Karna's grasp of Dharma

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Karna's grasp of Dharma was rival to that of Yuddhisthira.


If you wish to debate Karna I am more than ready.


You missed the book review thread : Book Review Thread

Here you go.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

So, Karna was comparable to Yuddhisthira, the guy who bet his brothers and wife.

I cannot decide who was the bigger loser and adharmi.

 

[Singh]

So, Karna was comparable to Yuddhisthira, the guy who bet his brothers and wife.

I cannot decide who was the bigger loser and adharmi.

If you want to troll further:

Both are held to be equal in stature by some to the "Grandsire" who was a mute spectator to the Draupadi disrobing incident.

The Son of Surya, Son of Dhrama and Son of Ganges are all losers and adharhmi ? Typical Kaliyuga Mleccha thinking

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

If you want to troll further:

Both are held to be equal in stature by some to the "Grandsire" who was a mute spectator to the Draupadi disrobing incident.

The Son of Surya, Son of Dhrama and Son of Ganges are all losers and adharhmi ? Typical Kaliyuga Mleccha thinking

So why Kurukshetra for establishment of Dharma if most of the lead characters were Dharmic? It only shows somewhere along the way they forgot true Dharma.

1) Son of Surya- fighting on the wrong side
2) Son of Dharma- betting away what was not his
3) Son of Ganges- deciding to not marry and mute spectator

 

[Singh]

So why Kurukshetra for establishment of Dharma if most of the lead characters were Dharmic? It only shows somewhere along the way they forgot true Dharma.

1) Son of Surya- fighting on the wrong side
2) Son of Dharma- betting away what was not his
3) Son of Ganges- deciding to not marry and mute spectator

Dharma - Karma cycle operates in a subtle level. Sometimes you are prisoner of your own "Dharma" and have to suffer the consequences of such a "Karma" or despite following proper and appropriate Dharma have to suffer the consequences of "Karma" from past lives.

Since the texts which propounded the concept of Dharma consider Yuddhisthira (son of Dharma), Karna (son of Surya and brother of Yama and Shani) and Bhishma (son of Ganges) to be the embodiment of Dharma ergo we have to consider that each of their actions were in compliance with Dharma unless otherwise noted. The fact that we perceive their acts to be contrary exhibits our lack of knowledge.

For eg. in the case of Yuddhisthir his role during the death of Ashwathamma the elephant led to his chariot being lowered, means his actions re: gambling were within the confines of Dharma whereas in the other case weren't.

From my understanding you cannot be a follower of Dharma and then seek to interfere in the complex Karmic web. Lets assume that Bhishma Pitmah's perceived adharmic reticence during Draupadi episode would've disturbed the cycle of karmic punishment due to Draupadi (possibly as a result of her laughter at Duryodhana, or the fact she coveted Karna etc.)

However, Krishna being an avatar was exempt from such a condition that is why he rescued Draupadi, often broke rules of Dharma this despite goading others to follow Dharma.

 

[Singh]

Dharma - Karma cycle operates in a subtle level. Sometimes you are prisoner of your own "Dharma" and have to suffer the consequences of such a "Karma" or despite following proper and appropriate Dharma have to suffer the consequences of "Karma" from past lives.

Since the texts which propounded the concept of Dharma consider Yuddhisthira (son of Dharma), Karna (son of Surya and brother of Yama and Shani) and Bhishma (son of Ganges) to be the embodiment of Dharma ergo we have to consider that each of their actions were in compliance with Dharma unless otherwise noted. The fact that we perceive their acts to be contrary exhibits our lack of knowledge.

For eg. in the case of Yuddhisthir his role during the death of Ashwathamma the elephant led to his chariot being lowered, means his actions re: gambling were within the confines of Dharma whereas in the other case weren't.

From my understanding you cannot be a follower of Dharma and then seek to interfere in the complex Karmic web. Lets assume that Bhishma Pitmah's perceived adharmic reticence during Draupadi episode would've disturbed the cycle of karmic punishment due to Draupadi (possibly as a result of her laughter at Duryodhana, or the fact she coveted Karna etc.)

However, Krishna being an avatar was exempt from such a condition that is why he rescued Draupadi, often broke rules of Dharma this despite goading others to follow Dharma.

This is a very complex subject which has been mentioned in Sikhism as living within the Hukam or that which is divinely ordained. Hukam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God can modify his Hukam but you for no particular reason are allowed to break the Hukam.

An example from Sikhs scriptures involves Mian Mir and Guru Arjan. Guru Arjan was being tortured in Lahore, and Mian Mir wanted to intercede on his behalf but Guru Arjan ordered him not to do so as it was not within Hukam.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Dharma - Karma cycle operates in a subtle level. Sometimes you are prisoner of your own "Dharma" and have to suffer the consequences of such a "Karma" or despite following proper and appropriate Dharma have to suffer the consequences of "Karma" from past lives.

Since the texts which propounded the concept of Dharma consider Yuddhisthira (son of Dharma), Karna (son of Surya and brother of Yama and Shani) and Bhishma (son of Ganges) to be the embodiment of Dharma ergo we have to consider that each of their actions were in compliance with Dharma unless otherwise noted. The fact that we perceive their acts to be contrary exhibits our lack of knowledge.

For eg. in the case of Yuddhisthir his role during the death of Ashwathamma the elephant led to his chariot being lowered, means his actions re: gambling were within the confines of Dharma whereas in the other case weren't.

From my understanding you cannot be a follower of Dharma and then seek to interfere in the complex Karmic web. Lets assume that Bhishma Pitmah's perceived adharmic reticence during Draupadi episode would've disturbed the cycle of karmic punishment due to Draupadi (possibly as a result of her laughter at Duryodhana, or the fact she coveted Karna etc.)

However, Krishna being an avatar was exempt from such a condition that is why he rescued Draupadi, often broke rules of Dharma this despite goading others to follow Dharma.

I understand the logic you have given here. I know why Bhishma had to suffer so much and the complex web of karma. This non interference is fatalistic and the reason why Sri Krishna goads Arjuna to fight.

But you did not answer why Kurukshetra if almost everything was according to Dharma?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This is a very complex subject which has been mentioned in Sikhism as living within the Hukam or that which is divinely ordained. Hukam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God can modify his Hukam but you for no particular reason are allowed to break the Hukam.

An example from Sikhs scriptures involves Mian Mir and Guru Arjan. Guru Arjan was being tortured in Lahore, and Mian Mir wanted to intercede on his behalf but Guru Arjan ordered him not to do so as it was not within Hukam.

If that was the case, why did Mian Mir even thought about intervention?

But now you can say- he was supposed to be stopped by Guru Arjan Singh.

 

[Singh]

I understand the logic you have given here. I know why Bhishma had to suffer so much and the complex web of karma. This non interference is fatalistic and the reason why Sri Krishna goads Arjuna to fight.

But you did not answer why Kurukshetra if almost everything was according to Dharma?

Because Karma is a bitch

For why start with Vol 1 of Mahabharata. It gives a very exhaustive account of chain of events leading to Kurukshetra.

 

[Singh]

If that was the case, why did Mian Mir even thought about intervention?

But now you can say- he was supposed to be stopped by Guru Arjan Singh.

It is possible that even Mian Mir knew so did Guru Arjan , but they had to do this to get it across to the people as it was the Hukam.

PS: Guru Arjan was not a Singh.

 

[Singh]

I understand the logic you have given here. I know why Bhishma had to suffer so much and the complex web of karma. This non interference is fatalistic and the reason why Sri Krishna goads Arjuna to fight.

But you did not answer why Kurukshetra if almost everything was according to Dharma?

Why did Bhishma Pitamah suffer ? Hinduism- Legends and Beliefs: 100 births old curse

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Because Karma is a bitch

For why start with Vol 1 of Mahabharata. It gives a very exhaustive account of chain of events leading to Kurukshetra.

Yes, I am planning to read it.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Because Karma is a bitch

For why start with Vol 1 of Mahabharata. It gives a very exhaustive account of chain of events leading to Kurukshetra.

So you mean, @Mad Indian will become feminist @Rashna in next birth!!! haha.

 

[Singh]

So you mean, @Mad Indian will become feminist @Rashna in next birth!!! haha.

Or @Mad Indian was a Christian + Feminist in his earlier birth.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Or @Mad Indian was a Christian + Feminist in his earlier birth.

Next time you ban him, I will tell you that it is his "Karma"!!!

 

[Mad Indian]

Or @Mad Indian was a Christian + Feminist in his earlier birth.

Or I am neither as I am not reborn or tied to this stupidity

 

[Rashna]

Sorry he isn't going to get reborn for the next 3000 years( like Ashwathama) having been cursed by a woman (most likely me).

So you mean, @Mad Indian will become feminist @Rashna in next birth!!! haha.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Sorry he isn't going to get reborn for the next 3000 years( like Ashwathama) having been cursed by a woman (most likely me).

So happy! No surprise you don't have any such powers. haha!

 

[Rashna]

Well i can just see him standing in front of chitragupta and being asked to explain why he has been cursed by a woman. And you know how great the power of imagination can be.

So happy! No surprise you don't have any such powers. haha!

 

[kafir kaur]

Dharma - Karma cycle operates in a subtle level. Sometimes you are prisoner of your own "Dharma" and have to suffer the consequences of such a "Karma" or despite following proper and appropriate Dharma have to suffer the consequences of "Karma" from past lives.

Since the texts which propounded the concept of Dharma consider Yuddhisthira (son of Dharma), Karna (son of Surya and brother of Yama and Shani) and Bhishma (son of Ganges) to be the embodiment of Dharma ergo we have to consider that each of their actions were in compliance with Dharma unless otherwise noted. The fact that we perceive their acts to be contrary exhibits our lack of knowledge.

For eg. in the case of Yuddhisthir his role during the death of Ashwathamma the elephant led to his chariot being lowered, means his actions re: gambling were within the confines of Dharma whereas in the other case weren't.

From my understanding you cannot be a follower of Dharma and then seek to interfere in the complex Karmic web. Lets assume that Bhishma Pitmah's perceived adharmic reticence during Draupadi episode would've disturbed the cycle of karmic punishment due to Draupadi (possibly as a result of her laughter at Duryodhana, or the fact she coveted Karna etc.)

However, Krishna being an avatar was exempt from such a condition that is why he rescued Draupadi, often broke rules of Dharma this despite goading others to follow Dharma.

Draupadi never laughed on duryodhan and she never desired karna, she was a pious women who never had feelings for anyone besides her husbands.
i have good knowledge of mahabharat, willing to debate on it.