Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 10

Originally posted by: riti4u

May be they needed something to justify the destruction that war caused..and thus this was built up. No offence to anyone but it is a possibility that to paint one side villainous since story is being narrated by someone belonging to other group ..they would have exaggerated an event.. and made it something like disrobing..

Originally posted by: riti4u

May be they needed something to justify the destruction that war caused..and thus this was built up. No offence to anyone but it is a possibility that to paint one side villainous since story is being narrated by someone belonging to other group ..they would have exaggerated an event.. and made it something like disrobing..

Originally posted by: SweetRogue

Debroy himself mentions the logical incoherence in text in the footnotes and says that it is the result of interpolations but he himself doesn't mention what he considers an interpolation. I have the book with me and the events are as follows:-

1- Pratikamin is ordered to bring Draupadi. He goes and explains the situation to her.

2. Draupadi orders Pratikamin to ask Yudhishtira whether he lost himself first or her. Pratikamin does as instructed. Yudhishtira doesn't respond. Duryodhana orders Pratikamin to go and tell Draupadi to come and ask the question herself.

3. Pratikamin goes to Draupadi again. They have a conversation. After that it is mentioned that Yudhishtira sent his own messenger and Draupadi is described as being in her menses, clad in a single garment, weeping and standing before her father in law. Then Duryodhana orders the Pratikamin again to bring her there. But Pratikamin is scared so Duryodhana orders Dusshasana to do it and the whole dragging etc. Follows.

Wasn't Yudhishtira a slave by this point. How did he get access to his personal trusted messenger? Why did Duryodhana allow Yudhishtira to send his own messenger when Pratikamin was already sent by him? If she was already present in front of the assembly why does Duryodhana order Pratikamin again. The part from where Duryodhan sends Pratikamin again to her standing in front of her father in law itself is fishy because in her conversation with Pratikamin Draupadi speaks of destiny but that itself goes heavily against her own ideas, when she's discussing the whole thing with Yudhishtira in Vana Parva she heavily condemns destiny when Yudhishtira uses it as his defense. Besides, the dragging by Dusshasana is referenced multiple times and not just by Draupadi. Krishna promises the destruction of 'her' enemies twice. Bheema refers to Draupadi's insult, Duryodhana speaks of it later, even Dusshasana himself taunts Bhima by saying ''this is the hand I used to drag your wife". If Draupadi wasn't mistreated her entire presence in the exile leaving her kids behind, her active role in war discussions, Kunti's message to the Pandavas, the oaths of Bheema and Arjuna etc. Don't make sense at all. Besides no one ever makes a reference to Draupadi coming to the Sabha by herself later. Not even Duryodhana or Dusshasana. Why would they silently take such accusations unless they were true?

Originally posted by: amritat

Riti...

The war was never about the disrobing to begin with. That is more like a poetic justification. Given the scale of Kurukshetra War, it requires colossal armies, alliances, money. Not to mention human lives.

A King would think twice before emptying his coffers and draining his lifetime of resources in this scale only for his wife's humiliation, unless war is the last option left to him.

There are plenty of theories about why the war took place. Some Indologists opine that the war was mainly between Kuru and Panchal, which is why Dhristadyumna was made the Commander-in-Chief, despite Arjun's presence. Rivalry between Kuru and Panchal had been there for long.

Others say that the story of Mahabharata may have been inspired from The Battle of Ten Kings.

For one, there is no concrete archeological evidence of such a mass-scale war. Some Indologists say, that the war may have been on a much smaller scale.

Originally posted by: amritat

@Poorabhforever, apologies if I am butting in.

Draupadi's Vastraharan may have been interpolation. And by Vastraharan, I mean only the part where Draupadi starts praying to Krishna till the sari extension. The rest of the dragging, abusing, etc is there IMO.

I checked CE; almost all those sequences where Draupadi's disrobing is mentioned by other characters in KMG have been removed by the Critical Edition. However, they have retained the Vastraharan in the main scene.

This leads me to believe, that are two possibilities:

1.) Draupadi was disrobed, or at least an attempt was made. Note, that it was never Krishna but "Dharma" who saved her. Thus the entire sari extension scene may have been either metaphorical or allegorical. In other words, she was about to be disrobed, but Dharma personified covered her up.

Vidur is said to have been an incarnation of Dharma. So maybe it was Vidur who saved her, which the poet wanted to explain in a more subtle way?

This part may have been edited by later Vaishnavites to add prayers to Krishna (which is removed in CE) and raise him to a status of Godhead.

OR

2.) There was no Vastraharan. The actual story was much mo re realistic. The supernatural elements were completely added later.

My opinion lies somewhere between the two.

Originally posted by: amritat

@Brahmaputra-

There are two instances where we see this inconsistency. One is, when Yudisthir asks her to come to the Sabha.

Another is, during Bhagwana Yana Parva in Udyog Parva. This is the exact citation from CE.

O Keshava! Such a woman was grabbed by the hair and was molested when she went to

the assembly hall, while the sons of Pandu looked on and you were still alive.

Fitzerberg (cant remember his name correctly) opines that the first one instance may have been bcoz of parallel narratives from different storytellers being written down.

Second one, I dont think this is any inconsistency. Draupadi's words are sufficient to explain what is she is implying. She has iterated her words many times to these people, and need not have repeated everything in details. Just my opinion, though.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Guys, I am only trying to make the sense of this whole story, as I said. I have one more confusing area. I hope someone will help me.

Hindus today have three main traditions - vaidika or srauta, aagama and tantrika. Of these Vaidika is the oldest and it now exists only in Kerala and a few brahmin communities around Varanasi. Aagama, the second oldest, exists in south india except kerala, tantrika, the latest, in the rest of india. Srauta was once spread all over india but was later replaced by smarta tradition. Smarta was replaced then by aagama and taantrika. You can see the difference just by going to the temples. You are allowed to do puja on the god's idol in north, but not in south, and here in kerala you are not even allowed to touch the pujaris, men are not allowed to cover their chest in our temples. I am only pointing out how orthodox Srauta is, and you must be knowing the issues related to Sabarimala. [Let us not discuss that here.]

Srauta was the tradition of Vedic era. [Srauta = related to sruti or veda] Until Parikshit's period, the rituals of Srauta was not uniform. It was Parikshit who gave them a unified form. This is a historical fact. And it was not possible for Parikshit to do it until he cleared the blames on his grandparents, because it was political. So it was Parikshit's necessity to rewrite history, though for a good intention.

Besides, the story of MB is being told to Janamejaya. And we only know the version that Janamejaya listened to and approved. What happened to other three versions, we do not know. So we cannot conclude anything.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Guys, I am only trying to make the sense of this whole story, as I said. I have one more confusing area. I hope someone will help me.

Hindus today have three main traditions - vaidika or srauta, aagama and tantrika. Of these Vaidika is the oldest and it now exists only in Kerala and a few brahmin communities around Varanasi. Aagama, the second oldest, exists in south india except kerala, tantrika, the latest, in the rest of india. Srauta was once spread all over india but was later replaced by smarta tradition. Smarta was replaced then by aagama and taantrika. You can see the difference just by going to the temples. You are allowed to do puja on the god's idol in north, but not in south, and here in kerala you are not even allowed to touch the pujaris, men are not allowed to cover their chest in our temples. I am only pointing out how orthodox Srauta is, and you must be knowing the issues related to Sabarimala. [Let us not discuss that here.]

Srauta was the tradition of Vedic era. [Srauta = related to sruti or veda] Until Parikshit's period, the rituals of Srauta was not uniform. It was Parikshit who gave them a unified form. This is a historical fact. And it was not possible for Parikshit to do it until he cleared the blames on his grandparents, because it was political. So it was Parikshit's necessity to rewrite history, though for a good intention.

Besides, the story of MB is being told to Janamejaya. And we only know the version that Janamejaya listened to and approved. What happened to other three versions, we do not know. So we cannot conclude anything.