Jaya CC#1 Members Only (Notes on Pg#12,19)Please Vote Pg 135 - Page 17

I think in the DD thread on MB forum - there was a discussion on Panchali's kids. Apparently all of them addressed themselves as Draupadeyas and that they were Pandav kids. they don't mention any particular father.

Okay let me check original Neelkantha once. If there is something on varsha ekam then I will post the verse here.

If there is no mention of One-Year rule, then why is it talked of?
Someone please clarify...I dont feel like scanning entire KMG for this...😭

Even who fathered whom may be an interpolation IMO. All fathers treated all kids as their own so there was no need of remembering I think.

Originally posted by: Adishakti

Dear ashne

Just checked drau satya convo...no mention of Narada or one year rule over there...

If in ce please mention guys...I am working out Draupadi scenes so if 1 year rule is not there I would spin the scenes different way

What exactly is written there? I remember reading about Narad there, or not sure if i mixed it up with some other article

Originally posted by: amritat

If there is no mention of One-Year rule, then why is it talked of?
Someone please clarify...I dont feel like scanning entire KMG for this...😭

Probably some later scholars inserted it. People don't have any issues with men having multiple partners but not so when it is a woman. Maybe this was the best way to show that she was a dutiful wife to that person, for that year. I think it is lame.

This is what I found -

Originally posted by: AnuMP

This is what I found -

KMG uses the word 'sitting'😆. If they actually meant just sitting, then YBANS were insane to agree to that rule. Because anytime Panchali happened to come along, one of them would be the first to reach her and the rest would have to go on exile?😕😆 (I can just imagine the scene, 4 of them standing around pleading, 'please don't sit down'🤣)

In case 'sitting' meant what I think it means -

If any of YBANS walks in while any of them were 'sitting' with P, they had to go on exile. But then there is no 1 year rule. In that case, A could very well claim he wanted to 'sit' with Panchali too😆. Unless it was a race to see who got to her first😆.

It says P and Y were 'sitting' in a chamber and weapons were kept. What were they doing 'sitting' in the weapons room? 😆

If they were in their chambers, then what was A's weapon doing there and why couldn't he simply get another one?😆

Now do you see why I think its a euphemism? Am not saying they actually DID any hanky panky; I think Arjun actually had a lot of heartache at their situation.

@Amrita - that goes along with what I said before. The angst was from his side and the Panchali scenes were either written in later to justify the angst or she was doing those talks on purpose

Ok...let's get this straight...
The angst was from Arjun's side initially, because it was he who had to share.
But when Arjun came back from exile , after, umm, well, a vacation, the tables got turned...and this time it was Draupadi who felt the anguish, bcoz she realized she didnt have Arjun all to herself anymore...But gradually they both came to terms with it, and moved on WITH each other, without letting the idea of other partners getting in the way.

I hope I am clear this time...Thus, my point still stands. Draupadi loved Arjun. A LOT.
And that does not reduce her status as a Finance Minister...😆

The problem with that theory is DS. She doesn't ask for him in the first boon. If she could ask for BANS together in the second, she could have asked for YBANS in the first one since her reason was that she didnt want her son to be known as a slave's child. The same reason would have done for BANS too, no?

Also if YuDi were actually 'sitting'😆 in the weapons room, why did poor A have to be exiled for that?😲