Ethics of Krishna

Any person can get solace in Bhagavad Gita. Yes I did get my mental strength from this great classic few days back. I thought of death as a pleasnt experience. Thought of the repurcussions in the absence of this phenomena. I realised how important is the fall of leaves to allow new leaves to sprout.
So also it is very much essential for the old generation to cast off its old body to assume new ones.

I also feel elated to see a text which is highly secular in nature with on reference to magnificience of any religion.

But I do feel there are contradictions in Gita. May be my ignorance or due to alck of comprehension to get the full essence of this areligious text. I make no claim of any scholarly thought over this.
But I would tolerate is the injustice done to Karna. I will never behappy over any justification. This makes me show disrespect to Krishna(Iam ready for the brickbats from my friends). Ethics of war doesn't permit a character like krishna to be maen. It was meanest of mean actions to sly a person who was not in a position to defend himself. It is here Karna becomes more glorified.
There can be no Gita without Karna- that karna who is noted for charity loyalty and credibility. The thought of Karna makes me feel proud of Vyasa for his creative ability. kanaka

Hi kanaka,

agree with u...though not qualified enough to offer any explanation for the same..he has been one of my fav characters who has not had a fair deal thruout...but i am sure there is an explanation to it...we shall wait and see...the experts comments on this...

Mindi

Dear Kanaka,

A very interesting observation!

When you read the stories/autobiographies/biographies of great souls, you tend to find flaws in their character.

Let us for example take the Avatar of Ramji. Yes, good son,brother, ruler. But hang on you may say wasn't he a good hubby? This is where I tend to question him. As a husband, he had no trust on his wife. Fine, he asked her to do Agnipareeksha to prove her chastity. My question is: what was he up to? I know I am stirring up a storm.

No need to speak of his actions of having molten lead poured down a Shudra's ears & throat as he did the unthinkable of reciting the Vedas...

The reason why we still venerate Ramji is because he did what was correct at that time. He upheld law. He proved no one is above law. It is the same for all. Our politicians can learn from this.

Coming to Shri Krishna, yes he acted in a cunning way to get victory to the Pandavas. Please do not forget, the Pandavas themselves were a victim of a cunning game played by the Kauravas. As for Karna, the only reason he joined the side of the Kauravas was because he got honour & friendship from them.

Shri Krishna let us not forget did try to get a peaceful end to the problem. But even there, the Kauravas tried to kill him. Credit goes to Shri Krishna as he manipulated the discussion in such a way that the first war cry came from the Kauravas and not from him...

Shri Krishna is a statesman par excellence. In fact, a close study of his leelas tell you how a perfect diplomat should be...

Yes, Vyasji has to be commended for putting the character of Karna in Mahabharat..

Regards,

Corallux

Lakshmi,

Why did the Pandavas play the dice? It was a form present Matka played by a huge population in India with the blessings of their respective Govts. I don't believe in any game to put an end to something.

There is one more parallel to Gita. Aditya Hrudayam is the sermon given by Valmiki to Rama to prevent him from vascilating over the decision to wage war against Ravana

To me Sita is noble. Rama a male chauvinist. kanaka

We all have our weak points Kanaka. As for the game of dice, Shakuni knew Yudhishtir was weak in the game but an addict. Hence the game was played.

Oh yes, Adity Hrudayam is one of my fav hyms.

Regards,

L

Originally Posted by kanaka

Lakshmi,

Why did the Pandavas play the dice? It was a form present Matka played by a huge population in India with the blessings of their respective Govts. I don't believe in any game to put an end to something.

There is one more parallel to Gita. Aditya Hrudayam is the sermon given by Valmiki to Rama to prevent him from vascilating over the decision to wage war against Ravana

To me Sita is noble. Rama a male chauvinist. kanaka

Dear Kanaka,
I agree with you in that point. I had similar doubts few years back, but the only answer that i received was 'What Krishna did was all to save the dharma. Even though Karna was a person with a good character, the only mistake he did was to have the company of bad Kauravas. So i feel the act of Krishna was to teach one important point 'One shouldn't be in bad company, it directly/indirectly means you are encouraging/doing bad to society'". So inorder to sly the bad, krishna didnot even think about the war ethics and ordered Arjuna to shoot karna, even when he is not in a position to defend himself. Not only that, poor Karna had unfortunately many curses bestowed upon him, which took revenge on him in the unwanted time.

When i was in teenage i used to wonder why every woman wants a husband like Rama, when he didnot have the utmost important thing in marriage i.e trust & respect for your partner. But now I realise that a woman is ready to bear insults & whatever from her husband but not willing to share him with any other woman.Since Lord Rama is 'Ekapatni Vrata' women found the perfect husband in him.
But it cannot be denied that Rama is a male chauvinist.
These are only my views & opinions.No offence intended to any God or anybody's faith.

Dear Sravanthi,

Why did not Rama prov his chastity to indicate to the world chastity is everyone's code of conduct. In a society no one is beyond theethics of married life.

How could he give a clean chit to himself?If he had a firm faith in the fidelity of Sita should he sucumb to the gossips of a sectipon of the society. Our epics though great they are in the worlg has given our men wrong messages. In Inda man can sucumb to frailities.
If the argument is a family evolves around the woman in the family then admit we are superoior to men and give us the position due to us. kanaka

Dear Kanaka / Corallux,

Thanks for giving me the Credit.... hahahahahahahahaha... I am just joking.....

I agree with you Kanaka... In the Mahabaratha.... Karna did not get a fair deal... He is a great Warrior and his Charity is known... That is the reason... He could not be killed... so, Lord Krishna has to come as a pauper get get yasakam of all the fruits of Charity... This is one thing which I used to debate myself... We say, Matha/Pitha/Guru/Deivam... but in his case 3 out of the 4 ditched him... But still he remains as a great personality.... He died because of his own deeds... At the end also he gave away his life as Charity....

If you take the Mahabaratha as a whole... There are so many loop holes... Which makes us to think... Since it is a very sensitive issues... we talk of few issues and we close it...

I have lot more in store on Mahabs... May be my way of looking at things are wrong...

Veda

Dear Veda Vyasa,

Really an epic with any amount of discussion by scholars and people like us can put a full stop.

My thought provoking aspects in Mahabharata-

The laughter of Draupadi- Insulting to any man. However wrong a man may be he will never spare a woman who has hurt his ego.

The shallowness of a woman- I mean Kunti who wanted to experiment on those boons. As any young girl she committed mistakes from which she could never recover.
Her selfish attitude in approaching Karna at times of her need. Where was Kunti when that innocent Karna was humiliated? Why could she not own up responsibility for a crime of her making?
Again telling the Pandavas to share among themselves the bounty without knowing the fact. It shows how impulsive a woman can be at times.
Krishna's tricky style of feigning to sleep
Yudishtra's weakness to dice- True anyone addicted to any vice digs his own grave and a grave for his family.
I think an honest approach by Kunti would have turned the Mahabharata into something different. Then it would not have become a magnum opus givng the world umpteen chances to interpret each character from different ankles. kanaka

Dear Veda Vyasa,

Really an epic with any amount of discussion by scholars and people like us can put a full stop.

My thought provoking aspects in Mahabharata-

The laughter of Draupadi- Insulting to any man. However wrong a man may be he will never spare a woman who has hurt his ego.

The shallowness of a woman- I mean Kunti who wanted to experiment on those boons. As any young girl she committed mistakes from which she could never recover.
Her selfish attitude in approaching Karna at times of her need. Where was Kunti when that innocent Karna was humiliated? Why could she not own up responsibility for a crime of her making?
Again telling the Pandavas to share among themselves the bounty without knowing the fact. It shows how impulsive a woman can be at times.
Krishna's tricky style of feigning to sleep
Yudishtra's weakness to dice- True anyone addicted to any vice digs his own grave and a grave for his family.
I think an honest approach by Kunti would have turned the Mahabharata into something different. Then it would not have become a magnum opus givng the world umpteen chances to interpret each character from different ankles. kanaka