~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 18

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Pranaya doesn't always need to be someone who has non platonic relation

Pranaya and prem are not same. Pranaya is romantic love. Prem is love... period.

There is the whole other Sri thing also.Vyasa was fairly honest even if he used metaphors when talking.

Sri definitely wasn't non platonic love for Narayan.

For those who argue Sri wasn't Lakshmi, she was. Here is the citation:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp044.htm

PS. I don't believe in the divinity explanation. I think it was Vyasa's way of making things clear. For those who do believe, Nar was supposedly part of Narayan. So all was cool.😆

Slightly off topic.

Panchali's birth in Adi Parva summary says she was Sri born in the house of Drupada out of Rati. Debroy sir translated it as out of love, but Rati means passion.

I'm beginning to wonder if Panchali was an illegitimate child born either to Drupada or one of his male family members.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Pranaya and prem are not same. Pranaya is romantic love. Prem is love... period.

There is the whole other Sri thing also.Vyasa was fairly honest even if he used metaphors when talking.

Sri definitely wasn't non platonic love for Narayan.

For those who argue Sri wasn't Lakshmi, she was. Here is the citation:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp044.htm

PS. I don't believe in the divinity explanation. I think it was Vyasa's way of making things clear. For those who do believe, Nar was supposedly part of Narayan. So all was cool.😆

I know Draupadi is Lakshmi incarnate, I am more than happy at it, but a couple need not remain so in every life. Krishna definitely loved Rukmini and Ashtabharya

I just want to believe them as bffs because I want people to know platonic friendship exists in hetrosexual relations too. Period...

Nar and Narayan are supposedly two forms of Vishnu. We rever to Narayan because that's the divine form

P.S. Actually I had read somewhere long back that Krishna was the only Poorna Purush so he didn't have nipples(that is a symbol of Striatva in all males)

Arjun was Ardhpoorna Purush so he had only one nipple. Not sure what to take of it 😛😛😛

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Slightly off topic.

Panchali's birth in Adi Parva summary says she was Sri born in the house of Drupada out of Rati. Debroy sir translated it as out of love, but Rati means passion.

I'm beginning to wonder if Panchali was an illegitimate child born either to Drupada or one of his male family members.

But is it necessary that passion is only in illegitimate relationships?? A husband and wife could have passion too

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

But is it necessary that passion is only in illegitimate relationships?? A husband and wife could have passion too

Why all the skulduggery then?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Pranaya and prem are not same. Pranaya is romantic love. Prem is love... period.

There is the whole other Sri thing also.Vyasa was fairly honest even if he used metaphors when talking.

Sri definitely wasn't non platonic love for Narayan.

For those who argue Sri wasn't Lakshmi, she was. Here is the citation:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp044.htm

PS. I don't believe in the divinity explanation. I think it was Vyasa's way of making things clear. For those who do believe, Nar was supposedly part of Narayan. So all was cool.😆

Yes she is supposed to be Sri, I know.

But I just would like to believe they were good friends because it's kinda strange that everything becomes romantic in the end. 😆

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Slightly off topic.

Panchali's birth in Adi Parva summary says she was Sri born in the house of Drupada out of Rati. Debroy sir translated it as out of love, but Rati means passion.

I'm beginning to wonder if Panchali was an illegitimate child born either to Drupada or one of his male family members.

I think since she is mentioned as Drupad's daughter maybe she was born to him but illegitimate otherwise there was no need to cook up the fire birth story. What about Dhrist then? Unless he was born to the same mother as Panchali they could not have known their childhood together no?

I do think Draupadi n Dhristhdhyum were twins. If it was out of Rati, probably both were.

But why select them as the forebearers, didn't he have legitimate kids

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I do think Draupadi n Dhristhdhyum were twins. If it was out of Rati, probably both were.

But why select them as the forebearers, didn't he have legitimate kids

I don't believe they were Drupada's. I think he didn't have kids/couldn't have kids as Buddhist jataka says. Agni takes on special significance as text itself says Angirasa is Agni. Could've been Niyog, but then, there would've been no reason to hide it. So I'm assuming one of the Angirasa rishis got it on with one of the ladies in Drupada's household. Or the other way... one of Drupada's brothers impregnated an Angirasa woman which might actually better explain the fire birth. From the womb of Agni, etc. Notice how the avatar description doesn't say born to Drupada, it says born IN THE HOUSE OF Drupada.

I have posted this elsewhere too.

If you ignore divinity. It becomes logically impossible for men to have only sons.

Today the male female ratio in India is 980:1000. Still quiet a lot of men find it difficult to get wives when polygamy is banned.

In that era polygamy was rampant amongst ruling class. If everyone was having legitimate wives and concubines where were these women coming from if everyone was only having sons.

Its toxic masxulinity and nothing else. Why was Niyog so common. Why were so many kids having divine origins.

A lot of women were getting married at 16 or even earlier. Its biologically a very young age to have a healthy child. Infant mortality is real.

Vasudev marries 6 sisters of devaki. She was th odlest at had her swaymvar at 16. Then how old must the rest would be. That is 7 sisters he marries. Plus Rohini. And then Kans conveniently kills 7 children. Devaki has the 8th krishna. What must have happened is the other wives miscarried or the children died within a year or two of birth. Because the mothers were too young. Kansa gets to be the convenient cover up.

Vasudev had only 2 sons and later subhadra.

Krishna similarly must have had only 1 daughter for a long time. While his other wives suffered miscariages, still borns and death during childbirth

Hence he adopts Pradyumna from his uncle and Balram's only son samba as his own. Eventually satyabhama may have given birth to a son. Hence her exalted status when she was actually the thrid wife

Same with drupad. He may have had just shikhandi. Who turns out to be transgendered at birth. So he adopts Draupadi and Dhrishtadyumn..