~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 64

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Do you think Drona giving Arjuna brahmashira to be an interpolation as well, as that also gets omitted here.

It is given as the reason why karna went to parshuram by Narada in Santi Parva

Karna visiting Parashuram became Completely useless if we believe that he actually forgot the usage of Brahmastra due to the curse

What's the topic of discussion? 😆

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

What's the topic of discussion? 😆

When did Krishna meet Pandavas?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

OFF TOPIC: I also saw that prologmena calls Subhadrahran the rape of Subhadra. It says southern recension beautified it and said Arjuna and Subhadra had a secret wedding, an insertion only to legitimize Abhimanyu as he was the grandfather of Janmejaya.

How is it rape? So Krishna basically got his own sister raped by planning it with his rapist? But why would he do so. Getting them married is a political move, how is rape making sense and why would be do that.

Also, haran means abduction even in Sanskrit. My little Sanskrit knowledge tells me so.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

When did Krishna meet Pandavas?

After Draupadi's Swayamvar. Why the confusion😆

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Karna visiting Parashuram became Completely useless if we believe that he actually forgot the usage of Brahmastra due to the curse

How come Lord Vishnu's avatars were in same period?

I remember Parshuram was in Ramayana too

Rama, Krishna and Arjuna too if one believes in Nara and Narayana

Or is Lord Vishnu a description?

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

After Draupadi's Swayamvar. Why the confusion😆

😳

Confusion Confusion

Its been a while since I read prologmena of BORI. Have to get back to it.. I totally forgot the subhadra haran part.

I dont beleive it was ever a love story. It was a forced abduction and marriage for sure.

Though puranas skirt around it. If you look at it objectively. Bride kidnappings mandated rape/consummation.

A girl is not going to be avoided by other suitors just because she was held or touched by a guy. We did not have dumb people in that era.

But a woman who is no longer a virgin will be.

That was the reason for Shalwa rejecting Amba I believe. He presumed that as is the norm, VV would have immediately consummated with the three princesses.

He refuses not because Bhishma defeated him and took her. But because Shalwa assumed Bhishma defeated him and took her and VV raped her.

That is why after Jayadrath kidnaps Draupadi and tries to take her away, instead of killing her straight away. Once raped situation would change completely for Pandavas atleast as like Rama they may be forced to abandon her inorder to not be called a cuckold

She goes panchal goes.. Pandavas will not be threat anymore.

That is why the suspicion on Sita, that Ravana as was the norm would promptly rape her as soon as he reached a safe space. No one was willing to believe inspite of the agni pariksha or her or rama's claims.

That is why Samba gets to marry Lakshmana, he kidnaps and rapes her

Once raped victim will have no choice but to marry the man who raped her because no one else will and she will be abandoned by her family. If she wanted to live that is.

.

Ek questions hai mere maan main na jane kab se 😆, as we r discussing here, so I thought I can bring it up.

If we delete Draupadi's humiliation matlab agar dice game main draupadi ko humiliate nhi kiya jata 2 kya tab bhi mahabharat hoti hai ?

Mere acc hoti coz Draupadi was not d reason of mahabharat , as she has nothing 2 do with kaurav pandav enemity vo 2 uske aane ke pehle se hai .

Ek question aur what if Yudi refused 2 play dice game second time ?

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Ek questions hai mere maan main na jane kab se 😆, as we r discussing here, so I thought I can bring it up.

If we delete Draupadi's humiliation matlab agar dice game main draupadi ko humiliate nhi kiya jata 2 kya tab bhi mahabharat hoti hai ?

Mere acc hoti coz Draupadi was not d reason of mahabharat , as she has nothing 2 do with kaurav pandav enemity vo 2 uske aane ke pehle se hai .

Ek question aur what if Yudi refused 2 play dice game second time ?

Mahabharata to zaroor Hoti but then it wouldn't have been something so personal to Panchal and Krishna. Panchal would have still supported Pandavas since they were son in laws but the intent could have been mild, same with Krishna, although he supported Pandavas and wanted to see them as winners but their loss too wouldn't have affected Krishna way too much since he was the father in law (at least officially) of Duryodhan's daughter and he had already partially supported Kauravas by sending his Narayani sena to Duryodhan's support. With lesser intent from two ot the biggest Pandavas allies, results of the war could have been different.

Or maybe the war wouldn't have taken place (taken place earlier) if Draupadi wasn't humiliated, there was no reason to gift her the boons so probably Pandavas would have remained slaves with all the wealth and weapons with Dury+cronies. Maybe Draupadi would have started for a war by the help of Panchal, Matasya (not sure why would they support) Chedi, Mahadh etc. to free the Pandavas, but I guess defeating them would have been easier in absence of the Pandavas.

More or less similar situation if Yudi didn't accept second game of dice, the war with nearly the same people would have happened immidiately after the game of dice, Chedi might have supported Kauravas or maybe because Shishupal killing was a recent event and Krishna or Dwarika might have given open n Complete support to Pandavas (not sure though since Balram always supported Duryodhan)