Pandu Putra Arjun Ka Mahal- Thoughts and Perspectives of Parth - Page 2

He would have been, but he wouldn't have shown it. His valour is incomparable, yet, for me, each Pandava is a warrior, each in their own way

Now another topic for which arya is often criticized. People say he couldn't protect draupadi and blame the polyandry on him.
But it was a part of shiva's boon, could mahadev himself's words go wrong? People say the boons were added later and its all interpolation. But i beg to state otherwise.
And draupadi loved them all. She had a soft spot for Arjuna as vyasa says it but she loved them all and i hold neither arjuna, nor kunti and neither Yudhishtira responsible for the polyandry. It was destiny. People say draupadi was upset with this arrangement but that also is not true.

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

He would have been, but he wouldn't have shown it. His valour is incomparable, yet, for me, each Pandava is a warrior, each in their own way

I agree completely.

You have stated my mind perfectly Ramya 👏👏

I want to know everyone's views on this:

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

I want to know everyone's views on this:

1. People accuse Parth of polyandry. I personally find it stupid. What do you all think?

2. Some people blame him for the Panchpriya Panchali situation, though most of the blame goes to Dharmaraj as always.

3. People say Parth never avenged Draupadi, while Bhima did, which seems absurd. He let Bhima proclaim first, for Bhima happned to be older than him.

4. Why is Arjuna called a Mahanayak, when the actual Mahanayak is the Lord of the Universe, Bhagwan Shri krishna? He is a Nayak, no doubt.

5. Why do people portray Subhadra as a girl who knows nothing? She is the sister of Shri Krishna and Shriman Balarama, and Yogmaya Herself. People always say Panchali is more intelligent, yadda yadda. But I think they were both equally everything, Vaasudev Krishna's sister cannot be someone with less intelligence.

6. Why are Arjuna's other wives never brought out? Why is it only Subhadra, other than Panchali?

7. Related, yet not related question:

Why on Earth do people think that Shri Krishna marked Panchali as Hs equal? None but Radharani and His wives were His equal.

Phew! Exhausted questions for now. I will put down my point of view in an hour or so, Meanwhil, please do answer with your views.

P.S. Sorry if I was too blunt.

About the first two questions, i already mentioned my pov. Polyandry was panchali's destiny, the words of both shiva and vyasa couldn't possibly go wrong. And it wasn't put onto arjun, he gladly accepted it and some versions even go on to say that the pandavas already knew it was going to be polyandry as vyasa told them before hand, much before kunti's utterance. And draupadi was never upset with it, she loved them all. But yes, she had a soft corner for arjuna, a bit of a partiality as vyasa puts it and so does dharmaraj during the last journey of theirs. But it was justified, after all he won her!

About bheema avenging draupadi and arjuna not doing so, well arjuna killed karna, the one who ordered the vastraharan. (my only reason to dislike karna). Arjuna did not show it as much as bheema did and yes he let his bhaiya do the honours but that in no way means he loved draupadi any lesser. She was his first wife, his first love. Not that he did not love his other wives as much but he had a very special place for draupadi in his heart.

Arjuna is called the mahanayak because he was the instrument of the lord for the restoration of dharma, the lead character of the mahabharata. The entire epic, right from his birth, revolves around him alone. He is an incarnation of Nara,the great sage and Krishna was narayana. There is one verse that i came across from mb which states the lord saying that he is vasudeva among the vrishnis and dhananjaya among kurus/pandavas, a reference to nara-narayana indeed.

Now coming to your rest few questions that remain.
About subhadra not being given importance, or less intelligent, well i think the reason why draupadi gets more of the limelight is because she is the nayika if arjun is the nayak. And subhadra in no way was any lesser. She was abhimanyu's mother and parikshit's grandmother of parikshit without him the kuru line wouldn't have lasted. And how can we forget she smartly kidnaps arjuna, the one whom she loved? She was smart enough to be able to pacify draupadi after her wedding with arjuna (even though arjuna had a role but still) and abhimanyu was as much a son to draupadi as was to subhadra.

The 6th question is something i wonder too sometimes.
But i do feel both chitrangada and uloopi get their dues in the mahabharata. They both loved arjuna selflessly and arjuna loved them too. Though some say for uloopi it was one sided but i don't agree to that. Arjuna's grief over iravan is not that well known but yes when iravan died, he was as broken as abhimanyu. A father can never be partial in my opinion. The reason people give more importance to abhimanyu is because he was the father of parikshit, and of course, krishna's nephew but i disagree with the part that he was arjuna's 'favourite' son. No such favouritism exists in a father's heart, a father is after all a father. Then yes, there is his exceptional performance and valour on the 13th day but i in no way think his other sons Iravan and Shrutakarman weren't as brave. They were courageous and contributed in their own way. About bhabhruvahana, he almost defeated his father as to which he fell into a swoon and revived by none other than uloopi. And chitrangada still keeps loving him.

I will accept almost all your answers.

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

I will accept almost all your answers.

But I cannot accept the story revolving around Parth. It revolves around all the Pandavs. They are the Nayakas, while Panchali is the Nayika.

The MahaNayak, of course, is Shri Krishna.

What is your reply to my last question?

Well i kind of agree to this too. I am contradicting myself. 😛 Last question, give me some time. I'll post in a while.

Originally posted by: ramya06

Arjuna is called the mahanayak because he was the instrument of the lord for the restoration of dharma, the lead character of the mahabharata. The entire epic, right from his birth, revolves around him alone. He is an incarnation of Nara,the great sage and Krishna was narayana. There is one verse that i came across from mb which states the lord saying that he is vasudeva among the vrishnis and dhananjaya among kurus/pandavas, a reference to nara-narayana indeed.