The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 9

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. 😂😂😂😂😂

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

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

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.

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.

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! :))

Originally posted by: NoraSM

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

As per my experience in IF,

Not here, unless you use bad words or say something disrespectful to anyone. We are discussing it pretty objectively without bashing anyone, so nobody will be in trouble. It's just a POV. And I personally feel this isn't something too illogical.

Our DTs will know what's best and I am sure unless rules are broken they won't have a problem.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

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.

I thought we were having a objective discussion here. From where did Krishna udayshnakar came in between. ??.

Why should i believe something which is clearly mistranslated and not this many and many versed are mistranslated debate on which have happened before also.

Talking about mistranslation here is the verse -

abhigamya sa rājānaṃ vinayena samāhitaḥ

abhyarcya brāhmaṇān pārtho draupadīm abhijagmivān

15 taṃ draupadī pratyuvāca praṇayāt kurunandanam

tatraiva gaccha kaunteya yatra sā sātvatātmajā

subaddhasyāpi bhārasya pūrvabandhaḥ ślathāyate

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs01213.htm

The word used is pranayat. Ie, out of love not jealousy. It is mistranslated.

Drapaudi asked arjuna to go back to subdhara not because of any jealousy but because she did not want a newly wed bride to be alone just because of their issues. It was taken out of context mistranslated and misinterpreted exaggerated like people are doing it now

There is no feeling of hurt or jealousy or abhimaan here.

Look Draupadi has no reason to be jealous of Subhadra. She knew what her position was and nobody could threaten that.

It only clears that she has no hard feelings (which I am saying from Post 1- there's no reason why Drau will be upset with Subhadra) and I never believed she was jealous (she has no reason to).

What I said is- her words clearly indicate she was upset. Sorry, I can't believe a woman will be happy about a husband sharing his bed with another woman and be jolly. She understood this was needed to expand her kingdom so she won't protest. Doesn't mean she is "happy" about it. Her words (i am not referring to "out of jealousy") which she said, as per my understanding is not something a happy chappy woman would say. And nothing in the shloka counters that, in only negates the fact that she was jealous, which is a given.

She was very much upset with the marriage though her intelligence made her accept that it was needed. This is what I gather from the text. And I still feel she had special feelings for Arjun. I have my reasons to think that just like you have your reasons otherwise.

That's it.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Look Draupadi has no reason to be jealous of Subhadra. She knew what her position was and nobody could threaten that.

It only clears that she has no hard feelings (which I am saying from Post 1- there's no reason why Drau will be upset with Subhadra) and I never believed she was jealous (she has no reason to).

What I said is- her words clearly indicate she was upset. Sorry, I can't believe a woman will be happy about a husband sharing his bed with another woman and be jolly. She understood this was needed to expand her kingdom so she won't protest. Doesn't mean she is "happy" about it. Her words (i am not referring to "out of jealousy") which she said, as per my understanding is not something a happy chappy woman would say. And nothing in the shloka counters that, in only negates the fact that she was jealous, which is a given.

She was very much upset with the marriage though her intelligence made her accept that it was needed. This is what I gather from the text. And I still feel she had special feelings for Arjun. I have my reasons to think that just like you have your reasons otherwise.

That's it.

Again let is not reduce her to a 21st century weeping wife. That was dwarpar yug polygamy was very common plus Pandavas also had their fair shares of prostitutes i am sure Arjuna shared his bed with many of them. Plus all the pandavas had other wives living in ip so she was not hurt unhappy upset or jealous of anything or anyone because nothing happened out of the norm. At best she was indifferent to the marriage. The apology was for something that happened prior to the exile. She asks Arjuna to go his new bride since didn't wanted to make her uncomfortable on her very first day because of their personal matters. Drapaudi accepted not this marriage or subdhara when the latter goes to her but forgave arjuna for his past blunder because of subdhara.

And drapaudi didn't had any special feelings for arjuna as proved from above just a case of taken of context mistranslated and exaggerated beyond limit. And no this does not reduce or robot. She was very much s human with all the human emotions. And drapaudi and arjun were friends good friend but just Friends. But still i guess that just my pov

But since we are going around in circles about this let us agree to disagree. 😆