When the Pandavas meet Krishna after being exiled to the forest, why do neither mention Krishna’s protecting Draupadi during the gambling match?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question, in the Mahabharata, when the Pandavas are sent into exile, why does Draupadi or the Pandavas not talk about Krishna having protected Draupadi during the Vastra Haran, during the gambling match. Instead the Pandavas, instead Krishna says that I was not there otherwise I would have prevented the gambling match. And also then Yudhishthira asks, where were you? And Krishna says, I was fighting with Shalva.
And then further Draupadi says, Krishna, I deserved your protection. How was I not protected in spite of having such five virtuous husbands and in spite of being your devotee. So that Krishna came and protected by offering saree is not mentioned at all.
Why is that? Answer, yes, the point is that Draupadi was protected in terms of having been supplied the saree, that is clearly mentioned in the Mahabharata. But the overall incident was very insulting for all the Pandavas and especially for Draupadi. And there was one miraculous intervention by which Krishna protected her from the ultimate dishonor of being disrobed in public.
But still being dragged into the assembly with one cloth on her body when she was in her period, being pulled by the hair, being called a harlot, being called a prostitute. All these are very, very mortifying, humiliating and horrifying incidents for Draupadi. And there the discussion, if we see, is more of a trying to make sense of the problem of evil in this world.
And then Krishna there does not, while answering, does not resort to his omnipotence or he does not question the fate of the Pandavas. He does not say that I am God. Don’t question what I have done.
Nor does he say that I came. He says that I was caught up elsewhere. If I had come, I would have stopped it.
So the point is in the Mahabharata, Krishna is actually playing his avatar. His avatar doesn’t always act as God. If Krishna would always act as God, there would be no childhood pastimes, practically speaking.
No, Yashodam, I would not be able to tie Krishna. How can God be tied? So, for the purpose of pastimes, Krishna sometimes conceals his divinity. And of course, sometimes he reveals his divinity also.
So, to protect Draupadi from one particularly mortifying incident, which was being totally disrobed, Krishna did manifest over there. But Krishna also, through the Mahabharata pastime, illustrates many other things. About how even those who are devoted suffer in this world and how those who are truly dharmic, even amidst great sufferings, they stay fixed on the path of dharma.
So, that is what is illustrated through this whole pastime. And there, there is a human response that is depicted. It’s not that just because the Pandavas are devotees, that does not mean that they will not have natural human emotions which come up on anyone who is in such a situation.
So, those human emotions do come up. And when those emotions come up, what is the response? The response is that, it is said that Krishna also acts in a human way. So, overall, because the incident was terrible and the question is not whether one specific intervention took place or not.
The question is, why did the whole incident happen? How did Yudhishthira, who was so virtuous, lose everything? How did Draupadi, who was devoted to her husband, how did she lose everything? So, it is a broad question and there is a broad answer to it. The broad answer is that, Krishna taking a human role, he says that, he demonstrates how even when his devotees undergo suffering, they stay in the path of dharma and Krishna also takes a human role and he says, I was not there. That way, if you want to talk about either Krishna’s omnipotence or a devotee’s, if you want to talk about Krishna’s omnipotence, then we can even say that, Krishna went as Shanti Doodh, but Krishna did not succeed.
How could he not have succeeded? Well, he always, he does not infringe on the free will of a person, of human beings. So, because he does not infringe on the free will of human beings, so, therefore, certain things can go wrong. Because when human beings choose to act wrongly, there are consequences of that.
So, now, the devotees may also become victims of some mistreats by some people. And the solution to that is that one has to continue in dharma and thereby, as you know, the devotees, their suffering are for their glorification and the conditioned souls and sadhatas, their sufferings are for their purification. So, scriptures do not give examples of, they do give examples of exalted devotees.
At the same time, they also give examples of devotees having certain human responses. So, when there is a danger and when there is the very fact that a terrible incident happened, it’s a natural human response that is there. But the human response does not mean that the devotees give up their transcendental devotion.
They remain faithful to Krishna and continue their devotion. Even Arjuna broke down when Agamanyu was killed. But then after that, he continued his devotional service to Krishna.
In fact, he intensified his devotional service. So, we see the Pandavas also, Andhrapati also, they continued their devotion. So, it is, there are three different points here.
Why is that incident not mentioned? Because it’s not a specific historical analysis, blow by blow account of what had happened. It is basically a broad question about why the virtues have to suffer. And it is true that, although there was one miraculous intervention in which Krishna protected Draupadi, but overall, there was immense suffering for Draupadi and the Pandavas.
So, that is the issue that is being questioned. And the fact that there is a question doesn’t necessarily indicate a blemish in devotion, because there is a natural human response that comes up. And that human response is indicative of the human side of a devotee.
And the transcendental side ultimately predominates. The devotee continues on the devotional service. But the human side also makes the devotee more relatable to us.
And Krishna also does not always act as omnipotent. And that’s why Krishna says that, I was caught elsewhere, otherwise I would have helped. So, Krishna is communicating his affection, his concern, his even indignation at what has happened.
And Krishna is saying that, yes, I would have prevented this. So, Krishna exhibits a human response over there in the particular incident in the Mahabharata. And that is a part of his Leela.
Thank you.