Jan 13, 2016 — INDIA (SUN) —
"The book-full blockhead ignorantly read,
with loads of learned lumber in his head."
Alexander Pope
I recently saw an article by Candrasekhacharya Dasa, an apologist and promoter of Hridayananda das Goswami (HdG). I briefly skimmed the article and was reminded that one reason that the GBC had banned HdG was that he contradicted the teachings of the purva acaryas including Srila Prabhupada regarding the disrobing of Draupadi during an Istaghosthi.
Question: In Mahabharat, when Draupadi was being disrobed by Dushasana, why did the Pandava's sit quiet? Is there any other reason besides the fact that they had already lost in the gambling and had become slaves? The primary duty of a husband is to protect his wife. How could Yudhisthira Maharaj fail to understand this?
Answer by Srila Acharyadeva:
1. I seriously wonder if this incident took place, based on evidence from the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavatam, as you know, many times gives the highlights of the Mahabharata: a) in Bhishma's prayers; 2) in Kunti's prayers; c) in Arjuna's and Yudhisthira's recollections after Krishna leaves this world; d) in the description of Vidura's pilgrimage after quitting Hastinapura; e) throughout the 10th canto; f) elsewhere.
The Bhagavatam mentions the insult to Draupadi four times in these verses: SBh 1.8.5, SBh 1.15.10, SBh 3.1.7, SBh 11.1.2. Remarkably in all four cases, the Bhagavatam states that the insult to Draupadi was touching/pulling her hair. There is not a word about disrobing, nor about Yudhisthira gambling her. …
The relationship between husband and wife in Vedic culture is not political or military and cannot be negotiated or gambled. Neither the Bhagavatam, nor the CC mentions the attempt to disrobe Draupadi.
2. If for the sake of discussion we assume that the Kurus did attempt to disrobe Draupadi, then why did Yudhisthira remain silent? In the description of this incident found in the Mahabharata (which Madhvacarya declared to be a highly corrupt text) … [1]
From the way that HdG answers and his reference to Madhvacarya's claim about the (previous) corruption of the Mahabharata HdG gives the impression that he is well versed in the works of Madhvacarya. And that the inclusion of the disrobing of Draupadi in the Mahabharata (as well as the gambling of Yudhisthira) is an instance of the corruption of the Mahabharata, hence he wonders and doubts that it really happened.
HdG has at times with others used Madhva's remark as an excuse to deprecate anything he disagrees with. HdG basically says something along these lines: "Why should I accept that? After all Madhvacarya said the Mahabharata and other sastras are highly corrupted how can we then trust any text?" The sub-text is that you should just follow his interpretation and reasoning on these matters. His followers repeat this line. Others like Bhaktarupa Prabhu and Madhavanda Prabhu use similar tactics to deprecate texts like the Manu Samhita [2,3] and their feminist collogues say that Srila Prabhupada's ideas about society are the result of material conditioning. This is done to undermine opposition to establishing feminism in ISKCON.
HdG thus creates his own system of logical argumentation based on false assumptions (Madhva's remark) to "win" arguments. In Gotama's Nyaya Sutras 1.2.42-43 the distinction is made between "discussion" and "wrangling." In a "discussion" two honest opponents use the principles of nyaya to arrive at the truth. But in "wrangling" the aim is not to ascertain the truth but gaining victory by any means - quibbles, futilities, false logic (kutarka), fallacies, sophistry, etc.
Reverting back to Madhva and his comments about the corruption of the Mahabharata, HdG doesn't mention where Madhvacarya stated this. But a quick search of the Internet tells us that it is in his work called Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya (MhBTN). In the second chapter Madhvacarya does indeed state that the Mahabharata and other texts were corrupted.
"Sri Madhvacharya concedes that attempts are made to contaminate and mutilate the text of the Mahabharata. This has happened not only in the case of the Mahabharata, but in several other texts also. Therefore, he assures that he has collected the manuscripts of the Mahabharata from different parts of the country and has ascertained the authentic version of it. In doing so, he has not merely relied on manuscripts as the modern scholars do but also taken into consideration the entire tradition of the scriptural literature. The latter criteria is very important. Every text is a part of a tradition. Therefore, anything that is contrary to or contradicts the text is not likely to be the authentic portion of that text. Internal contradiction within the text or contradiction with the tradition is likely to be the result of the interpolation or mutilation. In modern textual criticism, this vital point is ignored." [4]
However, while there are interpolations and other types of corruption the main problem was that much of the sastra is missing.
"In some places (of the Mahabharatha) verses have been interpolated and in others verses have been omitted in some places, the verses have been transposed and in others, different readings have been given out of ignorance or otherwise. Though the works are really indestructible, they must be deemed to be mostly altered. Mostly all of them have disappeared and not even one crore (out of several crores of slokas) now exists. Note—The Mula Ramayana consisted of 100 crores of slokas; Pancharatra consisted of 50 crores; Mahabharatha, of 60 lakhs of slokas; other Puranas, of 4 lakhs." MhBTN 2.3-4 [5]
So the main problem with Mahabharata is not so much the addition of material but the subtraction. Thus, a work like Krsna Dharma Prabhu's "Mahabharata" which contains only about 20% of the currently available Mahabharata of 100,000 slokas would be considered corrupt by Madhvacarya.
Madhvacarya then tells us:
"… under the direction of Hari for its clear understanding, I shall state the settled truths having known them through His grace, and also having well known the other (extinct) works and all the Vedas through His grace, and also having examined the various editions existing in several places. Just as the all powerful supreme Lord Vyasa who is no other than Narayana has narrated in the Bharatha and other works, I shall also, with the knowledge imparted by Him, briefly state the essential teachings of all the Sastras, in accordance with the interpretation of Bharatha. The Bharatha is stated to be the decisive authority on all the Sastras." MhBTN 2.5-9 [6]
Thus Madhvacarya though the grace of Krsna has found out what is actually authentically contained in the Mahabharata, therefore because of the efforts of Madhvacarya there is a non-corrupt version of the Mahabharata available.
This then brings us back to HdG's statement that he seriously wonders if the incident of the attempted disrobing of Draupadi (and Yudhisthira's gambling) even took place because the Bhagavatam doesn't mention it and because Madhvacaraya said the Mahabharata was highly corrupted (until he rectified that situation).
First we note that the Mahabharata on our planet is a work of 100,000 slokas, whereas the Bhagavatam is a much smaller work containing only 18,000 slokas. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that not all incidents in the Mahabharata could be described in the much smaller Bhagavatam.
We next consider what was Madhvacarya's view on the disrobing of Draupadi incident - was it true or was it a corruption interpolated into the text? This is decided in MhBTN chapter 21.
"Later Dushyasana as instructed by Duryodhana started disrobing Draupadi while the Pandavas were watching. Bhima took an oath at that moment. 'I will tear his chest apart and drink the blood of this Dushyasana who is the foremost among the sinners and who is born in the clan of Kurus who are great followers of dharma.' When Dushyasana started disrobing her, Draupadi started to remember Krsna in a very special manner. At that time, another sari which was divine, very delicate and glowing like gold appeared on her body. As and when Dushyasana started snatching the saris, a new sari appeared. Sinful Dushyasana could never reach the end. He was exhausted and sunk down in the assembly hall. When the pile of saris started to grow like mountain, ignorant Duryodhana who was furious said 'why are you delaying, take her to our house.'" MhBTN 21.353-357 [7]
So here we see that in the view of Madhvacarya the incident of Draupadi being disrobed is actually part of the authentic Mahabharata (as is the gambling which is also described in the same chapter.) So what does this say about HdG's scholarship? Some possible scenarios:
1. He never actually read Madhva's work MhBTN but just heard it through the grapevine that Madhvacarya had made such a statement but never bothered to study it himself.
2. He actually read the MhBTN but not much further than chapter 2 hence didn't know what Madhvacarya considered as the authentic Mahabharata.
3. He knew that Madhvacarya actually considered the Draupadi incident as part of the authentic Mahabharata but for some reason chose to deny it.
We are forced to conclude that he is either a very sloppy scholar or intellectually dishonest. Whatever it may be this is not a one off item but rather one in a series of such blunders. There is a pattern of such behavior. Below are links to articles that respond to positions he has taken or actively supports:
The words "Sari" and "Dhoti" are not found in Sanskrit dictionaries and thus should not be used as translations for the garments worn in the sastras and his excuse for not wearing a dhoti.
Where is the Term 'saree' to be Found in the Vedic Literature?
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-14/editorials11768.htm
Is the Term 'dhoti' in the Vedas?
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-14/editorials11528.htm
Is the term 'Dhoti' in the Vedas? - Part 2
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-14/editorials11548.htm
Influence of Islam on Vedic culture shown via loan words.
Hridayananda's Loan Word Theory Fundamentally Flawed
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-14/editorials11530.htm
Influence of Islam in India in regard to head covering.
Covering The Head Has Nothing To Do With Muslims
http://www.akincana.net/underview/367-covering-the-head-has-nothing-to-do-with-muslims.htm
