~| Whatever you want to argue about - 2 |~ - Page 15

Originally posted by: naq5

well there were snide remarks here about the importance or love for arjun also from krishnas side so im getting into none of this.

And i dont believe that krishna panchali relationship was so special only because they had romantic inclinations for each other. It can be special irrespective of that. Platonic soulmates also exist. As others have mentioned here MB had deep relations irrespective of bond of blood or romance. It is we who in this time because of our conditioning perceive it in that way.

Perfectly summed up.

I don't feel Draupadi and Krishna had any romantic relations.

Yes they were very close and were best friends but platonically

Originally posted by: naq5

well there were snide remarks here about the importance or love for arjun also from krishnas side so im getting into none of this.

And i dont believe that krishna panchali relationship was so special only because they had romantic inclinations for each other. It can be special irrespective of that. Platonic soulmates also exist. As others have mentioned here MB had deep relations irrespective of bond of blood or romance. It is we who in this time because of our conditioning perceive it in that way.

NOBODY made a snide remark on krishna arjun relationship. If you are talking about my post then i stated that i don't think arjuna was more important to krishna than panchali. That s AN opinion MY opinion.

Calling someone a "charity" is a snide remark. Both are DIFFERENT.

About the second part that s an opinion which i respect everyone can a different take on. Bit SNIDE remarks is something I don't appreciate.

i have a question. According to the divine angle. Who is considered as Nar during Sri Ram avatar. considering Arjun-krishna are considered Nar -Narayan during krishnas avatar

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Perfectly summed up.

I don't feel Draupadi and Krishna had any romantic relations.

Yes they were very close and were best friends but platonically

The problem is not you and me think about their relationship. That s an opinion your opinion and mine. I respect that. Problem is snide remarks and condescending tone that is used against panchali. Nobody here passed a snide remark against arjuna krishna s relationship. Nobody called arjuna a "charity" for krishna.

Originally posted by: naq5

i have a question. According to the divine angle. Who is considered as Nar during Sri Ram avatar. considering Arjun-krishna are considered Nar -Narayan during krishnas avatar

I don't think there was one in Ramavtar

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Ok this is my last post on Krishna krishnaa relationship debate. Every person have different views on this relationship some think that it was platonic many including me think that they love eachother

Opinion are subjective. I am not trying to shove or weight down my someone. The problem arises when people deem your opinion as "rubbish" which i think is NOT right.

And for the last time people should stop putting down krishna and krishnaa s relationship. And stop using such condensing tone And snide remarks for panchali.

I think they were IN LOVE. And I Will STAND BY IT.

I am going to quote this again since people here are missing the point entirely

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I don't think there was one in Ramavtar

aren't Nar & narayan supposed to take birth together always. That is what i read somewhere. And i think DKDM had a track on that too.

these divine angles dont add up properly every time.

BTW is geeta gyan by krishna to arjuna a later addition or it was always there originally if we see MB in non divine way

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

The problem is not you and me think about their relationship. That s an opinion your opinion and mine. I respect that. Problem is snide remarks and condescending tone that is used against panchali. Nobody here passed a snide remark against arjuna krishna s relationship. Nobody called arjuna a "charity" for krishna.

See I am not discussing on who was closer to Krishnaji-- Draupadi or Arjun

I don't think, things need to be so crystal clear. Both of them were close to Krishna. Arjun was his (using his by small h since not considering him divine here), best friend, cousin and brother in law. Draupadi was his deep affectionate, closest friend and going by HearMeRoar's Theory (which I find true) daughter of his foster mother.

None of them were charity cases just a deep bond love and respect

I guess I missed that charity comment, but since yesterday there has been repeated snide comments which I was trying to avoid.

Anyhow I wouldn't comment on this point anymore

Let me list all the charity done by Krishna towards the women in his life.

Rukmini - asked Krishna to rescue her when he never even met her - sympathy marriage

Jambavati - her father was defeated and gave her as prize - basically, war prize

Satyabhama -arranged marriage for her dowry

Kalindi/Yamuna - sexually assaulted by Balram (yes, it's there in Harivamsa) - sympathy marriage

Nagnajiti - swayamvara

Mitravinda - swayamvara

Lakshmana - abducted from her swayamvara.

Bhadra - arranged marriage

16100 of Naraka's concubines - charity cases.

So first 4 of Krishna's wives were actually sympathy marriages or arranged marriages.

_____________________

Let's see who Panchali was. The most beautiful woman of the era according to Vyasa, daughter of moneybags Drupada, so intelligent and shrewd she was called Saraswati by Vyasa.

Panchali was the reason Pandavas even had a life left. Before her, they (including Arjuna) were begging for food. She got them their freedom back in dice hall. Her family got them their kingdom back in the war.

Panchali GAVE charity. 😆 It takes Yudhishtira level chutzpah to imagine her AS charity of Krishna or his wives.

Originally posted by: naq5

aren't Nar & narayan supposed to take birth together always. That is what i read somewhere. And i think DKDM had a track on that too.

these divine angles dont add up properly every time.

BTW is geeta gyan by krishna to arjuna a later addition or it was always there originally if we see MB in non divine way

Irawati Karve says 1st 4 chapters were prob real and the rest later interpolation