Dharmakshetra :) - Page 32

Geeta was the accumulated knowledge of the entire lifetime of an extraordinary intellect. But I can see the point of Arjuna's pacifist argument as well.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

⭐️Of course. Of course. Who wants to change them?😉

Strictly acc to MB, 53 year old Draupadi (assuming her age as 16 at marriage) got staked by 76 year old Yudhi, 75 year old Dury asks to bring her in DS, Dushy does so & 82 year old Karna calls her names that would make even the ear drums of a deaf break.😲

How wonderful.👏 If this is the case, I would argue Karna had cataract, presbycusis & dementia which all will explain his behaviours.🤣 Had I known this already, my job would have been more easy.😆

No offense to anyone, BTW.😛

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#003366">⭐️Of course. Of course. Who wants to change them?😉</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#003366">Strictly acc to MB, 53 year old Draupadi (assuming her age as 16 at marriage) got staked by 76 year old Yudhi, 75 year old Dury asks to bring her in DS, Dushy does so & 82 year old Karna calls her names that would make even the ear drums of a deaf break.😲</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#003366">How wonderful.👏 If this is the case, I would argue Karna had cataract, presbycusis & dementia which all will explain his behaviours.🤣 Had I known this already, my job would have been more easy.😆</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#003366">No offense to anyone, BTW.😛</font>

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didnt people have longer lifespans at Dwapar Yug?
If not 400, then atleast 150 or something...
We had had an extensive discussion on the age of Abhimanyu n he turned out to be 33 or something logically.
Yet he is treated as some teenager by the epic...which led us to think that maybe bcoz people had longer lifespan, hence Abhimanyu was considered a boy, in front of older warriors who were almost a century old... 😕

just my thoughts:

see in order to not change the main event , we need to know were the events that actually occured. now its a case that almost everything - VH, Bheeshma,Karna's deaths etc - are confusing and inconsistent which gives a lot leeway for creative liberties.
still there are only 2 major game-changing events that needs clarification to deduce who was on the right side- first is the sharing of panchali and second is the VH. (readers note that both are connected to the major enigma od MB- Draupadi)

1. sharing of panchaali - the big ques whether she was forced or okay with it. the epic doesnt mention her being unhappy with the arrangement and nobody including Krishna ever rebuked the pandavs for it(leave aside Karna for now). now comes the 1-year part - is it true or not? its absolutely hard to accept drau being okay with the sharing alongwith the strict regulations of the 1-year rule (why was the story told to yudi after a year or so inbetween his marriage?). if the rule was not there or was only restricted to the bed(for paternity of the children, i think) , then i can say that drau had more power to her then any other dwapar yuga lady.👍🏼

2. the VH - did it occur or not ? now majority do agree that dragging drau happened but the Vh did not , no saviour dharma, no name calling karna. my major doubt is in those days men never came near menstrating women, so why would drau accompany her husband till hastinapur in that state? dushasan is ok to get her from women's quarters, she is bought into the court but none of the brahmins there get up and walk away?? instead after seeing that VH miracle (assuming that it did happen) all they ask unanimously is to answer her ques whetehr she is won or not???😕 the vows taken by bheem for dushi in Vh is repeated again in section LXXVI. why repeat the vows unless that is the first time he takes them?🤔

the conclusion of what i am trying to say is

if the sharing of draupadi was against her wishes then by no way can pandavas be on the side of righteousness - no matter what the norms back then. they become the sower of seeds for the VH and equally guilty.

if the VH did not actually occur , the entire name calling , the miracle of clothes etc did not occur then the kauravs are vindicted from evil blackish monsters to greyish characters(of course karna is totally vindicted) and the reason for the war solely becomes the kingdom/land.


so who is the hero nd who is the villian???? the first vindicates/ incriminates the pandavs while the second does for kauravas and both are connected to the star of the MB show - Draupadi.
if we unravel her mystery we unravel the mahabharata!!

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Let me clarify. Overall course of events should not be changed😆

I have actually come to believe that since VH is thought to be an interpolation, the name calling may also be an interpolation. Not turning into a Karna fan😆. Just don't want people to get maligned when they don't have to. So that was a bad example.

I should have used the DK idea of WWing all those with Kuru blood including Dury) and casting the blame on Shakuni and Dhrisht

I have a doubt...
The Vastraharan might be an interpolation, which means the disrobing dialogue of Karna could be an interpolation.
But does that mean the name-calling is also necessarily an interpolation?
In the Sansrit version, Karna used the word 'Bandhanki' which means courtesan as well as childless(as I was told by Anu).And in some version, if I am not wrong, Draupadi was childless...So could it be that the namecalling did happen but it's meaning was changed over the course of time?

Originally posted by: bhas1066

just my thoughts:

see in order to not change the main event , we need to know were the events that actually occured. now its a case that almost everything - VH, Bheeshma,Karna's deaths etc - are confusing and inconsistent which gives a lot leeway for creative liberties.
still there are only 2 major game-changing events that needs clarification to deduce who was on the right side- first is the sharing of panchali and second is the VH. (readers note that both are connected to the major enigma od MB- Draupadi)

1. sharing of panchaali - the big ques whether she was forced or okay with it. the epic doesnt mention her being unhappy with the arrangement and nobody including Krishna ever rebuked the pandavs for it(leave aside Karna for now). now comes the 1-year part - is it true or not? its absolutely hard to accept drau being okay with the sharing alongwith the strict regulations of the 1-year rule (why was the story told to yudi after a year or so inbetween his marriage?). if the rule was not there or was only restricted to the bed(for paternity of the children, i think) , then i can say that drau had more power to her then any other dwapar yuga lady.👍🏼

2. the VH - did it occur or not ? now majority do agree that dragging drau happened but the Vh did not , no saviour dharma, no name calling karna. my major doubt is in those days men never came near menstrating women, so why would drau accompany her husband till hastinapur in that state? dushasan is ok to get her from women's quarters, she is bought into the court but none of the brahmins there get up and walk away?? instead after seeing that VH miracle (assuming that it did happen) all they ask unanimously is to answer her ques whetehr she is won or not???😕 the vows taken by bheem for dushi in Vh is repeated again in section LXXVI. why repeat the vows unless that is the first time he takes them?🤔

the conclusion of what i am trying to say is

if the sharing of draupadi was against her wishes then by no way can pandavas be on the side of righteousness - no matter what the norms back then. they become the sower of seeds for the VH and equally guilty.

if the VH did not actually occur , the entire name calling , the miracle of clothes etc did not occur then the kauravs are vindicted from evil blackish monsters to greyish characters(of course karna is totally vindicted) and the reason for the war solely becomes the kingdom/land.


so who is the hero nd who is the villian???? the first vindicates/ incriminates the pandavs while the second does for kauravas and both are connected to the star of the MB show - Draupadi.
if we unravel her mystery we unravel the mahabharata!!

There is a possibility that Draupadi was not polyandrous in the first place...She was married to Yudisthir n was probably childless...That kind of removes the confusion of the sharing...

As for the Vastraharan, I have a theory which may not suit the preferences of the members here, so I'll keep it to myself...
And even if it's an interpolation, then atleast her dragging by her hair in that state is not. Dragging the daughter-in-law like that is quite immoral...so I dont think this totally spares the Ks.
And it could be that Draupadi's season started after her arrival...

@Bhas The words of Panchali have been left out. We have to assume they were either unprintable😆 or she actually did not say anything. Am very surprised that she did not insisting on just marrying Yudhi. One would think with her as Jyesht's wife, the younger Pandavas would keep their elephantine impulses in check😆

Originally posted by: amritat

There is a possibility that Draupadi was not polyandrous in the first place...She was married to Yudisthir n was probably childless...That kind of removes the confusion of the sharing...

As for the Vastraharan, I have a theory which may not suit the preferences of the members here, so I'll keep it to myself...
And even if it's an interpolation, then atleast her dragging by her hair in that state is not. Dragging the daughter-in-law like that is quite immoral...so I dont think this totally spares the Ks.
And it could be that Draupadi's season started after her arrival...


yes amritat which is y i said greyish characters and did not completely vindicate them(except karna). but the blame still is more on the side who put her at stake then is it not?

@Bhas

Amrita - there are rig vedic hymns in which rishis pray gods to extend their life span upto 100 years. Vedas were written before MB. So how is it possible that vedic people lived upto 100 years, next era people lived upto 400 or more, then our generation again wishes to see 100? Before the time of Vedanga Jyotisha (1400BC around), a yuga meant just 5 years. Today so many 1000s of years constitute a yuga. That makes clear everything got exaggerated during the course of time. From the age I calculated, Yudhi was 48-49 During MB war, Draupadi 37-38 & Karna was 53-54.
The word Bandhaki also means 'a female elephant' (referring to the power of a person). Another word, Charshani, synonymous to Bandhaki, is the name of Lord Varuna's wife & the mother of sage Bhrigu. So had Charshani also meant wh**e, why would a woman be named after it?
These modern dictionaries which all translate Bandhaki as courtesan give the reference as MB. But in entire MB, there is nothing to prove it & Bandhaki is not defined precisely. Also, MB is nowhere a book related to the study of Sanskrit language.