaasudeva their army with lamps.
• Ekalavya and others extinguished all the lamps.
• So Balaraam went to back to bring additional Lamps.
• Satyaki kept at bay both Ekalvya and Paundraka.
• Just then Krishna returned, he cut all the weapons of Ekalavya and Paundraka and destroyed their chariots.
• Balaraam then happy at the return of Krishna, with full vigour raised his musal and attacked Ekalavya.
• Ekalvya afraid of furious Balraam, started running away.
• He ran and fell in the ocean.
• Balaram stood near the banks, but Ekalavya fearing and assuming Balraam is chasing, swam 80 yojanas and reached an island. There he looked back and seeing Balraam at the banks relieved a sigh.
• Then Ekalavya underwent tapasya to Shiva to get the boon of being defeat-less and ever victorious.
• Shiva granted him the boon.
• Now with much more pride and strength Ekalavya attacked Krishna again, and used all the astras given by Drona and Shiva. But Krishna cut all the astras and finally with his Sudarshan cut his head off .

Story of Ekalavya is the portrayal of greatness of Dronacharya, as how when in dilemma a man should act and yet uphold the Dharma, and duty towards society, king, Guru and pupils and finally towards GOD.

Guru bhakti is not in showing histrionics before GURU. Guru bhakti is in total surrender to teacher, obeying his every word, upholding his every value and treading the path shown by him. Ekalavya only showed histrionics and acted contrarily to his guru’s views, loyalties and culture and principles. This is GURU DROHA, thus  finally he achieved nothing and met with death at a young age at the hands of Lord SRIKRISHNA.

Krishnarpanamastu