Polyandry in Mahabharata - Page 15

@ flauntpessimism

i am not saying about love here , i am talking about their bond, ofcourse love s not something one can share equally especially between man and woman, even we show some partiality towards one child particularly, and who loved whom more only they can say, but I think some pretty strong feelings r there between whom it depends on who thinks whom 😆, each their own, that’s y i am not entering inthat territory 😆

yes one can’t re write whole story , especially a puzzle like mahabharat, like i said this s not some story but our itihass whom we considered as panchamveda, do u think our Poets would have agreed for such a big addition, they can not add this this s connected to every character , every character discussed about polyandry, loke u said this happens only when someone rewritees everything, but do u think it’s possible to write whole epic that too an epic like mahabharat , even after thousands years we still can’t able to understand epic and r debating, these invaders who don’t know basics of our history can able to do this , no it’s impossible, u can make write some one one book, but what about our thoughts and stories we heard from generations, and poets and scholars who wrote, rewrote poems , additions , how can they influence all of them, if something like this happened people would have definitely known about this, like i said they cannot influence what we heard from generations to generations, u cannot influence crores of people of india regarding their mahabharat r Ramayana, it’s now our generations don’t know much about our epics, but back then there r no tv for entertainment , it’s only epics r their entertainment, back then there used to be plays and dramas, and elders used to tell to their kids about ram ji and krishna, so it’s basically passed down from generations to generations basically it’s there in our blood, poets used to recite to kings, artists used to play infront of normal people, so there’s no way they can change entire story and we didn’t hear of this, islamic invaders main aim was our treasures and forceful conversions also happened ofcourse, but we have to note this here they didn’t succeed enough to convert entire india, only few got converted, if islamic invaders r there, there were rajputs also, south hindu kings, were also there , untill vijaya nagara samrajya was there insouth , islamic invaders didn’t dare to enter southern region, so it’s not like they can influence everyone and make us believe their bullshit, and not all muslim kings r bad, i think few even stopped conversions, and listened our epics mahabharat and Ramayana and loved them and praised them.

And about britishers they don’t take such pain of reading hundreds of pages and makes plans of rewriting them, they ll think it’s waste of time and ll try to invade another lands than this, their policy s divide and rule, they don’t bother with all these like taking pain of rewriting our epics, they love power and money that’s it.

like i said one cannot easily come and change entire core of history which was very important to us and we don’t know about that , it’s practically impossible, all these epics were literally in indian blood ,back their sole entertainment, no way one can change this, maybe some interpolations r added, but I don’t think they can change central partof story.

they took so much from us definitely but never our legacy.

@ flauntpessimism

I forgot to add this what bad name they can give us with polyandry, it’s already there in hindu mythology, that too from satya yug, this s not something they created its there in our own history.

polyandry might be uncommon but not unheard, the women who practiced polyandry were very well respected back then , it’s only the evil 4 made big issue out of it to piss off pandavas, and ofcourse our tvs and movies didn’t help either, back then our ancestors r pretty much open minded than this generation, u know what’s niyoga rt? back then they accepted children legally, but now do u think people ll accept something like this, a big no, back then women played very important role in men’s rule , in vedic times women were placed highly and people literally used to worship them and u know back then there were no child marraiges , and even cast system wasn’t there , all r equals only, it’s their work who used to define them, it’s later people changed for their convenience.

so they cannot show us anything in bad light , it was already there in our mythology, tribal people also used To follow polyandry, even now some remote areas following these to avoid conflicts between brothers.

for me it’s difficult to believe one can change core story r should i say entire one and we don’t know about this s impossible.

Originally posted by: swathi90

@ flauntpessimism

I forgot to add this what bad name they can give us with polyandry, it’s already there in hindu mythology, that too from satya yug, this s not something they created its there in our own history.

polyandry might be uncommon but not unheard, the women who practiced polyandry were very well respected back then , it’s only the evil 4 made big issue out of it to piss off pandavas, and ofcourse our tvs and movies didn’t help either, back then our ancestors r pretty much open minded than this generation, u know what’s niyoga rt? back then they accepted children legally, but now do u think people ll accept something like this, a big no, back then women played very important role in men’s rule , in vedic times women were placed highly and people literally used to worship them and u know back then there were no child marraiges , and even cast system wasn’t there , all r equals only, it’s their work who used to define them, it’s later people changed for their convenience.

so they cannot show us anything in bad light , it was already there in our mythology, tribal people also used To follow polyandry, even now some remote areas following these to avoid conflicts between brothers.

for me it’s difficult to believe one can change core story r should i say entire one and we don’t know about this s impossible.

I don't think drapaudi s polyandrous marriage is core of the story drapaudi s marriage to yudhishtra and her being an empress is definitely core of the story.

When narad tell yudhistar about sund asund demon after that it is written that

Draupdi use to take delight in all pandav and all pandav use to take delight in draupdi

Source kmg

@ adhya

ofcourse her marriage to all five important, not just to Yudhishtira, her swayamvar s another turning point, she was empress later but before she s wife of pandavas , the pride of pandavas, their biggest strength, it’s arjun and bheem who made Yudhishtira emperor, all of them r important and their role in Draupadi life, yudi marriage s no special it’s her marriage with all r special, it was done to unite them, so Panchali s very important in pandavas liffes.

How can polyandry s not central part, each and every prime character of epic talks about this, and there were many interactions between said characters, even satya talks about this , and we cannot ignore all characters, it was never about yudi and Draupadi it was always about Panchali and pandavas, if it’s only about yudi and Draupadi dyut sabha would not be same as we heard now, if polyandry s not important then it dismisses so much of story from epic.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

I don't think drapaudi s polyandrous marriage is core of the story drapaudi s marriage to yudhishtra and her being an empress is definitely core of the story.

I think Krishnaa-Draupadi herself is core of story..like the pivot of a circle.

There are many little little things which led to Kurukshetra....there were many adharmas which happened on the road to Kurukshetra, but hers was the pivot which turned the wheel.

One interpretation which I have read is that D was Bhoodevi/Sri or the Earth.

That's why she was coveted by all the Kings, that's why the Pandavas were wealthy even at their exile, because their Sri was with them. Why Krishna offered D to Karna i.e. even if their was a new eldest Pandava/Kunti putra who could claim the Kuru throne & thereby be the emperor of Bharatvarsh, still he would need to marry D to validate his right to rule.

Whoever be King, the Queen remained only one.

😊

Originally posted by: Eloquent

I think Krishnaa-Draupadi herself is core of story..like the pivot of a circle.

There are many little little things which led to Kurukshetra....there were many adharmas which happened on the road to Kurukshetra, but hers was the pivot which turned the wheel.

One interpretation which I have read is that D was Bhoodevi/Sri or the Earth.

That's why she was coveted by all the Kings, that's why the Pandavas were wealthy even at their exile, because their Sri was with them. Why Krishna offered D to Karna i.e. even if their was a new eldest Pandava/Kunti putra who could claim the Kuru throne & thereby be the emperor of Bharatvarsh, still he would need to marry D to validate his right to rule.

Whoever be King, the Queen remained only one.

This is theory to say that entire epic is a metaphor. I don't buy this at all

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

This is theory to say that entire epic is a metaphor. I don't buy this at all

For the divine angle of MBH, it can be taken literally i.e. all main characters were incarnations of some or the other god.

From itihasa angle, its allegorical analysis of the epic.

@ flauntpessimism

I got what ur saying i read where u said u believes in polyandry, i was just giving examples that’s it , it’s not to u just my pov which I added there.

neither i said ur against islamic rulers , i just carried away with my thoughts and was saying generally that’s it not to u r I believed ur against it , it was just general pov, I thought i was discussing with u not questioning u , if u felt that way sorry then , again those were my thoughts which I thought i was discussing wasn’t questioning u.