Caste references by Vishnu...

Image courtesy: spirituality-krishna.blogspot.com

In all of the Mahabharata, I can think of only two instances where Vishnu explicitly mentions or uses the caste of a person for any purpose at all.

Karna goes to learn from Parashurama
Parashurama had taken a vow that he would only teach brahmanas, and hence Karna is forced to pretend that he was a brahmana to learn archery from him.

Karna does learn from Parashurama, including the use of the brahmAstra, the most potent astra there was, for the purpose of fighting Arjuna (?). On one occasion, when Parashurama was resting his head on Karna's thigh to sleep, a wasp bores into Karna's thigh. Karna, not wanting to disturb his guru, does not move but bears the wasp's bite for a while. Because  of the heat generated by the wasp sucking blood, Parashurama wakes up. Realizing that only a kshatriya could bear such pain, he curses Karna to not be able to remember the mantra for the brahmAstra in time of need.

Parashurama, here, does not actually uphold the caste system. He breaks it, and as a rule. Quite a surprising act from the Lord. Further, it's ironic that the first person that recognizes him as a kshatriya (good news?) also gives him bad news in the form of the curse.

Krishna advises Draupadi to reject Karna
Unfortunately, the second instance also involves Karna. Karna contests in the Draupadi swayamvara, and when it appears that he might actually be able to win Draupadi (on advice of Krishna) stops him and rejects him stating that he was not eligible because he was not a kshatriya.

The Purusha Sukta
The purusha sukta has been slighted sometimes and mentioned in controversial light because it is a key sukta in the vedas, and mentions the castes by name.

"Brahmanosya mukhamaseet bahoorajanyahkrutah, ooroo tadasya yadvaishyah padbhyaam shoodro ajayata..."

The sentence is literally translated "the brahmana came from the face of the Lord, the kshatriya from his arms, the vaishyas from his thighs, and the shudras from his feet." The sukta goes on to describe that the moon came from his mind, etc.

I've heard some supporters of the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu mention this part of the purusha sukta, and talk about how the upper castes (and God, the "co-conspirator") have set in stone the backwardness of the lower castes.

Firstly, I don't think a literal translation of the vedas is going to yield significant insight. Scholars and schools of thought have evolved over centuries essentially debating the meanings, each school propounding a different meaning or 'spirit' to many such portions of the vedas.

Secondly, the vedas and puranas emphasize that the caste (varnAshrama, really - I don't know that 'caste' is an accurate meaning, but it works for our purpose) of a person is really based on the person's innate qualities or sAdhana, not based on birth or colour (as some people tend to incorrectly translate varna).

However, we also see vedic schools of thought with theories that suggest that while the dharma for a person being born into a certain varnAshrama is that of the typical activities of that varnAshrama for the benefit of society, the ideal progression over several births is from shudra to brahmana. I don't know if this progression refers to the innate quality (sAdhana). There sure must be two different planes on which varnAshrama is defined/used in our scriptures.

In the epics and puranas, we also see instances of caste being dynamic, changing with marriage (at least for the offspring), etc. So one was supposedly able to move between castes. I've never understood how this worked, and how this became rigid over time, though. Even more perplexing is when and how people ended up in a 5th category (the untouchables), beyond the 4 castes. Definitely blemishes in Indian society that no doubt have existed since the days of the Mahabharata or even earlier.

And btw, my examples of Vishnu using the caste of Karna in seemingly negative ways, were not intended to suggest that Vishnu might have done wrong. There sure must have been reasons, and it would be nice to understand in better detail.

The "Good or Bad" series: Karna Part 1

(image courtesy dollsofindia.com)

Karna is one of the most controversial characters in the Mahabharata. Karna evokes a lot of sentiments -admiration, hate, pity, "underdog", etc. Many interpretations of the Mahabharata actually side with his side of the story.

Movies like Mani Ratnam's Dalapathi (Rajnikanth, Mammooty) also mirror such interpretations where Rajni is depicted as the cast-away child by an unwed young girl, is a victim of circumstances, becomes a part of Mammooty's group (a criminal ring leader cum do-gooder).

Looking at Karna strictly through the prism of Dharma (or good/bad), I must conclude that he was bad. He sure does some heroic things, so there is definitely the urge to paint him in the grey, as someone who was the victim of circumstances, etc. However, one must resist that since in the Mahabharata, all the characters (neglecting minor transgressions) are either plain good or bad. If nothing else, my general rule of thumb is "if you took the side of Krishna in the war, you were good", "if you took the side of Duryodhana, you were bad" (Balarama who did not participate is a different story, more on him later). Lets us for now, of course, ignore the aspect of avatar or amsha, and focus just on the particular character in the Mahabharata. i.e., when I classify Karna as "bad", I don't necessarily extend that to Surya, whose avatar/amsha is Karna (likewise for Ashwatthama, etc).

Karna joins the side of Duryodhana at a time when the latter's evil ways may not necessarily have been apparent. So, while one may excuse that, especially since Karna's ego is boosted (he is made king of Agna), Karna sticks on as a friend for gratitude, and actively aids him in his evil deeds.

(image courtesy hinduyuva.org)

During the game of dice, when Draupadi is gambled away by Yudhishtira, Duryodhana asks that she be brought into the court. Some of the elders protest, but they are not able to resist Duryodhana because he is the king-in-waiting, and they are beholden to him. Dharma goes out the door. When Duhsshasana tries to molest her, Karna does not merely stay silent with shame (like Bhishma, etc.) but actually spurs him on and abuses Draupadi. This one incident is enough to classify him as bad. A kshatriya worth his salt never shows his might against women or children, only protects; whoever it might be. For that matter, this kind of behaviour is considered hooliganism today, let along in dwapara yuga during Krishna's time! Only Vidura, as far as I know, registered his dissent to the disrobing, but was unable to do anything more. Even the Pandavas did nothing (more on this later).

There are several occasions when Karna is reminded of Dharma, including by Krishna. However, he is so blinded by his misplaced loyalty to Duryodhana that he is unable to listen to wise counsel.