| Outcome of a lie
The Roots of War
 We were discussing the lie that Karna uttered to his master Parasurama in order to learn what his heart ached for, where his passion drove him, namely, archery. Karna had approached Acharya Drona for the purpose. We saw that Acharya Drona sent him back because he had his own preferences in the selection of his students. He went by the family to which the student belonged. He was particular that the art of archery should be taught to Kshatriyas and Brahmins alone.
While it is true that Brahmins were not known soldiers, nevertheless there is plenty of evidence that many of them were trained in the art of archery -
dhanur veda - and Acharya Drona was not an exception. Parasurama had mastered the art. I am not going into the caste system now. I would prefer to keep away from a discussion on the system. Nonetheless, I would like to state just this in as much as it is required for the present context.
The system seems to have been practised in a different manner in the beginning. Speaking of the birth of sage Jamadagni, the father of Parasurama, Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana says Sage Rcika married Satyavati, the daughter of Gadhi. Now, Gadhi was the father of King Kausika, who was known later as Viswamitra. Wedded to
Rcika, the princess Satyavati is identified as a Brahmin. I quote this Sloka from discourse XV, Book 9 of Srimad Bhagavata. “Entreated by his wife (Satyavati) as well as his mother-in-law, each of whom was desirous of (having) a son, he prepared a Caru (an oblation of rice) barley a pulse boiled with butter and milk for presentation to the gods), uttering both kind of Mantras (those invoking the birth of a Brahmana for his wife and that of a Kshatriya for his mother-in-law) and went out to bathe.” (Sloka 8)
Complications arise when Satyavati mistakenly consumes the Caru prepared for her mother and her mother takes what is meant for Satyavati. The story is a little long and we will see it perhaps in one of our later discussions. Let us, for the present, stop with saying that Acharya Drona was not an exception who had learnt an art that is reserved for Kshatriyas. In fact, Acharya Kripa, brother-in-law of Drona had mastered it. Kripa learnt the art from his father, Saradvan.
Karna was disappointed that a factor over which he had no control stood between him and the achievement of his goal. The unfortunate lad decided to reach his goal somehow. Obviously, the boy wanted to learn from the best in the trade. There were other teachers around, considering the fact that the Pandavas received their training - when Pandu was alive and they were residing in the jungle - from a hunter by name
Sura.
 That took Karna to Parasurama, a known annihilator of Kshatriyas. Going by the story of Parasurama given in the Bhagavata Mahapurana, one can see that he was not against all - repeat - all Kshatriyas. “His having to accept the murder of his father had been the cause that led to the twenty one times over wiping off of the earth of all the royal class
whenever they acted badly.” (Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana, Book IX, Discourse 16, Sloka 18). The fact that Bhishma was his student confirms the fact that he made no invidious distinctions in the choice of his students. But poor Karna could not see this or realise it. The image of Parasurama as the one who created
Samantha-panchaka - lakes of Kshatriya blood was too large for the boy to see beyond. Therefore, as far as Karna was concerned, that lie was justified. With no one to guide him, he thought that it would be condoned.
But Parasurama did not look at it that way. He looked at it as an act of cheating. Even if Karna was not aware of his birth, he should have let him know of that fact instead of receiving training from him, on the claim of his being a Brahmin.
‘Satya is to be upheld by everyone and a Kshatriya has a higher responsibility in adhering to Truth. I have every reason to believe that you
are a Kshatriya. You uttered a lie to your Master when you sought his training. Even if it is agreed that you have no information on your birth, you should not have made a false claim when you sought to be trained. And therefore, I curse you now. The art that you learned from me would fail you at the time of need. You will forget the use of the art when you need it most.’ We will have to go into the story of Parasurama to understand what this lie meant to him. We will pursue that course in our next instalment.
That curse of Parasurama was one of the factors that played a vital role in the defeat of Kaurava army. But it cannot be said that it was a major factor, because the support of Karna was not available till the fall of Bhishma. That was a result of a personality-clash and Karna’s failure to realise that a personal reason should not be allowed to affect the interests of his bosom friend and benefactor, when he needed his services very badly.
Hari Krishnan
harikrishnan@vsnl.net
|
