~| Whatever you want to argue about - 2 |~ - Page 56

I call that devotee complex. The whole idea of trying to find justification for an act we know is wrong but because it is done by our someone we think is the hero. We deify him or her and start whitewashing.

Why not just accept. Y'a stealing clothes of women, and to force them to walk out of the river naked, while the child thief is laughing at their plight is wrong.

Would you accept a 10 year old child doing it today. Would the later good deeds done by the child when he becomes an adult condone it.

Yeah Krishna did that. It was very wrong of him to do that. He should have been punished for it.

That's all.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I call that devotee complex. The whole idea of trying to find justification for an act we know is wrong but because it is done by our someone we think is the hero. We deify him or her and start whitewashing.

Why not just accept. Y'a stealing clothes of women, and to force them to walk out of the river naked, while the child thief is laughing at their plight is wrong.

Would you accept a 10 year old child doing it today. Would the later good deeds done by the child when he becomes an adult condone it.

Yeah Krishna did that. It was very wrong of him to do that. He should have been punished for it.

That's all.

I didn't say it was right. Nor did I whitewash it. All I said was his actions in later life do not match at all.

Either Krishna changed in adulthood, or these were 2 diff people as ISKCON says. I think they were the same, and I see no evidence of that terrible behavior after Kamsa vadh.

Whereas if you take someone like Suyodhana or Karna, you actually see their crimes escalating.

Nothing wrong with admitting positive change, either.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I call that devotee complex. The whole idea of trying to find justification for an act we know is wrong but because it is done by our someone we think is the hero. We deify him or her and start whitewashing.

Why not just accept. Y'a stealing clothes of women, and to force them to walk out of the river naked, while the child thief is laughing at their plight is wrong.

Would you accept a 10 year old child doing it today. Would the later good deeds done by the child when he becomes an adult condone it.

Yeah Krishna did that. It was very wrong of him to do that. He should have been punished for it.

That's all.

I don't think Krishnaji was even 10 then, he might have been around 6-7 and I doubt people Are intelligent enough to understand at that age.

But agreed on your point, we try to justify the acts of those we worship, those we like, those we consider ours. Like tribalism

Ok I just read that Anu is a Mesopotamian deity family. He is considered to be ancestor of Anunaniki one of the chief Mesopotamian deity.

Now we know that Mesopotamians have had a tendency of ancestor praying.

So thinking about it, could this Anu be the same as the son of Yayati. Since Anu n descandents went towards the western sides to establish their rule and it is highly possible that his descandents would have moved further towards Assyrian areas

Any inputs

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Ok I just read that Anu is a Mesopotamian deity family. He is considered to be ancestor of Anunaniki one of the chief Mesopotamian deity.

Now we know that Mesopotamians have had a tendency of ancestor praying.

So thinking about it, could this Anu be the same as the son of Yayati. Since Anu n descandents went towards the western sides to establish their rule and it is highly possible that his descandents would have moved further towards Assyrian areas

Any inputs

Interesting! Let me read on it.

Hi Chiillii there is an Fb post regarding monogamy of Draupadi, could you check it? They have given a reference about Bheem saying Draupadi was his brother's wife? Could you check

https://www.facebook.com/108308283978821/posts/182159703260345/

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Hi Chiillii there is an Fb post regarding monogamy of Draupadi, could you check it? They have given a reference about Bheem saying Draupadi was his brother's wife? Could you check

https://www.facebook.com/108308283978821/posts/182159703260345/

@ preet

If draupadi was only married to Yudi then she has no right 2 blame BANS , in front of krishna she openly blamed B & A . In duet sabha B & A would not had gone against Yudi , why will bheem say to burn Yudi's hand .

I m just giving example when sita went to solo exile , no way d lady can blame BLS 4 her condition coz she was only Ram's responsibility , same goes 4 BLS they can't say anything to ram 4 sita , they can only request ram.

In vedvyas version they r many situations b/w draupadi bheem or ardi which is definitely not of bhabhi devar.

Vyas was clear for marrying draupadi to 5 Pandavas.

Draupadi belong to indian culture not western , indian culture wife of elder brother is consider as mother coz elder brother is like father , so draupadi became mother to four Pandavas.

Draupadi was definitely a head of her time but she never crossed her limits ,she was fully capable of showing others also their limit.

People only find news techniques to insult draupadi & proof what karna said was truth , already their r many jokes on d lady .

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

@ preet

If draupadi was only married to Yudi then she has no right 2 blame BANS , in front of krishna she openly blamed B & A . In duet sabha B & A would not had gone against Yudi , why will bheem say to burn Yudi's hand .

I m just giving example when sita went to solo exile , no way d lady can blame BLS 4 her condition coz she was only Ram's responsibility , same goes 4 BLS they can't say anything to ram 4 sita , they can only request ram.

In vedvyas version they r many situations b/w draupadi bheem or ardi which is definitely not of bhabhi devar.

Vyas was clear for marrying draupadi to 5 Pandavas.

Draupadi belong to indian culture not western , indian culture wife of elder brother is consider as mother coz elder brother is like father , so draupadi became mother to four Pandavas.

Draupadi was definitely a head of her time but she never crossed her limits ,she was fully capable of showing others also their limit.

People only find news techniques to insult draupadi & proof what karna said was truth , already their r many jokes on d lady .

I believe in Polyandry too, but the points that were raised in the fb post are worth pondering. Especially if Bheem actually says that he killed the one two tried to molest his brother's wife(in Keechak) case. The reason I asked Chhiillli is because she has the knowledge of Sansksrit and could understand these Shlokas

Indian culture isn't about considering Bhabhi as ma dear, many women marry their brother in laws after their husbands' death. Even in Draupadi's case, considering Polyandry, she married Yudhishtir first, thereby becoming the Bhabhi of BANS (since they weren't married to her by then), so didn't they marry her?

In no circumstances there could be a girl allowed to marry someone who is equivalent to her sons.

I am not sure about the Krishna example so won't comment

Nah I have read that shloka. In sanskrit its something on the lines of father, brother, wife, son, relatives, friends, king and God are the eight fold support is needed to live a prosperous life so you owe it to yourself to stand up for them....something.

I have to get the exact sloka.

Basically its brother, wife not brother's wife.

The person who posted it is nuts

Draupadi's polyandry is something to be proud of. Not something to be defensive about.

Pandavas were proud of their common wife. Draupadi was proud of her 5 husbands

(Yudhi didnt deserve it and Draupadi realised it too, but it was 4 ke saath ek free and you all know the quality of free things...so there)

No one ever had any problems with the polyandry. The Pandavas, Draupadi, their family, rishis and brahmanas, Other kings, society of that time.

The one guy who had an issue was Karna. Doesnt that speak about him and his charachter.

Sad reality of patriarchy and nothing else.

Draupadi was common wife of all 5.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I believe in Polyandry too, but the points that were raised in the fb post are worth pondering. Especially if Bheem actually says that he killed the one two tried to molest his brother's wife(in Keechak) case. The reason I asked Chhiillli is because she has the knowledge of Sansksrit and could understand these Shlokas

Indian culture isn't about considering Bhabhi as ma dear, many women marry their brother in laws after their husbands' death. Even in Draupadi's case, considering Polyandry, she married Yudhishtir first, thereby becoming the Bhabhi of BANS (since they weren't married to her by then), so didn't they marry her?

In no circumstances there could be a girl allowed to marry someone who is equivalent to her sons.

I am not sure about the Krishna example so won't comment

Acc 2 my knowledge in indian culture elder brother who is known as agraj of had been given place of father & younger brother who is known as Anuj gain position of son.

Ram & yudi both r agraj of their respective brothers , both were like father image 2 thier brothers after dasrath & pandu passed away , it is quite natural wife 2 agraj is like a mother 2 younger brothers , I can't say about draupadi how she was married 2 five pandavas.

I read on Quora draupadi's marriage taken 5 days , aur bhi complication the is marriage main.

When she is wife of only Yudi that that time other 4 r devar 2 her & when she is wife of Sahdev that time other 4 r FIL of her.

The member who posted explained it in detail

I will try 2 search & post it . It has sanskrit quotes 2.