Was Draupadi really disrobed in the Dice Hall? - Page 9

Originally posted by: varaali

Neither Krishna nor Dhrama.

The saviour was the jackal who had somehow escaped from the Hastinapur zoo and made his way into Dritarashtra's puja room and began howling from there.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

That, and also the old topic of whether it happened.

Originally posted by: srishtisingh

varaali 🤣 🤣 oh god! "jackal escaped from hastinapur zoo and began howling

Originally posted by: smrth

Thanks @ Leadnitrate for these citations. Various possibilities. All lead to one conclusion. Something very sinister was attempted to her person- even after serious humiliation meted out in the manner of drag. For after this drag, she had not lost the spirit or 'hope'... She barges on a counter and posts her 'question'. With hope that she would implicate elders, present there. So 'drag' was not her last trial. Something heinous was attempted. What was it? Even if 'not disrobing', something similar? And look at the terrible oath taken by Bhim (re Dushy the enactor) immediately after the 'event'...

Originally posted by: smrth

@ Ashwi_d, as argued earlier, the reverberation of this heinous act are implicitly woven into the deaths of its perpetrators in this tale... Even Cvs, having gone through brainstorming dissections, seem to have felt this connection, as they linked some of the 'ends' so explicitly today. Unfortunately again, in most distorted fashion, as is their wont. Curses and Krishna's witness indeed!🤢

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/103460440

Originally posted by: varaali

I would like to analyze this contextually and literally- keeping faith / emotions aside.

Let us forget KMG's translation for a moment and take a look at the two texts we have today- Neelkanth's and the Southern Recession.

Neelkanth's version is here http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/8995.pdf.

Draupadi's VH is described on page 263 / 264. Type this number in the task bar to reach the relevant page

The Dakshinapath version is here http://www.dvaipayana.net/books/ppssastri-mbh/ppssastri-sabhaparva.pdf

Draupadi's VH is on page 499.

In both the versions, when Dushasana begins to pull her clothes forcibly, Draupadi cries to Krishna for help. In the Neelkanth version Draupadi's prayer is in 8 slokas, in the SR her prayer is in 4 slokas, along with a description by Vaishampayana.

Now, my question is if Krishna was indeed the saviour, why would Vyasa not use this opportunity to sing a stuti of his favourite Lord- that too, at a time when he has performed such a stunning miracle?

In the whole epic, we see two Vyasa trademarks- One- to sing a stuti at a drop of the hat and Two - to launch into a rambling story / narrative from the past.

The second trademark is observed here. After the attempted disrobing, Vidura launches into a long winded story of Prahalaad. This is typical of Vyasa's writing.

But the first trademark is missing here. Why would Vyasa not make Draupadi or Yudhishthira or even Bhishma sing Krishna's stuti at such an emotional moment.

Moreover, the words used in these verses are very inconsistent. In the Neelkant version, when Drauapdi is crying to Krishna "Krishnam cha Visnum cha Hareem...etc etc", there is another line

"Tyaktva shyaasanam Kripalu Kripaya abhyagaat .

This is the only line which may have some indication that Krishna (or his Presence) arrived there. But this crucial line is missing in the Southern recession- thus raising doubts whether this line was a later day interpolation.

And immediately after this comes the much debated line "Tatah astu Dharmaha tarito Mahatma samavarno dvai vividhaihi suvasraihi"

In the Southern Recession, instead of Dharmaha Tarito, we have, Dharmo antarito- which is what KMG used for his translation to mean "Dharma remaining hidden..."

Now the key word here is Mahatma (see red above). KMG uses this word to mean 'illustrious Dharma' With all due respect to KMG, I don't think this word refers to Dhrama at all. Mahatma here refers to Draupadi.

And now, with this one word, Vyasa clears all our confusion. Because Draupadi is a Mahatma, the Dharma that she had been following (her pativrata) saved her. Dharmaha tarito Mahatma. Dharma saved the great soul.

The other very vital clue we get is from the Southern Recension. Here the same line reads "Tatah astu Dharmah antarito" The Dharma that was inside her saved her.

The Dharma that was "inside"- not, as KMG writes "Dharma that was hidden"

Hence, the Dharma that is being referred to here is the 'Dharma' that Draupadi had been following i.e her pativrata dharma. "Dharma" does not refer to Yudi's Dad or any other external person.

This is my understanding and analysis of this particular section.

Originally posted by: shani88

Leaving aside what may or may not be given in certain texts and versions, I have a very simple question -

Does the magnitude of Draupadi's insult and humiliation decrease EVEN to the slightest degree IF the disrobing is taken out of the equation?

According to me, it is extremely preposterous to suggest that the "disrobing" is an "overdramatization" of the humiliation that she faced.

Even without the disrobing, she had been humiliated "enough" IMHO.

1. She was staked like property by her own husband.

2. She was dragged into the dice hall by her hair while she was improperly dressed and menstruating

3. None of the elders (and not even her own husbands) uttered one single word of protest against this treatment of hers.

4. Duryodhan offered his thigh to her

5. Karna called her the worst thing imaginable

And we are actually having a discussion about whether the "disrobing" per se had taken place or not? Like seriously? Is there some kind of method to determine whether a woman has been humiliated "enough" or not? Weren't the physical and verbal abuses that she faced humiliating "enough"?

If we are basically going to restrict ourselves to mere textual knowledge and have an academic debate about whether the "disrobing" per se had taken place or not, IMHO, we are completely preventing ourselves from looking at the bigger picture - a woman had been insulted and humiliated in the dice hall, disrobing or no disrobing.

And THAT is the most important thing.

Originally posted by: shani88

Leaving aside what may or may not be given in certain texts and versions, I have a very simple question -

Does the magnitude of Draupadi's insult and humiliation decrease EVEN to the slightest degree IF the disrobing is taken out of the equation?

According to me, it is extremely preposterous to suggest that the "disrobing" is an "overdramatization" of the humiliation that she faced.

Even without the disrobing, she had been humiliated "enough" IMHO.

1. She was staked like property by her own husband.

2. She was dragged into the dice hall by her hair while she was improperly dressed and menstruating

3. None of the elders (and not even her own husbands) uttered one single word of protest against this treatment of hers.

4. Duryodhan offered his thigh to her

5. Karna called her the worst thing imaginable

And we are actually having a discussion about whether the "disrobing" per se had taken place or not? Like seriously? Is there some kind of method to determine whether a woman has been humiliated "enough" or not? Weren't the physical and verbal abuses that she faced humiliating "enough"?

If we are basically going to restrict ourselves to mere textual knowledge and have an academic debate about whether the "disrobing" per se had taken place or not, IMHO, we are completely preventing ourselves from looking at the bigger picture - a woman had been insulted and humiliated in the dice hall, disrobing or no disrobing.

And THAT is the most important thing.