Draupadi- Satyabhama Conversation - Page 2

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I did read her question. Satyabhama is so rude it shows, like accusing someone of black magic because her husbands listened to her.

But she only asked her how Krishna will listen to me, so why in the first place do you go ask your husband's female friend about how to make Krishna listen to me.

The part 2 where Panchali says how she took care of the wealth and income etc is good and so contradictory to her first part.

This whole first part makes her look like some dopperganger of Sita who devoted her life to serving her husbands. Panchali was ANYTHING but that

I am sorry but I have read a lot about satyabhama and I feel like the need to defend her. Satyabhama and panchali were friends a long time before this conversation, so I am pretty sure when satyabhama said drugs and black magic she was joking and did not mean it seriously. In fact this entire conversation happened between two friends so it must not be taken very literally. And as for the Krishna part , Krishna used to joke and tease a lot with satyabhama ( remember the parijata incident) and he was also mysterious because of which satyabhama must have felt a little insecure and also maybe because panchali and Krishna are very close friends so she asked for panchali's advice. And please do remember that satyabhama was again mentioned just before the war where she was with the three Krishna's and nobody not even abhimanyu and nakul and sahadev were allowed inside which shows satyabhama's importance and that she was dear to panchali and Arjun.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Her behavior in Dyut Sabha was an exceptional reaction in an extreme circumstance.

Her advice to Yudhishtir in vanaparva and speech to Krishna in war council was her sense of justice and her anguish expressed appropriately as the situation demanded.

That is not the way she behaved with everyone and all the time.

Epithets given to her by everybody were Sati, chaste, Sweet speeched, humble, dutiful and devoted. Examples praising her by Duryodhan, Vidur, Yudhishtir etc are same as what she tells Satyabhama.

If a woman is still devoted to people who openly made sure she gets sexually harrassed because some misogynistic dharma of that age suggests so, she is definitely not the woman who she is made to be.

Hence I would very well consider this conversation either sarcasm like HearMeRoar explained, or an interpolation, Unable to believe she actually believed in all this.

As a woman in Dwapar Yuga she stood up against injustice and she spoke up and mocked (very deservingly) Yudhishthir left right and centre. She said to Krishna she is upset as her husbands do not care about her. All this goes against Dwapar Yuga norms where a woman is not expected to say a word against men. She defies it all. It is injustice to a woman of her stature to be justified by saying "Dwapar Yuga". She knew how to question tradition.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

😆 So either she was being sarcastic or this is actually an interpolation. This does seem and could be an interpolation as well, I guess.

I just would not want to believe this is something she believed in and followed because that is definitely not going with her character and I say this in a good way. It should not either

Vyasa says Panchali was quite haughty to Yudhishtira. There are several examples of it. She spoke badly of Yudhishtira in front of Bheema (Virat Parva), mocked Yudhishtira with Krishna (the scene about Arjuna's plumbing), called Yudhishtira a lunatic in the presence of Pandavas and Vyasa (post war).

Yudhishtira deserved it.

She was also careful enough to support Yudhishtira vociferously (dice hall) whenever there was possibility of real harm coming from her criticism.

In other words, she was a politician.

My point re: Draupadi-Satyabhama samvaadha was that Panchali clearly didn't follow the words she spouted at Satyabhama. So it was either interpolation or sarcasm. I think sarcasm because there were plenty other instances of mockery and sarcasm from her.

Originally posted by: davis56

I am sorry but I have read a lot about satyabhama and I feel like the need to defend her. Satyabhama and panchali were friends a long time before this conversation, so I am pretty sure when satyabhama said drugs and black magic she was joking and did not mean it seriously. In fact this entire conversation happened between two friends so it must not be taken very literally. And as for the Krishna part , Krishna used to joke and tease a lot with satyabhama ( remember the parijata incident) and he was also mysterious because of which satyabhama must have felt a little insecure and also maybe because panchali and Krishna are very close friends so she asked for panchali's advice. And please do remember that satyabhama was again mentioned just before the war where she was with the three Krishna's and nobody not even abhimanyu and nakul and sahadev were allowed inside which shows satyabhama's importance and that she was dear to panchali and Arjun.

They were friends but you accuse your friend slyly of using black magic doesn't seem a joke to me especially after she was sexually harrassed in the middle of the court. I mean had this been before that, I would accept this as a joke but do you joke about sexual harrassment with the VICTIM asking how you keep your husbands at bay when they did nothing very important to protect her

If you read Mahabharata in English, It's a novel

When you read Mahabharata in Hindi, its a religious text

What Draupadi is saying is not bad or regressive for women in Dwaparyug. Not even today

"Pati Parmeshwar"

"mera pati mera devta hai"

All this comes from this society only, now that we have left this far behind women who Cook for their husbands are called regressive, in future what we are doing will be regressive

Same goes for Bhishma-Yudi Samvad

Krishna-Yudi Samvad

They are not talking about people from today's perspective, they are not us, It was right for them

Originally posted by: davis56

I am sorry but I have read a lot about satyabhama and I feel like the need to defend her. Satyabhama and panchali were friends a long time before this conversation, so I am pretty sure when satyabhama said drugs and black magic she was joking and did not mean it seriously. In fact this entire conversation happened between two friends so it must not be taken very literally. And as for the Krishna part , Krishna used to joke and tease a lot with satyabhama ( remember the parijata incident) and he was also mysterious because of which satyabhama must have felt a little insecure and also maybe because panchali and Krishna are very close friends so she asked for panchali's advice. And please do remember that satyabhama was again mentioned just before the war where she was with the three Krishna's and nobody not even abhimanyu and nakul and sahadev were allowed inside which shows satyabhama's importance and that she was dear to panchali and Arjun.

Hi and welcome to this crazy forum. Everyone here is opinionated and has their own theories, so be prepared to encounter some unusual interpretations.😆

@Bold. There is really no textual evidence of this friendship prior to this scene. The pre-war scene is there. I personally think Satyabhama was added on in the scene because of perceived impropriety of Panchali drinking with Krishna and Arjuna. Because Satyabhama was never seen in the rest of the war or post-war scenes, not even when Abhimanyu died, not when Parikshit was still-born. When Krishna finally left for Dwaraka, Subhadra is mentioned as going with him for a visit but not Satyabhama. So if she was there, why wasn't she mentioned going back, either?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Vyasa says Panchali was quite haughty to Yudhishtira. There are several examples of it. She spoke badly of Yudhishtira in front of Bheema (Virat Parva), mocked Yudhishtira with Krishna (the scene about Arjuna's plumbing), called Yudhishtira a lunatic in the presence of Pandavas and Vyasa (post war).

Yudhishtira deserved it.

She was also careful enough to support Yudhishtira vociferously (dice hall) whenever there was possibility of real harm coming from her criticism.

In other words, she was a politician.

My point re: Draupadi-Satyabhama samvaadha was that Panchali clearly didn't follow the words she spouted at Satyabhama. So it was either interpolation or sarcasm. I think sarcasm because there were plenty other instances of mockery and sarcasm from her.

Agreed. Also, i think Panchali had better work to do than count horses and elephants? 😆😆 Dont know I find this bit so funny. 😆 The rest is good.

And while Yudhishthira lived in Indraprastha a hundred thousand horses and a hundred thousand elephants used to follow in his train. These were the possessions of Yudhisthira while he ruled the earth. It was I however, O lady, who regulated their number and framed the rules to be observed in respect of them; and it was I who had to listen to all complaints about them. Indeed, I knew everything about what the maid-servants of the palace and other classes of attendants, even the cow-herds and the shepherds of the royal establishment, did or did not. O blessed and illustrious lady, it was I alone amongst the Pandavas who knew the income and expenditure of the king and what their whole wealth was. And those bulls among the Bharatas, throwing upon me the burden of looking after all those that were to be fed by them, would, O thou of handsome face, pay their court to me. And this load, so heavy and incapable of being borne by persons of evil heart, I used to bear day and night, sacrificing my ease, and all the while affectionately devoted to them. And while my husbands were engaged in the pursuit of virtue, I only supervised their treasury inexhaustible like the ever-filled receptacle of Varuna. Day and night bearing hunger and thirst, I used to serve the Kuru princes, so that my nights and days were equal to me. I used to wake up first and go to bed last. This, O Satyabhama, hath ever been my charm for making my husbands obedient to me! This great art hath ever been known to me for making my husbands obedient to me. Never have I practised the charms of wicked women, nor do I ever wish to practise them."

You are right, Panchali did seem extremely angry at the question and Satya apologizes too claiming she was simply joking. @ Underlined.

Vaisampayana continued, "Hearing those words of virtuous import uttered by Krishna, Satyabhama, having first reverenced the virtuous princess of Panchala, answered saying, 'O princess of Panchala, I have been guilty, O daughter of Yajnasena, forgive me! Among friends, conversations in jest arise naturally, and without premeditation."

Originally posted by: NoraSM

If you read Mahabharata in English, It's a novel

When you read Mahabharata in Hindi, its a religious text

What Draupadi is saying is not bad or regressive for women in Dwaparyug. Not even today

"Pati Parmeshwar"

"mera pati mera devta hai"

All this comes from this society only, now that we have left this far behind women who Cook for their husbands are called regressive, in future what we are doing will be regressive

Same goes for Bhishma-Yudi Samvad

Krishna-Yudi Samvad

They are not talking about people from today's perspective, they are not us, It was right for them

I think the point was that Panchali clearly never followed her own advice. She certainly didn't treat husband as God. She went against Yudhishtira's express wishes, sometimes privately and sometimes openly.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Agreed. Also, i think Panchali had better work to do than count horses and elephants? 😆😆 Dont know I find this bit so funny. 😆 The rest is good.

And while Yudhishthira lived in Indraprastha a hundred thousand horses and a hundred thousand elephants used to follow in his train. These were the possessions of Yudhisthira while he ruled the earth. It was I however, O lady, who regulated their number and framed the rules to be observed in respect of them; and it was I who had to listen to all complaints about them. Indeed, I knew everything about what the maid-servants of the palace and other classes of attendants, even the cow-herds and the shepherds of the royal establishment, did or did not. O blessed and illustrious lady, it was I alone amongst the Pandavas who knew the income and expenditure of the king and what their whole wealth was. And those bulls among the Bharatas, throwing upon me the burden of looking after all those that were to be fed by them, would, O thou of handsome face, pay their court to me. And this load, so heavy and incapable of being borne by persons of evil heart, I used to bear day and night, sacrificing my ease, and all the while affectionately devoted to them. And while my husbands were engaged in the pursuit of virtue, I only supervised their treasury inexhaustible like the ever-filled receptacle of Varuna. Day and night bearing hunger and thirst, I used to serve the Kuru princes, so that my nights and days were equal to me. I used to wake up first and go to bed last. This, O Satyabhama, hath ever been my charm for making my husbands obedient to me! This great art hath ever been known to me for making my husbands obedient to me. Never have I practised the charms of wicked women, nor do I ever wish to practise them."

You are right, Panchali did seem extremely angry at the question and Satya apologizes too claiming she was simply joking. @ Underlined.

Vaisampayana continued, "Hearing those words of virtuous import uttered by Krishna, Satyabhama, having first reverenced the virtuous princess of Panchala, answered saying, 'O princess of Panchala, I have been guilty, O daughter of Yajnasena, forgive me! Among friends, conversations in jest arise naturally, and without premeditation."

@Red. Dwapar Yug version of "Just kidding."😆

Originally posted by: NoraSM

If you read Mahabharata in English, It's a novel

When you read Mahabharata in Hindi, its a religious text

What Draupadi is saying is not bad or regressive for women in Dwaparyug. Not even today

"Pati Parmeshwar"

"mera pati mera devta hai"

All this comes from this society only, now that we have left this far behind women who Cook for their husbands are called regressive, in future what we are doing will be regressive

Same goes for Bhishma-Yudi Samvad

Krishna-Yudi Samvad

They are not talking about people from today's perspective, they are not us, It was right for them

But Panchali was not a Dwapar Yuga rule abiding woman. She is different from others of her era because she is someone who stood for injustice. As per Dwapar Yuga norms, Bhishma and Yudhishthira are purushottam. As per Dwapar Yuga norms, Yudhishthir is right and has every right to stake Panchali. As per Dwapar Yuga norms, women should accept the fate which their husband bestows upon them.

Panchali is the only one who goes against all these so called rules. If rules are flawed, we have to change it. She understood this.