Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
Not quoting the whole long thing.
The numbers are NOT the same as the numbers for your points.
1. Panchali freed them. She didn't forgive them. She was also very clear she was doing it for Prativindhya, not Yudhishtira. In fact, she ripped into Yudhishtira after the dice hall. She also later said to Bheema women married to Yudhishtira will be miserable. She also called Yudhishtira a mad man who should've been locked up - this was after war.
2. Yudhishtira was no cool customer. He sent a message to Panchali to ask her to come with her "navel exposed" and cry to the king for mercy. She did the exact opposite.
3. Arjuna's words mattered. One, because he didn't speak until then as he was not clairvoyant to know what the enemy would do. When he saw it, he spoke up. Two, Duryodhana offered to free her if any of the younger Pandavas supported her claim to be a free woman. That's when Arjuna spoke. So yes, it mattered very much.
4. It wasn't Panchali's trauma alone? Oh, yes, it was. Yes, yes, absolutely yes. Just like if Panchali got into a car accident and broke her leg it would be she in pain and no one else, SHE got assaulted. Pandavas might have been humiliated, but SHE was the one who underwent the assault. To appropriate her pain for the Pandavas is to minimize sexual assault.
5. Arjuna does explode at Yudhishtira in Karna Parva with accusations of sitting on Panchali's bed and doing nothing while the rest of his family fought the war.
6. And yes, Krishna does blame Yudhishtira. Right before the mace fight between Bheema and Duryodhana, Krishna finally loses his cool and says with a brother like Yudhishtira, all of them were slated to wander in the wilderness.
Kindly read my response. Pls correct me if I am wrong:
1. It is impossible that Draupadi did not forgive the Pandavas. She did forgive, that is why she asked for the release of the remaining Pandavas. In fact, she became the fire for revenge in the mind of the Pandavas. She went to the vanvas for 12 years with them. How can a woman live with another man if she has not forgiven him for their actions? That too a whole lifetime! Also remember she went to Sanyas with the 5 Pandavas after 36 years of rule. As far as my knowledge goes, she never tore into Yudhishtir as she knew he followed dharma to the core. The outbursts you've mentioned in no way suggest that she held a grudge against the Pandavas. Deep down she knew the Pandavas were on the side of dharma.
2. Yudhishtir was the life of the Pandavas- he was the leader who kept them on the right path and alive. He knew that only Bheeshm could have saved Draupadi in the dice hall, that is why he asked her to appear crying into the hall and go straight to him. Numerous times Draupadi and Bheem provoked Yudhishtir for war during their Vanvas but Yudhishtr knew that they would be routed by Bheeshm, Drona, Karna, Duryodhana, etc. Also note, he saved the life of his 4 brothers when Yakhsraj had killed them, using his highest knowledge of dharma and about life and death.
3. Kindly read it again- it was the jackal's howl that pushed Dhritarashtra into giving Vardaan to Draupadi, not Arjun's word. Arjun may have replied to Duryodhana but the Vardaan's were given by Dhritarashtra. The evil omens forced Dhritarashtra, there is no reason to believe that Arjun's words had any effect on the former. Moreover, Arjun anyways spoke after the Cheer-Haran, so as far as cheer-haran is concerned, his words were of no use.
4. A man and a woman, when tied by the bond of marriage are half parts of one whole. The disrespect of one is the disrespect of another. I cannot explain this in words but if you are in love with some person, then their disrespect hurts even more. The Mahabharat original text itself mentions that the Pandavas were so agonised looking at Panchali's face that they had never been in their lives. That is the reason why they fought the Mahabharat War against their own Kaurava brothers, their beloved Pitamah, their Guru Drona, their father like Dhritarashtra. Pls note, they did not do anything when Bheem was poisoned, even when they along with their mother were slated to be killed in Varnavrat. When they became kings, Draupadi became the Queen, none of the other wives were even allowed in the city except Subhadra who had no role in governance.
5. Arjuna exploding at Yudhishtir during Mahabharat war has a totally different context, it has nothing to do with Draupadi. It has to do with the fight against Karna, when Karna had cause trouble. This is the point where Arjuna realises that he makes too many vows too often without thinking, and Krishna saves him through a trick.
6. Again has nothing to do with either Drapadi or Yudhishtir's dharma. Yudhishtir said what he said because he had equal belief in the prowess of all the Pandavas. Krishna never blamed Yudhishtir or either of the Pandavas for the tragedy of the dice hall. I will retract my all my statements and submit to you if you provide any quote when Yudhishtir is held accountable by Krishna or Ved Vyas.
Now coming to larger wisdom. Merely reading of the Mahabharat is not enough, it needs to be corroborated by understanding from those who have understood the context pretty well. You can listen to ISCON videos, Sadhguru, etc. From what I understand:
1. People on this forums are judging the Pandavas in particular and others in general using 21st century liberalism thought process, which is not ideal. Because one cannot judge a person in the ancient times using today's benchmarks, you need to take into account the traditions of that time. I invite you to look into the views of Mahatma Gandhi about women's role in the society. I'm sure many of us would not agree with all of them, some would say they are partly regressive, but that does not take anything away from Ganhdiji.
2. So keeping the above in mind, the dharma was the strongest driving force for the Pandavas. When nothing was going their way, dharma was. It was not possible to deviate from dharma at all, since it is 100% espousal or none. Therefore, there is no one superior to Yudhishtir in following the dharma in Mahabharat as he was relentless and ruthless in this regard. Astute reverence to dharma was highly regarded and taught to the Pandavas since birth.
3. Often folks on this forum have said that Krishna disobeyed Balram so Pandavas too could have ag Yudhidhtir. But this is not that easy. Where avowed reverence to dharma or righteousness or laws was the norm of the times, deviation was not an option for the Pandavas, as they were mortal beings. But Krishna is supreme, he is the almighty, what he does become the dharma, remember. So this comparison is futile.
4. Following from the above, Krishna knows the fact and that is why he has nowhere in the whole Mahabharat held the Pandavas responsible for the dice hall incidents. He knows that they had followed the das dharma and even in the times of such pain, they did not give up, because it was not possible for them.
5. Because of his dharma, Yudhishtir was the fittest to be the king, which is visible right from his childhood. Remember, the romanticism with Arjun and his skills cannot be a reason for making him the king. Arjun had too much confidence in his own skill and he was too eager to make vows as I have noted above. Only Yudhishtir was the one who had a balanced mind. Only he had the courage to 'forgive now to fight later' and take many other tough decisions. A king need not be the best warrior. While there are doubts about Arjun being the best Dhanurdhari ever (Bhishma, Karna, Drona), there was no doubt in the mind of anyone, including Krishna and Bheeshma that Yudhishtir was 100% dharma follower.
6. Ved Vyas himself has said that Yudhishtir is the prime candidate for the throne, it is the job of other brothers to protect him. If merely fighting prowess was to be the criterion to be a king, then why not Jarasandh, Kansa, etc? Dharma is the sole criterion, ability to take balanced decisions. Neither Arjun, nor Bheem nor the twins have displayed superior acumen in the Mahabharat.
7. Again I would like to reiterate that what happened in the dice hall was the tragedy with Pandavas and Drauapdi and not Draupadi alone. In today's times we do not understand what it meant to be a slave back then (thankfully), but it meant total control of the master over the slave. And so as per das dharma, the Pandavas could not have intervened. Now I am not passing judgement that it was right or wrong- to each his own. But you see, it is a very technical thing. Duryodhana could have arrested the Pandavas sent them somewhere else and then harrased Draupadi. He knew that the Pandavas would not intervene because of their dharma, so he did it before them. Adharmis had twisted the followers of dharma to such an extent that the almighty himself (Krishna) had to come to their rescue. The whole transcedental meaning of the Dyut sabha is that God protects those whom even the most powerful cannot protect and following the dharma does not mean that life will be full of roses and there will not be any trials or tribulations.
In fact, it is the path of dharma that is more difficult to follow.
comment:
p_commentcount