Ques on MahaBhrarta. Peep in/ DT Nt pg 25 - Page 3

Whatever you stated, it is all not written in the epic. 😳

It is Mahabharat serial of Starplus right? That show is not the true Mahabharata. In the epic, she never loved Arjuna alone, but all the Pandavas. She did not confront Kunti. Her father did not wish sorrows for her. Yudhishthira might not have won her, but all the five won her heart long before. I do not classify them as demigods or humans, they were divine powers. Draupadi didn't serve Pandavas' wives, it is the opposite, she was the empress. 😆 

Draupadi was not a mere human to feel plight for serving five husbands who she knew are one. She has the aatma gyan (divine knowledge) which we don't have. It's not "easy" to say destiny or God. It is called spirituality. It is divinity. She loved all the five equally with her heart, not just served them equally. I can't agree with the so called humanistic arguments. 

No, he wouldn't have. That dialogue of Krishna is an interpolation. 

About draupaudi loving arjun more, being jealous of subadhra arjun fav wife and her failing off from mountain bc she played favourite is a debatable subject.

Another area where I think Krishna has flawed was in the case of karna. Told kunti to tell the secret to him( I.e brainwashing) , trying to influence him, supporting the fact that his shield was taken away, and finally treachery to commit franticide.Kunti telling Karna to spare her 4 kids and karna made one promise which he upheld.

If Krishna told karna his indentity like he told arjun we knew he would have surrender to him too. He didn't get the chance to repent.  Yes he did charity but krishna didn't enlighten his path like he did for arjun. He thought he was following  dharma by honouring his promise and not bitting the hand of the person who gave him food just like Krishna thought treachery would end adharma . Karna tkought that too, his competence, the might of a sutraputra would change people mind set, change the world, end caste system and discrimination( aka adharma)  and for the greater good.

If Krishna thought His deeds Could be justified And is for Greatergood Then why not Karna? Just Because Krishna was God? Fine then Why didn't God guide Him? He was willing too, he also Respected Krishna a Lot unlike the Karavas. 

Though D did befriend Him  for his selfish means, Pandavs insulted him initially even draupadi so how did they pay for that adharma and later franticide considered as a crime esp since he was eldest bro.  Same for kunti, what price she paid for creating monster Karna? 

And yes D was the rotten Apple of the lot, and if Krishna wanted they could have figured a way to spare karna lifee, Krishna knew that Karna is a righteous and generous person. If Karna would have lived for some more time then dharma would have stood in the minds and hearts of the people. By killing Karna, Krishna has eradicated dharma from people.

Because the pandavas were not on their own they always had Krishna at their side, and Arjun was justcrafted by Drona at the cost of eklavya and karna, and controlled by Krishna. And the Pandavas were selfish to ask a dying bhima to stay and guide them, they left him for months bleeding in arrows hell. Bhima did mistakes, but suffered for it, an arrow of bed, was too much as punishment. 

Everyone suffered a great deal, but really, Yuddy treated D as object, gambled her at his own will, leading to her disrobing, stayed silent, and no punishment? Just exile( Everyone drona bhima etc regretted what happened to Draouadi, so if they went to exile would this lift their sin?.  No paainful death? And some may day his kids died but it was the kids who had to gave up their life. Earlier, It Was Pointed Out to me that Draupadi In her Last birth Wished for Traits in Her life partner Found in 5. But Karna Had all 5 Characteristics, Yet Krishna Did not allow her to marry him ( By smartly Reminding her About her Right to Choose ) If karna married Drapaudi MB Would not have happened. Krishna Pushed DraPaudi To Suffering And Saved Her at the end Just like He praised Karna When he died. 

I hope to understand Lord Krishna and its justice. 

Draupadi was not angry with Subhadra at all, and she fell down because she has to die as a sumangali, also because of another spiritual theory of pranas. I'm not going to over-humanise them, because they were divine and will be divine do matter what we think. Human flaws are like pride, confusion and all, but not partiality at all.

2. Draupadi's wedding with Pandavas happened because they loved each other, their relationship was of many births and it has nothing to do with Kunti's order. Krishna always supports true love and please don't say he pushed Draupadi to suffering. 😲 That is not true! And she did not love Arjuna more. 

3. Repentance is not physical. Nothing is physical to be precise. Just exile for Dharma raj? Though I have different opinions regarding his silence in the vastraharan, I agree he made a terrible mistake. But, just exile? 😲  What about his guilt? What about his penance which he performed in his inside? What about his pain? Nothing matters but the blood which flows from the Kauravas' bodies? Not from Yudhishthira's heart? 🥺

4. If he treated her as an object, he would have staked her before himself. But he didn't. He valued her more than himself. After his defeat, he clearly told that he has no more wealth to stake. Shakuni somehow manipulated him to stake Draupadi. Later, he went psychologically numb and in his confusion in Dharma, he did a terrible mistake. But the consequences? He payed price. Their sons might have gave up their bodies, but you are again speaking in physical sense. It's Pandavas who will go through the pain of losing them, in heart. In the mental and spiritual sense. 

Since, there are so many versions of Mahabharat text and also severe interpolation/distortion of events were shown in the TV Serials based on Mahabharat, so I try to rely on BORI Critical edition most of the time. BORI edition came out after extensive research through a systematic analysis of hundreds of versions by eminent scholars after putting in more than five decades of effort. Even though, it may not be fully accurate, but it is widely accepted to the closest with regards to authenticity. I also started reading it recently and the only problem with it is, it is too voluminous to read and understand, so we need to have lots patience to study it. 

With regards to various characters in Mahabharat, in my view apart from Lord Krishna all had same human deficiencies as we have, albeit some superhuman powers and abilities. In my view, various characters of Mahabharat has something to teach us, since the characters took human form, so they will be with same human deficiencies.

1. With regards to Draupadi loving Arjun the most, Draupadi was born in a human form, so there is nothing unnatural to be loving a particular person most when compared to others. As per BORI edition, there are several instances where Draupadi has explicitly shown her love towards Arjun. So, I don't believe she loved all of them equally like a robot devoid of any human emotions. Love is one of the basic human emotions, so I cannot believe a human can show same amount of love towards everyone. I simply don't believe love to be some communist tenet of equality. It is like a wave with its own troughs and crests towards others. Since, they took birth as humans, so this is not some radical departure from human behaviour.

2. Coming to Karna, there seem to be few misconceptions, no Draupadi did not insult Karna during Swayamvar. Karna was not just a passive member of Duryodhan's group, but was in fact an active member of that group. He instigated disrobing of Draupadi and grossly insulted her, and also he took an active part in the Ghosh yatra during the exile of the Pandavas. Karna always wanted to show his valor to the world from his individual point of view, and not from a standpoint of removing caste discrimination in the society. At least, as per my reading of the BORI edition thus far, I did not find any instance where Karna has put forward any explicit statement to get rid of caste discrimination, I would be glad if someone can show me any such instance from BORI edition. He was always part of the society which was based on Caste hierarchy, if he was actively involved in removing caste bias, then he would not have given charity to Brahmanas or would have been part of Yagnas but instead like Buddha would have explicitly given statements condemning rituals/sacrifices and so on. Karna might have been a victim of a caste bias in certain instances but we cannot say he put-forth any efforts to remove caste from the society. 

Lord Krishna counselled Karna in various ways and also revealed his identity but Karna thought that his personal dharma which was loyalty to Duryodhan was greater to him than following the path shown by Lord Krishna and surrendering to him and hence Karna had to perish. Out of all the persons who were part of the Dyut Sabha, two persons Yudhistir/Karna should take more burden for their shameful behaviour, one for staking his wife/brothers and another for grossly insulting Draupadi. Simply, because unlike Duryodhan/Dushsasan, Yudhistir/Karna had noble qualities. With regards to Karna having all qualities of Pandavas and Draupadi marrying to him would not have caused Mahabharat war are internet myths based on folklore and not supported by BORI edition.

By having Karna get killed, Lord Krishna did not eradicate adharma from people but has showed that even though you may have some great qualities, but if you are part of adharma, eventually you will have to pay for those deeds. No doubt, Karna had some wonderful qualities but ultimately he sided with adharma and had to perish. Earlier, even I had some very great misconceptions about Karna, specially after watching TV serials and reading various versions, but after reading BORI edition many things opened up for me and was surprised with regards to Karna's behaviour in various instances. I like some of Karna's qualities too and most admire his quality of never-say-die attitude but eventually had to perish because of supporting adharma.

Regarding the context of 'Dharma/Justice', Lord Krishna sets himself as an example that when justice is in danger, you should not be passive and you should rise above your personal vows/commitments. Hence, Lord Krishna raises the wheel to attack Bhisma and thereby not caring to abide by his vow of not participating in the war by wielding any weapons. All the mute spectators in the Dyut Sabha eventually had to pay for their deeds, apart from Vidhur, all the members (both Kauravas and Pandavas) had to pay for their inaction and sin by losing either their own lives or lives of their family/friends etc. 

I think the privilege of seeing Lord Krishna's Virat Roop and being guided by his divine teachings in the form of Bhagwad Gita was not for any mere mortal but only for such an individual who had his senses under control, and one special quality which is total surrender to the Lord. We seem to think that Lord Krishna can show his divine Virat Roop avtaar to anyone just like that, no as per Lord Krishna, only rare personality can see his cosmic form and Arjun was one such rare personality. Yudhistir was given teachings of kinship by Bhishma as per advice of Lord Krishna and even Yudhistir was not shown the Virat Roop of the Lord. 

Finally, in my view, war would always have occurred irrespective of Draupadi's humiliation or not. Draupadi's humiliation in Dyut Sabha only precipitated the war situation. The reason I think that war was inevitable, simply because Duryodhan was consumed by jealousy towards his cousins and also he always felt he was the rightful heir to the throne and in his view he did not feel that Yudhistir had any rights to the throne. Duryodhan and company hatched various ploys to harm Pandavas such as poisoning Bhim, burn down Pandavas even before Draupadi entered their life. Duryodhan would have continued his devious ways of eliminating Pandavas irrespective of Draupadi's entry into the life of Pandavas, so I don't think only because of Draupadi's humiliation did the war occur, the Dyut Sabha only precipitated it and made it like an irreversible reaction. 

Mahabharat is such an interesting epic, because it portrays so many different characters/situations. Various characters have different shades to them which make you admire and at the same time be shocked of them as well. It is so interesting and complex in nature with multitude of interweaving stories, that even after so many thousands of years, we still love to discuss and debate it. 

In my view to understand Lord Krishna better, may be it is better to read and understand Bhagwad Gita. I don't think we can fully understand Lord Krishna only through the reading of Mahabharat, since each situation had different context and we may not fully realize why such action was taken by the Lord.

I just think all characters in Mahabharat acted similar to how we humans act, which is having our own merits and demerits. Only Lord Krishna had a character which was perfect. For rest of the characters, I accept their greatness and their deficiencies and try to read and enjoy their part in the epic.

Ways of the Lord are indeed difficult for us to understand, and Lord Krishna himself says only through total surrender/bhakthi one can understand him and not through just intellect.

Lord Krishna can never be flawed as he is almighty, and only our understanding of him could be wrong. Again, this is just my personal view with my limited understanding of the epic.

Let's agree to disagree here, as per your opinion Draupadi loved everyone equally even though I don't agree to it. I respect your viewpoints. As per Lord Krishna, we just need pure heart to reach him and nothing else.

I dont understand sankrit, hindi is weak so i read in english

I don't think Arjun was superior or special for Krishna to appear to him. He was just a good warrior who culdnt decide on his own, always needed Krishna. 

Karna, Bhima had other qualities along with being a good warrior.

Krishna just preached him BG because he had to make sure that war will go on.

Krishna praised Karna a lot in the text, and said that he was superior and without treachery he would not have died.

Arjun for me was overated. Easily influenced too maybe thats why krishna chose him.

About Drapaudi,i dont hate if she loved arjun more since she is human and devoted equally to all

Not sure, if there is any English translation of BORI edition available online. I have kindle version of BORI translation in English by Bibek Debroy. It has 10 volumes.

To destroy evil, Lord will devise ways which sometimes may be difficult for us to understand and hence I cannot use words like treachery/manipulation for the ways of the Lord.

Difference between Arjun and other characters is total surrender to the Lord. Lord Krishna counselled various other characters before the war too and most of the characters knew about the divinity of Lord Krishna as well, but still they followed their own commitment and refused to follow the path shown by Lord Krishna, whereas Arjun was always ready to follow the path shown by the Lord. Because they lacked total surrender to the Lord, they were not fortunate to listen to his divine teachings and see his cosmic form. 

Well, regarding Arjun, Lord Krishna states in the text that Arjun is most dear to him than anyone else, and Lord Krishna gives Arjun as an example of his opulence/glory in Bhagwad Gita in Chapter 10. Lord Krishna says Arjun is his devotee and friend. Arjun had flaws as well, since he also took birth as human but the most overwhelming characteristic of him which was superior to others was his faith and devotion to the Lord. True devotion and absolute surrender are not easy qualities, hence Lord Krishna says whoever has these will reach him.

Again, respect your views but I have a slightly different take on it. Guess that is fine, since we are here to discuss and have our viewpoints.

I feel each character in Mahabharat had some distinguishing trait such as devotion/friendship of Arjun to Lord Krishna, charitable quality of Karna, sticking to personal dharma such as in the case of Yudhistir, strictly adhering to vow like Bhisma, protective nature of Bhim, grit and determination of Draupadi, sense of justice of Vidhur and so on. So, it is not like everyone had same type of characteristics. I feel there was a special affection of Lord Krishna towards Arjun because of his devotion, friendship and innocence. It is clearly mentioned in Bhagwad Gita chapter 10 verse 37 (vrishneenaam vaasudevosmi paandavaanaam dhananjaya |
muneenaamapyaham vyaasaha kaveenaamushanaa kavihi) that amongst Pandavas, Arjun is his glory and called him as his Vibhuthi.

I have loved these discussions, as you seem to have read Sanskrit texts and researching on your own too and seem to not lose your composure when reading views not matching yours.