​Why did Bhishma not stop the disrobing of Draupadi?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Question Why did Bhishma not oppose the disrobing of Tirupati Answer because he got caught in the technicality that is circumstantial answer and because from the transcendental perspective the lord wanted to demonstrate that ultimately we have no protector except him and although Tirupati had five husbands and although there was assembly of great heroes or even some of them virtues heroes still even in that assembly Tirupati was rendered helpless and she could turn to no one except Krishna for protection and Bhishma as a devotee of the lord was orchestrated by the lord from within so that he could do what the lord wanted so by remaining silent although Tirupati was dishonored to some extent but ultimately her honor was gloriously redeemed when Krishna protected her by offering her unlimited saree of course that is from the transcendental perspective but from the circumstantial perspective if we see there was Bhishma who could not resolve the technicality at that time so when Tirupati was dragged into the assembly she was when she came to know that this was going to be her fate she was aghast and she was a Kshatrani although she could not combat the physical strength of Dushyasana still she had her wits with him she was not just panicking and by the time Dushyasana dragged her by her hair to the assembly at that time she challenged she offered her respects to the assembly and she said that you know if Yudhishthira had gambled himself first then he was not his master at that time and if he was not his master then he how could he have gambled me so now this was basically it was a technicality that she was holding on to this was such a travesty for honorable lady and not just any honorable lady she was the queen of the emperor of the world at that time and for her to be dishonored by being dragged into the assembly while she was just wearing one cloth after her cycle was just over so it was a terrible disgrace and she was trying to avoid this horrendous disgrace from going further and she just caught on to this technicality over there and now she asked the assembly and if Yudhishthira had gambled himself first then he was not his own master he had gambled himself means that he had become a slave so a slave does not have any possessions and if a slave does not have any possessions then the slave does not cannot gamble his wife also so at that time she turned around and she asked the assembly and finally when nobody spoke then Bhishma spoke and Bhishma said that oh Draupadi glorious is your virtue that even in times when such a horrendous atrocities being performed at such time you take shelter of Dharma and you raise questions about Dharma indeed your devotion to Dharma is glorious he lauded her but then he apologetically said that regarding your question unfortunately I am confused he said there are two principles here one is that a slave does not own anything at the same time a wife always belongs to the husband so now which of the principles should take precedence here I do not know and therefore I cannot answer your question and Bhishma was the eldest in the assembly and when he did not answer the other people in the assembly also did not answer now this is what Bhishma succumbed to over here what in the Bhakti tradition it is called the Niyamagraha Niyamagraha means agraha means insistence so insistence on the letter of the law while forgetting the spirit of the law so ultimately whatever codes are there whatever laws are there they are meant to protect people and respectable woman’s honour needs to be protected so it was tragic that the whole assembly got obsessed in a technicality that whether anything belongs to a slave or not can a slave take anything or not and they overlooked the monstrous atrocity that was happening of honourable lady being dishonoured so Bhishma succumbed to this error of Niyamagraha and because of being caught in the letter of the law he could not and there being two contrary principles over there he could not resolve it and that’s why he did not intervene and as I said in the beginning from the transcendental perspective he did not intervene because the lord wanted to demonstrate the timeless truth that we ultimately have no protector except him. Thank you.