Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#11 - Page 54

FYI. Kheer is used in some regional versions as a euphemism. For ex, the same Durvasa supposedly put hot kheer on young Kunti's bare back, after which he gave her the boon of sons with gods.

I'll leave it to you to imagine what it could've been.

So that Krishna Rukmini Durvasa story doesn't seem quite so benign to me.

Even if it was benign, it clearly had the opposite effect on Krishna because he outright calls brahmanas (rishis) poisonous. Fear and respect aren't the same.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

FYI. Kheer is used in some regional versions as a euphemism. For ex, the same Durvasa supposedly put hot kheer on young Kunti's bare back, after which he gave her the boon of sons with gods.

I'll leave it to you to imagine what it could've been.

So that Krishna Rukmini Durvasa story doesn't seem quite so benign to me.

Even if it was benign, it clearly had the opposite effect on Krishna because he outright calls brahmanas (rishis) poisonous. Fear and respect aren't the same.

If Durvasha did to Rukmini what Suryadeva did to Kunti then what is the difference between him and Ravana?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

FYI. Kheer is used in some regional versions as a euphemism. For ex, the same Durvasa supposedly put hot kheer on young Kunti's bare back, after which he gave her the boon of sons with gods.

I'll leave it to you to imagine what it could've been.

So that Krishna Rukmini Durvasa story doesn't seem quite so benign to me.

Even if it was benign, it clearly had the opposite effect on Krishna because he outright calls brahmanas (rishis) poisonous. Fear and respect aren't the same.

Do you think the kheer at bare back of Kunti was actual reason of Karna's birth(I mean obviously whatever he would have done which is hidden by these lines)

I always thought Durwasa just mentored her, biological fathers of children were someone else

Durvasa putting the kheer might have been because Durvasa brought the perpetrator to Kuntibhoj. Or it could've been he himself who was the culprit. My feeling is he brought some spoiled rotten prince of the solar dynasty. The petulance in Surya's words when Kunti refuses sex is incredible. That's usually the m.o. of young jerks, not older men.

OTOH, Durvasa is the one who forces Rukmini to apply kheer and is said to directly torture her with whips.

Also, Krishna's words about Durvasa are that of helpless fear, not of devotion or dharma.

Side note: the Durvasa visit in Pandava/Panchali exile is not in CE, but the story takes on a different hue if the other parts about Durvasa are true.

Krishna clearly knew what Durvasa was.

Durvasa could've made many demands since Pandavas were trying to get support from the rishis. After what happened in dice hall, could Pandavas be trusted not to throw Panchali to the wolves once again for their own selfish reasons?

Krishna wasn't merely saving Panchali from being cursed.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Side note: the Durvasa visit in Pandava/Panchali exile is not in CE, but the story takes on a different hue if the other parts about Durvasa are true.

Krishna clearly knew what Durvasa was.

Durvasa could've made many demands since Pandavas were trying to get support from the rishis. After what happened in dice hall, could Pandavas be trusted not to throw Panchali to the wolves once again for their own selfish reasons?

Krishna wasn't merely saving Panchali from being cursed.

I have a question. When Yudhishthir lost Pandavas in dice game they became slaves. Then why Kauravas claimed Panchali to be a sex slave and not slave alone? What was the logic behind that. Did women slaves were by default sex slaves at that time?

Originally posted by: vyapti

I have a question. When Yudhishthir lost Pandavas in dice game they became slaves. Then why Kauravas claimed Panchali to be a sex slave and not slave alone? What was the logic behind that. Did women slaves were by default sex slaves at that time?

Slaves could be used for any purpose, sadly. Eg. Yuyutsu's poor mother, who took the brunt of the blind king's disappointment with his wife's *failure* to bear him a son.

To be fair, Suyodhana initially said he wanted to see Panchali sweeping and cleaning (paraphrased) with the other maids.

Karna was the one who told her go to the slave house and pick one of the Kauravas for sex. Both Karna and Dusshasana said she could be made naked. Actually Dusshasana said he didn't care if she was wearing one cloth or naked. Karna ordered Dusshasana to actually strip her naked.

Suyodhana's sexual remark came at the end when he showed her his naked thigh. ie, invited her to give him a lap dance.

What TV shows portray is a different thing.

Originally posted by: vyapti

I have a question. When Yudhishthir lost Pandavas in dice game they became slaves. Then why Kauravas claimed Panchali to be a sex slave and not slave alone? What was the logic behind that. Did women slaves were by default sex slaves at that time?

Slaves could have been used for any purpose the masters felt good, forget having relations with them, they could be(and often were) even sent to the services (understand what kind of) of obedient servants of the master if they pleased the master (obviously after having been served by these slaves themselves)

Not sure if homo relations happened back then, but I think (no direct reference, completely my opinion) even the male slaves would have been subjected to assaults if their master was a bi/gay

They literally had no say in it

I don't know why these Hindus of today say that there was no slavery in ancient India and Dasa doesn't mean slave. I have been so many times been trolled by them to say that Dasa/Dasi mean slave, they are like no you don't know Sankrit, the origin of this word is completely different and isn't related to slave,

Maybe they had more rights than European or Middle Eastern slaves and maybe slavery in India was abolished earlier, but slavery definitely was there in ancient India

P.S. the first occurrence of word Dasa is in RigVed where it refers to a group of people Aryas fight (many feel they were the original inhabitants when Aryans came)

Yes the word didn't mean slave here, but in later texts its completely about slavery

Every culture in the world had slavery. It's the dark side of humanity. Europeans kept white slaves before modern era when they switched to black slaves. Africans, Native Americans, Arabs, Jews, Chinese, Indians... every single culture had it. Those who claim not to have had it are lying.