Was Draupadi really disrobed in the Dice Hall? - Page 4

Surya,
True. Dharma's representatives here Yudi, Vidur were helpless. So Krishna, who was born to restore dharma, can be taken as the one providing sarees. If one sees the qualities of Krishna, he was born with 16 kalas. His Sankramini & Prabhavi kalas were capable of performing that task. Paripurana & Swarupavasthita helped him connect to to Draupadi's cry for help. Refering to other connected literature, stotras helps in analysing & understanding an event better.

1) Anna Maya (with cereals)
2) Pranamaya (with breath)
3) Mano Maya (with mind)
4) Vigyanamaya (with knowledge)
5) Anandamaya (with joy)
6) Atishayini (With Peace)
7) Viparinabhini (With Love)
8) Sankramini (With Creator)
9) Prabhavi (able to do seemingly impossible tasks)
10) Kunthini
11) Vikasini (great )
12) Maryadini (highly respected or with etiquette)
13) Sanhaladini (cheering, a source of happiness)
14) Ahladini (causing joy or delight)
15) Paripurna (complete knowledge of all forms of awakening)
16) Swarupavasthita (swarup + awasthith = established in his real true self)

The incident of Krishna coming to Draupad's rescue during her humiliation - is- without a doubt- a later day interpolation.

So now we come to the second question "What / who then saved Draupadi?





Of course, according to the compiler of the Critical Edition, Dr Suthankar, the entire disrobing incident is a later day interpolation- and hence does not feature in the CE. The first few posts of this thread provide convincing arguments - so I am not repeating them here.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Um.. I know that... but like I said, it can be superficial... I mean, this is Krishna we are talking about... master of speech...

I still have my doubts..😆

Originally posted by: Urmila11

There is no place of doubt. If you believe that Krishna is God then it's very simple to understand. Obviously any of us can never extend a woman's saree while present in another place, but Krishna can. If you do not believe this then why to believe that Dharma protected Draupadi? Is not Dharma a Demigod? Are not all the Demigods derived from the Supreme,i.e, Krishna? Are not the Demigods different forms of Supreme Lord? Then Dharma protected means Krishna protected, also, we do believe that nothing can happen without Krishna's desire.

I personally also think that, Krishna saved Draupadi in form of Dharma, because she was Dharmapatni of Dharma. Besides what is the problem to think that, Krishna extended the saree & that extra saree itself was a form of Dharma, & thus Dharma saved own Dharmapatni?

Originally posted by: Urmila11

There is no place of doubt. If you believe that Krishna is God then it's very simple to understand. Obviously any of us can never extend a woman's saree while present in another place, but Krishna can. If you do not believe this then why to believe that Dharma protected Draupadi? Is not Dharma a Demigod? Are not all the Demigods derived from the Supreme,i.e, Krishna? Are not the Demigods different forms of Supreme Lord? Then Dharma protected means Krishna protected, also, we do believe that nothing can happen without Krishna's desire.

I personally also think that, Krishna saved Draupadi in form of Dharma, because she was Dharmapatni of Dharma. Besides what is the problem to think that, Krishna extended the saree & that extra saree itself was a form of Dharma, & thus Dharma saved own Dharmapatni?

Please try to think it Spiritually.

Originally posted by: Urmila11

I personally also think that, Krishna saved Draupadi in form of Dharma, because she was Dharmapatni of Dharma. Besides what is the problem to think that, Krishna extended the saree & that extra saree itself was a form of Dharma, & thus Dharma saved own Dharmapatni?

Please try to think it Spiritually.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

You misunderstand me.

I mean that, I have my doubts, whether it was Dharmadeva who saved Draupadi and not Krishna.

Personally I believe it was Krishna himself...

And though people may argue that it is an interpolation and all, where else do you find such a fine story of Sharanagati to God? So, rather than arguing whether it is in the MB or not, I think the msg is to follow Draupadi and surrender to Krishna - or whichever God you feel.

But each one to his own views😊

Originally posted by: varaali

@ bold : So do I, as a Krishna-bhakt myself. One of my favourite lines in the entire gamut of Carnatic Music is "Draupadi maana samrakshana kara...from Balagopala (Bharavi) and you ought to see the fervor with which my guru sings this particular line. With this background, will my viewpoint be any different?

I was only trying to analyze it from a textual point of view.

Originally posted by: varaali

So now we come to the second question "What / who then saved Draupadi?

According to the subsequent lines it was "Dharma"Who or what is this "Dharma" ?

To understand this, let us try to understand the word "Dharma". The root for the word Dharma is "Dhr" (to hold/ uphold) That which upholds is said to be Dharma. Also, it is said Dharmo rakshati rakshitah. He who protects Dharma is protected by Dharma in return.

So what was this Dharma which protected Draupadi? I think, it was her Patni- Dharma, her satitva which protected her.

Later on, once more Draupadi would invoke her satitva to protect her. When she was sent to Keechak's chamber by Sudeshna, Draupadi prayed to Surya, summoning her powers of chastity, to protect her

And when Keechak kicked her in the rajya Sabha, the protector assigned by Surya to guard Drauapdi gave a good kick in return to Keechak.

The dharma referred to here, in the disrobing incident, is Draupadi's own pativrata dharma- which ultimately protected her.

Of course, according to the compiler of the Critical Edition, Dr Suthankar, the entire disrobing incident is a later day interpolation- and hence does not feature in the CE. The first few posts of this thread provide convincing arguments - so I am not repeating them here.

I agree this view seems more logical. because other options have their problems. whether this incident is TRUE or not nobody knows.but even if it was not TRUE the humiliation drau suffered is enough in my pov for her anger.abt disrobing as it is said not mentioned anywhere later I have my own views abt it.ofcourse it would have been shameful or painful for her.may b I am wrong. but just think every time drau saying hey I was disrobed in front of whole assembly, my in laws.