We should take care not to confuse arguments for with historical precedents

Since historical precedents are in this case weak, the arguments for seem to be ad hoc creations, only feigning strength, just pretending to be based on secure premises. 

Karna sees through them. 

And - the best, too. 

Artur


2018-10-27 21:14 GMT+02:00 Simon Brodbeck via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:

Dear Artur,


You say Draupadi's polyandry is "unexpected, devoid of precedents". It is unexpected to Drupada most particularly, since the Pandavas have been given to expect it by Vyasa a little while beforehand, and Draupadi herself takes to it very nicely. But there is apparently the precedent that Yudhishthira mentions. As you say, that the polyandry demands explanations -- and so it is given plenty of them. How are those explanations "unconvincing and weak"? In context they are strong enough to be convincing to all surprised parties, even if Karna later says she is a whore.


All the best, from Simon B.


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)