Life - now that's a big word- but well written works make you shed your inhibitions and wax eloquent on such weighty stuff providing you the temporary illusion that you are equal to it.
Anyway, life is a string of evidences. Thoughts, tendencies and such formless things do not by themselves complete life. Life demands occurrences as concrete proofs of these things. And these demands are not externally placed on us. Each of us demand it of ourselves. Only events leave their impressions on life. Possibilities that did not materialize wane in definition over time. States of mind and pressures that dominated our consciousness at some point vanish without a trace. Only events stay.
Where does this event-based memory start ? From one's actions ? Or from occurrences one recalls ? If so, then occurrences one recalls precede one's existence. Why they are indeed more vital considering the germ of one's existence is from the action of two individuals. It is inevitable for man to see his existence as a mere link in a series of actions. To convince oneself that this is desirable would be delusional urgent clamor for balance. When even slight deviation from balance sparks off fear, is it credible to call that existence 'free' ?
It is natural for one to be annoyed to see one's existence as a mere link in the chain of history. As the future is yet to occur one can assume that atleast in some small way one's choices affect it. So all the rage is directed squarely at the past over which one has had no control. The inherited past may be a falsehood. The past was perhaps inflated to impress and one has to bear the yoke of it. Or worse still perhaps it is indeed true and one has to live up to impossible standards and is thus doomed to fall short.
Can a bee refuse to be interested in the hunt for nectar ? Is vocation nature or choice ? At the verge of the nectar-hunt pulling out is withdrawing not from the event alone but withdrawing at the last stage of a journey full of effort and recommendations. To negate history, to render meaningless time and effort and more importantly to let down those one values. But proceeding would be to wed one's future to the past. Basic courtesy demands of the bee to explain why he won't participate in the nectar-hunt. Or worse still explain what is that interests him instead. Rather than explain he pretends submission to the hunt-cries and joins the band.
Karna's predicament is unique. In that he is doomed to ignominy as a perceived non-Kshathriya. To prove to be a Kshathriya is to earn the wrath of his Guru Parasurama. The world is restrictive in definitively assuming talents and tendencies to be innate. By bearing the sting did Karna defy the possibilities his ignominous birth afforded him ? Or (as his Guru alleged) is the event to be taken as evidence of his being a Kshatriya. The first possibility should give him sheer joy of accomplishment. The latter should again give him joy as it liberates him from the ignominy he has suffered till then. Alas he only suffers the cursed sorrow of one who declines in the eyes of those one respects.
To dodge is victory the bee is taught. In the artful dodging, the bee understands, is the suffocating repression of being put in place. In a fit of fatalistic liberation he breaks the rule and drills into the thigh of Karna. All he achieves is the prevention of another breaking a social code.
Creation is perhaps His preserve. Mortals can merely translate one destruction to another.