Was Yudhishtira’s gambling Draupadi after he had lost himself dharmic or adharmic?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So when Nishtima’s gambles with Draupadi after he had lost himself was that Dharmic or Adharmic? And Nishtima also says I cannot answer this question because Yudhishthira has done this.
So actually speaking there are that whole pastime is to be understood at multiple levels at one level it is that Yudhishthira he also at that time got carried away by the fever of gambling that time the frenzy of gambling it possessed him also but even then there were Dharmic limits in the sense that it was not that he tried to cheat over there he said no I have not lost this or I will grab everything back he was carried away by the frenzy of the gambling and that’s why he gambled a lot. So one level of understanding is that actually that even if somebody is as exalted as Dharmaraj now gambling and the intoxicants that can come from it can be so intoxicating that the frenzy can capture even a person like him. So it’s a cautionary note.
For us another level of understanding is that Yudhishthira he gambled whatever was with him whatever was his he gambled and if we see that he is getting carried away by the fever of gambling that is one level of understanding. Another level is that actually right from the beginning he never wanted to gamble. Now Vidura opposed the idea of a gambling match.
Yudhishthira himself said when Vidura came first he said you should not gamble, if you gamble you will fight. And even when he came to Asthanapur at that time also he said why do you want to take the wealth which I am using to serve the Brahmins. And again he expressed his reluctance to fight.
So Draupadi also makes that point later that actually Yudhishthira gambled only because he was compelled by his elders to do so. So he expressed his reluctance to do so he was compelled by his elders. Compelled means almost forced instructed by his elders.
So Yudhishthira before this gambling match took place after the Rajashtri Yajna was performed at that time Vyasadev made a prediction and he said in the future although you have become the king you will not enjoy peace. In the future there will be a great war and that war will establish you as the king. So now at that time Yudhishthira thought that wars are caused by differences of opinion.
Wars are caused by dissension. They are caused by disobedience. So he said I will do my part in avoiding war and what I will do is I will always obey my elders.
So he was normally always very deferential and respectful to his elders. But in this particular situation he also taken a vow that I will always obey my elders. That’s why when Dhritharashtra called for the gambling match he couldn’t refuse.
So he was simply obeying his elders against his own intelligence and against his own will. He would rather not have gambled. And as he was gambling and losing, again Dhritharashtra felt that I have lost everything now.
At least whatever little I have with that maybe I can gain everything and I can gain things and I can offer something to those who are my dependents. So that’s how he gambled the Pandavas to other Pandavas. Not that he was into human trafficking in today’s terms.
Not at all. He was thinking that what will they do without any kingdom, without any arms. If I just put one of them on stage and get everything back then at least we will have something.
And eventually then he found that Draupadi she is already without a pocket. So at that time his thought was basically that I have to somehow protect my dependents. Unfortunately the way he acted was that he got them all into bigger trouble.
But his intention was not just to he was not just caught in the greed of gambling. He was actually doing his duty to his elders and he was trying to do his duty to those who were under him. That is to protect them, to have some resources to protect them.
So in that sense he was acting with a dharmic intention. He had no greed for quick money because of which he gambled. So in that sense it was dharmic.
Now the specific question you may say here Bhishma was a Mahajan. How can he become deluded? How can he say I don’t know about dharma? So the thing is that this whole pastime at a higher level if we see everybody is orchestrated. So Bhishma is saying that at a third level I will explain Bhishma is saying that I don’t know which dharma is higher.
Now here what has happened is from the Bhakti traditions perspective this is Niyamangala. Now getting caught in the technicalities of rule without understanding the essential purpose. Yes, whether a woman belongs to a husband or not after the husband has gambled on himself.
That is a technicality. The important thing is that how can a honourable woman be dishonoured, disrobed or disgraced in a public assembly where there are heroes present. That is a travesty of dharma.
So it’s like there are lower level principles which are there and if we are caught in that okay these two principles which is higher but a protection of a woman is a much much higher principle and somehow or the other she must be protected. So basically this argument Draupadi holds, she is also a Kshatrani. So she is also very intelligent and resourceful.
So when she is dragged to the assembly, even before she is dragged to the assembly she raises this question. The messenger who comes and tells her that you have come to the assembly he says hadn’t she gambled on himself, already gambled. So it’s a valid dharmic question but ultimately it’s a technicality and what Draupadi is trying to do is she is buying time and she is trying to stave off push off the calamity that is coming.
So Bhishma Pitawa is inability to answer the question. It’s basically reflective of the Minyamagraha. How could he get caught in this technicality while forgetting the principle that a woman is being dishonored.
The understanding for that is the Bhagavad Dharma. His whole pastime is orchestrated to demonstrate how Krishna is the only protector that we have ultimately. Draupadi you know a woman usually if she is alone, going alone somewhere at night in the forest or somewhere then she may be attacked and exploited.
But if a woman is with her husband then normally it’s said that she has a protector. If a woman has five husbands then how much more? If a woman is with her five husbands in a public assembly where great heroes are present. Actually speaking if we conceive it is very difficult to conceive of a more protected situation for a woman.
To be with her husband and to be with other great heroes and live in such a situation, in such a situation she would normally be very protected. She was that unprotected. So the whole pastime is meant to demonstrate the principle that actually we have no ultimate protector except Krishna.
So the lord arranges all the characters over there to orchestrate them to act in such a way that this lesson is taught. So Yudhishthira’s actions from this perspective. Now we can also analyze from another lower perspective for some moral edification for ourselves.
I can also analyze and say if Yudhishthira got into trouble by gambling what about us, therefore we should not gamble. There is also a valid level of understanding. Vishnu Pudama got caught in technicality, there is also valid level of understanding.
The highest level of understanding is that actually this whole pastime is orchestrated and all the important characters over there, the devotional characters especially, they are orchestrated so that they demonstrate this principle that Krishna alone is our ultimate protector. So specifically from that perspective what Yudhishthira did it was correct. Because generally speaking a slave does not have any possessions.
At the same time even slaves have their families and if a slave has a family, his wife and his children they are still under his protection. So they may not be living the same way as say the master and his family are living but usually speaking it is. So then what happens is Duryodhana tries to play it around and because Draupadi has raised this question was Yudhishthira his own master and he gambled me.
So then what he tries to do is Duryodhana tries to play husband against wife. He says Draupadi if you say that Yudhishthira has committed adharma then I will release all of you. So now Draupadi refuses to take the bait.
What did he say? He said actually it was only on the instruction of the elders that Yudhishthira gambled and therefore it is for the elders to decide what was right and what is wrong. So she doesn’t although she is being dishonored because of her husband’s mistake, still she does not blame her husband over there. She does not fall for that bait.
So the point is that because his intent throughout was dharmic. It was not greedy intent. So in that sense what he did was right.
But overall the whole assembly witnessed a catastrophic wrong and that was why it says asat sabha it is an impious assembly and that impiety happened because ultimately through it Krishna demonstrated that he is the only protector. Does it answer your question?