confused by karna's death

[Visitor 0]

HariBol!

 

If im not mistaken, in kurukshetra yudh, Karna was killed by Arjun by the order of Shri Krishna whilst Karna was defenceless!

 

Im a bit confused by this! The 'rules of war' stated that it was unfair to kill Karna whilst he was defenceless. Karna trusted Arjuna to pause the fighting whilst he pushed his war-carriage from a ditch.

 

I understand that Karna had chosen to fight for the 'bad' side and his death was inevitable. I also understand that the kurus side had done many bad things. But what i dont understand is that those fighting the good fight should do it in a just manner, especially seeing that those who are on the side of satya always win in the end. Then why did Krishna order Arjuna to kill Karna in such an unjust way? this seems wrong!

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Because Krishna said so!

 

You can say many things but at end of the day, the other side used many bad tactics [Duryodhana side].

 

Also Karna was curced by [i think his own Gurudeva] that when it was time that he needed most help in battle it woundn't come to him. As we know Lord Krishna always does things systamatically so I suspect there were many reasons for this. One being the thing I just said.

[Guest guest]

As for the logic of it being right because Krsna said so, sorry it's not enough. It's weak logic, and that kind of defense is used by weak minds because they have nothing else to say for themselves.

 

Yes, I believe Krsna is God, but there has to be a reason for his advice. Now, I'm sure some theologian will create this backstory where Karna and Arjuna were friends in a previous life, and Arjuna promised Karna that he would kill him in the next life if he had the chance, if only to reincarnate faster, and go to Godhead sooner. Or some such nonsensical story.

 

I'm sorry, but there are many such instances where BHAKTI literature try to explain away inconsistencies by using the reincarnation and previous lives device to explain away the karma of the actions in the current life.

 

I just don't believe these stories. If it isn't written in the Mahabharata about previous lives and effects in the current life, then I would take such additional stories with a grain of salt.

[Guest guest]

you said:

I just don't believe these stories.

 

the whole indian spirituality is based on these stories.

by saying that u dont believe it u r defaming the culture i think.

 

they are not only stories.but stories with a meaning or conceptwith them.

 

the lord himself said that whoever understands the essence of these stories in its real context will not be reborn after death,and will reach the feet of the lord,the ultimate.

 

instead of tryin to accuse that stories are fake we should understand the real meaning of the stories.

[theist 1]

 

Yes, I believe Krsna is God, but there has to be a reason for his advice.

 

 

This is the point. Krsna is the Cause of all causes. It is not that there is some external reason that causes Him to speak one way or the other.

 

Beyond all codes of morality and fair play lies the all-importance of Krsna's will.

[Guest guest]

Even the Lords apparent injustice is more than justice, more like mercy, just as His lies, cheating or stealing are Divine.

But ours well...... ahhh maybe not.

Take it or leave it, like it or lump it, you either get faith or atheism.

It doesn't matter to Him, He is still going to be God regardless of our backing, He doesn't need your certificate, but you need His Grace, and every thing that comes with it, even if you disagree. We all have a million trials and deaths to get thru, so try to overcome it all without Faith, or just faith in your own opinions, it could end up a tad lonely..

for He says,

"Let there be Water" and there is water. The Lord is the Supreme Autocrat. All of His actions are beyond morality, and our judgment, they are done according to His own sweet will. We may get some insight into that will and nature if He wishes or He may keep us out. He only, knows our hearts, far more than we do ourselves.

[stonehearted 0]

Guest:

As for the logic of it being right because Krsna said so, sorry it's not enough. It's weak logic, and that kind of defense is used by weak minds because they have nothing else to say for themselves.

 

<snip>

I'm sorry, but there are many such instances where BHAKTI literature try to explain away inconsistencies by using the reincarnation and previous lives device to explain away the karma of the actions in the current life.

 

I just don't believe these stories.

 

 

In fact, the ultimate point of all of this is that we must eventually abandon any dharma other than utter surrender to Krishna's will. He says that unequivocally in Bhagavad-gita. And that includes all mundane concepts of logic and reason. Those who are too weak to do that, to trust Krishna rather than their own (imagined) powers of discrimination, will find this whole business hard to understand. Otherwise, what could we make of Krishna's exhorting Arjuna to kill his cousins, his pita-maha, his teachers? That certainly seems contrary to dharma, too.

 

One of Krishna's names is Adhokshaja, which means that he's beyond the reach of our feeble senses and mind.

 

That aside, all we need to understand the justice of Arjuna's killing of Karna is there in Mahabharata itself. In fact, Karna was foremost among the maharathas who ganged up on Abhimanyu, who was still really a boy, but who apparently could not be defeated fairly. Was it not Karna who cut Abhimanyu's bow string? I remember that the first time I read this battle I was sobbing, and I wanted to kill Karna myself.

[Kulapavana 0]

the issue of fairness in this context was brought up by Arjuna himself. Krishna urged Arjuna to kill Karna while the later was busy pulling his chariot out of the mud. Arjuna objected, saying it was not fair to kill an unarmed foe. Krishna replied that fair or not, this is the ONLY way he can kill Karna, and besides - Karna's behaviour during Draupadi's humiliation at the Kuru's assembly hall and again during the killing of Abhimanyu was also not fair, so he deserves to die by unfair means. THAT is JUSTICE! Krishna is the master trickster, but He is always JUST in His actions. That's my Lord!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

 

the issue of fairness in this context was brought up by Arjuna himself. Krishna urged Arjuna to kill Karna while the later was busy pulling his chariot out of the mud. Arjuna objected, saying it was not fair to kill an unarmed foe. Krishna replied that fair or not, this is the ONLY way he can kill Karna, and besides - Karna's behaviour during Draupadi's humiliation at the Kuru's assembly hall and again during the killing of Abhimanyu was also not fair, so he deserves to die by unfair means. THAT is JUSTICE! Krishna is the master trickster, but He is always JUST in His actions. That's my Lord!!!

 

 

Thank you everyone for your replies, but please keep them coming as im not convinced that i fully understand this karna situation!

In reply to the message above, i would have thought that death was Karna's justice, but by JUST means, not in such an unfair way! Im sorry, even thou i myself consider Krishna as God, my heart dosent agree that this was the right thing to do. Surely youd expect the victory of satya to be by just means, even if it take longer.

e.g. lets say that arjuna couldnt beat karna during battle, surely someone following the path of satya would accept death before doing something so unjust.

I dont agree with the example of "they did something bad to draupadi etc" and so also kill them unjustly. Because they do something bad does not mean that we stoop to their level!

[Avinash 0]

Here is how I understand. Let us assume that Arjuna could have killed Karna only when Karna was unarmed. In such a case, if Arjuna had not killed Karna when the latter was unarmed, then what would have happened? The answer is that Pandavas would not have defeated Kauravas. If Kauravas had not been defeated, then the sinful ways in which Duryodhana was ruling the kingdom would have continued. To put a stop to Duryodhana's rule, Arjuna had to kill Karna the way he killed.

[stonehearted 0]

I see little point in trying to convince you of anything. You're right, regardless of what anyone says, apparently. You say that you consider Krishna God, yet you subject him to your judgment. You are free to do so, but He is also free to decline to reveal the entire truth to you. And that is the only way we can have access to the Absolute Truth, Param-satya--through the descending process. If God is disposed to reveal Himself to us, we may be able to see, not otherwise.

[Guest guest]

Thank you stonehearted. I understand that its upto Krishna whether i understand it or not.

 

Actually their was a reason why i asked this question. I just retired as the president of the Hindu Society from my university. As a student society we are quite active in maintaining and upholding our faith amongst students by arranging many events.

 

All the time i was to organise an event, i would always go about it the legitimate way. But unfortunetly alot of the time we encountered problems. if there was nothing that we could do to get round it legitimatly I would take this as being Krishna's will because at the end of the day we consider ourselves as His instruments. But the new society, i see them working very hard but should they encounter similar problems, i see them taking the 'back way' to save them from further trouble! I was just wondering if it was correct to do this if its in the name of Sanatan Dharma? According to the Karna-situation, yes it would, but as i mentioned before, my heart does not agree with it!

 

what do you think?

[Kulapavana 0]

"I dont agree with the example of "they did something bad to draupadi etc" and so also kill them unjustly. Because they do something bad does not mean that we stoop to their level!"

 

before the battle, both sides agreed to follow standard kshatriya protocol. the unfair killing of Abhimanyu by the Kuru warriors released Pandavas from that agreement. You are projecting your own standards of fairness and you are free to do that, but that does not mean that Karna was killed unjustly.

 

sometimes little children die a gruesome death and some people cry: why would the good Lord do such a horrible thing? similarly, you cry: why would Krishna urge Arjuna to kill Karna in such an unjust way? in both cases the charges of injustice arise out of ignorance and preconceived notions of what God should and should not do. you may have accepted that Krishna is God, but you have not surrendered to Him.

[Guest guest]

In reply to Kulapavana

 

Im not projecting my own standards of fairness. Why should those who follow the path of satya fall to the levels of those who are unjust such as the kurus?

Devotees are meant to be compassionate. Karna asked Arjuna to wait whilst he took his chariot out of the ditch. Yet Arjuna by the order of Krishna 'slaughtered' him. I understand that this was necessary to uphold righteousness but i dont agree that the method it was done in is correct! It would make a lot more sense if Arjuna killed him during a fair fight!

[Kulapavana 0]

"It would make a lot more sense if Arjuna killed him during a fair fight!"

 

problem is: Karna was a better warrior and (as I said earlier) Arjuna could kill him ONLY by using "unfair" tactics.

[Guest guest]

Im still not convinced. In my eyes, killing him unfairly means stooping from the path of satya. If Krishna willed, he could have killed Karna by other means! Im just trying to figure out what kind of lesson this is to mankind!

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

The lesson is: following order of Krsna is following Satya.

 

Hare Krishna,

Your Servant.

[Guest guest]

"The lesson is: following order of Krsna is following Satya."

 

Thats true, but such a lame answer! can't you tell i'm looking for more indepth information? How do YOU relate to the karna-situation? If thats the only thing you've got to say as a reply then it means nothing more than a story to you! Learn to involve yourself within the Bhagvatam. It should be a personal thing! stop being a muppet!

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Karna was still the Elder brother of the Pandavas. But the information was withheld. Before Krishna even went to karna to propose that he let it be known who he was. So Krishna tried many times to make the situation better for Karna. But there was no hope.

[theist 1]

It is not a lame answer. It is the most profound. The question exists on the very border line between mundane religiousity and establishing (or re- ) one's eternal relationship with Krsna.

[stonehearted 0]

Guest:

Actually their was a reason why i asked this question. I just retired as the president of the Hindu Society from my university. As a student society we are quite active in maintaining and upholding our faith amongst students by arranging many events.

 

All the time i was to organise an event, i would always go about it the legitimate way. But unfortunetly alot of the time we encountered problems. if there was nothing that we could do to get round it legitimatly I would take this as being Krishna's will because at the end of the day we consider ourselves as His instruments. But the new society, i see them working very hard but should they encounter similar problems, i see them taking the 'back way' to save them from further trouble! I was just wondering if it was correct to do this if its in the name of Sanatan Dharma? According to the Karna-situation, yes it would, but as i mentioned before, my heart does not agree with it!

 

what do you think?

 

 

Oh, I agree with you! Too often in the past, ISKCON leaders and members have tried back-door approaches to the impediments they encountered. Srila Prabhupada usually encouraged us to accomplish our goals in a straightforward manner, but sometimes he felt a goal was so important that he would encourage us to do whatever was necessary. Unfortunately, when we try to do so on our own, things backfire, blow up in our faces, come back to bite us in the rear. And that makes us (devotees, Hindus, or whatever group) look like everyone else, if not worse. These choices have given the Krishna consciousness movement a bad name in so many quarters and caused worse problems than they hoped to solve.

There are many lessons we can learn from Karna's situation, but doing whatever you want to accomplish some end, however good you may think it is, is not one of them.

 

One lesson is being mature enough to accept responsibility. Kunti got what sounded like a really cool blessing, but when she tried fiddling around with it, she found out that it was much more than she thought. Rather than face up to what she had done, she sent her son down the river. Because of her immaturity, he grew up full of resentment. He was a demigod bred to be emperor growing up in a working-class family. When he found out the truth, the frustration and anger that built up throughout his youth had a target: the Pandavas. And nothing, nothing, nothing, would assuage his ire.

 

Because of that, he fell into bad company, and, as noble as his character was, he went down the wrong path due to his sense of loyalty to Duryodhan and became implicated in Draupadi's humiliation (which led to the death of 640,000,000 men) and Abhimanyu's heartbreaking murder. So although Arjuna hesitated to take advantage of Karna's predicament (and canyou imagine the extent of the fury he must have felt at his son's murder?), Krishna, knowing what the end here must be, exhorted Arjuna to act.

 

So you might tell your successors that they should be very cautious about cutting corners, unless they want to make it difficult for their society to function on campus in the long run. And that they'd better be very careful about how they treat women.

[Kulapavana 0]

"Im just trying to figure out what kind of lesson this is to mankind!"

 

now you have the right approach! /images/graemlins/smile.gif certainly Krishna could have arranged Karna's death by "fair means" - but He did not - obviously for a reason...

 

just like in real life (after all, Mahabharata is "real life") the lessons are on many levels. to list a few I see:

 

1. the influence of Kali-yuga is so powerful, even great personalities cannot avoid it.

 

2. real (God's) justice is not dependent on human morality codes

 

3. a devotee may have to sacrifice his good name (fame) to execute the will of the Lord (real humility required)

 

4. don't expect others to treat you honorably if you yourself act dishonorably to them

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Here is how I understand. Let us assume that Arjuna could have killed Karna only when Karna was unarmed. In such a case, if Arjuna had not killed Karna when the latter was unarmed, then what would have happened? The answer is that Pandavas would not have defeated Kauravas. If Kauravas had not been defeated, then the sinful ways in which Duryodhana was ruling the kingdom would have continued. To put a stop to Duryodhana's rule, Arjuna had to kill Karna the way he killed.

 

 

This is a good angle to understand the situation. There are many levels of dharma, some often contradictory. One must decide what is essential dharma and what is external dharma.

 

A rough example is this. Suppose during world war two you could stop the holocaust by telling a lie to someone. What do you do? Do you uphold the dharma of "satyam" (truthfullness), or do you abandon that dharma for the higher purpose of helping others?

 

In this case following the external dharma of satyam would be adharma, as you would be neglecting the immeasurable suffering of so many people which you had the power to stop. True dharma would be to abandon the lesser dharma and act for the higher cause of essential dharma.

 

In the case of Karna and the kaurava kings, their rule was adharma personified, so much so that bhumi devi was praying for Vishnu's advent to save her from their burden. Countless people were suffering on account of their unjust rule, and it was the Pandava's duty as Kshatriyas to remove that burden and protect the population from this suffering.

 

Knowing that Arjuna could not defeat Karna in direct battle, Krishna advised Arjuna to give up the lower dharma and act for the higher dharma of protecting the public from suffering. To follow the lower dharma would be a matter of selfishness (simply following rules for one's own comfort of not breaking dharma, but neglecting the need of the public).

 

We should also understand that the rules of fighting had been abandoned by both sides many days earlier. The agreements they had made were no longer valid or binding.

 

Just see the dharma that was upheld by the pandavas. When Ashvathama killed the children of the pandavas, and the pandavas had captured him for punishment, what did they do? They were advised to kill him as punishment for his crime of murdering children, but they showed him mercy and only cut off the jewel in his hair. Why did they do this? According to dharma they were supposed to execute him to make up for his sins, but that was a lower dharma. Ashvathama was no longer a threat to the public, he was no longer a fighter on the side of the kauravas, as the battle had finished. So rather than selfishly following the lower dharma, they rejected it and instead allowed him to go free. And by doing this Ashvathama has become a rishi and will become Vyasa in the next Satya yuga.

 

So sometimes people who should not be killed according to dharma are killed for a higher dharma, and sometimes those who should be killed are not killed.

 

What is dharma is not such a simple thing that we can say there is "Right" and "Wrong". All scriptures tell us that the path of dharma is mysterious and practically unknowable. Rishis have performed tapasya and meditation for thousands of years to understand what is dharma, and it still remains a mystery to them. But in kali yuga we watch a 30 minute TV serial on Mahabharata and we think we have understood the complete realm of dharma, so much so that we can point out the flaws in exemplary souls actions.

[Kulapavana 0]

"One lesson is being mature enough to accept responsibility. Devaki got what sounded like a really cool blessing, but when she tried fiddling around with it, she found out that it was much more than she thought. Rather than face up to what she had done, she sent her son down the river."

 

I'm sure you meant: "Kunti"

[stonehearted 0]

Yep--you're right. I'll go back and change that. I was writing on the fly, on the run (got stacks of papers to grade), and on very little sleep. My blushing apologies, and my thanks.