Polyandry in Mahabharata - Page 17

Originally posted by: swathi90

I think some arrangement was there who shares her bed, but that doesn’t mean she don’t see her husband’s face r that she don’t spend time with them outside her bedroom, the rule most probably was not sharing bed, that’s it outside room she can spend time with them and took care of them, here subhadra, Draupadi , Krishna and arjun r having gud time that’s it, they r not sharing bed .

some one here said after giving each one child, they didn’t follow any rules.

I think there was some kind of arrangement, but the only rule that is stated is - if one sees Draupadi with another husband, they must be exiled. Now technically you cannot really say if Bheem or Arjun saw them sitting in court together that's a punishment.

Hence, it has been INTERPRETED that it means, one might not invade in their privacy. Considering there was no one year rule,

1. Other four brothers cannot see Draupadi in private with one husband.

2. In private implies anything that may feel private to the husband or Drau. I am sure if they saw them talking to each other that's a punishment.

However, the words of Narad make much more sense if there's a one year rule. This implies that

1. One year goes to each husband, and at this time if someone else makes a move at her, he is liable to be exiled.

2. Makes a move meaning sexual move.

It could be that Yudhishthir and Draupadi were in their private moments and Arjun entered (not to take weapon- that could be a later addition to whitewash him) so he was exiled.

Simple

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I think there was some kind of arrangement, but the only rule that is stated is - if one sees Draupadi with another husband, they must be exiled. Now technically you cannot really say if Bheem or Arjun saw them sitting in court together that's a punishment.

Hence, it has been INTERPRETED that it means, one might not invade in their privacy. Considering there was no one year rule,

1. Other four brothers cannot see Draupadi in private with one husband.

2. In private implies anything that may feel private to the husband or Drau. I am sure if they saw them talking to each other that's a punishment.

However, the words of Narad make much more sense if there's a one year rule. This implies that

1. One year goes to each husband, and at this time if someone else makes a move at her, he is liable to be exiled.

2. Makes a move meaning sexual move.

It could be that Yudhishthir and Draupadi were in their private moments and Arjun entered (not to take weapon- that could be a later addition to whitewash him) so he was exiled.

Simple

Arjuna's words during the war where he taunts Yudi on sitting on Draupadi's bed and thinking that Arjuna is incapable is evidence enough that Arjuna wasn't much happy about winning the swayamvar and sharing Draupadi. Maybe it was a rebellious moment on his part when he went to Draupadi's room when Yudi was there and nothing could stop him as he was the one who won that Swayamvar, He was exiled for his rebellious nature which had the possibility of breaking pandavas

Just a theory

The text talks about polyandry true but the text also gives many instances which indicates that drapaudi might have been only yudhishtra either can be true the story does not changes much either ways. Had drapaudi not married yudhishtra then the text would have definitely changed. I don't like yudhishtra but that s how it is. We cannot ignore his importance the story.

About pandavas unity then the dice hall clearly shows how united pandavas are so much so that for all bheem s ineffectual yelling or arjuna echoing drapaudi s words none of them actually came forward to save drapaudi when dushashan dragged her. They accepted their slave status bestowed upon them by their dearest elder brother. Drapaudi was left alone to deal with it. She dealt in that hall of hastinapur with everything all alone. So Pandavas unity given as a reason for the polyandrous marriage stands null and void.

But i don't think any conclusion is going to come out even if debate for 100 more pages. Everyone will believe what they want to. So let us just agree e disagree And part as friends. Peace ❤️

I have another theory of regarding Arjun's exile.

From the little knowledge of the epic I hold, I would say there's something classic about Yudhishthir, that is, he knew what he desires, and speaks against it. In words of Sigmund Freud, the defence mechanism of reaction formation.

Two egs (won't elaborate because that will deviate from the topic) : Draupadi's division and this, Arjun's exile.

In both cases, he was more than happy with the forthcoming events YET he spoke otherwise because he knew Arjun would always have his back and do what he ACTUALLY wants.

I think this is what happened- Yudhishthir KNEW where Arjun would have arrived. (Yeah he could have gotten a bow from any soldier but maybe he wanted his, may not be Gandiv but just his bow which he used before Gandiv)

He also wanted Arjun to be away for sometime (not 12 years because only a fool would drive away Arjun, who was pivotal to protection of the kingdom away for 12 years). But he wanted him away because he wanted Draupadi to himself.

One may ask, why Arjun, not BNS. It is precisely because Arjun won her hand, it is natural for Arjun to have feelings of ownership on her and hence he would try to get close to her than the others. (ARJUN'S side, not Draupadi's feelings. Just clarifying)

Now we know that Arjun knew Yudhi Drau were in the room. Maybe he saw them enter this particular room (neither a weapon room nor a private room, some normal room in the palace maybe). Or he was aware of Yudhi's plan.

Now as per what Yudhi wanted, he went into the room at the right time while Yudhi was spending private moments with Draupadi. He was exiled.

Interesting part is, here comes the Freudian reaction formation. Yudhishthir very blatantly said -

A little while after, king Yudhishthira in grief said unto his brother Dhananjaya of curly hair who never departed from his vows, these words, 'O sinless one, if I am an authority worthy of regard, listen to what I say. O hero, full well do I know the reason why thou hadst entered my chamber and didst what thou regardest to be an act disagreeable to me. But there is no displeasure in my mind. The younger brother may, without fault, enter the chamber where the elder brother sitteth with his wife. It is only the elder brother that acts against the rules of propriety by entering the room where the younger brother sitteth with his wife. Therefore, O thou of mighty arms, desist from thy purpose. Do what I say. Thy virtue hath sustained no diminution. Thou hast not disregarded me.'

If Arjun went inside by purpose, why will Yudhishthir say this? If Arjun went there to have s** with his wife out of turn, is this what Yudhi will say? I don't think so.

Hence, Arjun had the chance to not go to exile. But he did. Simply because he knew what his brother wanted and honestly after having to share his wife, it is good to stay away from the people who made it happen IMO. Hence I guess he went.

This is just my interpretation. You are free to disagree. Just sharing my views.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Arjuna's words during the war where he taunts Yudi on sitting on Draupadi's bed and thinking that Arjuna is incapable is evidence enough that Arjuna wasn't much happy about winning the swayamvar and sharing Draupadi. Maybe it was a rebellious moment on his part when he went to Draupadi's room when Yudi was there and nothing could stop him as he was the one who won that Swayamvar, He was exiled for his rebellious nature which had the possibility of breaking pandavas

Just a theory

He wasn't. I agree with you completely.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Arjuna's words during the war where he taunts Yudi on sitting on Draupadi's bed and thinking that Arjuna is incapable is evidence enough that Arjuna wasn't much happy about winning the swayamvar and sharing Draupadi. Maybe it was a rebellious moment on his part when he went to Draupadi's room when Yudi was there and nothing could stop him as he was the one who won that Swayamvar, He was exiled for his rebellious nature which had the possibility of breaking pandavas

Just a theory

Can you please post this portion? Where Arjun taunts Yudhisthir? I am interested to read this.

I am also of the opinion that Arjun definitely resented the fact of sharing Draupadi with his brothers ( maybe a little, but should be there since he was the one who won the Syawamvar).

Theoretically polyandry was accepted in mahabharat but practically it was not accept

Or may be polyandry was not accept always but in some circumstances it was allow

In mahabharat there would have no polyandry if by mistake kunti would have not said those words to pandavs that too share alms among ur self

( here alms refer to draupdi)

This polyandry marriage is done to just give respect to kunti

No one wanted polyandry intiially as it is but it is because of circumstances polyandry was accepted

Originally posted by: AnkitaPurka66

Can you please post this portion? Where Arjun taunts Yudhisthir? I am interested to read this.

I am also of the opinion that Arjun definitely resented the fact of sharing Draupadi with his brothers ( maybe a little, but should be there since he was the one who won the Syawamvar).

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08070.htm

Since, not withstanding all this, thou still piercest me with such wordy darts, it is evident that we cannot expect any happiness from thee. Lying on Draupadi's bed thou insultest me, though for thy sake I slay the mightiest of car-warriors. Thou art without any anxiety, O Bharata, and thou art cruel. I have never obtained any happiness from thee.

I do not derive any pleasure from the thought of thy restoration to sovereignty, since thou art addicted to the evil practice of gambling. Having thyself committed a wicked act to which they only are addicted that are low, thou desirest now to vanquish thy foes through our aid. Thou hadst heard of the numerous faults and the great sinfulness of dice that Sahadeva spoke about. Yet dice, which are worshipped by the wicked, thou couldst not abandon. It was for this that all of us have fallen into hell. We have never derived any happiness from thee since thou wert engaged in gambling with dice.

It was thou that didst that cruel act in consequence of which the Kauravas have become offenders and are being destroyed. Nations from the North, the West, the East, and the South, are being struck, wounded and slain, after the performance of incomparable feats in battle by great warriors of both sides. It was thou that hadst gambled. It was for thee that we lost our kingdom. Our calamity arose from thee, O king! Striking us, again, with the cruel goad of thy speeches, O king, do not provoke our wrath.'"

One of the many reasons I love my Parth ❤

Read the whole text from the link. I quoted just relevant portions.

Edited 😆