Smt. Subha Narayan's "Question on Draupadi"

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

Smt. Subha Narayan posed the following question to me

several weeks ago on the Tiruvenkatam List. No one

appears since to have responded to her very pertinent

question. Since everyone else is unwilling to even

attempt an answer, I take it upon myself to offer an

explanation which although I cannot claim is based on

any traditional commentary, is however based on an

understanding of the Mahabharatha text and story-line.

 

But please first take time to read Smt.Subha's

question. My own comments follow thereafter:

 

--- Subha Narayan <nssuba03 wrote:

> > Dear Sir

> > In the Mahabharata, it is the episode of

> Draupadi’s humiliation in the Hastinapur Court. The

story seems

> > to be clear. Pandavas lost their kingdom in the

> > dice-play & becomes slaves to Duryodana ; Draupadi

> > was dragged to the royal court and was subjected

> to> > the humiliation of being disrobed in front of

the> > royal assembly. None of her husbands, the king

or

> > the royal courtiers including the wise Bheeshma or

> > Dronacharya or anyone else came to her rescue. At

> > the most critical moment of her life, Draupadi

> > realized only Sriram Narayana could rescue her, if

> > at all anyone and she emerges as a blessed one of

> > His Karunyam. Many a time, I have heard Draupati

> > being referred to as one of those who had complete

> > faith in God, forsaking her sense of ego and was

> > rewarded for her ‘Maha Viswasam’ – I recall

> Revered> > Sri Mukkur Swamy oft quoting “Iru Kaiyyum

Vitteno> > Draupadi-ay pole”.

> >

> > What happens after this? When she has realized

> God,> > forsaking her sense of ego (‘aham’karam /

> > ‘mama’karam), that she herself or anyone else

> could> > save or help her and has been the recipient

of his> > infinite power and compassion, Why then>

immediately> > after all this, did she have to vow to

have the> > Kauravas’ blood ? Why then this

hysterical> outburst> > and vengeance that she vowed

that she would not> tie> > her hair until she had

washed it in their blood –> in

> > the immediately preceding scene she seems to be a

> > Brahma Gnani renunciating self / ego & realizing

> God> > and in the very next moment, transforms into

a> > hysterical women, demanding vengeance against the

> > injustice done to her? I’m sure there must be a

> very> > logical way of understanding these things

and you> > would be kind & patient enough to give me a

reply,> > at your convenience.

> > Regards,

> > > Subha.

 

 

***************

 

My comments:

 

It is true that Draupadi performed a singular and

heart-rending act of self-surrender ("saraNagathi") in

the court of Hastinapur. An act of genuine

"saraNagathi" never fails the devotee and Draupadi

too, as the Mahabharatha recounts, was saved by the

Almighty in her moment of extreme crisis.

 

Smt.Subha's question, if I may paraphrase it, is this:

Isn't it odd that one who received, miraculously and

directly, as it were, the benign Grace of God,

remained still capable of that ordinary but vicious

human urge called vengeance? One might expect Draupadi

to have been so profoundly affected by the experience

of "saraNAgathi" that it left her in an enduring if

not permanent state of divine grace. It makes us

expect Draupadi to have turned into some sort of

saint, one who, as the French would say, "understands

all, forgives all" ('tout comprendre, tout

pardonner'). But Draupadi, as the story of the

Mahabharatha goes, remained rather strangely untouched

or un-transformed in spirit by the experience of her

personal travails and redemption through

"saraNagathi". She remained bitter and vengeful till

the end, taking a terrible vow not to groom her hair

until it was first washed in Kaurava blood.

 

Is this sort of behaviour becoming of one who has

performed "saraNAgathi"? Does vengeance behove she who

had seen the Miracle of God with her own eyes? Should

not have Draupadi been turned into a kinder,gentler,

more compassionate, more forgiving and forbearing soul

after the incident at Hastinapur? Isn't there some

serious flaw in the very idea of "saraNAgathi" if, as

in the case of Draupadi in the Mahabharatha, it is

seen to clearly fail in fully cleansing the human

heart of its vicious infirmities ("klEsha") such as

vengeance?

 

Smt.Subha's question is an extremely important and

thought-provoking one indeed.

 

I think I can offer a theory to explain the seeming

but grievous flaw in Draupadi's character and, by

implication, in the doctrine "saraNAgathi" as well.

But I choose to disclose it after other members have

had a chance to discuss it as well. I would like

members to put forward any traditional "vyAkhyAna"

that they may have come across.

 

I will put forward my theory only after we have heard

the traditional ones.

 

Members, please do participate in this very

interesting thread that Smt. Subha Narayan has begun.

 

Thanks and regards,

dAsan,

 

Sudarshan

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Sudarshan,

 

My knee-jerk reaction to rather interesting question by

Smt. Narayan is as follows:

 

Draupadi's sharanagati to Lord was to save her from that particular helpless

situation and not for salvation.

Her goal was to become the queen of Hastinapura and

avenge the Kauravas which is true xatriya (Raja) dharma.

Lord promptly saved her after she totally surrenedered

for protection from disrobing. Once save dfrom the imminent danger, she is on

her own (of her own choice) and took the vow to instigate her

husbands(especially Bheema) to deal with Dushasana. If that was wrong, surely

the Lord would have talked her out, after all, the lord had just saved her ,

wouldn't she have listened? Lord must have found that vow appropriate. Dushasana

deserved what he got in the hands of Bheema. Even the lord who is ever friend of

Pandavas encouraged them to fight and when Arjuna performed sharanagati, asked

him to fight. That is the way of Dharma

(Krishna ne dharma ki reet sikayi).

Looks like it is Draupadi who understood the lord most.

 

(No wonder Will Durant said that fall of india was because India failed to apply

Bhagavadgita. How can a country that produced Gita could be enslaved? Durant

wondered).

 

dAsan

 

K.S. tAtAchAr

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas:

As per our Siddhantam, the very existence of our Sareeram is karma

aaadheenam. Even a Prapanna (One who has done Dripta Prapaati

i.e.Atma samarpaNam through SaraNaagathi FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOKSHAM)

has to go through the joys and sorrows during the Post-prapaati

period because in such a Prapatti, only entire Sanchita Karma and that

part of the Praarabda Karma upto the moment of doing Prapaati get quashed.

In such a Prapatti, one accepts to undergo the results of "Praarabda

karma" that still remains unexpended and has to be experiencd

till the fnal release *dEhaavasaanam).

 

That is why even Prapannas are subject to mood swings due to the

interaction of Sattva, RajO and TamOguNaas and do commit Paapams

during this period, the effects of which they have to experience

in the current lifetime itself unless requited by

"Praayschitta Prapatti"

 

In the case of Draupadi, the SaraNaagathi was NOT, REPEAT, NOT

for 'mOksham" but for altogether different purpose viz saving her

modesty.

 

The SaraNaagathi did help her in her objective and NOTHING BEYOND

THAT. So, she has not been fully absolved from the infirmities to

which Jeevaatma is heir to even after Prapatti.

 

Naturally, she reacted in the way she did.

 

Hope this helps.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

============================================================

 

>sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002

>tiruvenkatam, ,

>oppiliappan

> Smt. Subha Narayan's "Question on Draupadi"

>Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:59:04 +0000 (GMT)

>

>

>

>

>Dear members,

>

>Smt. Subha Narayan posed the following question to me

>several weeks ago on the Tiruvenkatam List. No one

>appears since to have responded to her very pertinent

>question. Since everyone else is unwilling to even

>attempt an answer, I take it upon myself to offer an

>explanation which although I cannot claim is based on

>any traditional commentary, is however based on an

>understanding of the Mahabharatha text and story-line.

>

>But please first take time to read Smt.Subha's

>question. My own comments follow thereafter:

>

> --- Subha Narayan <nssuba03 wrote:

> > > Dear Sir

> > > In the Mahabharata, it is the episode of

> > Draupadi’s humiliation in the Hastinapur Court. The

>story seems

> > > to be clear. Pandavas lost their kingdom in the

> > > dice-play & becomes slaves to Duryodana ; Draupadi

> > > was dragged to the royal court and was subjected

> > to> > the humiliation of being disrobed in front of

>the> > royal assembly. None of her husbands, the king

>or

> > > the royal courtiers including the wise Bheeshma or

> > > Dronacharya or anyone else came to her rescue. At

> > > the most critical moment of her life, Draupadi

> > > realized only Sriram Narayana could rescue her, if

> > > at all anyone and she emerges as a blessed one of

> > > His Karunyam. Many a time, I have heard Draupati

> > > being referred to as one of those who had complete

> > > faith in God, forsaking her sense of ego and was

> > > rewarded for her ‘Maha Viswasam’ – I recall

> > Revered> > Sri Mukkur Swamy oft quoting “Iru Kaiyyum

>Vitteno> > Draupadi-ay pole”.

> > >

> > > What happens after this? When she has realized

> > God,> > forsaking her sense of ego (‘aham’karam /

> > > ‘mama’karam), that she herself or anyone else

> > could> > save or help her and has been the recipient

>of his> > infinite power and compassion, Why then>

>immediately> > after all this, did she have to vow to

>have the> > Kauravas’ blood ? Why then this

>hysterical> outburst> > and vengeance that she vowed

>that she would not> tie> > her hair until she had

>washed it in their blood –> in

> > > the immediately preceding scene she seems to be a

> > > Brahma Gnani renunciating self / ego & realizing

> > God> > and in the very next moment, transforms into

>a> > hysterical women, demanding vengeance against the

> > > injustice done to her? I’m sure there must be a

> > very> > logical way of understanding these things

>and you> > would be kind & patient enough to give me a

>reply,> > at your convenience.

> > > Regards,

> > > > Subha.

>

>

> ***************

>

>My comments:

>

>It is true that Draupadi performed a singular and

>heart-rending act of self-surrender ("saraNagathi") in

>the court of Hastinapur. An act of genuine

>"saraNagathi" never fails the devotee and Draupadi

>too, as the Mahabharatha recounts, was saved by the

>Almighty in her moment of extreme crisis.

>

>Smt.Subha's question, if I may paraphrase it, is this:

>Isn't it odd that one who received, miraculously and

>directly, as it were, the benign Grace of God,

>remained still capable of that ordinary but vicious

>human urge called vengeance? One might expect Draupadi

>to have been so profoundly affected by the experience

>of "saraNAgathi" that it left her in an enduring if

>not permanent state of divine grace. It makes us

>expect Draupadi to have turned into some sort of

>saint, one who, as the French would say, "understands

>all, forgives all" ('tout comprendre, tout

>pardonner'). But Draupadi, as the story of the

>Mahabharatha goes, remained rather strangely untouched

>or un-transformed in spirit by the experience of her

>personal travails and redemption through

>"saraNagathi". She remained bitter and vengeful till

>the end, taking a terrible vow not to groom her hair

>until it was first washed in Kaurava blood.

>

>Is this sort of behaviour becoming of one who has

>performed "saraNAgathi"? Does vengeance behove she who

>had seen the Miracle of God with her own eyes? Should

>not have Draupadi been turned into a kinder,gentler,

>more compassionate, more forgiving and forbearing soul

>after the incident at Hastinapur? Isn't there some

>serious flaw in the very idea of "saraNAgathi" if, as

>in the case of Draupadi in the Mahabharatha, it is

>seen to clearly fail in fully cleansing the human

>heart of its vicious infirmities ("klEsha") such as

>vengeance?

>

>Smt.Subha's question is an extremely important and

>thought-provoking one indeed.

>

>I think I can offer a theory to explain the seeming

>but grievous flaw in Draupadi's character and, by

>implication, in the doctrine "saraNAgathi" as well.

>But I choose to disclose it after other members have

>had a chance to discuss it as well. I would like

>members to put forward any traditional "vyAkhyAna"

>that they may have come across.

>

>I will put forward my theory only after we have heard

>the traditional ones.

>

>Members, please do participate in this very

>interesting thread that Smt. Subha Narayan has begun.

>

>Thanks and regards,

>dAsan,

>

>Sudarshan

>

>______________________

> India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

>Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

>

Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 SRIMATE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

Traditionally it is said that Draupadi did sharanagati not for moksha but to get

rid of the temprarory problem.Only when a mummukshu surrenders,as a result of

its acceptance the atma gunas develop in a jeeva.Draupadi was not a mummukshu &

hence she retained the kshatriya guna.

dasan

 

 

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 sudarshan madabushi wrote :

>

>

>

>Dear members,

>

>Smt. Subha Narayan posed the following question to me

>several weeks ago on the Tiruvenkatam List. No one

>appears since to have responded to her very pertinent

>question. Since everyone else is unwilling to even

>attempt an answer, I take it upon myself to offer an

>explanation which although I cannot claim is based on

>any traditional commentary, is however based on an

>understanding of the Mahabharatha text and story-line.

>

>But please first take time to read Smt.Subha's

>question. My own comments follow thereafter:

>

> --- Subha Narayan <nssuba03 wrote:

> > > Dear Sir

> > > In the Mahabharata, it is the episode of

> > Draupadi’s humiliation in the Hastinapur Court. The

>story seems

> > > to be clear. Pandavas lost their kingdom in the

> > > dice-play & becomes slaves to Duryodana ; Draupadi

> > > was dragged to the royal court and was subjected

> > to> > the humiliation of being disrobed in front of

>the> > royal assembly. None of her husbands, the king

>or

> > > the royal courtiers including the wise Bheeshma or

> > > Dronacharya or anyone else came to her rescue. At

> > > the most critical moment of her life, Draupadi

> > > realized only Sriram Narayana could rescue her, if

> > > at all anyone and she emerges as a blessed one of

> > > His Karunyam. Many a time, I have heard Draupati

> > > being referred to as one of those who had complete

> > > faith in God, forsaking her sense of ego and was

> > > rewarded for her ‘Maha Viswasam’ – I recall

> > Revered> > Sri Mukkur Swamy oft quoting “Iru Kaiyyum

>Vitteno> > Draupadi-ay pole”.

> > >

> > > What happens after this? When she has realized

> > God,> > forsaking her sense of ego (‘aham’karam /

> > > ‘mama’karam), that she herself or anyone else

> > could> > save or help her and has been the recipient

>of his> > infinite power and compassion, Why then>

>immediately> > after all this, did she have to vow to

>have the> > Kauravas’ blood ? Why then this

>hysterical> outburst> > and vengeance that she vowed

>that she would not> tie> > her hair until she had

>washed it in their blood –> in

> > > the immediately preceding scene she seems to be a

> > > Brahma Gnani renunciating self / ego & realizing

> > God> > and in the very next moment, transforms into

>a> > hysterical women, demanding vengeance against the

> > > injustice done to her? I’m sure there must be a

> > very> > logical way of understanding these things

>and you> > would be kind & patient enough to give me a

>reply,> > at your convenience.

> > > Regards,

> > > > Subha.

>

>

> ***************

>

>My comments:

>

>It is true that Draupadi performed a singular and

>heart-rending act of self-surrender ("saraNagathi") in

>the court of Hastinapur. An act of genuine

>"saraNagathi" never fails the devotee and Draupadi

>too, as the Mahabharatha recounts, was saved by the

>Almighty in her moment of extreme crisis.

>

>Smt.Subha's question, if I may paraphrase it, is this:

>Isn't it odd that one who received, miraculously and

>directly, as it were, the benign Grace of God,

>remained still capable of that ordinary but vicious

>human urge called vengeance? One might expect Draupadi

>to have been so profoundly affected by the experience

>of "saraNAgathi" that it left her in an enduring if

>not permanent state of divine grace. It makes us

>expect Draupadi to have turned into some sort of

>saint, one who, as the French would say, "understands

>all, forgives all" ('tout comprendre, tout

>pardonner'). But Draupadi, as the story of the

>Mahabharatha goes, remained rather strangely untouched

>or un-transformed in spirit by the experience of her

>personal travails and redemption through

>"saraNagathi". She remained bitter and vengeful till

>the end, taking a terrible vow not to groom her hair

>until it was first washed in Kaurava blood.

>

>Is this sort of behaviour becoming of one who has

>performed "saraNAgathi"? Does vengeance behove she who

>had seen the Miracle of God with her own eyes? Should

>not have Draupadi been turned into a kinder,gentler,

>more compassionate, more forgiving and forbearing soul

>after the incident at Hastinapur? Isn't there some

>serious flaw in the very idea of "saraNAgathi" if, as

>in the case of Draupadi in the Mahabharatha, it is

>seen to clearly fail in fully cleansing the human

>heart of its vicious infirmities ("klEsha") such as

>vengeance?

>

>Smt.Subha's question is an extremely important and

>thought-provoking one indeed.

>

>I think I can offer a theory to explain the seeming

>but grievous flaw in Draupadi's character and, by

>implication, in the doctrine "saraNAgathi" as well.

>But I choose to disclose it after other members have

>had a chance to discuss it as well. I would like

>members to put forward any traditional "vyAkhyAna"

>that they may have come across.

>

>I will put forward my theory only after we have heard

>the traditional ones.

>

>Members, please do participate in this very

>interesting thread that Smt. Subha Narayan has begun.

>

>Thanks and regards,

>dAsan,

>

>Sudarshan

>

>______________________

> India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

>Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

>

Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

1. Draupadi called out for Sri Krishna as a last resort, not first

 

2. Intent was other than an unconditional voluntary saranAgathi

 

3. Even if 'intent' is overlooked and the 'the act' alone considered a

qualified saranAgathi, it does NOT preclude bhagavAn's Will - here we can

hypothesize that Krishna upon saving Draupadi, (Willed) let her take the vow

to leave the door open for a potential war (eventually) and give pAndavAs

the indignation to fight (adharmA)

 

Note - the argument "If BhagavAn's Will prevails anyway, why bother about

saranAgathi?" is incorrect for

How do we know BhagavAn's Intent at any given point? Can we second-guess

Him? No.

What if BhagavAn Willed and waited for us to come to Him first and ask for

it?

Seems obvious, in Draupadi's case, and gajEndrA, and for all avatAras.

 

4.

sarva DharmAn parithyajya mAm Ekam charaNam vraja |

aham tvAm sarva pApEbhyO mOkshayishyAmi mA suchaha ||

 

If one abandons other upAya and simply surrenders unconditionally and

willfully, to Sri Krishna, He affords protection from all sins - committed

thus far - but no such guarantee seems to be indicated implicitly or

explicitly for any automatic change in ones intrinsic gunA, after

saranAgathi

 

So I don't think it is correct to expect that post prappati or saranAgathi,

one would automatically become immune to non-sAtvic behavior, after coming

across Bhagavan's raksha / dayA / anugraham - willingly or otherwise

 

For E.g. - RAvanA, though he never even thought of saranAgathi, was given a

last chance in the battlefield, but he did not take it to surrender and

instead fought to death. Apparently, direct contact with (Sri Sita first

and) Sri Rama had no good effect on him whatsoever, unlike Vibhisana.

 

So, either way, choosing to surrender or not to, per se, does not seem to

DEFINITELY result in an AUTOMATIC change in character subsequently.

I suppose it could, but does not have to.

 

We'll continue to remain what we are, and will have to bear the consequences

to the extent that perumAl had given an undertaking to kindly *overlook* our

past sins and (perhaps some future *un-intentional minor transgressions*).

 

The only change we can expect in our attitude is having surrendered

wilfully, we might better be more careful and cautious to follow proper

dhArmA and not commit further pApams, so as not to lose the advantage of

having expiated the past sins.

 

Please feel free to correct / comment on adiyEn's opinions.

 

dAsan,

Sriram