Mahabharat

   

Was Draupadi really disrobed in the Dice Hall? (Page 8)

Post Reply New Post

Page 8 of 16

.Vrish.

Viewbie

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20862

Posted: 20 March 2014 at 3:02am | IP Logged
Originally posted by shani88

Parts in bold - This is EXACTLY the reason why I asked (in the dice game-vastraharan thread) if Krishna considered Yudhishthira to be as guilty as the chandal chaukdi in the dice game/vastraharan fiasco. 

Yes, the Kauravas physically and verbally abuse her, and humiliate her, and all of them rightly die in Kurukshetra. 
But Yudi staked her, the Pandavas (being her wonderful husbands) remained mute spectators to her humiliation, and yet ALL the Pandavas survive the war, and Yudi becomes HP king at the end of it. 

What does it all really mean?



I think the only reason Krishna spared the Pandavas was that he couldn't have punished them w/o Draupadi being punished w/ them.  Like had he killed them, Draupadi would have been widowed.  She had enough boons insurance covering against that eventuality.


Edited by .Vrish. - 20 March 2014 at 3:02am

The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:

srishtisinghsimplysappieSurya_krsnbhakt-Shani-...Diala.......Poojie....

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Was Draupadi really disrobed in the Dice Hall? (Page 8)" in Mahabharat forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

sw123

Goldie

sw123

Joined: 18 November 2013

Posts: 1304

Posted: 20 March 2014 at 4:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Vrish.

Originally posted by shani88

Parts in bold - This is EXACTLY the reason why I asked (in the dice game-vastraharan thread) if Krishna considered Yudhishthira to be as guilty as the chandal chaukdi in the dice game/vastraharan fiasco. 

Yes, the Kauravas physically and verbally abuse her, and humiliate her, and all of them rightly die in Kurukshetra. 
But Yudi staked her, the Pandavas (being her wonderful husbands) remained mute spectators to her humiliation, and yet ALL the Pandavas survive the war, and Yudi becomes HP king at the end of it. 

What does it all really mean?



I think the only reason Krishna spared the Pandavas was that he couldn't have punished them w/o Draupadi being punished w/ them.  Like had he killed them, Draupadi would have been widowed.  She had enough boons insurance covering against that eventuality.

Actually that was not the case bcoz in the dice game after Yudhishthira staked and lost all his wealth and kingdom,after staking and losing all his 4 brothers and himself he should withdraw from the game as he had no more wealth to stake but Shakuni was the person who asked Yudi to continue the game by staking Draupadi, being a slave of Shakuni(duryodhana)  Yudi should obey the order of his master so Yudhishthira staked Draupadi and eventually lost (though he knew that she could not be staked but was compelled to do so).hence yudi cannot be blamed for staking Draupadi as he was following his DHARMA as a slave to Shakuni(Duryodhana). So, the question of Lord Krishna does not rise.

Coming to the point "why Krishna did not intervene?".the reason is that the lord Krishna came to earth to establish dharma,to establish dharma all the people who does not follow dharma/support adharma should be eradicated.  to accomplish that task a big war(kurukshetra) is necessary,if he intervened and killed Duryodhana,Dussasana,Karna,Shakuni etc then eliminating all the other adharmies will be a tough task bcoz  lord should go to each and every adharmi and kill them which is very difficult.If all of them gather together in a war then it will be easy to accomplish the task. hence,to establish dharma and eliminate adharma  Krishna didnot intervene directly but he helped Draupadi by giving her robes being invisible.

I  believe that the attempt to disrobe Draupadi took place and Krishna saved her


Edited by sw123 - 20 March 2014 at 4:06pm

The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:

amritatsimplysappiedevashree_hmnx12AishuHiBawari..RamKiJanaki..Krishna_Sourav

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44487

Posted: 20 March 2014 at 7:09pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sw123

oint "why Krishna did not intervene?".the reason is that the lord Krishna came to earth to establish dharma,to establish dharma all the people who does not follow dharma/support adharma should be eradicated.  to accomplish that task a big war(kurukshetra) is necessary,if he intervened and killed Duryodhana,Dussasana,Karna,Shakuni etc then eliminating all the other adharmies will be a tough task bcoz  lord should go to each and every adharmi and kill them which is very difficult.If all of them gather together in a war then it will be easy to accomplish the task. 

This is exactly why Lord Krishna did not individually kill every adharmi on Earth. He orchestrated a war in which all would die at once. This is the same reason Lord Ram orchestrated Sita's apaharan by Ravan. It would have been easy to kill Ravan in Panchavati itself had he wanted, but then all of Ravan's dynasty would not have gotten killed. Likewise, Krishna never intervened in the events of Mahabharat because it had to culminate in a war where all the adharmis would die. Moreover, God does not intervene in the actions of humans. We suffer the consequences of our actions, good or bad. God rewards our good actions and punishes our bad, but he does not intervene in the actions of human beings because he has given them that free will to make decisions of their own.

The following 8 member(s) liked the above post:

anoosreeamritatsimplysappiesw123mnx12AishuHiBawari....Poojie....Krishna_Sourav

Ashwini_D

Senior Member

Ashwini_D

Joined: 01 December 2013

Posts: 474

Posted: 20 March 2014 at 11:18pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by smrth

Originally posted by ashwi_d

[QUOTE=smrth]
<p></p>



Interesting.Smile

@ red,
And the ill omens started after the shunning miracle. Dhrutrashtra mentions Draupadi's insult...

If someone does not word something so disturbing as public disrobing out of sheer disgust and shame, it may not be concluded nonexistent. But there is another marker. Bhim's terrible oaths re
Dusasan and Draupadi's swear. The ferocity therein echoes heinous crime.

And Ashwi_d, I don't discount 'menstruating woman's' enforced appearance as 'no insult'. It certainly is. Only this, the cruelty mentioned and responded in that ferocious oath, pars rapacious incidence. Please take the import.
As for linking Karna's mention (followed by her grief on cruelty meted out) to other insults produced from the same text, why could it not be linked to the incident involved?
As for the thanks, "if God chose to remain invisible, Bhakta may not be supposed to flaunt the 'favour' in public perhaps." Again for the 'thanks', she seems to be thanking Him in last line without mentioning. Moreover at this point, her aim was to keep the fire smouldered- complying the purpose of her Lord's Avtar.


Yes, I did understand your point actually. You were stating the relative severity of both insults, and taking into account the repercussions that Draupadi's insult had later in the text to conclude that it must have been considered as a transgression of the highest order. And you are right, it is hard to understand all the hullabaloo surrounding the incident if there was no attempt to disrobe Draupadi. But if you consider those times, you get the impression that no other man other than the husband was allowed to touch a married woman. So in this case, not only is she dragged by the hair (which is why Draupadi takes the oath of never tying her hair, and washing it in Dusshasan's blood), she is also urged by Karna to leave the Pandavas and take another man for her husband after which Duryodhan attempts to lewdly entice her by showing her his left thigh (which was meant for the wife). So taking the morals of that period into consideration I'm sure the above insults (ant that too hurled at a royal, the queen of Indraprastha, the daughter in law of the Kurus) were viewed to be as grave as an attempted disrobing would be viewed today. So the point I'm trying to make is, import of disrobing as a crime today can be = import of the above mentioned insults in that era. 

Assuming that the disrobing never took place,  Draupadi referring to Karna as having played a role in her insult is still not fallacious. As in if one were to rule out Karna instigating the disrobing, her argument about Karna insulting her still stands as Karna humiliated her in other ways too.
 
So if we take the vastraharan out of the picture, the entire dice game incident still makes sense. (Ideally ruling out such a crucial incident would have given rise to inconsistencies within the text later). But to the contrary it makes more sense, because if you go through the text you'll notice that immediately after Draupadi is disrobed, there are just one or two lines about the court being stunned at the miracle. But immediately afterwards Vidura launches into his speech of how important it is to answer the question that Draupadi has raised, something which she does before the attempted stripping. Vidur speaks as if nothing has happened between Draupadi raising her question of whether she was a slave and the moment he begins his speech. Even later everybody just goes on debating whether Draupadi is a slave or not rather than express some shock at the stripping and astonishment at the miracle, which does appear a bit odd. It's as if the entire incident was added later. And I don't see why anybody would not mention the disrobing out of sheer disgust later when they do mention the fact that she was menstruating and in a single cloth without any compunctions.

Thanks for raising your points though. Smile


Edited by ashwi_d - 20 March 2014 at 11:35pm

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

smrthsrishtisinghsimplysappiesw123...Diala...

smrth

Goldie

smrth

Joined: 21 December 2009

Posts: 2232

Posted: 21 March 2014 at 12:54pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by ashwi_d

Originally posted by smrth

Originally posted by ashwi_d

[QUOTE=smrth]
<p></p>



Interesting.Smile

@ red,
And the ill omens started after the shunning miracle. Dhrutrashtra mentions Draupadi's insult...

If someone does not word something so disturbing as public disrobing out of sheer disgust and shame, it may not be concluded nonexistent. But there is another marker. Bhim's terrible oaths re
Dusasan and Draupadi's swear. The ferocity therein echoes heinous crime.

And Ashwi_d, I don't discount 'menstruating woman's' enforced appearance as 'no insult'. It certainly is. Only this, the cruelty mentioned and responded in that ferocious oath, pars rapacious incidence. Please take the import.
As for linking Karna's mention (followed by her grief on cruelty meted out) to other insults produced from the same text, why could it not be linked to the incident involved?
As for the thanks, "if God chose to remain invisible, Bhakta may not be supposed to flaunt the 'favour' in public perhaps." Again for the 'thanks', she seems to be thanking Him in last line without mentioning. Moreover at this point, her aim was to keep the fire smouldered- complying the purpose of her Lord's Avtar.


Yes, I did understand your point actually. You were stating the relative severity of both insults, and taking into account the repercussions that Draupadi's insult had later in the text to conclude that it must have been considered as a transgression of the highest order. And you are right, it is hard to understand all the hullabaloo surrounding the incident if there was no attempt to disrobe Draupadi. But if you consider those times, you get the impression that no other man other than the husband was allowed to touch a married woman. So in this case, not only is she dragged by the hair (which is why Draupadi takes the oath of never tying her hair, and washing it in Dusshasan's blood), she is also urged by Karna to leave the Pandavas and take another man for her husband after which Duryodhan attempts to lewdly entice her by showing her his left thigh (which was meant for the wife). So taking the morals of that period into consideration I'm sure the above insults (ant that too hurled at a royal, the queen of Indraprastha, the daughter in law of the Kurus) were viewed to be as grave as an attempted disrobing would be viewed today. So the point I'm trying to make is, import of disrobing as a crime today can be = import of the above mentioned insults in that era. 

Assuming that the disrobing never took place,  Draupadi referring to Karna as having played a role in her insult is still not fallacious. As in if one were to rule out Karna instigating the disrobing, her argument about Karna insulting her still stands as Karna humiliated her in other ways too.
 
So if we take the vastraharan out of the picture, the entire dice game incident still makes sense. (Ideally ruling out such a crucial incident would have given rise to inconsistencies within the text later). But to the contrary it makes more sense, because if you go through the text you'll notice that immediately after Draupadi is disrobed, there are just one or two lines about the court being stunned at the miracle. But immediately afterwards Vidura launches into his speech of how important it is to answer the question that Draupadi has raised, something which she does before the attempted stripping. Vidur speaks as if nothing has happened between Draupadi raising her question of whether she was a slave and the moment he begins his speech. Even later everybody just goes on debating whether Draupadi is a slave or not rather than express some shock at the stripping and astonishment at the miracle, which does appear a bit odd. It's as if the entire incident was added later. And I don't see why anybody would not mention the disrobing out of sheer disgust later when they do mention the fact that she was menstruating and in a single cloth without any compunctions.

Thanks for raising your points though. Smile

Fine points...May be so...
Except these;Smile

   1) The severe oath was taken immediately after the disrobing attempt and before other insults by Dury and Karna that you have cited. Except Karna's prompt. Now If Dushy's drag was only blame left to account (that oath), then gory details are not sufficiently justified. However grim  menstruation may be taken, it lacks matching affront in absence of 'public disrobing attempt'. Let us remember, Bhima is not a blind savage, prone to punish the offender so terribly at touching his wife.(For Dury's insult, he took another oath.)

    2) In this light, and considering severe condemnation of others involved, the ruling out of this lynchpin incidence is in fact creating glaring inconsistencies in the story line; the punishments the punishers. Not only Bhim, Arjun, Krishna too. The offenders exculpated as much and punishers vindictive that much. Ouch Their characterisation is simply not confirming this.

   3) If present text is suspected a 'later interpolation' because of lack of mention later on, why this 'lack' itself may not be taken as later redaction? There is a noticeable trend to glorify and tone down sone villainy (elapsed) even in the text. 
   4) But more logically, perhaps the act was not contested overtly afterwards because it was actually rendered futile at its very attempt. So technically it was indeed not done! She was 'not disrobed' successfully, Courtesy Intervention!Shocked

   5) Now the questioned passage from Vana Parva; 
       First let us reconstruct her trial. When Dushy is forcing her to the court, she sure was not so alarmed as to call for Madhav. After all she was being taken to a place where her elders and husbands were present. 'She is angry, full of spirit and launches her counter immediately...All in vain. Her oppressors crosses limits and at Karna's instigation an unimaginable horror stares her in face. All her defences- including husbands- fall useless...then she invokes Govind...'
      Coming back to Vana PARVA passage. If we take following meanings from the said dialogue as per the refutes, (I am not, have tried more fitting interpretation)- 'instead of 'thanking' she is complaining' ...'even you did not come to help'. Then. Rescue from WHAT? When did she call Divine? On what emergency? Or what 'protection' that she ever got and deserved thither?? Is not this very insinuation confirming the 'existence'?! 



Edited by smrth - 21 March 2014 at 1:05pm

The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:

srishtisinghamritatsimplysappiedevashree_hmnx12AishuHiBawariKrishna_Sourav

Ashwini_D

Senior Member

Ashwini_D

Joined: 01 December 2013

Posts: 474

Posted: 24 March 2014 at 1:48am | IP Logged
Originally posted by smrth

Originally posted by ashwi_d

[QUOTE=smrth][QUOTE=ashwi_d][QUOTE=smrth]
<p></p>



Fine points...May be so...
Except these;Smile

   1) The severe oath was taken immediately after the disrobing attempt and before other insults by Dury and Karna that you have cited. Except Karna's prompt. Now If Dushy's drag was only blame left to account (that oath), then gory details are not sufficiently justified. However grim  menstruation may be taken, it lacks matching affront in absence of 'public disrobing attempt'. Let us remember, Bhima is not a blind savage, prone to punish the offender so terribly at touching his wife.(For Dury's insult, he took another oath.)

    2) In this light, and considering severe condemnation of others involved, the ruling out of this lynchpin incidence is in fact creating glaring inconsistencies in the story line; the punishments the punishers. Not only Bhim, Arjun, Krishna too. The offenders exculpated as much and punishers vindictive that much. Ouch Their characterisation is simply not confirming this.

   3) If present text is suspected a 'later interpolation' because of lack of mention later on, why this 'lack' itself may not be taken as later redaction? There is a noticeable trend to glorify and tone down sone villainy (elapsed) even in the text. 
   4) But more logically, perhaps the act was not contested overtly afterwards because it was actually rendered futile at its very attempt. So technically it was indeed not done! She was 'not disrobed' successfully, Courtesy Intervention!Shocked

   5) Now the questioned passage from Vana Parva; 
       First let us reconstruct her trial. When Dushy is forcing her to the court, she sure was not so alarmed as to call for Madhav. After all she was being taken to a place where her elders and husbands were present. 'She is angry, full of spirit and launches her counter immediately...All in vain. Her oppressors crosses limits and at Karna's instigation an unimaginable horror stares her in face. All her defences- including husbands- fall useless...then she invokes Govind...'
      Coming back to Vana PARVA passage. If we take following meanings from the said dialogue as per the refutes, (I am not, have tried more fitting interpretation)- 'instead of 'thanking' she is complaining' ...'even you did not come to help'. Then. Rescue from WHAT? When did she call Divine? On what emergency? Or what 'protection' that she ever got and deserved thither?? Is not this very insinuation confirming the 'existence'?! 


@bold: Can you please elaborate on this?

There are places in the text where some characters present a 'summary of the insults' that Draupadi was subjected to on that fateful day. One can can hardly expect the most important insult of them all-the attempted disrobing- to be left out, as described in the article. Even if Draupadi was not disrobed in the end, that is hardly a reason to not even mention the attempted disrobing later. It does seem very odd.

 




Edited by ashwi_d - 24 March 2014 at 2:18am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

smrth...Diala...

smrth

Goldie

smrth

Joined: 21 December 2009

Posts: 2232

Posted: 24 March 2014 at 1:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by ashwi_d

Originally posted by smrth

Originally posted by ashwi_d

[QUOTE=smrth][QUOTE=ashwi_d][QUOTE=smrth]
<p></p>



Fine points...May be so...
Except these;Smile

   1) The severe oath was taken immediately after the disrobing attempt and before other insults by Dury and Karna that you have cited. Except Karna's prompt. Now If Dushy's drag was only blame left to account (that oath), then gory details are not sufficiently justified. However grim  menstruation may be taken, it lacks matching affront in absence of 'public disrobing attempt'. Let us remember, Bhima is not a blind savage, prone to punish the offender so terribly at touching his wife.(For Dury's insult, he took another oath.)

    2) In this light, and considering severe condemnation of others involved, the ruling out of this lynchpin incidence is in fact creating glaring inconsistencies in the story line; the punishments the punishers. Not only Bhim, Arjun, Krishna too. The offenders exculpated as much and punishers vindictive that much. Ouch Their characterisation is simply not confirming this.

   3) If present text is suspected a 'later interpolation' because of lack of mention later on, why this 'lack' itself may not be taken as later redaction? There is a noticeable trend to glorify and tone down sone villainy (elapsed) even in the text. 
   4) But more logically, perhaps the act was not contested overtly afterwards because it was actually rendered futile at its very attempt. So technically it was indeed not done! She was 'not disrobed' successfully, Courtesy Intervention!Shocked

   5) Now the questioned passage from Vana Parva; 
       First let us reconstruct her trial. When Dushy is forcing her to the court, she sure was not so alarmed as to call for Madhav. After all she was being taken to a place where her elders and husbands were present. 'She is angry, full of spirit and launches her counter immediately...All in vain. Her oppressors crosses limits and at Karna's instigation an unimaginable horror stares her in face. All her defences- including husbands- fall useless...then she invokes Govind...'
      Coming back to Vana PARVA passage. If we take following meanings from the said dialogue as per the refutes, (I am not, have tried more fitting interpretation)- 'instead of 'thanking' she is complaining' ...'even you did not come to help'. Then. Rescue from WHAT? When did she call Divine? On what emergency? Or what 'protection' that she ever got and deserved thither?? Is not this very insinuation confirming the 'existence'?! 


@bold: Can you please elaborate on this?

There are places in the text where some characters present a 'summary of the insults' that Draupadi was subjected to on that fateful day. One can can hardly expect the most important insult of them all-the attempted disrobing- to be left out, as described in the article. Even if Draupadi was not disrobed in the end, that is hardly a reason to not even mention the attempted disrobing later. It does seem very odd.

 
Since only two are selected, may I assume 'some' credit to other three?!LOL...Not that I want to convince you of anything..Tongue

@ Bold,
Had been answered extensively in previous posts which you too appeared to have noted. My inadequacy in explaining perhaps. Ouch A last try...
Let me start from the 'end points'.
Both perpetrators met eminently forgettable ends. Just look at the poetic and structural reflections...

  1) Karna was denied a warrior's dignity. Nor any mercy from God even while he cried for a reprieve. He was stripped of his knowledge (in conjunction with other curses)- a man's ultimate cover and was slain pitiably defenceless...Just AS ruthlessly he brushed aside a defenceless woman's cries for justice and help. Just as he instigated her uncovering and stripping her off her dignity.

  2) Dushy met even gorier end. Just as he tried to tear apart her clothes and bare her honour, the protective vessel of his life, his body was torn apart and his heart was bared. Under an oath taken in direct consequence of the incidence...
  The point is, one may yet dismiss these as 'coincidental' (isn't it too coincidental?Confused), but the ruthlessness of punishers and ferocious ends are not adequately explained in absence of said incidence. The slain appear almost 'victims'! (just read the description of 'Demonic' Bhim then.)Shocked

(IMO. For what constitutes 'adequate' affront is perhaps a subjective judgement.)
 
@ blue,
...And this is hardly a reason to refute it. Where do I say technical failure as the 'reason' of non mention? It has been observed as an 'effect' and not reasonOuch; Which crime one may summarise when it did not come into 'effect'? Or which was never sufficiently understood by witnesses- 'what happened?'... On the contrary, there appears a strong reason for overall ambivalence. God (and narrator) did not want to advertise the miracle. He chose to enact it invisibly sans any divine punishment on the spot. It fits neatly (ambivalence); For War was in design and He wants Man to work his own destiny.  As Karma Yogi He does not carry out proxy punishments. Actions and reactions, choices and their fulfilment all are men's yog not His. And What happens, if He reveals his divinity then? Who opposes a living God? (only a few like Bhishma, but they are semi divine themselves, aren't they?) Which army stays loyal to errants opposing a God? Which sane king allies against? He mists his intervention and narrator completes His tale. IMO.
 

Friend. I respect your logical inferences. But for me, personally they are not adequate disproof. In absence of any conclusive refutes, I will stick to a Valid, existing and accepted Text, that does include the incidence in no uncertain terms. Thanks.



Edited by smrth - 24 March 2014 at 1:50pm

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

nikki1291Ashwini_Dsrishtisinghamritat

LeadNitrate

Viewbie

LeadNitrate

Joined: 28 March 2007

Posts: 13291

Posted: 03 April 2014 at 11:56pm | IP Logged
There may not be a divine  intervention,  which could  have been later vaishnava  addition. But I think draupadi  was disrobed and humiliated  beyond any lines of humanity. Since we are posting  citations outside "vyas" MB. I will post them here when I go home.

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Mahabharat Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.