Whats the LOGIC behind this so called marriage?/ DT's NT pg 4 - Page 4

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

i quite agree with this as per the epic neither Draupadi nor pandavas are shown to be very sad about this i mean there is no incident in the actual epic in which they are shown crying and also society at large does respect them never looked down upoun them.Draupadi was always appreciated all her husbands if we read her conversation with satyabhama and jaydharatha.

In this serial pandavs and Drauapdi are shown sad and crying becuase this is a serial all this drama is needed for dramatic effect we shouldnt take it very seriously

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

@shripadk

You just cannot say that someone reads scriptures for entertainment purpose only, who are you say that? , Unlike you ,I read them to find logic somewhere behind that ,but you read it like a holy scripture in which every god damn word is true because it is written/said by God , I need explanations for what i read , You can use the back-story of a character if you cant explain the things happened to him ,but thats not correct, just because you cant explain something doesn't mean you have to use the back story , If you want to use the back-story then there is no point reading Mahabharata because you can explain Mahabharata in 1 or 2 sentences by saying, "It was all Krishna's Leela and the characters destiny ".

Altering doesn't mean you can change the Basics , The basics are always same but the content and the minor details like whether Karna went to Drona or not changes with every Translation , People here Claim to have read "Vyas's" MB thats what makes me tell them that you did not get an autographed Book by Vyas - Courtesy medha00 ,it has been translated by hundreds of translators and altered Heavily . Every point is valid in Mahabharata ,Every version of MB is valid even Star plus's version is Valid.

Getting to Draupadi's Marriage , If Draupadi really wanted 5 husbands it was not adharma, if she wanted only Arjuna and was forced to marry the rest then it was straight up Adharma. It wasn't me who said " horse Shit" , "Its nonsense" ,you are the one acting like a scholar and denying everyone else 's point ,that too rudely.

Originally posted by: dramacrazy12

I don't think the marriage was about logic to begin with...also I discount the story of past birth because I see it as an excuse to justify a certain incident without a precedent. To me it was all about politics and emotions otherwise what Kunti said unknowingly was not as big a deal as it was made out to be.

Here is how I interpret it-

When Draupadi visited, she was yet unmarried...when Kunti said what she did...she awakened the lust in other four Pandavas for a moment...maybe they saw Draupadi as a woman they wanted and lusted after until their brain kicked back in...also in that moment their mother insulted Draupadi by comparing her to a chattel while they stood shocked and helpless.

They were thoroughly embarrassed in her presence and had a hard time meeting her eye which put them in a situation where they wanted to avoid Draupadi. They decided to take penance to repent for their mother's actions and their unexpected lust. However that meant that brothers would be broken apart. Draupadi was to be married to Arjun but he had no claim to throne as he was younger to Duryodhana. Draupadi could not marry Yudhi because he did not win her moreover he was helpless politically without the might of his brothers. Without Pandavas on throne, the masses were doomed to a life of servitude and pain and Drupad's desire to avenge his insult would never come to fruition and Adharma would win. If Draupadi did not marry anyone she was destined to a life of shame and pain, if she committed suicide...Arjun and Pandavas would be responsible for her death...an insult to Shatriya Dharma and worthy of penance. The point being there were no easy answers unless everyone was agreeable to forget what just happened and Pandavas were not ready for that.

On the flip-side Draupadi marrying all of them not only solved everything but also contributed to the solidarity of the brothers. Kunti had her sons, her sons had a powerful wife and alliances, Krishna had his way to war of Mahabharat, Drupad had his preferred SIL, Yudhi still had claim to throne. The only price was Draupadi would never truly belong to or be loved by one person , she would have to balance between her 5 husbands and it would open her to some ridicule not that people would jump to say it out openly. It gave everyone what they wanted politically and from a certain perspective was a better life for Draupadi than staying unmarried or committing suicide. The only challenge was that there was no precedent and there were logistic/emotional issues with sharing the wife. Pandavas put certain rules in place to reduce the emotional angst of sharing a wife and well-known sages/powerful political entities like VedVyas, Krishna and Drupad put their weight behind the marriage to give it desired respectability. Logically who could oppose them.

Originally posted by: dramacrazy12

I don't think the marriage was about logic to begin with...also I discount the story of past birth because I see it as an excuse to justify a certain incident without a precedent. To me it was all about politics and emotions otherwise what Kunti said unknowingly was not as big a deal as it was made out to be.

Here is how I interpret it-

Originally posted by: tanvismile

shripadk;i have read your posts ,m not challenging your knowledge but there is something i dont agree

"No Ved Vyas never made girl marrying 5 husbands controversial. It was made by Starbharat. Please differentiate the two. He never wrote that a girl marrying 5 husbands was Adharma."

All I'm trying to hint at is that it wasn't a big deal to have many wives and many husbands back in the day. It might seem odd and probably even revolting today but that wasn't the case back then."

so Ved vyas dint say drapuadi marriage with 5 pandavas was adharm,it star mahabarat,tell me dont you feel it was adharm ,it might be not wrong a girl marring five men but this was against her wish,and anything against the wish of the girl is adharm only ,even when man marries multiple women but they dont stay one year with another women,they have the full freedom ,they can be with whichever partner they want.Whats important is will and wish of person.

Originally posted by: shripadk

Originally posted by: medha00

Actually, Draupadi wasnt forced to marry the five ... she always had the choice to say no and go back to Panchala. If she did not gave her consent then those guys werent going to force her to marry them.She was a strong and outspoken person, and has a record of speaking against injustice being done to her or anything being forced on her.They go to Panchala and Drupada doesnt want this marriage to take place, if she was being forced then she would have spoken at that time to tell her father that she wont marry them. She was the Princess, in her own land, her Father backing her up.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

That's not exactly accurate, b'cos at the time, once a girl's swayamvara was held and someone had won her, the entire world saw her as married, or at least tainted. That's exactly what happened w/ Amba - Shalva saw her as conquered, while Bheeshma & Vichu saw her as already belonging to Shalva in mind. And no other king nor prince would touch her, since they saw her as conquered by Bheeshma.

There were other examples as well. When Jambavati's son Samba abducted Duryodhan's daughter Laxmanaa right out of her swayamvara, the Kauravas fought & captured him but were in a quandary: they couldn't resume Laxmanaa's swayamvara, since he had touched her, and therefore, she was 'defiled' (the modern equivalent would be if they had consummated). So on one hand, the Kauravas didn't want to give her to Samba, but they couldn't put her back into the swayamvara, so they imprisoned Samba (goodness knows what they planned to do w/ him - they couldn't execute him either, or else, she would have been impossible to marry.) Eventually, Balarama came and forced them to release Samba, so they handed over Laxmanaa as well.

My point above is - after the swayamvara, the entire world recognized Draupadi as being won by Arjun. So going back to Drupada was not an option: there was no way she'd ever get married again. The only people she could negotiate her future w/ was Arjun, Kunti & Yudisthir. Which is what she did.

Note that I neither condemn nor condone what happened b/w Draupadi & the Pandavas, but it is disingenuous of anyone to claim, at that point, that Draupadi wasn't forced. Technically, that's accurate, but if one considers that in that era, a girl going thru life unmarried was living a curse - exactly what Draupadi in her previous birth complained to Shiva about - then once a girl was considered tainted, she pretty much had no choice but to marry the man who tainted her. In this case, I don't know whether Draupadi had any problems w/ this arrangement - I'd have to re-read the original texts, but let's face it - her options were limited. Chances are that had she refused to marry anyone except Arjun, since he had won her, the Pandavas - including Yudisthir, Kunti and Arjun - would have agreed. As I noted previously, since Bhima didn't make Yudisthir's marital status a reason for not marrying Hidimbaa, Arjun couldn't credibly make the argument that he couldn't marry b4 Yudisthir.

They were not mistakenly killed, as BRC claimed. Ashwatthama knew who he killed, and boasted to Duryodhan that he had killed Draupadi's sons. In fact, those 5 princes even resisted Ashwatthama briefly, but each was mutilated one by one, and in the end, they were all dead. Ashwatthama was out to massacre the entire Pandava army, and he'd have killed the Pandavas as well had Krishna not kept them out of that camp.