Summary of Debate Arjun vis a vis Karna - 2

By Sri Chiraan 2009/06/13

Debaters
Surya | Chiraan

Observers
Sonu | Renu | Nilesh | Sundara | Neeraj 

Jury Hariprasad

Surya wants to settle the issue of Translation and original Sanskrit before going to new points.

He cites! 1. Ganguly, 2. M N Dutt, 3. R C Dutt, 4. Lal, to say Karna stringed the Bow.

Chiraan says all these authors have different versions, and they do not match with Sanskrit.

Hariprasad shows where Ganguly mentions Radha's son as failed for a shloka, R C Dutt shows it Shishupala failed, and MN Dutt shows it as Jarasandha Failed.
If Surya says they are all authentic, how these are different translation for same shloka.

Surya says: Although he does not know Sanskrit, they are all correct translations, and jury Hariprasad has no ability to read. There is no difference at all. He challenges to show the verses in Sanskrit by Chiraan where Karna failed or made an attempt.

Chiraan shows the verse, Surya says it is fabricated.

Chiraan says it is same Shloka which is mentioned in his site where Ganguly translation resides.

Surya says: The Sanskrit version at site is not acceptable, but Ganguly is acceptable.
If Chiraan can show same Sanskrit for MN Dutt [or if he proves M N Dutt translated from so and so Sanskrit] he would accept.

Hariprasad jury shows, In Sanskrit name Karna failed, and M N Dutt by the side of English he skips the name Karna. This is dubious.

Surya claims its the publishers mistake, he has pulled one Sanskrit version and printed against Dutt translation.

Chiraan says, Dutt mentions that it is Kolkata edition Sanskrit from where he has derived,
Ganguly says he has derived from Neelkantha and resorted to Bengali rendition.

LAL also confirms this in his book. P N Mullick also criticizes the interpolation and incidentally this book is co authored by MN Dutt .
So Ganguly shows error in writing Radha's son. LAl and Dutt agree Ganguly has interpolated. All these have derived from Bhasa. Who has written two plays [not translation] making a hero out of Duryodhan and Karna.

Such plays and its views cannot be accepted as authentic translation.

Surya feigns, he cannot see any such proof provided by the links. Whereas all the observers find them a learning experiences.

Surya says he accepts Vyasa Sanskrit, but is not ready to accept the shloka given by Chiraan, as there is scope for misinterpretation.

Chiraan says same shlokas are available in all sites on the internet, and no other version is available. And hence they have to be Vyasa Sanskrit shlokas, and the word "Karna" is clearly visible, and hence there is no scope for misinterpretation for word "Karna".

Surya says, all the sites showing that shloka are corrupt versions of Sanskrit including his own sacred-texts site [self contradictory].

Sundara exclaims Surya is wrong in his logic.

Renu feels Surya has clearly failed.

Neelesh finds Surya's logic utter nonsense. He admits he was fan of Karna after watching BRC tele-serial, but now after learning Karna debacles he has a change of mind.
He concludes Arjun is the best among the warriors and Karna is least evil among evils.

Neeraj finds it difficult to understand as why Chiraan is quoting Vivekananda, when he is not accepting his views .
Hariprasad unanimously says the logic of Surya is untenable.

Sonu puts forward following questions:

1. After Draupadi swayamvar Karna is defeated by Arjun.

2. Karna was defeated in Gandharva episode. He was captivated [fled by some] abandoning Duryodhan and army. He was rescued by ARJUN.

3. In Viraat episode Arjun single handedly defeats Drona, Bheeshma, and Karna all put together, and Karna flees from the battlefield.

4. When Drona demands gurudakshina to capture Drupada. Duryodhan along with Karna attack Drupad, but is defeated and rooted, and driven away. Arjun wins Drupad.

Why did Karna lose here [he had kavach kundal and boons everything]? Doesn't these loses prove him to inferior.

Surya defends: 

1. Karna was unprepared, he did not expect Bramhin to be serious adversary and hence lost.

2. In Gandharva episode, Karna was surprised [if you are expecting Veerappan and suddenly if you find Israelis what can you do], so because of element of surprise [gandharva was superior] was there he lost. Show similar incident for Arjun and I shall accept.

3. In Viraat parva too he was not aware Arjun was before him, hence he was unprepared.
Unpreparedness makes a warrior vulnerable. It is common and need not hamper Karna's greatness .

Chiraan shows: Arjun similarly fought chitrarathj gandharva when he did not even have a bow and arrow, and surprising attack in night, he hurled torch as astra and defeated gandharva.

Surya how can a gandharva be thought of formidable opponent. You must show some serious incident [Karna lost to Gandharva because gandharva was superior, yet when Arjun wins without weapons, it is just gandharva] [self contradictory].

Hariprasad jury points out,
How come Bramhin [Arjun in disguise] was not taken seriously by Karna, he had just demonstrated a superior skill, which all kshatriyas and Karna himself could not achieve [stringing of bow and hitting of fish]. Having witnessed superior skill Karna should have been more prepared, and Karna led the attack. So did he lead without preparation.

Surya says Karna thought it was roadside Bramhin who could have got a boon to win swayamvar, but will perform miserable in duel. [self contradictory].

Chiraan says if that was true why did all kshatriyas together fought one single Bramhin. Jarasandha was most feared demon in those days, when he failed and Bramhin succeeded that means he was superior to Jarasandha. At least Karna should have estimated that and he was prepared and defeated.

Hariprasad, shows in Viraat, Drona declares its Arjun coming to fight, and then Karna says even if it is Arjun he can vanquish, these words show he was well prepared, and he did see Arjun before him and knew it was Arjun. And he lost pathetically and fled the battlefield.

Surya, says karna was expecting Viraats, but he saw Arjun at the last moment, and there was no time for preparation, hence Karna was unprepared, and hence lost, but that does not show him to be less than Arjun.
Otherwise Why Yudhisthir will say he lost sleep for 13 years thinking about Karna despite these setbacks.
Chiraan Yudhisthir has said same thing about Krishna too, he said how can we vanquish Jarasandha, as Krishna himself could not vanquish him.
Yudhisthir is known to worry unnecessarily, his worry does not make Karna a great. By his worry even Krishna is susceptible to Jarasandha [which is clearly unacceptable].

Hariprasad, jury asks In Drupad war, it is clearly mentioned that Duryodhan and Karna, and all brothers get into competition as to who will first get to Drupad. Here Karna is well prepared. Karna knows the opponents as Drupad and Panchalas. He knows their strength, and he was fully equipped with kavach kundal, and bow VIJAY everything.
Then why did he lose ?

Surya says this was Drona's war, and Karna was not interested in winning it. He was less enthusiastic so he lost. We cannot consider this loss as mark of inferiority. [Self contradictory]. Karna lost even when prepared. And opponent Surya accepts it.

Haripasad, Jury says Surya's remarks defies elementary logic. 
Karna lost to Drupad, Arjun thrice, Gandharva, Bheemasen, Ghatotkach, Satyaki, Abhimanyu. He also failed to string the bow in Draupadi Swayamvar. So with so many failures Karna cannot be declared as supreme warrior.
Arjun is undoubtedly a superior warrior than Karna, as he never lost a battle until Krishna was there on the earth.

Krishnarpana

Vada Vadi Partivadi - Refutation of Charvak

By Sri Chiraan 2009/06/11

• The person who puts forth the first statement, or concept, or accusation is known as Vadi.
• One who defends himself from accusation or protects his own logic is Prativadi

• There are actually four types of discussions:

• Samvaada

• Vaada

• Jalpa 

• Vitanda

• Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as is Shree Krishna-Arujuna samvaada. The student does not question the teacher, but questions his understanding for clarification. This type of discussion can occur only when the student surrenders himself completely at the feet of the teacher.

• Vaada is the discussion between two equals for mutual enhancement of knowledge – the purpose is to settle what the truth is. Both come to the table for discussion with an open mind, and the discussion is based on some accepted pramaana of the authority.

• Jalpa is where each debater comes to the table with preconceived notion that he is right and the other fellow is wrong. The other fellow also comes with the same notion. The purpose of the discussion is only to convert the other fellow to his camp. There is no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. Even if one is loosing his arguments, he only goes and comes back with more ammunition to defend himself. Only lot of noise. But those who are bystander can learn the defect in each of their arguments, and they can learn out of these discussions.

• Vitanda is some what peculiar. In these discussions one is ready to take up the other fellows arguments, which he himself does not believe in, but argues against the other fellow just to prove that he is wrong. This is also accepted arguments and is used very effectively to prove there is no credibility for the opponent. You are wrong, not because the statement by itself is wrong but it is wrong because you made that statement.

• When Benefics are in eleventh like Jupiter, Venus, or Mercury or if Sun is in 11th then Prativadi wins the debate. Or the one who opens the debate looses.
• When these planets are in 10th then Vadi wins.
• When one opens the debate in an ascendant, the 4th from which happens to be fiery sign, the opponent runs away.
• If Sun tenants lagna or 10th house or benefics occupy them there will be increase of knowledge. Jupiter increases knowledge, Venus poetic skills, and Mercury communication skills.
• In 10th a benefic will spread knowledge.

Madhvacharya has written an exclusive grantha "Katha Laxan" explaining the various forms of debates and methods to tackle them, and types of proof to present to uphold VEDAS.

Here is sample debate of Acharya with a Charvak.

A Charvak is an atheist. [Charu- sweet Vak- speech] [I would term it as Kshar vak].

A Charvak was a Brahmin who believed only in perception. Acquiring of knowledge through sense perception alone. He refutes inference and Vedas or textual scriptures as not reliable in matters of knowledge.

A Charvak is modern theory of materialism: Yesterday has gone by, tomorrow is not yet seen, so live in the present and enjoy. Enjoy and celebrate your senses, even if you have to borrow money, without adhering to any dharma or bindings.

Out of the aphorisms of Brihaspati came a whole school of Hindu materialists, named after one of them, Charvakas. They laughed at the notion that the Vedas were divinely revealed truth. Truth, they argued can never be known, except through the senses. Even reason is not to be trusted, for every inference depends for its validity not only upon accurate observation and correct reasoning, but also upon the assumption that the future will behave like the past.

One may ask why there are so many philosophies in the world, why the debates, and why cant only one dharma prevail. Why?
The answer is
1) Dourlabhyaat shuddha-buddheenaam [due to lack of pure intellect]
2) Baahulyaat alpavedinaam [due to lot of ignorant people]
3) Duraagraha-gRuheetatvaat [due to prejudices]
4) Vartante samayaaH sadaa [all faiths remain for ever]

The discussion goes thus:

Charvak: I believe in only sense perception.

Madhvacharya: How did you come to know about your belief!

Charvak: No answer! [Belief is not perceived by any senses].

Charvak proclaim only eyes etc senses [jnanendriya] are true. This statement is self contradictory. Here if one relies purely on the senses for knowledge, then one is denying the self and its existence as the one who is actually gaining the knowledge.
This self is not visible or heard.
We say "this is my hand", "this is my body", the word "my" is indicative, and is inferred by someone inside as neither hand, nor the body that is seen or heard is "me".
The self contradictory [vyahatha bhasha] is imperative in Charvak’s words. What is vyahatha?

It is akin to saying "My mother is a barren woman".
The sentence itself shows it is wrong and contradictory.
If the mother was barren how did she become a mother!!!!!

If a Charvak is teaching his student his philosophy, how can he deduct that student has learnt his philosophy, by facial expression? He will have to somewhere infer it.
So inference has to be accepted by Charvakas.

Third is the textual proof. Charvak says it cannot be believed.
What people say what Vedas say, what religion says need not be true.

Let us ask a Charvak what day is today?

Charvak says it is Thursday! How did he come to know that?

Either he will have to refer a calendar for that and accept the text written “Today is Thursday”, so Charvak is accepting Textual proof as well.

Let us also give him sentences "Text is not acceptable".
Charvak if he says he does not accept.
Then he is accepting that text is acceptable.
If he says yes text is not acceptable, then he is accepting the given sentence as proof !

Thus beyond doubt Charvak becomes a vyahatha Bhashi.

Vedvyasa in Brahma sutra refutes Charvak matha by following aphorism

|| Om abyugamepi arthaabavaath Om ||

• Philosophy is meant to increase happiness.
• Happiness more than what we presently have.
• Philosophy is meant to reduce miseries in present birth and freedom from misery forever.
• If philosophy does not say what to do and what not to do, then it is of no use.
• The perception and relying solely on it is form of self denial and existence.
• It is akin to ignoring self.
• So such philosophy should be discarded.

Krishnarpanamastu

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

Superiority of Arjun vis-a-vis Karna - A Debate

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 View

Now, 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