A few things about Draupadi, How true are they? - Page 19

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

@ Bold I have always wondered this too. I don't know about the original scripture (since I don't know how to read Sanskrit)...but in all these translations by later authors, it seems that Draupadi was supposed to have some deeper feelings for Arjun since  Arjun was the one who won her swayamvar. To the readers probably otherwise it would look odd. So these authors have also tried make a ship out of Arjun x Draupadi in places possible.

Few more questions. Please answer if you are interested in indulging me 😆

a) What about Vyasa meeting the Pandavas & telling them about Draupadi & how she will be their common wife. If Yudhistir was Draupadi's only husband, this also doesn't fit in.

And also Draupadi's boon from previous birth. Is this also a later addition?

That is also a later interpolation. Still working on it. I am guessing that vyasa proposal was that yudhishtra should marry drapaudi and hence gain a powerful ally in drapaud

b) All the Upapandavas not being Draupadi's biological kid, is it your assumption? Or there's any mention of their different bioligical mothers anywhere?

c) Abhimanyu was the crown prince? How? Prativindhya was Draupadi & Yudhistir's kid & also elder than Abhimanyu, no? How come Arjun's son is the crown prince? I always thought Prativindhya was supposed to be the crown prince, but since the whole clan got killed in Kurukshetra & only Abhimanyu's unborn child survived, the throne passed to Abhimanyu's son. 

About upandavas and Abhimanyu. The latter has been mentioned as a heir to the throne in vana parva.  So if prativindhya was really krishnaa s biological son i don't see any reason to not make him the crown prince. But if he was not.  Then by choosing Abhimanyu over prativindhya for the crown prince they were solidifying their relationship with dwaraka

The only heir of krishnaa i think was her and yudhishtra s daughter suthanu whose son vajra inherited both indraprasth and Mathura from maternal and paternal side respectively 

i have also heard that shrutakirti (arjun & draupadi's son) had a twin sister namely pragati and  later on after the war she married a sage...

Originally posted by: Kokol

i have also heard that shrutakirti (arjun & draupadi's son) had a twin sister namely pragati and  later on after the war she married a sage...

That s folktale not true 

Okay....aise dekho toh it seems that apart from the Kurkukshetra War, every popular story is later interpolation / folktale someway or other 😆😆

I recently read an analysis somewhere that even Duryodhan's claim to throne was legit & he wasn't wrong if he refused to give it up to Yudhistir. If you see from that pov, then even the Pandavas were wrong & the whole Kurukshetra war seems somewhat like a revenge spree from their side than the famous Dharm vs Adharm paath we are being taught from childhood.

Everything is up for analysis & interpretation. 

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

Okay....aise dekho toh it seems that apart from the Kurkukshetra War, every popular story is later interpolation / folktale someway or other 😆😆

I recently read an analysis somewhere that even Duryodhan's claim to throne was legit & he wasn't wrong if he refused to give it up to Yudhistir. If you see from that pov, then even the Pandavas were wrong & the whole Kurukshetra war seems somewhat like a revenge spree from their side than the famous Dharm vs Adharm paath we are being taught from childhood.

Everything is up for analysis & interpretation. 

The issue was thus

1. Dhritarashtra was the elder prince and hence should have been King and his eldest after him

2. However due to his blindness, Pandu was made King. 

3. Pandavas were legally, if not biologically, the sons of Pandu. Their very name Pandavas seems to me to be Kunti's idea to deliberately ensure nobody questions them. Niyoga was legally binding.

4. Since Pandu was actual King (Dhritarashtra only stepped in once he died), Yudhisthira had claim to throne as well 

5. If Duryodhana claimed that Pandavas were not biological sons of Pandu, then even Pandu and Dhritarashtra were not biological sons of Vichitraveerya (the line actually ended with him). Which means both Duryodhana abd Yudhishthira were equally not related to the royalty and had no right to the throne.

6. One way to resolve this issue was to see who was more worthy and that was definitely Yudhisthira (before vastraharan)

7. After dice hall incident, IMO, nobody was worthy.

The grand irony was that there was one person who had every right to the throne but had stuck by his vow to give it up, even when the vow was redundant.

And the people who had literally no right to it where fighting a bloody war for it.

The message passed by Krishna wrt Bhishma is that the earlier societal norms or if you would call it "dharma" wasn't up to the mark in dwapar yug and should be replaced by higher dharma (breaking a redundant vow for the greater good). Thats Dharmasansthapanarthaay. 

In a metaphorical sense, Draupadi represented the bhoomi/Earth and Kaurav/Pandavas represented the corrupt Kshatriyas. Hence all the wrongs done to her in the Dyut Sabha: being dragged by her hair, her menstrual blood being spilt, the vastraharan etc were all representative of the evil being done to Earth.

This was avenged during Kurukshetra (the story of Barbareek in which he says he sees only Sudarshan chakra and Kali drinking blood).

Originally posted by: Eloquent

The issue was thus

1. Dhritarashtra was the elder prince and hence should have been King and his eldest after him

2. However due to his blindness, Pandu was made King. 

3. Pandavas were legally, if not biologically, the sons of Pandu. Their very name Pandavas seems to me to be Kunti's idea to deliberately ensure nobody questions them. Niyoga was legally binding.

4. Since Pandu was actual King (Dhritarashtra only stepped in once he died), Yudhisthira had claim to throne as well 

5. If Duryodhana claimed that Pandavas were not biological sons of Pandu, then even Pandu and Dhritarashtra were not biological sons of Vichitraveerya (the line actually ended with him). Which means both Duryodhana abd Yudhishthira were equally not related to the royalty and had no right to the throne.

6. One way to resolve this issue was to see who was more worthy and that was definitely Yudhisthira (before vastraharan)

7. After dice hall incident, IMO, nobody was worthy.

The grand irony was that there was one person who had every right to the throne but had stuck by his vow to give it up, even when the vow was redundant.

And the people who had literally no right to it where fighting a bloody war for it.

The message passed by Krishna wrt Bhishma is that the earlier societal norms or if you would call it "dharma" wasn't up to the mark in dwapar yug and should be replaced by higher dharma (breaking a redundant vow for the greater good). Thats Dharmasansthapanarthaay. 

In a metaphorical sense, Draupadi represented the bhoomi/Earth and Kaurav/Pandavas represented the corrupt Kshatriyas. Hence all the wrongs done to her in the Dyut Sabha: being dragged by her hair, her menstrual blood being spilt, the vastraharan etc were all representative of the evil being done to Earth.

This was avenged during Kurukshetra (the story of Barbareek in which he says he sees only Sudarshan chakra and Kali drinking blood).

@ Bold : That's sadly the truth. I always thought that this Mahabharat started the day Bhisma vowed to give up his rights on the throne. Had he not vowed such, things would have been very different. I see majority of people blaming Shakuni or Duryodhan, but I blame Bhisma for the whole fiasco. He might not have done it knowingly, but he was the one who planted the seed & later Dhritarastra nurtured the plant & then Duryodhan used the tree.

@Underlined : Really? 🤢 I had no idea about this. 😲

Duryodhan did have a valid claim over the throne since there was no rule that only the son of the king could be made one.

There are many points on it, I had made in another thread will try to find it as revert

I read Karan's son died in draupadi swayamwar while fighting for his father and duryodhan

Is it true or just imagination?

Karan is my fav character apart from Arjun in MB 

Because Karan is both bad and good 

Arjun is like a bollywood hero perfect good archer great human and friend good husband etc if you look away the cheer haran part 

But its actually Bheem who is real hero of MB like he never does any wrong thing in war and always challenges and defeats enemy and is a softy inside and hard outside like coconut

Originally posted by: Eloquent

The issue was thus

1. Dhritarashtra was the elder prince and hence should have been King and his eldest after him

2. However due to his blindness, Pandu was made King. 

3. Pandavas were legally, if not biologically, the sons of Pandu. Their very name Pandavas seems to me to be Kunti's idea to deliberately ensure nobody questions them. Niyoga was legally binding.

4. Since Pandu was actual King (Dhritarashtra only stepped in once he died), Yudhisthira had claim to throne as well 

5. If Duryodhana claimed that Pandavas were not biological sons of Pandu, then even Pandu and Dhritarashtra were not biological sons of Vichitraveerya (the line actually ended with him). Which means both Duryodhana abd Yudhishthira were equally not related to the royalty and had no right to the throne.

6. One way to resolve this issue was to see who was more worthy and that was definitely Yudhisthira (before vastraharan)

7. After dice hall incident, IMO, nobody was worthy.

The grand irony was that there was one person who had every right to the throne but had stuck by his vow to give it up, even when the vow was redundant.

And the people who had literally no right to it where fighting a bloody war for it.

The message passed by Krishna wrt Bhishma is that the earlier societal norms or if you would call it "dharma" wasn't up to the mark in dwapar yug and should be replaced by higher dharma (breaking a redundant vow for the greater good). Thats Dharmasansthapanarthaay. 

In a metaphorical sense, Draupadi represented the bhoomi/Earth and Kaurav/Pandavas represented the corrupt Kshatriyas. Hence all the wrongs done to her in the Dyut Sabha: being dragged by her hair, her menstrual blood being spilt, the vastraharan etc were all representative of the evil being done to Earth.

This was avenged during Kurukshetra (the story of Barbareek in which he says he sees only Sudarshan chakra and Kali drinking blood).

So Bishma was last royal lineage for his family?

Like British royal saga, real prince is somewhere and the ones who occupy throne have dubious credentials 

Bishma was a parallel to shravan kumar for his father, he gave up all luxury and his own happiness for his fathers lust at old age

Shantanu was a selfish human and father i think

If Bhishma married and had kids, Shantanu could have spent time with them and reduced his lonliness

Anyway ganga was his wife

In one way i feel sorry for drithrastra he was blind so although elder did not get throne first

If you think logically Duryodhan had higher claim to throne as elder sons son

But he was a cruel and unfit king if he became one 

Yudhistra was too soft and innocent to be a king 

Yudhistra survived kingship because of arjun and bheem only

Else Yudhistar would lose all wars and kingship titles long back because hes not good warrior or judge of character

When every we watch Mahabharata my mother gets mad at Satyavati 😆