Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#11 - Page 55

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.

This is so selfish of Krishna if true

Like he didn't save his wife, probably used his sister but was always ready for Draupadi's rescue

I don't deny the fact that he shared deep bond with Draupadi but always thinking about Draupadi (like RK Krishna does for Radha) is sad state of affairs

P.S. I don't think Durvasa of Kunti was same aa Durvasa who reached Rukmini/Draupadi

Durvasa was already elderly at the time of Kunti's tender age, when Durvasa reached Draupadi(assuming he did)/Rukmini, the sons of Kunti were middle aged and in their 40s, even if a person survives for 85 years or so, still at this age he would not make such behavior I think

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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.

Exactly it's a fake sense of supremacy in Hindus to show India had everything good till British/Islamic invasions

A guy actually told that Dasa means devotee to submits himself/herself to others like Hanuman was to Ram, he then used the line from Hanuman Chaleesa "Sada raho Raghupati ke dasa" to prove his point

I felt like banging my head, like using a metaphor in 15th century Avadhi text to say what the word really meant in 3rd century BCE Sankrit text is so stupid

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

This is so selfish of Krishna if true

Like he didn't save his wife, probably used his sister but was always ready for Draupadi's rescue

I don't deny the fact that he shared deep bond with Draupadi but always thinking about Draupadi (like RK Krishna does for Radha) is sad state of affairs

P.S. I don't think Durvasa of Kunti was same aa Durvasa who reached Rukmini/Draupadi

Durvasa was already elderly at the time of Kunti's tender age, when Durvasa reached Draupadi(assuming he did)/Rukmini, the sons of Kunti were middle aged and in their 40s, even if a person survives for 85 years or so, still at this age he would not make such behavior I think

In Krishna's defense, the encounter when Rukmini was around would've been the first time. He was clearly in a position of disadvantage. It was stated to be before the birth of Pradyumna so in very early stages of Krishna's adult life.

By the time the exile happened, Krishna was not the same young man. He had experience and kept a close watch on what went on in Aryavarta. He did for Panchali what he couldn't for Rukmini.

Re: Subhadra. No excuses there.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Exactly it's a fake sense of supremacy in Hindus to show India had everything good till British/Islamic invasions

A guy actually told that Dasa means devotee to submits himself/herself to others like Hanuman was to Ram, he then used the line from Hanuman Chaleesa "Sada raho Raghupati ke dasa" to prove his point

I felt like banging my head, like using a metaphor in 15th century Avadhi text to say what the word really meant in 3rd century BCE Sankrit text is so stupid

Also, there is a diff between someone subjugating themselves spiritually and Person A subjugating Person B physically.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

In Krishna's defense, the encounter when Rukmini was around would've been the first time. He was clearly in a position of disadvantage. It was stated to be before the birth of Pradyumna so in very early stages of Krishna's adult life.

By the time the exile happened, Krishna was not the same young man. He had experience and kept a close watch on what went on in Aryavarta. He did for Panchali what he couldn't for Rukmini.

Re: Subhadra. No excuses there.

Yes that could be a proper excuse for Krishna, he obviously would have learnt his kootniti with time, as a young guy with no sons, surrounded by enemies, he wouldn't have dared get the wrath of Durvasa Rishi and thereby a major Brahmin group

Subhadra and Khandavdehen obviously makes no sense, had these been done by any antagonist, people would have hated these episodes to the core, but since it's Krishna Arjun, hence it's romanticized

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Also, there is a diff between someone subjugating themselves spiritually and Person A subjugating Person B physically.

Yes true but according to that guy, Dasa refers to someone subjugating themselves spiritually because Hanuman is called Dasa of Ram, every other example he excused.

I was like next line is Ram Rasayan tumre Pasa, so definitely that would be a proof that there was a chemical/substance/poison named Ram with Hanuman which he would have been carrying

Such fake sense of supremacy they have

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes true but according to that guy, Dasa refers to someone subjugating themselves spiritually because Hanuman is called Dasa of Ram, every other example he excused.

I was like next line is Ram Rasayan tumre Pasa, so definitely that would be a proof that there was a chemical/substance/poison named Ram with Hanuman which he would have been carrying

Such fake sense of supremacy they have

I used to think Dasa means "Always at your service"---not exactly slave but servant.

Or probably Dasa meant both.

Slave actually reminds me of Harishchandra story.

Originally posted by: vyapti

I used to think Dasa means "Always at your service"---not exactly slave but servant.

Or probably Dasa meant both.

Slave actually reminds me of Harishchandra story.

There are different words for Servant like Karmaka, Sewak etc., Dasa were definitely not servants

I think if we say Dasa was not slave (if we want to remove it) then we might at best say they were bonded labours

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

There are different words for Servant like Karmaka, Sewak etc., Dasa were definitely not servants

I think if we say Dasa was not slave (if we want to remove it) then we might at best say they were bonded labours

Problem for those who deny it is that Karna makes it very clear what dasi means in that context. Sex slave.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

There are different words for Servant like Karmaka, Sewak etc., Dasa were definitely not servants

I think if we say Dasa was not slave (if we want to remove it) then we might at best say they were bonded labours

Didn't Shishupal or someone else call Krishna son of a Dasa of Kans?