Various shades of grey?

I recently heard a podcast in which a speaker, formally trained in Hindu spirituality, alleging that we are giving Karna more credit than he deserves. True, fate had not been kind to him. Being a product of an unceremonious, society-unsanctioned union, his mother, Kunti, decided that the best course of action was to abandon him in a vessel by the river, to be taken away by the waves, armed only with grand ornaments on his body.

Karna had so much to offer, but was denied on account of his adopted status. He wanted to achieve many things in his life and yearned for validation. All the disappointments made him an angry man. His attempt at learning sorcery and archery was thwarted by his unknown familial background. For that, he had to lie to be Parasuraman's disciple, and when his bluff was discovered, he paid dearly. Parasuraman then cursed him that he would forget his skills at the most crucial moment of his life. 

Karna was also denied entry into competitions due to his background as a charioteer's son. Only royalties could partake in specific grand competitions. He was humiliated in public when he attended Drupadi's svayaṃvara.

It was only Duryodhana of the Kaurava clan who gave him dignity by providing him with land to rule, thereby elevating his status to that of a kshatriya (ruling class). For that, Karna was eternally grateful.

That incident made Karna forever indebted to the Kaurava clan. He became privy to all their malfeasance. He showed blind, unwavering support to Duryodhana. He not only failed to raise an alarm when Draupadi was disrobed, but also encouraged the Kauravas to do so. He remained on the Kauravas' side, even though he knew their actions were clearly wrong and their tactics were well below the belt. Karna was also the mastermind in tricking and trapping Ahimanyu, Arjuna's teenage son and killing him unceremoniously and not following the rules of engagement. realising their below-the-belt tactics. Even after knowing that the Pandava brothers are his blood brothers, Karna chose not to value that but was still hellbent on killing them.

So was Karna a good or a negative character? Is he a hero, villain or anti-hero?

That is precisely the point. The Mahabharata is not a book that tells stories. Its characters are not one-dimensional; they are complex. Unlike the actors that we encounter on the silver screen, who are either good or bad, people in real life are not. In real life, everyone is inherently good. Life circumstances shape the way they act. I think the Hindu scriptures are not meant to give us direct answers like a mathematical formula. As complicated as life can be, these references only make us put on our thinking caps to individually or as a group argue the merits and demerits of an action and perhaps come up with alternatives. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Whatever rocks your boat!

Kannappa (Telegu; 2025)

Director: Mukesh Kumar Singh

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5306972/

The story of Kannapan, the tribal hunter, fundamentally shaped my understanding of spirituality from a tender age. I first heard this tale around the age of 13 or 14, when my parents insisted that my sisters and I should dedicate an hour or so on Saturday evenings to religious classes (satsangh) organised by their friend. The highlight of the satsangh was, of course, the stories told by the organiser, RG, in the most dramatic and humorous manner.

The other parts were the chance to lead singing and the opportunity to play the small cymbals (jalra) during devotional songs. 

Kannappa's story opened my eyes (and naive mind) to two important aspects of Hinduism.  

In the version I heard, a tribal hunter, Kannappa, was so eager to worship Lord Shiva after witnessing a Brahmin priest perform his daily routine. When the hunter inquired about the proper way to pray, the holy man shooed him away. The hunter, after observing what the priest was doing, did what he understood. He fashioned a stone to resemble a linga, lit a light with pork lard, placed some wildflowers, and scooped water from a nearby lake with his mouth! The eye on the linga started bleeding, and Kannappa enucleated his own eye to replace it. Then another linga eye began bleeding. Kannappa put his foot on his linga to mark its position before removing his second eye. The Brahmin priest, upon seeing what he thought was blasphemous, caused a big fuss. Lord Shiva took notice, manifested and praised Kannappa for his devotion. His eyes were restored. Lord Shiva further honoured Kannappa by granting him liberation.

RG's story taught me that one need not display piety openly. True devotion is inward. One does not have to practise vegetarianism to earn His grace, nor wear a specific tunic to receive His blessings. All that is needed is sincerity and pure thoughts. It is the middlemen who pretend to know the protocols, itineraries, decorum and laws set out by God himself.

The other thing I could not understand is why God enjoys putting His devotees through tests. The impression I have of Him is that He is narcissistic. He longs for unquestioned loyalty. The impression that the intermediaries seem to give is that our reason for existence is to keep Him happy. His wrath knows no limits. It is important to remember that these stories were created during the Bhakti movement, when it was believed that to attain salvation, one must be devoted to God. 

Kannappa's story in this movie is only told towards the tail end of the film. The lion's share of the movie focuses on boosting box-office takings, such as showcasing how skilled a sorcerer Kannappa is, his love interest, and the various costumes in which she is scantily dressed to emphasise her body contours. 

Shiva intervenes to prevent Kannappa from sacrificing his eye.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

Another Kannadasan composition...

Movie: Avandhaan Manidhan
Poet: Kannadasan
Music Director: MS Viswanathan
Singer: TM  Sounderajan

This is another song written by Kannadasan for the movie ‘Avanthaan Manithan’ (அவன்தான் மனிதன், Only He is Human). The film tells the story of an industrialist with a tragic past. His wife died in childbirth, and his child drowned as a toddler. Despite his sorrows, he puts on a happy face and carries on his earthly duties, manning his matchstick plant and helping his employees.

Tragedy strikes again when the cargo ship transporting his merchandise goes down. Due to some technical issues, he does not get any compensation. He soon turns a pauper. His mansion is auctioned off.

His philanthropy elevated his favourite worker, who bought over his house and offered it to his boss. Unfortunately, the industrialist is too proud to take handouts. He downgrades himself to live with his faithful butler. The charity bug never left the industrialist. Despite being in dire straits, his addiction to giving charity never waned.

The above song appeared when the industrialist was sitting down, reflecting on the life he had lived.

Kannadasan thought his life, giving and giving even at times of trouble, was comparable to that of Karna’s in the Mahabharata. Hence the composition.

(1)ஆட்டுவித்தால் யாரொருவர் ஆடாதாரே கண்ணா
 ஆசையெனும் தொட்டினிலே ஆடாதாரே கண்ணா

Somebody is initiating the dance; no one is exempt, Kanna?
Nobody escapes the trap of desires. 

Interpretation: In the dance called life, God starts the ball rolling. Everyone has no choice but to partake in the reverie. But beware, we are entwined in it by the lure of pleasures. We are kept trapped in these chains of interpersonal bonds and worldly materials.

(2)நீ நடத்தும் நாடகத்தில் நானும் உண்டு
 (3)என் நிழலில் கூட அனுபவத்தில் சோகம் உண்டு

In the dance that you organise, I am also in it, 
My shadows, too, feel the experience of melancholy.

Interpretation: The emotions that life brings affect every part of our body. Our mannerisms, the way we move, and our general appearance are testimony to the fact. 

(4) பகைவர்களை நானும் வெல்வேன் அறிவினாலே
 ஆனால் நண்பனிடம் தோற்று விட்டேன் பாசத்தாலே

I will win over enemies with intelligence,
But I lost to my friend because of affection.

Interpretation: We think we are logical and use our thinking sense to act wisely. The fact of the matter is, we are biased. The bonds that we build cloud our actions.

(5)பாஞ்சாலி உன்னிடத்தில் சேலை கேட்டாள்
 அந்த பார்த்தனவன் உன்னிடத்தில் கீதை கேட்டான்
 நானிருக்கும் நிலையில் உன்னை என்ன கேட்பேன்
 இன்னும் நன்மை செய்து துன்பம் வாங்கும் உள்ளம் கேட்ப்பேன்

Panjali (Draupadi) asked you for saree,
That Partha (Arjuna) asked you for the Gita,
What can I, in this situation, ask from you?
Even now, a heart to do good to be returned with tragedy.

Interpretation: This is easily the most meaningful message in this song. It relates to the story of the Mahabharata. When Yudhishtra, the Pandava king, gambles off his kingdom and property, he also loses his wife, Draupadi (aka Panjali). When the Kaurava thought it was alright for them to disrobe and humiliate a menstruating queen, she pleaded to the Gods for a longer saree to protect her honour. On the eve of the Kurushetra War, Arjuna had cold feet. The idea of combating, mortally wounding or outright killing his uncles and cousins was confusing. For that, Krishna started what can now be termed a counselling session. The conversation was immortalised as the Bhagavad Gita (Gita). In the real world, when someone asks you what you really want, what do you say? First, you would think it is a trick question. What is the catch, and what is it for you? In the verse, the Poet quotes Karna's supposed request, 'the ability to continue helping people in next births'. Apparently, this was not mentioned in Valmiki's original version of the Mahabharata. 

(6)கடலளவு கிடைத்தாலும் மயங்க மாட்டேன்
 அது கையளவே ஆனாலும் கலங்க மாட்டேன்
 உள்ளத்திலே உள்ளது தான் உலகம் கண்ணா
 இதை உணர்ந்து கொண்டால் துன்பமெல்லாம் விலகும் கண்ணா

Even when I get wealth as deep as the ocean, I won't be inebriated,
Even if it's just a handful, I won't be sad,
Only what is in your heart is your world, Kanna,
Only when this is realised does sadness go away, Kanna.

P.S. Krishna is also affectionately called Kanna, amongst many other names. 

Interpretation: This is another life lesson. When endowed with great wealth, one should not be intoxicated by the pleasures it can offer. Even if it is hardly enough to go around, one should not falter. One should contend with what one has. This realisation leads to happiness. Be happy with what one has.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

Who is your favourite Mahabharata character?

Kurukshetra: The Great War of Mahabharata (S1; E1-18)

Animated Miniseries

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt38235589/

This is an excellent animated miniseries that tells the story of the 18 days of the Kurushetra War across 18 episodes. It is a tightly edited series that narrates each day of the battle, then swings back in time to illustrate the background that culminated in the war. As we know, the Mahabharata, which includes the Kurukshetra War as only a small part, is 10 times longer than the Iliad and Homer combined. The series gives a very clear view of what the  War was all about. It is not all about killing and winning, but there is always a great reason and justification for why things happen the way they do.

Every now and then, the story backtracks to remind us of significant events from the Mahabharata: the iconic dice game in which the Pandavas lost their kingdom and even their wife, Draupadi, to the Kauravas; Draupadi's disrobing and humiliation; their exile; and the princes' childhood.

With too many characters and almost similar-sounding names, it can be pretty confusing for a newbie. Names like Bhisma and Bheema, Krishna and Karna, Dhrirashtrata and Duryodhana can sometimes give a mind freeze.

In war, everyone loses. Neither warring can claim to be just or otherwise, as that is the meaning of war when all decent manners to solve a problem have failed. In ancient India, however, it seems. The warring factions had specific rules of war. No war could go on after the sun sets. A soldier is only allowed to engage in combat with someone of equal rank. Combat should be face-to-face. Attacking someone from behind or killing someone unarmed is scorned. They were expected to attack gentlemanly. The Kurushetra War was the mother of all wars, where war codes were broken and marked the beginning of a new yuga, Kaliyuga.

Gemini's visualisation of Karna

Out of all the numerous characters who participated in the Kurushetra War, the one who plucked the strings of my heart is definitely the tragic Karna. Born out of wedlock to the Pandavas' mother, Kunti, he was disposed of at birth to float aimlessly in a river, only armed with some celestial markings. He was adopted by a childless charioteer. Because of his unprivileged upbringing, he was deprived of so many things in life. He was not accepted to learn sorcery from the best teacher of the era, Dronacharya. He had to lie about his background to learn it, instead of from Parasurama, who cursed him after discovering the truth about his parentage. He was disqualified from competing in certain events (e.g. Swayambara). Only after the leader of the Kaurava brothers, Duryodhana, gave him a kingdom did he attain the status of a warrior. For that, he was eternally indebted to the Kauravas.

So, when the war broke out, it was natural for Karna to support the Kauravas. By then, Karna had earned a reputation as a formidable warrior, admired for his skills. He was also revered as a kind person who would not refuse alms to the needy at any time. His nemesis had always been Arjuna.

Karna was dragged into the war as the Commander-in-Chief on the 16th day, only after Dronacharya was mortally wounded. Before that, because of their prior animosity (between Karna and Dronacharya), Karna did not fight alongside the rest. The shocker came to him just as he was going to war. Kunti appeared to reveal that she was his mother, that Karna was her firstborn. She pleaded with him not to kill any of her five sons, the Pandavas. To Karna, that was the most illogical thing. After all, he was also her son, and why should he comply with the demands of a mother who abandoned him? To Karna, Arjuna (the third of the Pandavas) was his mortal enemy. Arjuna was said to be of equal standing to Karna in war.

Karna replied to his mother, Kunti, "Either way, you will have five sons at the end of the war." His implication was that, even if either Arjun or Karna died, she would still have five sons!

The part about Karna's experiences just before he was downed was glazed over, without highlighting the philosophy surrounding his death. Karna had chosen King Shaliya as his charioteer. King Shaliya was an expert charioteer, uncle to the Pandavas, and was tricked into joining the Kauravas. Shaliya grudgingly became Karna's charioteer, sabotaging and irritating him at every level. He, being a King, felt insulted charioteering for a lowly 'low class' soldier. When the chariot got stuck in the mud, Shaliya booted off, claiming that it was not his job to pull the wheel up.

https://utkarshspeak.blogspot.com/2012/06/
karna-and-his-karma.html

This was another war travesty. While Karna was extricating the wheel, he was shot by Arjuna, who was in turn prompted by Krishna. This was unethical, shooting an unarmed soldier, but even the Gods did not follow rules in this war. 

The scriptures give a detailed account of how, at this stage, Karna's soul did not perish and how all his good deeds in life prolonged his life. There was an extensive discussion on how our actions shape the future. It was essential to be kind and charitable, but not to the point that it undermined us. In Karna's case, he had previously donated his protective armour and earrings, which made him invincible, simply because someone asked for them. 

Karna's story is the tale of one who is wronged at birth. His kind nature led him into much trouble, and he had to lead a frustrating life. Even the Gods played him out. All his good deeds are of no consequence. His life story tells us that we become the company we keep,

And there is a final lesson we learn when Karna finally succumbs to his injuries in the later versions of the Mahabharata. Krishna reveals his proper form and asks for a boon. Karna requests a life in which he can support others even at his lowest point. The philosophy of life is summed up in one statement: the purpose of life is to help those in desperate need.

An essential watch for those who want to learn about the Mahabharata and the Kurukshetra War but do not know where to start, this is it.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

No beef with beef ingestion?

The Myth of the Holy Cow (Original Version 2001)

Author: D. N. Jha

Twenty out of twenty-eight states in India have laws prohibiting the slaughter of cows. The consumption of beef has recently become a contentious issue, highlighted by incidents of cow vigilantes intercepting cattle transportation and the lynching of individuals who eat beef.

Initially published in 2002, this book received considerable criticism upon its release. With the memory of Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' ban in 1988 still fresh in people's minds, the Hyderabad Court initially prohibited the book. There were even threats to the author's life for allegedly offending Hindu sentiments.

Through his extensive intellectual discourse, the author endeavours to convince readers that abstaining from beef is not an ancient Hindu practice. He begins his discussion by asserting that beef and meat consumption were prevalent in the Vedic era. Animal sacrifices, including those of horses and cows, were common. Even Brahmins partook in eating beef. It was customary for attendees to consume these offerings. He provides evidence of this practice in the texts of the Rigveda and similar scriptures that followed. Recipes for beef preparation and its medicinal properties were also reported to exist.

Additionally, the Manu Smriti permits its consumption. The portrayal of Rama and Lakshman during their exile in the Ramayana suggests they were hunters, and Sita preferred deer meat. The Pandavas were not vegetarians either.

 

Jha, a vegetarian, appreciated the protection of cows but struggled to comprehend why cows should avoid slaughter. As a historian, he did not endorse the sanctity of the cow. With more Hindus linking abstention from beef to Hinduism, this serves as his counterargument against such a practice.

It is widely believed that Asoka's edicts, illustrated on his iconic pillars, do not mention cow protection. However, the author argues otherwise. Asoka simply instructs his subjects to safeguard 'four-legged animals'; there is no specific mention of cow slaughter or beef consumption. It is often asserted, at least in one version, that Gautama Buddha ultimately passed away after consuming a tainted pork meal. Furthermore, many Buddhist sects do not demand vegetarianism, and meat is served within their temple premises. Cows continued to be slaughtered during the Maurya rule.

The shift towards abstaining from beef became fashionable, likely in the first century CE. This change may be linked to the Advaita movement, which propagated the notion that all life is sacred and part of the greater Brahman. The idea of the transmigration of souls was introduced.

 

The ostentatious display of animal sacrifices and the emphasis placed on them spurred a rise in vegetarianism. The Jain and Buddhist concepts of kindness towards animals may have captivated the public. As interest in Brahminic practices diminished and more individuals identified as Jains or Buddhists, the Vedic practices, which had likely evolved into Brahmanic traditions, had to undergo a rebranding.

 

The ancient Bharat Hindus comprised believers in Shiva (Shaivites), Vishnu (Vaishnavites), and the feminine divinity (Shaktas), and can generally be classified as flesh-eaters and vegetarians. Some flesh-eaters consumed beef while others did not, and there was even a faction that only consumed cows that had died of natural causes rather than those that had been slaughtered.

 

There is a theory suggesting that the Brahmanicals sought to position themselves as superior to the animal-loving Buddhists and Jains, who still consumed meat. They adopted a fully vegetarian lifestyle.

 

By the 5th century CE, consuming beef had become an offence, yet people continued to partake nonetheless. The British may have accentuated the division between beef and non-beef eaters, further supporting the strategy to 'divide and rule'.

This book edition features a chapter by Baba Ambedkar on the subject, which is intriguing to read with an open mind.

 

The take-home message, at least for me, is that there were meat and beef eaters then, just as there are today. As sacrificial animal slaughter reached industrial levels in ancient India, many became disenchanted. As discussions surrounding the souls of living beings arose, Buddhism and Jainism emerged as alternative practices opposing animal sacrifice. People embraced these ideas. The Brahmins endeavoured to rebrand themselves as superior. Those elitists adopted a fully vegetarian lifestyle, and suddenly, it became fashionable to abstain from meat altogether.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

google.com, pub-8936739298367050, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0