Balaram on Dice Game - Page 22

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Read the citation carefully brishti krishna is clearly asking sanjaya to tell dritrashtra that be prepared for the inevitable since he will make sure that his sons get what they deserve and the reason is the amount of pain he carries in his hurt for letting panchali down. How clear can it get. For 13 years he has carried this pain and guilt in his heart for letting down. Their relationship was not ordinary it ran deep very deep

I have read it thrice trying to understand how this "deep relationship" is relevant to what we are discussing here.

Idk if you read what we are talking about, we are talking about why Krishna went to war. There are several reasons. I have only said his main reason or only reason is not Draupadi. I get it you think their relationship is beyond everything and most beautiful and that's okay. Anyone can have views, even I do. But whatever citation you provided proves one thing- Krishna was angry about what happened to Draupadi. So am I. Basic human instinct if my friend is sexually harassed in front of 100+ cis men in public I'll be equally annoyed. Anyone will be.

What has this got to do with Krishna's motives behind war?

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

Thanks for details

Yikes

He molested Dury's Daughter 🤢

This wasn't an alliance and this completely removes Krishna's involvement in it

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I have read it thrice trying to understand how this "deep relationship" is relevant to what we are discussing here.

Idk if you read what we are talking about, we are talking about why Krishna went to war. There are several reasons. I have only said his main reason or only reason is not Draupadi. I get it you think their relationship is beyond everything and most beautiful and that's okay. Anyone can have views, even I do. But whatever citation you provided proves one thing- Krishna was angry about what happened to Draupadi. So am I. Basic human instinct if my friend is sexually harassed in front of 100+ cis men in public I'll be equally annoyed. Anyone will be.

What has this got to do with Krishna's motives behind war?

I am not really sure if you are understanding what krishna meant because the from citation only thing he meant was that dritrashtra should prepare his son for the worst as his failure of not being able to protect panchali still pains him after 13 long years and he will do his utmost to rectify his mistake. He was not merely stating what happened to her. He was giving open warning/blackmailing dritrashtra

Dhamki de raha tha fair and simple

Yes i did read what the conversation about not really sure what you think about it/me but i certainly read all the pages before posting the citation. I don't think krishna can anymore clear about his motives for the war

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Thanks for details

Yikes

He molested Dury's Daughter 🤢

This wasn't an alliance and this completely removes Krishna's involvement in it

Yeah. It was rape. Not surprised Krishna wanted no part if it.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

To know about when sambha married laxmamana refer shree madh bhagwat

Shree madh bhagwat give details explanation of Lord krishna

Thank You 🤗

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Thanks for details

Yikes

He molested Dury's Daughter 🤢

This wasn't an alliance and this completely removes Krishna's involvement in it

Yes terrible. Only solace he became the reason for Yadavs destruction and no one remembers him fondly

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

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

We are discussing everything from every angle.

I thought the Narayani sena, Krishna's oath and Krishna's sons not fighting the war was because Krishna's daughter was married to Duryodhana

Yesterday, I got to know that Krushna's son abducted Duryodhana's daughter and he was against the match

So, The reason for Krishna not fighting is not there anymore, hence I am asking the reason he didn't do it

Half an hour ago, I got to know that Samba raped Laxmanaa, proving Krushna wasn't a part of this alliance, so that part where he sent his son for an alliance with Duryodhana, is not there anymore

Now, the only thing I want to know is why did Krishna take that oath of not fighting?

Note - Krishna was risking himself every day, No denial, but he certainly would have been more helpful with weapons in war, as he was the best of his time and his son Pradyumna was teacher of Abhimanyu

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes terrible. Only solace he became the reason for Yadavs destruction and no one remembers him fondly

Writers and narrators are amazing

If you notice, the change in everything is in favor of men to hide real face of Balram and Samba

And the change in women like Draupadi is them insulting people

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

I am not really sure if you are understanding what krishna meant because the from citation only thing he meant was that dritrashtra should prepare his son for the worst as his failure of not being able to protect panchali still pains him after 13 long years and he will do his utmost to rectify his mistake. He was not merely stating what happened to her. He was giving open warning/blackmailing dritrashtra

Dhamki de raha tha fair and simple

Yes i did read what the conversation about not really sure what you think about it/me but i certainly read all the pages before posting the citation. I don't think krishna can anymore clear about his motives for the war

I say - you insulted my friend, i couldn't help her.. You'll pay for it.

This proves I am involved in a war of KINGDOMS because of only this?

Sorry I don't agree.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Yeah. It was rape. Not surprised Krishna wanted no part if it.

Out of topic but he is also the one who let his own sister be abducted by Arjuna without even asking her.. That's not rape but it involves no consent. Had subhadra not been happy with it, i am not sure how much consent she had in sexual contact.

This does seem a bit of a hypocrisy when I hear of his reaction to Samba's misdeeds... Just a thought.