Guru Drona denied KARNA n EKLAVYA the teaching of DhanurVidya,Is it not example of Caste Discrimination practised in Ancient India? Persecution

5 points | Post submitted by suyash95 257 days ago | 3 comments | viewed 584 times

Guru Drona denied KARNA n EKLAVYA the teaching of DhanurVidya,Is it not example of Caste Discrimination practised in Ancient India?


Add your comment

Please Login or Signup to leave a comment
  • suyash95 257 days ago | +1 points

    Marxist historians had manipulated history as per their political beliefs which were essentially Marxist and interpreted it as per class-struggle theory of Marx.That is why such distortions were made in Mahabharata.The Communists plan of Taking over India through Revolution has been alive till today.This was poison sugarcoated supplied through TV Serials.To divert attention n shift Blame from Muslim n British Rule , Mahabharata was altered on instructions of Communists.I am astonished? How was such massive FRAUD allowed..These people completely changed Mahabharata by inserting SJ Angles.

    Read Original Mahabharata by BORI Edition n Gita Press

    Discussing EKLAVYA Case -

    Ekalavya was the PRINCE of Nishadhas,His Father Hiranyadhenu was the Army commander of Magadha king jarasandha.

    He who came to Dronacharya for instruction. Dronacharya refused to train him along with the kauravas and Panadavas as his father was the general of King Jarasandh: the ruler of Magadh (an enemy state).Ekalavya began study and practice by himself, having fashioned a clay image of Dronacharya Solely by his determination, Ekalavya became a warrior of exceptional prowess.But There r clear Hints which say that Eklavya secretly used to watch Drona training kurus n learned from there.

    One day, kuru princes' dog's barking disturbed a focused Ekalavya. Without looking, Ekalavya fired arrows that sealed up the dog's mouth without spilling any blood of dog or causing any injury to the dog. The Kuru princes saw this dog running back to them, and wondered who could have done such a feat. They saw Ekalavya, who announced himself as a pupil of Drona. Every person saw his skill in shutting the dog's mouth. But as Ekalavya had not taken Drona's permission before learning archery hence it was considered an act of stealing knowledge and hence Drona demanded Ekalavya's thumb. In this way he prevented a potential threat to Hastinapur and also punished Ekalavya for his robbery.

    Dronacharya found out that Eklavya father was Hiranyadhenu who was the Army Commander of King Jarasandha who was the sworn enemy of KURUS,Drona knew that if Eklavya fought against Kurus with Jarasandha army,Kurus would have no chance.U must also note that Drona was under the service of KURUS,he did what he had to do to save them.Drona also swore an oath that he will teach only Kuru Princes..Also in one of his Former Life acc. to ancient text ,Eklavya himself was King Phalgunadi who ruled over a large kingdom.Eklavya stole knowledge without approval from his Guru. And Drona was also bound by his vow and he thought Eklavya was better than

    Ekalvya n Nishadas fought in Mahabharata WAR.This completely debunks any discrimination narrative

    This Article will explain this in detailhttps://satchitanandareflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/in-dronas-defence-case-of-ekalavya.html


    Discussing KARNA case-This Discussion will be long as this narrative is mostly used by MARXISTS .-

    Myth : Karna was denied teaching by Drona.

    Truth: This is a big, fat lie. Contradicted by pretty much every version out there, Drona indeed taught Karna.

    Pic 1&2: Gita Press version

    Pic 3: KMG version

    Pic 4: BORI version

    Karna was refused by Drona: Karna was very much a student of Drona. Only when it came to teaching the Brahmastra, did Drona refuse deciding that Karna did not have the maturity and the temperament to handle such a powerful weapon. That knowledge he gave to Arjuna only and to Ashwatthama, he taught only how to invoke the astra. For this specific reason alone, Karna had to go to Parashuram.


    ImageImageImageImage



    Myth : Karna went to Parshuram because Drona refused to teach him.

    Truth: Karna wanted Brahmashira astra n advanced DivyaAstra Training to kill Arjuna hence Drona denied to give him the astra.Karna wanted to learn Advanced DivyaAstra Training,And both cases occur with a single person.There were other teachers which Karna could had approached.

    Myth -Karna Insult at RangaBhoomi -

    Arjun never was concerned about who Karan is and what he does. But Karan always followed Arjun, he himself made Arjun his rival.Karna barged into the Scene without geting any invited.Think like this.In a college convocation ceremony,A person from another college barges into ur felicitation ceremony n declares himself better than u ,Would u not get angry?

    Why Karna was discriminated, no one knew he was kunti's son. He was a chariot driver's son, he is trying to be in company of princes. Think about it, it is normal human behaviour to bully the underdog. Kaurav and Pandav they were after all human. Of course they didn't like one of the servants among themselves

    Karna wanted to learn Advanced DivyaAstra Training,And both cases occur with a single person.And If injustice was done with any person,he could have very easily approached his RAJA.Karna was made RAJA by king Dhritrashtra.It was the duty of Hindu Raajas to give justice to everybody.

    Myth - Karna was insulted during Draupadi Swayamvar

    Karna failed during Draupadi Swayamvara: Draupadi never had to reject Karna citing Karna's low birth. Karna did not succeed in the Swayamvara competition.This is attested by both BORI n GitaPress Edition,one of the most trusted

    two comments (wrongly) attributed to Draupadi (present outside of Vyasa's Mahabharata) are

    1)Can't marry Sutaputra 

    2)Andhe ka putr andha

    She isn't a street goon. She is a lady.Draupadi never said that.

    FAKE NARRATIVES of KARNA POWER CREATED BY COMMUNISTS shown in Serials

    1- KARNA conducts Digvijay Yatra for Duryodhana 

    Karna's single-handed digvijaya yatra: The BORI CE n GITA Press completely excises this incident .This never happened

    In the past few years, writers and specially t.v and movie producers have shown Karan in a better light than Arjun. This was done initially for TRP’s because we Indian feel connected to someone who rose from dust. But slowly viewers and common people developed a theory that Karan was a better warrior than Arjun. There are more shows about Karan now than even Shri Krishna. Now shows centered on Karan shows as if he could have defeated Arjun even with one hand but he chose not to. No it was not the truth, it never was. It was a psychological effect on us Indians that we feel sympathetic towards Karan and consider him better than Arjun. If you read Mahabharat, the original version, you will know that many of the small tales shown in various programs and which can be found in abundance on social media did never happened .

    Some authors, most notably Shivaji Sawant the Marathi writer who penned Mrintyunjaya and Ranjeet Desai another Marathi author who penned Radheya from Karna’s point of view, glorified him. TV serials did the same by casting him as a tragic hero.I remember during one of the heated conversation on Karna, a die hard fan of Karna commented that since Karna was Dalit, that's why general category people do not like him. I was shocked, how come now this thing can appear in a discussion. What I observe an intentional attempt to showcase Karna by left leaned writers to change the narrative of our epic. I remember the scene where Karna enters to challenge Arjuna in Rangbhoomi, in the serial Suryaputra Karna. He says” apni Jati Ko Samman dilane yaha aaya hun”. So this statement changes the rational of the audience. Lots of fake stories to glorify Karna and ridicule Arjuna, Draupadi are there and sadly people believe on these fake stories. 

    EXAMPLE -  someone has written that when Karna was dying Krishna appeared as a beggar before him to ask for charity and Karan gave his tooth. You would never find any such stories in original text. There is one other scene shown in t.v serial Krishna which is widely being spread and hailed as a proof of Karan’s superiority over Arjun that with each hit of Arjun’s arrow, Karan’s chariot moved back by about 20 feet but with each shot of Karan’s, Arjun chariot moved back by 2 feet only, to which Krishna told Arjun that the Lord has the weight of all universe and still Karna pushed chariot by 2 feet, so Karan was better. (The show was centered on Shri Krishna, and producers added many plots to show that no one other than Shri Krishna was hero of the epic battle.  viewers thinks that Shri Krishna was praising Karan, but no. Producers were praising Shri Krishna to show the viewers that Arjun was capable of nothing. Yes Shri Krishna was hero but this was a far too exaggeration. 

     in the same serial it was shown that after the war Shri Krishna asked Arjun to get off the chariot and when Shri Krishna left the chariot it blew into pieces as the chariot was guarded by Hanuman Ji on Shri Krishna’s order and through this scene the producers conducted the message that Arjun himself was capable of nothing and it was Shri Krishna who saved him all the time because it was Shri Krishna based show. This instance never happened in original text.

    These stories or instances never occurred according to original book but were included in later version by local writers all these instances do not intersect in all books. One book has one instance and other had other. Producers these days are adding them because its benefiting them. and i am 100% sure behind this is the involvement of Missionaries.

    But We do hear  that Karan was from a poor low caste family for which many people sympathize with him.  

    This is complete BOGUS. Karna Father Adhiratha was friend of King Dhritrashtra

    But People dont think   He was never from a poor family. His father was a royal charioteer.We know the salary of Mukesh Ambani’s driver? Its more than 2 lakh per month. How many MBA’s and engineers’ earn that much? So his family was never poor. His appearance and behavior and personality was godly and rightfully so. He LIED straight to his Teacher that he was a Brahmin n later was cursed to loose his knowledge at the important hour of the battle. As far as living in hardship and scarcity is concerned even Arjun lived so many years of his life in forest, away from palace and royalty. He was born in forest, spent his childhood in forest, lived in Hastinapur for a few years then again spent many years in exile after Lakshagraha. Then Pandav’s got Indraprastha and again were exiled for 12 years and a year in Agyatwas. I don’t see many writers adding that to Arjun’s credentials. Did Karan live in such scarcity? I don’t think so.  

     

    MYTH - Karna's Curses-

    Karna was obsessed with Arjuna right from Drona'ashram.Arjuna always came first whereas Karna came 2 in every shooting competition conducted by Drona.This fueled his jealousy,It is mentioned that he wanted to kill Arjuna

    Karna was only cursed 2 times. Once by a Brahmana, second by his teacher Parshuram. The third curse of mother earth is folklore. The Brahmana’s curse was just that his car (chariot) wheels into the earth. Simple solution Karna could have fought on the ground or challenged Arjuna with another weapon. Just because his chariot cannot move he is at a disadvantage? Was Karna not smart enough to handle these trivial problems?

    Then their’s the curse of his teacher Parshuram. We can just say that Parshuram’s curse was futile. It did not work on Karna. The curse was that Karna will not be able to use the Brahmastra once he fights a warrior equal to him. But yet he was still able to recall it during the 17th day before his death.

    KARNA KAVACH n KUNDAL -

    The story of Karna's divine kavach-kundal seems to be an interpolation in Mahabharata acc to Most Commentators. No human can take birth with armor, earrings or weapons. It is against the law of nature created by god. Karna's kavach-kundal couldn't protect him during gandharva war. 

    But we r going to discuss that

    Regarding KARNA's Kavach n Kundal -  they were for his defense and would not have added to his archery or Divyastra’s knowledge.I think, the defense of Kundal and kavach was limited to only regular weapons because wherever in the earlier texts Kundal and Kavach are praised it is said that “no astra and shastra (regular weapons) can pierce through them, and it is never said no divyastra (divine weapon) can cut through them which Arjun had in abundance.  People r forgetting Arjuna Powers n capablities In comparion to Karan’s 9 Divyastra’s ,Arjun had 49 Divyastra’s as far as the information in MAHABHARAT goes including Pashpatastra and Rudrastra .BRAHAMSHIR ASTRA which is considered to be upgraded version of BRAHAMASTRA (and is believed to be capable of destroying whole world). Other weapon that he had knowledge of were VAISHNAV ASTRA, VAJRA etc.

    We never see any text in which he used any of such weapon.  Had Arjun intended to finish war in one 1 go, he would have done so. He would have used Pashupatastra or Brahamshir Astra and see everything getting destroyed on the other side of the battlefield.Shri Krishna wanted the minimal or no use of Daiviy astras because it would have caused far more destruction and far adverse effect on environment and earth and all living creatures. Something of kind of Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing effect. So instead of allowing Arjun to do that destruction Shri Krishna went on to saving Arjun by a little tricks. Imagine saving 3 lakh people in hiroshima and nagasaki and 10 crore people in world war 2 by poisoning Hitler or shooting him in his sleep in 1938? Unethical but real game changer?  

    I guess if it was planned by Gods’ to take Kundal and Kavach back, it was done to avoid Catastrophe because the credentials of Pashupatastra and Brahamshir astra r very clear that nothing can stop them.

    The Noticeable thing in Arjuna Karna fight is -Karna resorted to use Brahmastra during the duel which Arjuna never did in the first place..This shows the superiority of ARjuna over Karna.To kill his foe Arjuna,Karna resorted to using Brahmastra which was highly unethical of a True warrior becoz Brahmaastra was forbidden to be invoked in a normal duel.Only in some extra ordinary situation,Its use was recommended.not in a normal one to one fight.


    Dronacharya invoked Brahmastra to kill Drupada and Virat King during 15th day of war, but revoked his decision on request of Lord Brahma due to catastrophic after effects of the weapon, if Karna had been in place of Drona he would have never revoked that.During battle between Arjuna and Karna, both were using better weapons of various types, Karna fired Agneya(fire) weapon, Arjuna countered it with Varuna(water)Astra, Karna decapitated varuna Astra by firing Vayavya(wind weapon) Astra, Arjuna replied with Nagastra(snake weapon), Karna stopped Nagastra by Garuda Astra(Falcon weapon) Arjuna could have used Narayanastra, but it was forbidden to use that weapon in human warfare, so he didn’t used that, leading to large scale destruction of Pandava Army, had he been Karna, he would have used Narayana Astra.

    Karna fired Narayana Astra, Arjuna could have countered that with Narayan Astra, but knowing the catastrophic effects, he didn’t used that. On advice of Lord Krishna he submitted fully to Lord Narayana, he avoided his death by submission, what would have had happened if Karna was to stop Narayan Astra, we all know the answer. All the celestial weapons were forbidden to use in human warfare, Arjuna used it only once to counter Brahmshirsha fired by Ashwatthama

    One of their main reasons is that they believe karna was slayed unfairly when he was unarmed but the truth is different. According to the Mahabharata karna was still armed when he died at the hands of Arjuna.

    What really happened is this.

    Karna countered a astra of Arjuna using Varunastra.

    Arjuna counters Karna’s astra with the Vayavyastra.

    Arjuna cut off the flag of Karna’s chariot.

    Then Arjuna took out the anjalika arrow to slay Karna.

    Arjuna made a speech and then released the arrow at the armed Karna.

    Karna was not holding his chariot wheel when Arjuna launched his anjalika arrow.

    Karna died a fair death.I

    It is true that Arjuna defeats Karna when he was down and weaponless in Kurukshetra but that does not indicate that Karna could have defeated Arjuna in a normal war. In fact Arjuna takes them all kauravas in Virata Yudhha


    SUMMARY -

    Karna was refused by Drona: Karna was very much a student of Drona. Only when it came to teaching the Brahmastra, did Drona refuse deciding that Karna did not have the maturity and the temperament to handle such a powerful weapon. That knowledge he gave to Arjuna only and to Ashwatthama, he taught only how to invoke the astra. For this specific reason alone, Karna had to go to Parashuram.

    Karna failed during Draupadi Swayamvara: Draupadi never had to reject Karna citing Karna's low birth. Karna did not succeed in the Swayamvara competition.

    Karna was defeated by Gandharva's because he was drunk: This is a story mad popular of B R Chopra's serial. The actual fact is that Karna was quite aware of his senses. He fought bravely against the Gandharvas and killed thousands. But ultimately he could not face Chitrasen's magic (maya) and had to flee.

    Arjuna used Sammohan astra unfairly during Go-Harana Parva: People who state this have not read the parva closely. Arjuna defeated Karna not just once but twice. He even killed Karna's brother in front of him and then defeated Karna. Arjuna later fought battles with Ashwatthama, Kripa, Drona, Duryodhana, many other Kuru warriors and finally Grandsire Bhishma. He defeated all of them single-handedly. It was only when it was nearing the end of the day and when Arjuna's horses and charioteer Uttara was tired/injured, that Arjuna used the Sammohan Astra.

    Karna's single-handed digvijaya: The BORI CE completely excises this incident. But even if it is considered true enough, Karna only real challenge was the old king Drupada. Karna never marched against the Yadavas, Vrishnis and the Bhojas. By this time, most of the powerful kings were already aligned to the Kauravas. 

    Karna refused to kill Arjuna on 16th day because the Sun had set: This is a story interpolation to glorify Karna. It says that Karna made Arjuna completely defenceless and was then about to kill hi,. Just then the Sun set. But this is competely untrue. The fact is that Karna and Arjuna never faced each other on the 16th day. Read the events of the 16th day. Actually, Karna and Arjuna faced each other (in a real encounter), only on the 17th day, after the death of Dushasana. This encounter happened after Karna badly injured Yudhishthira and insulted him. The encounter lasted about 2 hours only.

    Karna set back Arjuna chariot only two paces ... etc.: There is not veracity in the story. Not even KMG translation mentions this story, much less the BORI CE. 

    Arjuna had to kill Karna by deceit only: While this is true, but do note that Arjuna did hesitate to shoot. He was goaded by Krishna to do so. And it was the curse of the Brahmin which as manifesting itself. Even then, I cannot recall to have read a single instance where Karna comprehensively defeated Arjuna. I have just debunked some other

    A popular contrast is given that Arjuna was possessing many celestial weapons and master of all of them whereas Karna was in possession of Shakti only and was cursed to forget the Brahamstra at the time of greatest need. While this is true enough, Arjuna never used the extremely powerful celestial weapons (Pashupata, Bramhashira, etc.) in the war.

    Another comparison that goes around is how Karna was spurned all his life while Arjuna was welcomed everywhere. This is also not true. The only ridicule that I found is when Bhima insults Karna during the martial competition. Karna was unfortunate by birth and cast away, but he found the welcoming and loving care of Adhiratha and Radha, the Sutas. The Suta is not a lowly caste (some sort of Tangewala) as it is led to believe. Suta is high caste that arises out of the union of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother. Yadu was the son of Yayati (Kshatriya) and Devayani (Brahmin). He was the father of Yadava race, a race to which Shri Krishna belonged.

    Secondly, Karna received all education at the hands of Drona. Sutas were also taught the art of warfare. Karna later lived the life of a king. He enjoyed rich luxuries all his life. On the other hand, Arjuna lost his father when he was barely five years. Thereafter, he and other Pandavas were always at the receiving end of justice. They spent three years in forest after they were attempted to be burned down. Later they lost their kingdom in the deceitful game of dice and spent twelve years in forest and one year incognito as menial servants.

    Only six kinds of people do adore an opportunist, a narcissist, a misogynist and a braggart like Karna.

    The first group hasn't even bothered to read the authentic versions of Mahabharata like: KMG, BORI and Gita Press but have gained their knowledge from TV shows, fiction novels and Internet. They believe that do know everything of Mahabharata and are adamant enough not to listen to the MB and Sanskrit scholars.

    The second group is obsessed with the caste based discrimination system of the ancient India. They think that Karna had always been discriminated against for his “Suta” caste. In this case, again the TV shows should be held accountable. They show that Karna had been unlucky right from his birth, he was abandoned by Kunti, was denied education by Drona, cursed by Parashurama, turned down by Draupadi, mocked by the Pandavas and finally killed unfairly just because he was a “Suta” which is far from being true. While Karna's birth was unfortunate, but, he spent his whole life in utmost comfort and luxury. Karna was the beloved and pampered son of Adhiratha and Radha, was received by Drona in his “Gurukul”, was cursed by Parashurama due to his deceitness, was never rejected by Draupadi but failed to string the bow, and he was killed by Arjuna while fighting. And, “Sura" was not equal to Sudra/dalits. Sutas were royal charioteers and were highly respected in the contemporary society. In fact, Adhiratha was referred as the ‘friend' of Dhritarashtra.

    The third group is comprised of a bunch of male chauvinists and mysogynists (women included) who really dislike strong women who can stand for themselves. They really hate the fact that she had faced all the challenges and problems with defiance, courage and astuteness which were quintessentially male traits, she imbibed them with honour, dignity, and grace. She had the guts to question those so-called brave, valiant and virtuous men who sat quietly and indifferently even after having seen a their “kulavadhu’s” humiliation. She did not bow down before patriarchy and injustice but chose to fight back. Her fiery attitude doesn't go down well with the members of this group for their staunch patriarchal mentality.

    This fourth group tends to support the underdog and hates the winner just like many people hate the topper of the class and sympathies with the failed ones. They justify their reason of hatred towards the toppers by giving the excuses like luck, tution, nepotism etc. For these people, Karna is their icon.

    Finally, those people who believe in the phrase : “History is written by the victors”. If the statement were really true, Vyasa would have covered up all the wrongdoings of the Pandavas. But, he pointed out all the mistake, flaws and injustice which were done on their part. Like: Yudhisthira's staking of Draupadi and Pandavas' failure to protect their wife, burning of five nishada men and their mother (according to BORI the Pandavas did it knowingly so that Duryodhana would mistaken them for the Pandavas and Kunti), Arjuna's cutting off Bhurishrava's hand from behind (although Bhurishrava was attacking fainting Satyaki, still, Arjuna's act was against the contemporary war rule) etc. So, you see, Vyasa didn't make an attempt to whitewash their characters. On the other hand, many times he spoke high of the antagonists like: Duryodhana, Shakuni, Dhritarashtra, Karna and the Kauravas. He didn't spare a single opportunity to glorify them. One of the instances of this when Duryodhana died, flowers were showered upon him from the heaven. Apart from MB, never did I read anywhere that a villain getting such a treatment. So, that statement isn't at all applicable for the MB.

    The last group members are self-proclaimed seculars, liberals and feminists who think that in order to prove their secularism and tolerance, they need to bash Hinduism, Hindu deities and Hindu epics. They tend to disgrace the conventional heroes of the Indian epics like: Rama, Krishna and Arjuna. Don't get me wrong. I, too, believe in secularism, liberalism and acceptance. But, I will never insult any religion and hurt others' feelings. They fail to understand that no religion in the world is perfect. Rather, mocking and degrading only a particular religion will lead nowhere but will create more contempt, hatred and intolerance.

    If you are interested to read the authentic version of Mahabharata, translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, then, please click the link which I have given below. Reading Mahabharata is far more interesting, exciting and adventurous than watching the TV shows. Take the time to read the Epic, believe me, you won't regret it.

    [reply]
  • suyash95 256 days ago | +0 points

    आज के महाभारत में एकलव्य के संबंध में जो आपने देखा, यदि वह पहले से जानते रहते तो वामपंथियों के उस झूठ को काट सकते थे, जिसका उपयोग कर वह SC/ST वर्ग को हिंदू समाज से काटने का हमेशा प्रयत्न करते रहे हैं! आइए एकलव्य के अंगूठा दान का सत्य जानें:-

    १) एकलव्य के पिता हिरण्यधनु हस्तिनापुर के शत्रु जरासंध के राज्य मगध के सेनापति थे

    २) जब एक वनवासी किसी राज्य का सेनापति हो सकता था तो फिर उसके शस्त्र विद्या सीखने की मनाही वाली बात झूठ साबित होती है।

    ३) एकलव्य का उदाहरण देकर वामपंथियों का यह तर्क की क्षत्रिय को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए शूद्र की बली ले ली गयी, झूठ है। असल में महाभारत काल में भी पद जन्म नहीं कर्म के आधार पर मिलता था, जिसका उदाहरण वनवासी हिरण्यधनु का मगध सेनापति होना साबित करता है।

    ४) गुरु द्रोणाचार्य हस्तिनापुर की रंगभूमि में साफ कहते हैं कि एकलव्य के वाण में मुझे भविष्य में हस्तिनापुर के लिए खतरा महसूस हो रहा था।

    ५) अर्थात् हस्तिनापुर के शत्रु देश के सेनापति के पुत्र को हस्तिनापुर का गुरु आखिर कैसे शिक्षा दे सकता था? यह अपने ही राज्य से द्रोह था। अब ‘भारत तेरे टुकड़े’ की सोच रखने वाले ‘पंचमक्कारों’ को यह द्रोह नहीं लगता तो यह उनकी मानसिक समस्या है।

    ६) गुरु द्रोणाचार्य द्वारा एकलव्य का अंगूठा मांगना जातिवाद का सूचक नहींराजनीति और कूटनीति का सूचक है

    ७) एकलव्य और कर्ण दोनों ने अनजाने ही अपने-अपने गुरू को भ्रम में रखकर शिक्षा हासिल किया, जिस कारण दोनों को सजा मिली। यह उस काल की गुरु-शिष्य परंपरा की उच्च नैतिकता का द्योतक है। गुरू को जो भ्रम में रख सकता हो, उसके हाथ में ब्रह्मास्त्र थमा देना पूरी सभ्यता को खतरे में डालने के समान था। परशुराम और द्रोण दोनों ने इसका ध्यान रखा।

    ८) कर्ण को लेकर भी वामपंथियों ने आजतक गलत नरेशन चला रखा है।

    ९) कृपाचार्य कहते हैं कि रणभूमि में कोई भी किसी से लड़ सकता है, लेकिन रंगभूमि में क्षत्रिय केवल क्षत्रिय और राजा से ही मुकाबला कर सकता है। दुर्योधन के द्वारा अंग-राज बनाए जाने पर कर्ण की राह का रोड़ा हट जाता है, लेकिन सूर्यास्त के कारण अर्जुन से उसका मुकाबला नहीं हो पाता।

    १०) कर्ण अंग-राज के रूप में हमेशा हस्तिनापुर की सभा में बैठता रहा, जिससे साबित होता है कि उस समय का समाज जन्म से अधिक कर्म को प्रधान मानता था।

    वामपंथियों की साजिशों को आप अपने शास्त्र के ज्ञान से ही धाराशाई कर सकते हैं, शर्त बस इतना है कि अध्ययन-मनन-श्रवण लगातार करते रहिए। धन्यवाद।

    [reply]
    • suyash95 248 days ago | +0 points

       The myth that Drona rejected Karna is one of the reasons his lie is justified to parshurama. But both are myths. Drona did not reject Karna. In fact Karna foster father was a former prince of Anga who was ousted and thus took help from his friend Dhrtrashtra. It is clearly given in MB specially Van parva. Adiratha had lots of Gold and was rich. That time smaller kings used to be charioteer of kings of bigger kingdoms at times. Suta were not lower caste but higher than Vaishya as per Manu smirti. Even keechak was a suta but he virtually ruled Mastya which his modern day alwar and Jaipur. Adiratha gets Karna admission in the school using his friendship.

      Drona not only taught to 107 kauravas ie five pandavas, 100 kauravas and yuyutsu as BRC Mb showed us but also many kings from all over India. Even his friend cum enemy Drupad send his son Dristhdyumna and his daughter disguising as Man to him who was Shikandi. Both were taught by Drona with love even being of his enemy cum friend. Dristhdyumna was his nemesis still he showed no such partiality.

      Karna was a student of Drona and was taught with others. Only Drona did not teach him Brahmastra. That he gave to Arjuna when he passed the crocodile test. Seeing Arjuna topper in his class Karna who was also friend of Duryodhana went to Drona and directly asked it to compete with Arjuna. Now just as it is Institute decision to bestow scholarship on worthy student , similarly it is Guru decision to give such weapons. He wanted to protect Arjuna as he was to some extent aware of Duryodhana intentions and his friendship with karna. Drona then tells that only who has observed vows of Brahmin(compassion, truth, austerities) and qualities of kshtriya(protecting weaker people and honor) can use such weapons. People take this criteria as related to caste but what he meant was qualities. Karna then left him and went to Parshurama.

      Proof of this relationship is in MB Adi Parva, Vana parva where Karna states Drona as his mentor with Parshurama and Shanti Parva too.

      Note—I would also like to state that even Parshurama was not adamant about teaching Brahmins only and Bhishma was not his only other student. He taught Rukmi and to other people too. He also taught on Suta who was son of his personal charioteer.

      The fact that he gave the knowledge of Brahmastra to Drishtadyumna is proof that he wanted to give it to responsible people only… People who would use it wisely.

      As for Eklavya, he learnt archery without Drona's permission and then attached Drona's name to his name. Imagine if he later used it for some not so good purpose? Dronacharya's name would be tainted.

      But the most important point to be noticed is that Drona was in the employment of the Kuru clan. It's like a legal contract in which he would not be able to teach non Kshatriyas. He made an exception only for his son for which he sought permission from the employers.

      [reply]

Welcome to HMW!


This site is for discussion about Hinduism.

You must have an account here to participate.

Register here >>>>

We do NOT offer personalized advice based on astrology.

Check the Guidelines for posting >>>>

Suggested Offline Book


Related Posts