Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 28

If Draupadi lied, she becomes the most influential character in the entire story, I am pretty much aware of that and that was the only possibility made me like her. But if we can't accept Suyodhana when he said Drauapdi laughed at him, accepting him now seems quite mean and opportunistic. It is always all or nothing. We can't pick only what we like. I have a problem with the word 'molest'... Wherever I see it and check in the sanskrit version, it doesn't have an actual word that means "molesting". When there are at least ten words that directly mean "molesting", why none of them but words that only indirectly indicate "molesting" are used in Drauapdi's context deserves some thought. So is the case of Drauapdi in her periods. Throughout the book, the only word used for it is "rajaswala" which also means extremely angry or covered with dust! There are a lot other words that indicate a woman in periods. Why only rajaswala then? I am not stating any definite things but only singling out the contradictory stuff. Kunti telling Krishna himself that he was present in DS has some importance, perhaps more importance than anything else. IIRC, Drauapdi had severe amnesia.😆 She forgot what Karna said and Dushy did. So we can't take her serious when she says Krishna was absent in DS. If dice game is an interpolation, it does serve Draupadi, for she never mentioned anything of the "assault" happened to her anytime later. As AnuMP told me once, Drau should have been a masochist to not mention any of that. Don't tell me the dukhiyari stuff, that it was a too difficult topic to metnion. We are talking about Drauapdi... And as I said before, it will take demeaning a huge number of otherwise sane people to make it all happen. That is not acceptable, just for the sake of a single person. I am not saying that they were all white doves, but none of them would've done it in the public. As I said, it is a belief. And the point is, no one is giving convincing answers to my questions. All are running in circles with the same centre.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

If Draupadi lied, she becomes the most influential character in the entire story, I am pretty much aware of that and that was the only possibility made me like her. But if we can't accept Suyodhana when he said Drauapdi laughed at him, accepting him now seems quite mean and opportunistic. It is always all or nothing. We can't pick only what we like. I have a problem with the word 'molest'... Wherever I see it and check in the sanskrit version, it doesn't have an actual word that means "molesting". When there are at least ten words that directly mean "molesting", why none of them but words that only indirectly indicate "molesting" are used in Drauapdi's context deserves some thought. So is the case of Drauapdi in her periods. Throughout the book, the only word used for it is "rajaswala" which also means extremely angry or covered with dust! There are a lot other words that indicates a woman in periods. Why only rajaswala then? I am not stating any definite things but only singling out the contradictory stuff. Kunti telling Krishna himself that he was present in DS has some importance, perhaps more importance than anything else. IIRC, Drauapdi had severe amnesia. 😆 She forgot what Karna said and Dushy did. So we can't take her serious when she says Krishna was absent in DS. If dice game is an interpolation, it does serve Draupadi, for she never mentioned anything of the "assault" happened to her anytime later. As AnuMP told me once, Drau should have been a masochist to not mention any of that. Don't tell me the dukhiyari stuff, that it was a too difficult topic to metnion. We are talking about Drauapdi... And as I said before, it will take demeaning a huge number of otherwise sane people to make it all happen. That is not acceptable, just for the sake of a single person. I am not saying that they were all white doves, but none of them would've done it in the public. As I said, it is a belief. And the point is, no one is giving convincing answers to my questions. All are running in circles with the same centre.

Originally posted by: amritat

Let me take your points one by one.

Part in bold - "Mean" and "opportunistic". Ohkay. That seems quite personal. I will bring this up later, when the time comes. For now, let's focus on the discussion in a cordial manner.

Part in red:

This part leaves me confused. You are not getting answers? Or are you not getting the answers that you want to hear? 😕Apologies, but I think in this whole debate, we are looking for complications where there are none. Of course, you are free to believe. But I for one, am not convinced about first dice-game being interpolation so far...although I am open to consider it (if not accept it) , if someone can provide concrete, cohesive evidence.

Ideally, people look at entire incidents and then conclude whether something is interpolation. Not the other way round, that is, believe already that something is interpolation, and then go searching for evidence to prove it.

😆 As I am selfish, I shall say this about the last paragraphs you wrote - it was my bad that I didn't write what I exactly intended. I meant to say that people either chose to avoid some of my questions or dealt some with counter-questions. Both of them were not answers... By looking at entire incidents, Mahabharata loses its credibility the moment it called Suyodhana wicked and evil for attempting to poison Bhima but let Bhima go scot free though he did similar multiple mistakes by then. Unless that first step is resolved, whatever comes after that, all those barrels of evidence in support of Pandavas's side, are just pictures drawn in running water...


For the rest including what I didn't quote, dear friend, I'm afraid that you got "mean and opportunistic" quite wrong. It was not directed personally at anyone. I clearly wrote we', including everyone who is discussing MBh anywhere, including myself, because we all happen to do that, unknowingly at least. I am sorry that you thought it was personal. And I am ever so sorry to say this - I doubt if there is any point in discussing MBh here any further, given this background.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

😆 As I am selfish, I shall say this about the last paragraphs you wrote - it was my bad that I didn't write what I exactly intended. I meant to say that people either chose to avoid some of my questions or dealt some with counter-questions. Both of them were not answers... By looking at entire incidents, Mahabharata loses its credibility the moment it called Suyodhana wicked and evil for attempting to poison Bhima but let Bhima go scot free though he did similar multiple mistakes by then. Unless that first step is resolved, whatever comes after that, all those barrels of evidence in support of Pandavas's side, are just pictures drawn in running water...


For the rest including what I didn't quote, dear friend, I'm afraid that you got "mean and opportunistic" quite wrong. It was not directed personally at anyone. I clearly wrote we', including everyone who is discussing MBh anywhere, including myself, because we all happen to do that, unknowingly at least. I am sorry that you thought it was personal. And I am ever so sorry to say this - I doubt if there is any point in discussing MBh here any further, given this background.

What I don't understand is that if Draupadi was indeed lying about the incident, how did this lie serve her? The Pandavas except Sahadeva weren't ready to take up arms on the basis of her humiliation alone, for them the most important part was regaining land. Had Duryodhana agreed to give even the five villages, the Pandavas would glaslg make peace, at least as per Krishna's offer. And not only Duryodhana but Dusshasana himself refers to the incident when Bheema kills him. If I am not wrong, Dusshasana mocks Bhima by saying something like "This is the hand I used to drag your wife". The dragging is reffered to multiple times in the war too, by Krishna, Shalya and others.

@amritat - original Mahabharata doesn't read like Debroy's translation, as you might know. On what grounds, can you consider the tone of its narration less important? Tone of narration is the most influential part of any form of literature, especially poetry. It has always been the tone of narration that favoured every dictator born till date. There are countless studies in behavioural psychology on how something influences people based on how you tell it. You may refer them.


Despite the biased tone, if there are facts that support Kauravas, it means that they were acknowledged as truths at some point. As long as we cannot disprove that MBh is pro-pandava today, anything that supports Kauravas is definitely far more valuable than what supports Pandavas. It is plain common sense and has nothing to do with the tone of narration.


I don't know what AN said. I stopped reading FFs. And I do question the authenticity of the text as a whole. If any Pandava fan would want to dismiss all anti-Pandava stuff as interpolation, he is totally welcome. Why should Kauravas have all the fun?


Manuscriptology has advanced much far beyond the ideas mentioned in prolegomena. I don't agree with a lot of things told in prolegomena. To begin with, there is no convincing reason given in it why only around 60 out of some 250 manuscripts were considered for Adi Parva or why incomplete manuscripts were included in those 60. When the selection of manuscripts itself is questionable, why not the rest? Their research method itself is flawed, which actually makes the authenticity of CE questionable. I should have added more, had this been a discussion on research in which I am pretty good because it is now my profession.


It is the same as your thoughts on polyandry when I say dice game didn't happen. I just keep it for open discussion as I am only trying to see how legible it can be, not because I want others to accept it. I have no other way of knowing how valid they could be. The only problem I see with your idea of polyandry is Keechaka incident. If you can get past that, nothing else really matters. Coming to mine, how can we explain Kunti saying Draupadi's insult happened before Krishna's eyes and Krishna himself not opposing it? How can we explain Vidura's silence in DS? Gandhaari's silence? And silence of many others? It is not sentimental, but these people do have their own character, right? Can we discard them? Eventhough there are a thousand references in MBh to Krishna being God, why do many people discard it? It is nowhere said that Krishna was not God. It is the same in case of Dyuta Sabha. If it actually happened as said, why the zig-zag and confusing multiple narrations? Was a single, clear, straightforward narration not enough? I am not complicating anything. Editors already made it too complicated. The stray slokas in this regard actually outnumber the rest that support the traditional POV of dice game. They are just scattered, but not powerless. They are scattered in places where we expect them the least, scattered too widely to be remembered and removed. One can read them, count them and see for oneself.


Finally, I don't know about Arjuna or Draupadi, but Karna might have been added later. I have no intention to talk about it. I am tired now.😆

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

@amritat - original Mahabharata doesn't read like Debroy's translation, as you might know. On what grounds, can you consider the tone of its narration less important? Tone of narration is the most influential part of any form of literature, especially poetry. It has always been the tone of narration that favoured every dictator born till date. There are countless studies in behavioural psychology on how something influences people based on how you tell it. You may refer them.


Despite the biased tone, if there are facts that support Kauravas, it means that they were acknowledged as truths at some point. As long as we cannot disprove that MBh is pro-pandava today, anything that supports Kauravas is definitely far more valuable than what supports Pandavas. It is plain common sense and has nothing to do with the tone of narration.


I don't know what AN said. I stopped reading FFs. And I do question the authenticity of the text as a whole. If any Pandava fan would want to dismiss all anti-Pandava stuff as interpolation, he is totally welcome. Why should Kauravas have all the fun?


Manuscriptology has advanced much far beyond the ideas mentioned in prolegomena. I don't agree with a lot of things told in prolegomena. To begin with, there is no convincing reason given in it why only around 60 out of some 250 manuscripts were considered for Adi Parva or why incomplete manuscripts were included in those 60. When the selection of manuscripts itself is questionable, why not the rest? Their research method itself is flawed, which actually makes the authenticity of CE questionable. I should have added more, had this been a discussion on research in which I am pretty good because it is now my profession.


It is the same as your thoughts on polyandry when I say dice game didn't happen. I just keep it for open discussion as I am only trying to see how legible it can be, not because I want others to accept it. I have no other way of knowing how valid they could be. The only problem I see with your idea of polyandry is Keechaka incident. If you can get past that, nothing else really matters. Coming to mine, how can we explain Kunti saying Draupadi's insult happened before Krishna's eyes and Krishna himself not opposing it? How can we explain Vidura's silence in DS? Gandhaari's silence? And silence of many others? It is not sentimental, but these people do have their own character, right? Can we discard them? Eventhough there are a thousand references in MBh to Krishna being God, why do many people discard it? It is nowhere said that Krishna was not God. It is the same in case of Dyuta Sabha. If it actually happened as said, why the zig-zag and confusing multiple narrations? Was a single, clear, straightforward narration not enough? I am not complicating anything. Editors already made it too complicated. The stray slokas in this regard actually outnumber the rest that support the traditional POV of dice game. They are just scattered, but not powerless. They are scattered in places where we expect them the least, scattered too widely to be remembered and removed. One can read them, count them and see for oneself.


Finally, I don't know about Arjuna or Draupadi, but Karna might have been added later. I have no intention to talk about it. I am tired now. 😆

Also, at this rate, the whole Mahabharata might as well be interpolation. That would put an end to all discussions/debates/fights on social media once and for all. 🤔

Originally posted by: amritat

Also, at this rate, the whole Mahabharata might as well be interpolation. That would put an end to all discussions/debates/fights on social media once and for all. 🤔

Originally posted by: SweetRogue

It wouldn't be too absurd to think that it is fiction though. I think narrations of epics like these were very important in moulding the public psyche back in the day, like mass media is today. Propaganda is the reason why these interpolations started in the first place, right?

And even if it were only fiction, that doesn't mean no one can debate about it. People argue fiercely about stuff like Harry Potter or ASOIAF after all.