Was Draupadi really disrobed in the Dice Hall? - Page 5

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: .Vrish.

Sorry, I prefer reading and arriving at my own conclusions. Analyzing it, instead of thinking that what god does is far greater than what any of us can comprehend. If I really believed that, I'd not be following the epics & other puranic stories so keenly - what business do I, a mere mortal, have doing it?

I don't think that that is Semanti's argument here, Vrish. She never stated that you shouldn't analyze what Krishna did, or rather in this case, didn't do, nor that this subject in particular is out of anyone's understanding. In fact, I'd say she dug deeper into the argument than the surface level discussions that were going on and analyzed it in her own way.

What she is saying is, as God, Krishna is omnipotent and omnipresent. He is described over and over again in virtually all hindu epics as paramatma, parampurush. And that each living being, each human, each devata, Dharmraj included, are his ansh roops. Most, if not every, form of the Upanishads support that view. I don't want to turn this into an advaitism discussion, because that could literally go on forever. But surely, someone who has analyzed everything as keenly as you have will not be unfamiliar with the philosophy.

So long story short, since Krishna is Paramatma himself, and nothing can happen without his wish, whatever Dharmaraj did was done because Krishna so wished it.

Krishna explicitly tells Draupadi, when she asks him why he wasn't there to protect her, what he was doing. So does your spiritual dwelling on it lead you to the conclusion that he was lying? He was in Dwarka, fighting a war against Shalva, and was in no position to do squat. So what the epic says - that Dharma saved Draupadi - could easily have referred to Yudisthir's father, who wasn't busy doing anything else elsewhere.
Again, like I said before, if you actually believe the stuff you read in the Vedas, the Puraans, you'll know that Krishna is an incarnation of God himself. And it isn't beyond his powers to be present in more than one place at a time. It's not so much spiritual dwelling on things as it is taking the words for what they mean. And there's really no two ways of interpreting omnipresent.

And I don't know how the excerpt from the Vana Parva you provided is in anyway incongruous with the theory that Krishna saved Draupadi. Like Surya previously said, Krishna was a master of speech. It doesn't go against what we know of him.

Originally posted by: smrth

Insistent refuting?! That too, something as irrefutable as lynchpin incident of the entire plot! Why? can't understand.😕

Why should a later conversation done in public, not required to relate everything that was transacted 'invisibly' and privately bet'n God and his Bhakta, but manifest in its visible effect, should have been a 'must pronouncement'? Then how could a vague, inconclusive litany done in a detracted state, refute a very existing text of the prior narration??

Take the incident proper. How the tides were turned then? How were rampaging offenders fazed? At 'WHAT MIRACLE' they became scared and Dhritrashtra was forced to recompense? Dushashan's inability to uncover her was the scare. No less.

As for later mentions, there is one unambiguous one. In words of Lord Krishna himself! If one must have later corroboration to validate.

And the dialogue highlighted here: The anguish present therein- the lament at something very sinister done to her person- itself betrays a very serious offence. Calling a menstruating woman to the Court is not sufficient offence measuring that anguish present. Besides, the complete dialogue itself mentions the existence of such offence, as initiated by Karna- consistent with the previous narration. Her charge to lord here is not about 'not helping her', but about not punishing the offenders yet...

Actually, in last line, she acknowledges a fact- she is always protracted by Keshava and she 'deserved' it!!

"Husbands, or sons, or friends, or brothers, or father, have I none! Nor have I thee, O thou slayer of Madhu, for ye all, beholding me treated so cruelly by inferior foes, sit still unmoved My grief at Karna's ridicule is incapable of being assuaged! On these grounds I deserve to be ever protected by thee, O Kesava..."

Originally posted by: ashwi_d

<font color="#ff0000">The Kauravas got scared, not by seeing the miracle, but by the ill omens that followed Draupadi's humiliation. This was the reason that Dhritarashtra decided to grant Draupadi 3 boons. The relevant passage in KMG is as follows:</font>

<font color="#ff0000">Vaisampayana continued, "Just then, a jackal began to cry loudly</font>

<font color="#ff0000">in the ftowa-chamber of king Dhritarashtra's palace. And, O king, unto</font>

<font color="#ff0000">the jackal that howled so, the asses began to bray responsively. And</font>

<font color="#ff0000">terrible birds also, from all sides, began to answer with their cries. And</font>

<font color="#ff0000">Vidura conversant with everything and the daughter of Suvala, both understood the meaning of those terrible sounds. And Bhishma and Drona and the learned Gautama loudly cried, Swashti ! Swasthi ! Then Gandhari and the learned Vidura beholding that frightful omen, represented everything! in great affliction, unto the king. And the king (Dhritarashtra) thereupon said, 'Thou wicked-minded Duryodhana, thou wretch, destruction hath already overtaken thee when thou insultest in language such as this the wife of these bulls among the Kurus, especially their wedded wife Draupadi. And having spoken those words, the wise Dhritarashtra endued with knowledge, reflecting with the aid of his wisdom and desirous of saving his relatives and friends from destruction, began to console Krishna, the princess of Panchala, and addressing her, the monarch said, - Ask meany boon, O princess of Panchala....</font>

<font color="#003300">Calling a menstruating woman to the court is not sufficient offence? Leaving aside present morals, we are talking about the queen of Indraprastha and the former princess of Panchalahere.Being dragged by the hair against her will, in just a single cloth stained in blood in front of the entire court, where kings and illustrious guests from outside were also present, can be seen as humiliation enough in the Dwapar Yug. And if this theory of the disrobing being a later interpolation is indeed true, it just goes on to show how the treatment of and the respect for women has declined today, that only when a woman is stripped, is it seen as aheinousoffence, as opposed to the Dwapar Yug. (I'm not making any comments about you personally, but just pointing out the deterioration of values in general)</font>

<font color="#003300">
</font>

<font color="#0000ff">As for Karna, the disrobing was not the only time he insulted Draupadi. There is another instance where he insults her. Draupadi could be referring to this. (there are others as well, but this is the one I found on a quick perusal of the text)</font>

<font color="#0000ff">Vaisampayana continued, "The kings that were there, hearing</font>

<font color="#0000ff">these words of Vidurai answered not a word, yet Kama alone spoke unto Dussasana, telling him. 'Takeaway this serving-woman Krishna</font>

<font color="#0000ff">into the inner apartments. And thereupon Dussasana began to drag</font>

<font color="#0000ff">before all the spectators the helpless and modest Draupadi, trembling</font>

<font color="#0000ff">and crying piteously unto the Pandavas her lords.'* </font>

<font color="#0000ff">Draupadi's grouse is not Karna's insult alone. She also mentions Dushassan and Duryodhan's insults during her conversation with Krishna.</font>

But I will give it to you about Draupadi not accusing Krishna of not being present during the incident. But even if she does not confront him with the above, she does not thank him for helping her either. Of course this cannot be the basis of refuting Krishna's miracle, but my point is that just because she does not accuse Krishna with the above question, one cannot conclusively say that Krishna did indeed come to her aid without being physically present. Especially when the author has pointed out so many instances where, forget Krishna's miracle, not even the disrobing is referred to by anybody afterwards.

<p></p>

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

I think I have cracked it- so to say.

Kauravas, Shakuni, the Kuru elders for allowing it, and the Pandavas.

So this means, if Krishna had come, he would have slain the Pandavas also.

So, at the cost of their death, he would have to save Draupadi.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Would he have had to slay all the Pandavas? He could have just slain Yudisthir, and then let Bhima do what he wanted, since he'd now be the decisionmaker in the family. Once Bhima took over, there'd be no restraints on him, and Arjun, Krishna, Nakul & Sahadev would have had to do whatever he ordered.

He'd have ended the Kauravas that day itself and annexed Hastinapur, and become king of the united kingdom (no, not Britain 😆)

Incidentally, would Draupadi be a widow until she's lost all her hubbies - or would losing any one be considered disastrous?