The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 5

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I posted this in the other thread, but this needs to be here. Thoughts please.

Also, how exactly was Arjun practicing Brahmacharin be it one year or twelve years. 🤣

I had replied on the other thread.

Maybe this was the reason for Draupadi's anger--Arjun didn't fulfill his punishment properly, him marrying other girls wouldn't have been of much importance to her otherwise.

Coming to your other point, if at all it was the weapon we are assuming, he definitely didn't go to the Armoury to use that. He definitely went to Draupadi's chamber exposing the weapon where probably YuDrau were having their personal time.

This called for punishment and exile.

Hence HearMeRoar has a point, him having other wives in the palace was necessary since till then Draupadi was his only wife and therefore he had to reach out to her whenever........ need arose

Saying that, if what we are discussing here is even 10% true, Pandavas weren't as ideal brothers and inseparable ones as we think them to be. They could have been pretty easily separated had KaDuDuNi planned well. They remained together just by chance not much by love(unlike the Raghukul brothers)

I believe polyandry was very much present, so my POV or reasoning will be based on this:

Probably Narada's statement meant that one should not intrude in their privacy ie the private moments. So we can assume Arjun broke the rule when Yudhishthir and Draupadi were in between something private or personal. He had different desires (or else why enter Drau's chamber)

The rule also says he had to follow Brahmacharya at this time. He didn't. That was one reason to apologize as well.

Draupadi knew he would marry, the reason for apologizing is not her ignorance but because she felt bad. What's wrong in feeling bad if your husband brings a new wife. All women knew polygyny is common, that doesn't mean nobody can feel bad about it or just express some abhimaan. Not anger, jealousy or anything of that sort but abhimaan.

Of course there's no need to apologize. But maybe it was just a loving gesture on Arjun's part. Also, he was supposed to practice celibacy at this time. He also said sorry because he broke his celibacy thing and got a new wife. Also, to make Panchali feel better as she felt hurt. Not always is apologies meant when you are 100% wrong. You say sorry for hurting someone's feelings.

That does not reduce Panchali into 16 year old lovesick woman, neither does it take away her valour.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^^^ wahi Bola Maine ki no one year rule ki baat hui hai yahan no rule ki nhi

Lekin 1 year rule ke bina paternity kaise decide hogi 😆

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I think Brahmcharya does not mean one has to be celibate, He can have a normal marital life, I mean one should not be ruled by his senses, Arjun was someone, who had conquered his senses, so he had plain food, slept on floor etc. Normal marital relationship is permitted, just not an extensive one. I am not sure about it though @HearMeRoar can explain it better

Oh okay.

If nothing is the way words say it is, then I guess there's not much to argue with. I thought Brahmacharya means to practice celibacy for that year ie not marry/establish sexual relations.

Now if none of what words say is what they say, then I'll just rest my case. Probably not my cup of tea to understand the implications. 😛

Seems like nothing of the story that's left is true. If polyandry is an interpolation, the story completely changes IMO. So I take my leave 😆😆

(no sarcasm intended, hope none take offence) :))

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

But what is wrong if we consider that drapaudi was not upset about arjuna marrying subdhara at all . It does not reduce arjuna s importance in the epic Considering how quickly she accepts subdhara when the latter shows up never mind how she is dressed up does not gives me a picture of a hurt wife. How come she gave in so soon?? If also does not reeks of abhimaan considering the fact that yudhishtra and bheem s wife also lived with them . That just goes on to prove the fact drapaudi was not upset about the marriage at all just about what transpired between her yudhishtra and arjuna before the latter went on exile and that was the reason of arjun s apology.

Because Arjun's marriage hurt her more than Bheem or Yudhishthir's but you aren't ready to accept that so let that go.

I don't think a nice happy woman would say this to Arjuna, and she clearly refers to Subhadra here btw. If what happened before is the reason for apology, I don't see why she needs to taunt Subhadra.

At last the hero went unto Draupadi. Draupadi, from jealousy, spoke unto him, saying, 'Why tarriest thou here, O son of Kunti? Go where the daughter of the Satwata race is! A second tie always relaxeth the first one upon a faggot!' And Krishna lamented much in this strain. But Dhananjaya pacified her repeatedly and asked for her forgiveness. And returning soon unto where Subhadra, attired in red silk, was staying, Arjuna, sent her into the inner apartments dressed not as a queen but in the simple garb of a cowherd woman.

Lastly, well you should know well why she accepted Subhadra well. Firstly because she was Krishna's sister and she knew Krishna would not do anything to hurt her. Secondly, she is a woman and Subhadra was a woman who was abducted and was into a place where she doesn't even know her husband (no love story was there). And she knew very well this was Krishna's doing, not Subhadra's fault. She is not some monster to yell at Subhadra. Could Subhadra stop this? No. Also did this happen because she fell in love? No.

What's the reason to not accept her? She was upset with her husband, not a lady who was ABDUCTED.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

That was just my doing 🙃😂

In Mahabharata text, Arjun practiced celibacy till he encountered Uloopi who abducted him (He wasn't too happy about it 🙄 Ah The Irony), he told Uloopi that he has taken Vrat of celibacy, Uloopi tells him that he has to practice celibacy in regards to Draupadi only, Means he can't sleep with Draupadi 😂😂 It was after this he accepted Uloopi

I know this (I have read all of Arjun's trysts several times 😂😂)

But I always felt that was what Uloopi said to lure Arjun because he was in exile - isn't it obvious he cannot sleep with Draupadi? The rule made also said this, he would be EXILED. Now obviously if he has to practice celibacy in exile, it meant women in general, not Draupadi.

Uloopi was a seducer re. 🤣

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Drapaudi had many other human emotions she does not has to be in love or partial to mahanayak arjuna to prove that she was a "human" there are many other human qualities like her love for abhimanyu and ghatokch

She was neither hurt nor upset about the marriage

There's a difference between partiality and basic human emotions such as feeling bad about ANYONE who is your husband but is also having another wife. Polygyny was an accepted practice, not a cherished one.. Infact, it only brought misfortune and bad times for women.

Also, you might want to stop talking like you know her personally and anyone saying anything about Drau's feelings apart from Krisna Udayshankar and you are wrong. Draupadi never told you she was hurt or angry or whatever she felt - so neither me not you know for sure. This is not a fact we prove with citations. (And citations are apparently mistranslated)

It is only assumption. You make your mind up that it's mistranslated and anything she feels pro Arjun has to be either wrong translation or someway having another meaning. 😂😂

At the end, we all will believe what we want to believe. Drau fans will want to believe it was men who were dying for her while she was never in love with either of her husbands. (Which is rubbish.) Arjun fans will want to think the same about Arjun that all from Drau to Subhi was dying for him. (Again utter nonsense). Same for Yudhishthir, Duryodhana, Karna bla bla bla.

She is not an asexual woman. She had enough feelings for men and there's no reason to think she was ancient India's Peter Baelish who only had feelings for Madhav, Abhimanyu and Ghatothkach.

Originally posted by: Eloquent

Might you all be interested to read up on this Twitter thread regarding the print article in question: https://twitter.com/abhilegend000/status/1258072902567673856?s=19

I have seen many of his threads. He is an ardent admirer of divinity and Vyasa's Mahabharata.

BTW, he does give an important citation which states Subhadra was happy about it.

However tbvh, I don't buy this Brahmacharya stuff he wrote. 😂😂😂😂😂

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Will we be in trouble for discussing this? I read a few tweets and people are not taking it lightly

I think we are discussing it pretty objectively

Although I have a personal bias against the said news channel. They deliberately make articles to show Hindu religious legends in bad light

Originally posted by: naq5

what diff does it make to draupadis greatness weather she had feelings for her husbands or not. Anyone living with anyone for a long time will develop feelings right. Also arjun was the most loved friend of krishna with whom draupadi too had a very good friendship. So it could be possible she expected more from arjun or knew him more better or was more closer to him

😆Well its actually nice to know people actually know about the 3rd sexuality that exists. otherwise its almost invisible for most people.

That's exactly what my point is. Whatever you said, that's all I mean to say. I feel that Draupadi did bear special feelings for Arjun and I don't think that makes any difference to her personality, of a strong woman. 😆

PS: of course, it's important we know about all sexualities. Infact there's a wide spectrum! :))