Mahabharat Retelecast Discussion Thread 5 - Page 58

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

@Bold no that place isn't considered as the sasural of Krishnaji, Jagganath, that place is specifically called Mausi Badi or the house of Mausi

Coming to Radha being worshipped in all temples, let's not forget that all the temples in North India (with exception of a few) are not more than 400 years old, all the old temples were demolished by the invaders. The KrishnaJanamsthan temple as you call today is not at actual KrishnaJanamsthan but a slight distance from there.

Now obviously Radha has been considered an accomplice of Krishna for last 600 years, so definitely she would be a part of the later temples

She however finds no mention in any of the authentic texts

Thnks 4 correcting but we were told about it by d local guide , so I said

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

We can agree to disagree coz I know what I m saying & strongly stick 2 it .

It was draupadi who is termed as partial not arjun

Can you provide citation where vyasa termed panchali as partial. Because acc to vyasa himself panchali was arjuna s love. He never calls arjuna as drapaudi s love neither does he calls any of his other wives subdhara ulloopi chitrangadha as his love. Only panchali. Clearly its for all to see who was partial.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Of course queens were aware of it. As I said it was a very common norm. That was the main duty of the Dasis of any male. It's as normal as a person would approach his wife.

The slave girls definitely would have wanted to get pregnant, but do you think they would have not been tested to ensure their time isn't due? The dasis were generally called after Ritu Snan the time one has least chance of getting pregnant. They must have taken other precautions too. Slaves had sub human treatment. Why do you think Pandavas were quite even after seeing Draupadi facing so much

Yuyutsu is actually called as the son of Vaishya wife in KMG, I guess she was freed after Yuyutsu's birth and Dhritrashtra married her, or maybe since she remained a protectorate of Dhritrashtra so KMG calls her Vaishya wife but anyhow she doesn't remain a Dasi post this

Vidur was a different case, his mom wasn't the Dasi of Vichitraveer, but of his wives, they sent her to Vyas with her approval for child bearing. In this case there is not much case on anyone..

Both Yuyutsu and Vidur were given the same education as their brothers, were openly accepted in society as sons of Dhritrashtra and Vyas respectively

Pandavas life is not very openly described but nowhere it's mentioned that they didn't practice this regular norm. Yudhishtir had umpteen number of Dasis, they are said to have relaxed with most beautiful maidens the night just before the dice hall day, they had kids out of wedlock. What exactly makes you feel they didn't have relations with Dasis

I never read about manusmriti , this system is like harem system of Muslim invaders

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

We can agree to disagree coz I know what I m saying & strongly stick 2 it .

It was draupadi who is termed as partial not arjun

By who?😆 Not by Vyasa or Arjuna or Panchali. Only Yudhishtira and that, too, in a part considered interpolation.

Actually, here is one MEGA piece of evidence what you claim is not true.

in dice hall, Dhritharashtra offers Panchali ONE boon, and she asks for YUDHISHTIRA. She didn't even ask for all 5 brothers. She didn't know at the time there would be a 2nd boon. She was quite willing to let Arjuna rot away as Kaurava slave at least for a while. I believe she would've returned with Krishna to get the rest, but fact remains she didn't ask for him.😆

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Could you provide citation?

The missing him more than suffering from assault was removed by CE as interpolation. The part where Janmejaya prompts Vaishampayana has her saying she misses both Arjuna and Pundarikaksha Pundarikaksha is KRISHNA, not Arjuna. She doesn't say anything about Arjuna to Satyabhama.

The one and only sign of any romantic feeling from her side is when Subhadra comes home. Even there, the word actually used in Sanskrit CE is pranyaat. ie, out of love. So Panchali asked Arjuna to go to Subhadra out of love? Does that make any sense?

Thanx for the clarity. I will also dig quora and revert. They had put up quite some extracts.

Regarding the last portion "out of love" maybe Vyas wanted to show that she loved him enough to even share him for his sake?

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

Thanx for the clarity. I will also dig quora and revert. They had put up quite some extracts.

Regarding the last portion "out of love" maybe Vyas wanted to show that she loved him enough to even share him for his sake?

My feeling is that there was something between them in the beginning. Both young, hot, and he did win her. There might've been a sense of possession from both sides. Also, Arjuna tells Krishna "everything" when he gets to Dwaraka😆. Which is when Krishna points out Subhadra. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Krishna read his brother-in-law-to-be the riot act and told him not to start dissension in the family. Which probably explains the apology. "I'm sorry I hit on you (weapon her room😆) out of turn" if you believe in polyandry, and "I'm sorry i hit on you" if you don't believe it. It would also explain why she sent him to Subhadra out of love. Apology accepted.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

We can agree to disagree coz I know what I m saying & strongly stick 2 it .

It was draupadi who is termed as partial not arjun

Yudhishtir terms Draupadi partial not Vyas or Vaishampayan

Yudhishtir had is self complexes.

The texts only have Arjun's umpteen love for Draupadi but not the reverse

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yudhishtir terms Draupadi partial not Vyas or Vaishampayan

Yudhishtir had is self complexes.

The texts only have Arjun's umpteen love for Draupadi but not the reverse

Plus the spritzer Mahabharata which is the oldest one does not even contain swarghoran portion. It was in all probability a latter addition.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

I never read about manusmriti , this system is like harem system of Muslim invaders

Harem women were not slaves but more like concubines, they had much more rights.

Slaves or Dasis or Ghulams were much below that, as I said they were considered sub humans. They were the property of the masters like any object or animal.

Although Indian Dasas did have much more rights than their western counterparts, yet they were still master's property and their lives depended on the wishes of their masters.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Plus the spritzer Mahabharata which is the oldest one does not even contain swarghoran portion. It was in all probability a latter addition.

BORI hasn't removed it, so I guess they might have found in earlier texts