Balaram on Dice Game - Page 21

Originally posted by: NoraSM

They didn't know the war will happen when Arjun married Subhdra, did they? Dury was never a contender for Subhadra

The question is, Did Krishna's son abduct Duryodhan's daughter before or after the dyut? There was no reason for war before Dyut, Was Laxmanaa way older than Abhimanyu to be abducted before Dyut?

Duryodhana would have killed to have an alliance with Krishna yet he is the one who captured Krishna's son and Krishna's brother had to pacify him into releasing Krishna's son, the incident doesn't really shows Duryodhan very fond of the idea of his daughter's marriage with Krishna's son

Why would Samba's father have an attachment with Kauravas? As you said samba, himself was present in pandava side, Duryodhan's daughter was with Krishna, Krishna's son didn't live with Duryodhan

Why didn't Krishna fight in the war? Why didn't his sons fight in war?

1. If Samba marrying Lakshmana can be brought in, then Suyodhana being contender for Subhadra can also be brought in because neither episode is from MBh. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

2. I believe it was you who stated the episode was before war. Well then, you should provide citation.

3. Suyodhana asking for Krishna's help is part of MBh canon. The Kauravas captured Samba AFTER he kidnapped Lakshmana, not before. Which makes Suyodhana a good father. That doesn't mean he had anything against Krishna. Also, Krishna didn't send Balram. Krishna didn't bother to go free Samba at all. Balram did that all on his own.

And like I said, since we are using non MBh texts to malign Krishna, we can also use the part where Krishna cursed Samba for sleeping with his stepmothers.

In MBh proper, Samba is clearly stated to be a troublemaker what with him insulting the rishis.

Doubt any alliance Krishna planned would have been through Samba.

Also, Suyodhana goes to ask for Krishna's help apparently in spite of all this.

4. It's become fashionable in recent days to claim Krishna didn't risk himself.

I would recommend you check how many times Krishna was shot at by Bheeshma, Karna, and others. Would also recommend you check how many times he begged Yudhishtira to let him take up weapons. Krishna definitely wasn't keeping himself safe.

In addition, Pradyumna is mentioned as Yudhishtira's bodyguard during Jayadrath vadh. Which means he wasn't fighting, but he was very much at risk.

---------

Well I do believe that Samb and Lakshmana were married, had this not been the case, Duryodhan wouldn't have had the guts to go and ask for alliance from Krishna.

If not for this relation Krishna was completely related to Pandavas, with two woman of his family married into them (Kunti and Subhadra) the girls' family had to support the in laws family of the girl it was kind of an unwritten rule. Plus Krishna's friendship to both Parth and Draupadi was not a secret either. He had been an active proponent from Pandavas side throughout.

In such a situation, Duryodhan reaching out to Krishna for help without any connect seems both stupid as well as irrational, even if you say Duryodhan was both, at least he had people like Bheeshm and Karna to counsel him.

The only reason why Duryodhan could have got the guts to reach out to him (and not Balram who was also as powerful Yadav chief and was also someone with soft corner towards Duryodhan) could be a direct relation between them and SB gives us that, relation of Krishna being the father in law of his daughter.

This is not contradicted by any of facts mentioned in Mahabharata either, unlike the Subhadra alliance where it's clearly written in Mahabharata that Krishna wasn't sure of who Subhadra might change in case of a Swayamwar (which means they were planning Swayamwar for her and there was no Duryodhan angle)

In case there is some contradiction in SB and Mahabharata we must go by the latter since that is most authentic, but in case Mahabharata is silent about some issue, we shall definitely accept what SB states on it

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Well I do believe that Samb and Lakshmana were married, had this not been the case, Duryodhan wouldn't have had the guts to go and ask for alliance from Krishna.

If not for this relation Krishna was completely related to Pandavas, with two woman of his family married into them (Kunti and Subhadra) the girls' family had to support the in laws family of the girl it was kind of an unwritten rule. Plus Krishna's friendship to both Parth and Draupadi was not a secret either. He had been an active proponent from Pandavas side throughout.

In such a situation, Duryodhan reaching out to Krishna for help without any connect seems both stupid as well as irrational, even if you say Duryodhan was both, at least he had people like Bheeshm and Karna to counsel him.

The only reason why Duryodhan could have got the guts to reach out to him (and not Balram who was also as powerful Yadav chief and was also someone with soft corner towards Duryodhan) could be a direct relation between them and SB gives us that, relation of Krishna being the father in law of his daughter.

This is not contradicted by any of facts mentioned in Mahabharata either, unlike the Subhadra alliance where it's clearly written in Mahabharata that Krishna wasn't sure of who Subhadra might change in case of a Swayamwar (which means they were planning Swayamwar for her and there was no Duryodhan angle)

In case there is some contradiction in SB and Mahabharata we must go by the latter since that is most authentic, but in case Mahabharata is silent about some issue, we shall definitely accept what SB states on it

Who is contesting that relationship?

The subtext of the original question seemed to be that Krishna was playing both sides.

Which is what I was disputing.

Krishna had no hand in that alliance and had every reason to dislike Samba even as the father.

If the Lakshmana story can be accepted, so can the Suyodhana being betrothed to Subhadra story and the Samba sleeping with stepmothers story.

There is no timeline which suggests the marriage happened just prior to war to indicate Krishna was trying to play both sides.

If he were doing so, then he should definitely have been with Kauravas or at least neutral as the closer relationship was with Kauravas.

Krishna definitely put himself at risk. In fact, he was MORE at risk since he was unarmed.

He also begged to be allowed to use weapons.

Pradyumna was Yudhishtira's bodyguard.

------

Under these circumstances, the insinuation of Krishna being quasi villain is absurd.

At the end of the day the so called completely SELFISH KRISHNA whose only motive was to somehow be related to winning side was there in the middle of the battlefield guding and Protecting arjuna. AND THIS IS A FACT

The only man who carried the pain of letting his krishnaa down. The only one who understood and supported her need for her justice. The only one who is in it with his body mind soul blood his sons right from the day one

How extremely selfish of him

We have discussed each and every character of Mahabharata from each and every angle, now I am trying to malign Krishna?

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/why-samb-son-of-lord-krishna-kidnapped-lakshmana-the-daughter-of-duryodhana

This is the link where I read the marriage took place during Abhimanyu's wedding

I didn't completely believe in it that's why I kept asking when did it happen before or after dyut? Was Laxmanaa old enough to be abducted by Samba before Dyut?

These were questions, not an attempt to malign Krishna

I clearly stated that I didn't know Krishna's son was married to Duryodhana's daughter, till yesterday I thought Duryodhana's son abducted Krishna's daughter and Krishna had to support Duryodhana for his daughter, this new information has removed the reason why Krishna didn't participate in the war for me, that's why I have asked multiple times for the reason Krishna and his sons did not participate in the war, Dhrishtdumya lost his 4 sons and his life in the war, I am just trying to understand why Krishna took the oath not to participate, that's what I said I am 'Suspecting' Krishna being involved with both sides as I had assumed we were allowed to write our wild imaginations here, I never said I am 100% sure he was involved in both sides

Questions generally result in answers, not in accusations

Anyway, I am not going to carry on with this after it, so Peace Out ✌️ and I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings

Originally posted by: NoraSM

We have discussed each and every character of Mahabharata from each and every angle, now I am trying to malign Krishna?

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/why-samb-son-of-lord-krishna-kidnapped-lakshmana-the-daughter-of-duryodhana

This is the link where I read the marriage took place during Abhimanyu's wedding

I didn't completely believe in it that's why I kept asking when did it happen before or after dyut? Was Laxmanaa old enough to be abducted by Samba before Dyut?

These were questions, not an attempt to malign Krishna

I clearly stated that I didn't know Krishna's son was married to Duryodhana's daughter, till yesterday I thought Duryodhana's son abducted Krishna's daughter and Krishna had to support Duryodhana for his daughter, this new information has removed the reason why Krishna didn't participate in the war for me, that's why I have asked multiple times for the reason Krishna and his sons did not participate in the war, Dhrishtdumya lost his 4 sons and his life in the war, I am just trying to understand why Krishna took the oath not to participate, that's what I said I am 'Suspecting' Krishna being involved with both sides as I had assumed we were allowed to write our wild imaginations here, I never said I am 100% sure he was involved in both sides

Questions generally result in answers, not in accusations

Anyway, I am not going to carry on with this after it, so Peace Out ✌️ and I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings

All.right. I will apologize for flying off the handle on questions. No excuses on my part.

My answers have been left in prior posts.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

We have discussed each and every character of Mahabharata from each and every angle, now I am trying to malign Krishna?

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/why-samb-son-of-lord-krishna-kidnapped-lakshmana-the-daughter-of-duryodhana

This is the link where I read the marriage took place during Abhimanyu's wedding

I didn't completely believe in it that's why I kept asking when did it happen before or after dyut? Was Laxmanaa old enough to be abducted by Samba before Dyut?

These were questions, not an attempt to malign Krishna

I clearly stated that I didn't know Krishna's son was married to Duryodhana's daughter, till yesterday I thought Duryodhana's son abducted Krishna's daughter and Krishna had to support Duryodhana for his daughter, this new information has removed the reason why Krishna didn't participate in the war for me, that's why I have asked multiple times for the reason Krishna and his sons did not participate in the war, Dhrishtdumya lost his 4 sons and his life in the war, I am just trying to understand why Krishna took the oath not to participate, that's what I said I am 'Suspecting' Krishna being involved with both sides as I had assumed we were allowed to write our wild imaginations here, I never said I am 100% sure he was involved in both sides

Questions generally result in answers, not in accusations

Anyway, I am not going to carry on with this after it, so Peace Out ✌️ and I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings

Do you reliaze that the man was their in the middle of the battlefield the entire time. Do you even know the number of times he was attacked by bhism Karna and others. He was still there everyday every minute every second supporting the people and the cause he actually believed in. Pradymun was there too How was he involved with both the sides when he clearly risked his life by being arjuna s charioteer just because he did not had a weapon in his hand ?? Or is it because he did not die ?? Probably had he actually died protecting arjuna then probably his support for pandavas would have been real

Had he really been involved both the sides he would have never been arjuna s charioteer

Originally posted by: NoraSM

We have discussed each and every character of Mahabharata from each and every angle, now I am trying to malign Krishna?

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/why-samb-son-of-lord-krishna-kidnapped-lakshmana-the-daughter-of-duryodhana

This is the link where I read the marriage took place during Abhimanyu's wedding

I didn't completely believe in it that's why I kept asking when did it happen before or after dyut? Was Laxmanaa old enough to be abducted by Samba before Dyut?

These were questions, not an attempt to malign Krishna

I clearly stated that I didn't know Krishna's son was married to Duryodhana's daughter, till yesterday I thought Duryodhana's son abducted Krishna's daughter and Krishna had to support Duryodhana for his daughter, this new information has removed the reason why Krishna didn't participate in the war for me, that's why I have asked multiple times for the reason Krishna and his sons did not participate in the war, Dhrishtdumya lost his 4 sons and his life in the war, I am just trying to understand why Krishna took the oath not to participate

Questions generally result in answers, not in accusations

Anyway, I am not going to carry on with this after it, so Peace Out ✌️

The timeline when Samb abducted Lakshmana isn't very clear, because this story isn't mentioned in the Mahabharata. SB takes it more on divine angle (though I do believe that the relations it mentions are true)

Aside Samb abducting Lakshmana was not a lovely dovey kind. Lakshmana was to have a Swayamwar before which Samb tried to you might call molest her (Samb is the worst among Krishna's sons) While we Generally say he was abducting her, he actually was trying for worse.

This is when Duryodhan caught him and arrested him. Not because he disliked the relation with Krishna's son but because he was a good father, any father will do this.

Krishna wasn't even interested in getting Samb free after having known his actions, but Balram ji approached Duryodhan and was ready to fight him if Samb wasn't released. (For some reason he seems to have utmost love for molesters) It was actually he who proposed for the marriage of Samb and Lakshmana and promised Duryodhan that Lakshmana will be treated with love and respect at their place. Duryodhan agreed to his Guru ( I personally feel that it wasn't his Guru Bhakti rather probably by them the other suitors of Lakshmana would have got the news and they might have been reluctant in marrying Lakshmana, and Duryodhan found this a good way to ensure that his daughter gets married into some respectable house and a place she would be cared for. I know not a good thing to do but those days marriage of girls were necessary and unwed girls had to suffer a lot)

Anyhow that Yadav dominantion theory is something which even I find possible, yet Samb Lakshmana marriage doesn't seem to be a part of it to me

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

The timeline when Samb abducted Lakshmana isn't very clear, because this story isn't mentioned in the Mahabharata. SB takes it more on divine angle (though I do believe that the relations it mentions are true)

Aside Samb abducting Lakshmana was not a lovely dovey kind. Lakshmana was to have a Swayamwar before which Samb tried to you might call molest her (Samb is the worst among Krishna's sons) While we Generally say he was abducting her, he actually was trying for worse.

This is when Duryodhan caught him and arrested him. Not because he disliked the relation with Krishna's son but because he was a good father, any father will do this.

Krishna wasn't even interested in getting Samb free after having known his actions, but Balram ji approached Duryodhan and was ready to fight him if Samb wasn't released. (For some reason he seems to have utmost love for molesters) It was actually he who proposed for the marriage of Samb and Lakshmana and promised Duryodhan that Lakshmana will be treated with love and respect at their place. Duryodhan agreed to his Guru ( I personally feel that it wasn't his Guru Bhakti rather probably by them the other suitors of Lakshmana would have got the news and they might have been reluctant in marrying Lakshmana, and Duryodhan found this a good way to ensure that his daughter gets married into some respectable house and a place she would be cared for. I know not a good thing to do but those days marriage of girls were necessary and unwed girls had to suffer a lot)

Anyhow that Yadav dominantion theory is something which even I find possible, yet Samb Lakshmana marriage doesn't seem to be a part of it to me

@Bold. Very true. I'd posted Harivamsa citation of Balram's encounter with Yamuna. If you remove the divine angle, it was assault, pure and simple. Probably explains why he was so attached to similar men.

To know about when sambha married laxmamana refer shree madh bhagwat

Shree madh bhagwat give details explanation of Lord krishna