The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 8

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

But what is wrong if we consider that drapaudi was not upset about arjuna marrying subdhara at all . It does not reduce arjuna s importance in the epic Considering how quickly she accepts subdhara when the latter shows up never mind how she is dressed up does not gives me a picture of a hurt wife. How come she gave in so soon?? If also does not reeks of abhimaan considering the fact that yudhishtra and bheem s wife also lived with them . That just goes on to prove the fact drapaudi was not upset about the marriage at all just about what transpired between her yudhishtra and arjuna before the latter went on exile and that was the reason of arjun s apology.

Because Arjun's marriage hurt her more than Bheem or Yudhishthir's but you aren't ready to accept that so let that go.

I don't think a nice happy woman would say this to Arjuna, and she clearly refers to Subhadra here btw. If what happened before is the reason for apology, I don't see why she needs to taunt Subhadra.

At last the hero went unto Draupadi. Draupadi, from jealousy, spoke unto him, saying, 'Why tarriest thou here, O son of Kunti? Go where the daughter of the Satwata race is! A second tie always relaxeth the first one upon a faggot!' And Krishna lamented much in this strain. But Dhananjaya pacified her repeatedly and asked for her forgiveness. And returning soon unto where Subhadra, attired in red silk, was staying, Arjuna, sent her into the inner apartments dressed not as a queen but in the simple garb of a cowherd woman.

Lastly, well you should know well why she accepted Subhadra well. Firstly because she was Krishna's sister and she knew Krishna would not do anything to hurt her. Secondly, she is a woman and Subhadra was a woman who was abducted and was into a place where she doesn't even know her husband (no love story was there). And she knew very well this was Krishna's doing, not Subhadra's fault. She is not some monster to yell at Subhadra. Could Subhadra stop this? No. Also did this happen because she fell in love? No.

What's the reason to not accept her? She was upset with her husband, not a lady who was ABDUCTED.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Just to a point that existence or non existence of polyandrous marriage hardly effects the story. It is drapaudi marriage to yudhishtra that forms one of the core of the story

The reason for polyandrous marriage was unity among the five brothers and that was most important for Yudhishthir's success. Draupadi's marriage to five was what bound them together and if Pandavas would split it would not take a second for Dury to take up the throne unless Krishna in hus divine form stopped it.

Anyway it's best not to argue on this anymore because it's not possible for me to believe there was no polyandry and all numerous instances were interpolation and nor will people in favour of monogamy accept the contrary. We can choose to go with the versions which suit us.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Oh okay.

If nothing is the way words say it is, then I guess there's not much to argue with. I thought Brahmacharya means to practice celibacy for that year ie not marry/establish sexual relations.

Now if none of what words say is what they say, then I'll just rest my case. Probably not my cup of tea to understand the implications. 😛

Seems like nothing of the story that's left is true. If polyandry is an interpolation, the story completely changes IMO. So I take my leave 😆😆

(no sarcasm intended, hope none take offence) :))

That was just my doing 🙃😂

In Mahabharata text, Arjun practiced celibacy till he encountered Uloopi who abducted him (He wasn't too happy about it 🙄 Ah The Irony), he told Uloopi that he has taken Vrat of celibacy, Uloopi tells him that he has to practice celibacy in regards to Draupadi only, Means he can't sleep with Draupadi 😂😂 It was after this he accepted Uloopi

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Because Arjun's marriage hurt her more than Bheem or Yudhishthir's but you aren't ready to accept that so let that go.

I don't think a nice happy woman would say this to Arjuna, and she clearly refers to Subhadra here btw. If what happened before is the reason for apology, I don't see why she needs to taunt Subhadra.

At last the hero went unto Draupadi. Draupadi, from jealousy, spoke unto him, saying, 'Why tarriest thou here, O son of Kunti? Go where the daughter of the Satwata race is! A second tie always relaxeth the first one upon a faggot!' And Krishna lamented much in this strain. But Dhananjaya pacified her repeatedly and asked for her forgiveness. And returning soon unto where Subhadra, attired in red silk, was staying, Arjuna, sent her into the inner apartments dressed not as a queen but in the simple garb of a cowherd woman.

Lastly, well you should know well why she accepted Subhadra well. Firstly because she was Krishna's sister and she knew Krishna would not do anything to hurt her. Secondly, she is a woman and Subhadra was a woman who was abducted and was into a place where she doesn't even know her husband (no love story was there). And she knew very well this was Krishna's doing, not Subhadra's fault. She is not some monster to yell at Subhadra. Could Subhadra stop this? No. Also did this happen because she fell in love? No.

What's the reason to not accept her? She was upset with her husband, not a lady who was ABDUCTED.

That quote is mistranslated in actual she asks him to go back to subdhara out of love not jealousy probably because she did not wanted to keep a new bride alone or in midst of strangers just because of their unresolved issues

Krishna and drapaudi were friends for long i am sure she already knew about subdhara so she should not have been upset in the first place hence her accepting subdhara because of krishna is out of question instead i think she forgave arjuna for his actual mistake because subdhara s presence calmed her down that finally Arjuna had someone else to shower his love and attention on.

Why should i believe something which is not true based on some mistranslated verses

Originally posted by: NoraSM

That was just my doing 🙃😂

In Mahabharata text, Arjun practiced celibacy till he encountered Uloopi who abducted him (He wasn't too happy about it 🙄 Ah The Irony), he told Uloopi that he has taken Vrat of celibacy, Uloopi tells him that he has to practice celibacy in regards to Draupadi only, Means he can't sleep with Draupadi 😂😂 It was after this he accepted Uloopi

I know this (I have read all of Arjun's trysts several times 😂😂)

But I always felt that was what Uloopi said to lure Arjun because he was in exile - isn't it obvious he cannot sleep with Draupadi? The rule made also said this, he would be EXILED. Now obviously if he has to practice celibacy in exile, it meant women in general, not Draupadi.

Uloopi was a seducer re. 🤣

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

That quote is mistranslated in actual she asks him to go back to subdhara out of love not jealousy probably because she did not wanted to keep a new bride alone or in midst of strangers just because of their unresolved issues

Krishna and drapaudi were friends for long i am sure she already knew about subdhara so she should not have been upset in the first place hence her accepting subdhara because of krishna is out of question instead i think she forgave arjuna for his actual mistake because subdhara s presence calmed her down that finally Arjuna had someone else to shower his love and attention on.

Why should i believe something which is not true based on some mistranslated verses

Where is it said that it is mistranslated? We only have Drau's words, we cannot hear her tone. Also, Vyasa is not present in front of Drau when she says these so he can't give live account either.

I can say "go away" now. You can read my words, you don't know whether I am being rude or teasing you unless u see context. Here she also says another line which is there in the citation. I refuse to accept her tone was mistranslated. Out of love or jealousy is second person's opinion. Unless you hear her, you don't know. What I see his she was hurt. Not jealous, but hurt and upset.

I can know about something for long yet be upset. Also hearing of it and having to meet your husband after one year are two different things. She is a human being for God sake. She has feelings too, and why is it so important to prove she was 100% neutral and can't ever think of any special feelings for Arjun and feel bad about his marriage? It doesn't make her any less of a wondorous woman.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I know this (I have read all of Arjun's trysts several times 😂😂)

But I always felt that was what Uloopi said to lure Arjun because he was in exile - isn't it obvious he cannot sleep with Draupadi? The rule made also said this, he would be EXILED. Now obviously if he has to practice celibacy in exile, it meant women in general, not Draupadi.

Uloopi was a seducer re. 🤣

🤣

Arjun was no less, He tells her that he wants to do it but can't and asks her for a way to do it, then she tells him about being celibate for Draupadi

Note - By all means, he meant pleasing her in some other way

Originally posted by: NoraSM

🤣

Arjun was no less, He tells her that he wants to do it but can't and asks her for a way to do it, then she tells him about being celibate for Draupadi

Note - By all means, he meant pleasing her in some other way

He very much was. He very cleverly asks the WOMAN to say it to him so that nobody can say oh you know, Arjun ne yeh kiya. After all, Uloopi said no. Classic patriarchy. Classic cis man. 😉

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Where is it said that it is mistranslated? We only have Drau's words, we cannot hear her tone. Also, Vyasa is not present in front of Drau when she says these so he can't give live account either.

I can say "go away" now. You can read my words, you don't know whether I am being rude or teasing you unless u see context. Here she also says another line which is there in the citation. I refuse to accept her tone was mistranslated. Out of love or jealousy is second person's opinion. Unless you hear her, you don't know. What I see his she was hurt. Not jealous, but hurt and upset.

I can know about something for long yet be upset. Also hearing of it and having to meet your husband after one year are two different things. She is a human being for God sake. She has feelings too, and why is it so important to prove she was 100% neutral and can't ever think of any special feelings for Arjun and feel bad about his marriage? It doesn't make her any less of a wondorous woman.

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

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