Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 526

messenger acceptable to Draupadi (? draupadyāḥ sammatam dūtam prāhiņot) and she came to the Sabhā as she was and stood before her father-in-law.
And in spite of the fact that the above stanzas tell us that Draupadi had gone to the Sabhā, we are informed in the stanzas that follow (2.60.16 ff.) that Duryodhana asked his messenger to go to Draupadi, and when he hesitated, asked Duhśăsana to do the same : In order to explain the incongruency in the narration we have to assume a combination of two versions of the same event -- one in which Duḥśāsana dragged Draupadi to the Sabhā against her wishes, and the other in which Draupadi of her own accord presented herself in the Sabhā'. The two stanzas (14 and 15) belonging to this latter version were incorporated in the standard version by some one in the oral transmission".
3) When none of the senior members present in the Sabhā answered Draupadi's question, Vikarna did it. He declared that Draupadi had not become a dāsi. He supported his contention on four grounds (2.61.19-24): (i) Kings are supposed to be addicts to four pleasures, one of which was dyūta. A person under the influence of these addictions behaved unlawfully (dharmam utsrjya vartate). People therefore did not recognize the acts committed under the influence of addiction. When Yudhisthira was challenged to stake Draupadi he was under the excessive influence of the game; therefore his act could not be recognized; (ii) Draupadi was the common wife of all the Pāndavas. Vikarņa implied that therefore Yudhisthira alone had no right to stake her; (iii) Yudhisthira staked her after he had staked himself and lost the game; apparently therefore he could not stake her; (iv) finally, it was Sakuni who, desirous of having Draupadi as the stake, mentioned her name. Vikarņa implied that Draupadi as stake was not Yudhişthitra's own choice; he was instigated by Sakuni to do that and apparently that was not correct.
Karņa tried to refute Vikarna's arguments and establish that Draupadi had been lawfully won. In fact, however, he sought to refute only one of Vikarna's four arguments. He pointed out that when Yudhisthira specifically named Draupadi as his stake, the rest of the Pāņdavas had acquiesced (by remaining silent). Hence Karna implied that Draupadi was the stake of all the Påndavas and not of Yudhisthira alone (this would be in reply to Vikrana's second argument).
Karna then said something, as if to refute what Vikarna had said but what Vikarņa, in fact, had not said. Karna argued: “Yudhisthira staked all his possession (sarvasva) in the game, and since Draupadi was included in the sarvasva, she was lawfully won by the Kauravas. How can then you say that she was not won?"
(yadā sabhāyāḥ sarvasvam nyastavān pāņdavāgrajaḥ|| abhyantară ca sarvasve draupadi bharatarsabha / evaṁ dharmajitāṁ krsņām manyase na jitāṁ katham II (2.61.31-32).
What Karņa said implied that Yudhisthira lost all his possessions, including Draupadi, in a single stakes. But this is not what that standard version of the game
Madhu Vidyā/501