Mahabharat Retelecast Discussion Thread 5 - Page 59

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

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

Isn't sptizer the oldest??? It does not mention it.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Isn't sptizer the oldest??? It does not mention it.

Yes but why hasn't BORI removed it, is something I don't understand

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes but why hasn't BORI removed it, is something I don't understand

You know what. I would love if we can have a question answer session with bibek debroy someday. 😆

Krishna udayshnakar indrajit bhandopadhy and even neelkanth had already visited the forum. So maybe we can ask him too.

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

@preet

I know Yudi said draupadi partial not vedvyas that why don't believe him .

Regarding arjun's umpteen love 4 draupadi I actually know kitna pyar tha uske actions khud hi uski pol kholte hai , us pyar ki saachai bhi batate hai

That's why I said i know what I m saying & I will stick 2 that only .

Isiliye kaha tha we can agree to disagree

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

@preet

I know Yudi said draupadi partial not vedvyas that why don't believe him .

Regarding arjun's umpteen love 4 draupadi I actually know kitna pyar tha uske actions khud hi uski pol kholte hai , us pyar ki saachai bhi batate hai

That's why I said i know what I m saying & I will stick 2 that only .

Isiliye kaha tha we can agree to disagree

Uske saare actions to uske pyar ko hi denote karte hain.

Be it saying in favour of Draupadi in Dyut Sabha, getting her gifts of others

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

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.

Discussion which we have yesterday acc to that I gave example of harem .

As u said dasi putra were brought up like normal prince only difference they don't have right on

throne.

I can be wrong but I read some where even same goes with mughal emperor also .

Arjuna was a silent lover☺️. Man, I adore the guy.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Discussion which we have yesterday acc to that I gave example of harem .

As u said dasi putra were brought up like normal prince only difference they don't have right on

throne.

I can be wrong but I read some where even same goes with mughal emperor also .

Dasis were not only for kings, normal people had slaves or Dasis too, it was simply property. The concubines were different from these slaves their kids also were legitimate kids with no rights to inherit

The kid thing in case of Dasi was because post the birth of the kid, the mother n kid both became free from Dasatva. But if you want to call then that's the only resemble to a Harem woman

Harem woman had ladies in waiting for them, and had the duty to only please their lord, Dasis had no such prevelege, were also required to carry out the duties of a servant without fail and be available for the master the moment they ask for. Dasis didn't have the right to demand anything. They could be gifted to others.

Just take it that Dasis didn't have any rights while Harem women or Concubines had. They weren't the property of their lords

Let us jot down all the best moments where Arjun express his love for love of his life panchali -

1) defying his father like elder brother s authority on him in an open court for panchali.

2). In virat parva he specifically mention the depth of his love for panchali which nobody can comprehend

3) vaysa specially calls panchali as his love he never calls any of his other wives as love of arjuna s life.

4) and his anger lets open all the pent up anget he feels against his brother for stealing the woman he loves. Panchali.

He did really loved her alot more than he loved any of his other wives

Ek tarafa pyaar ki kimaat tum kya jaano forum walo. Auro ke rishton ki tarah ye do hisso main nahi bata hai sirf arjuna ka haq hai iss pe 😳

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Uske saare actions to uske pyar ko hi denote karte hain.

Be it saying in favour of Draupadi in Dyut Sabha, getting her gifts of others

It was his duty to protect her not any favour for he would had slapped or strangled Yudi for staking her from starting only but then he would had done same 4 any of his wife in that situation be it Chitrangada or Subhadra thou panchali was targetted 4 special reason by kauravs , which Subhadra & Chitrangada don't fit in that reason but still I m answering keeping arjun in my mind like he tried to protect draupadi so would he had tried protecting his other wives . What so great in that

Giving heavenly ornaments well as a wife on draupadi was present in d scene , do u really think if Chitrangada or Subhadra would had been present in d scene along with draupadi he would had not distributed d gifts amoung his wives.

Mere pass aur bhi explanation hai which I collected from different platforms but I will not open my mouth Varna dusri mahabharat issi forum pe shuru ho jaye gi .I m least interested in fighting mahabharat.