꧁༺ | ꧁•⊹Ishita⊹•꧂ AT # 1 - Page 15

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I generally don't respond to Arjuna-Panchali comments because while I like them separately, I don't like them together. As a couple, she gets cuts down to prop him up.

1. As @KP said, polyandry was preplanned. All Pandavas knew it because Vyasa told them to do it. Drama was played for Panchali's benefit.

2. Arjuna's weapon in the chamber where Yudhishtira was lying with Panchali can only be taken to mean Arjuna approached her for intimacy out of turn. Because Gandeev was not yet in the picture, and there wouldn't be merely one set of bow and arrows in the palace. Arjuna could've borrowed from any guard. Also, armory would have guards who would've told him the king and queen were inside😆. So yeah, a logical interpretation would be Arjuna went to Panchali with expectations which were not exactly proper.

3. The scene after Subhadra's return: the sequence of Arjuna's visits was something like this - Yudhishtira, Panchali, THEN Kunti. Imagine that... he took Subhadra to meet Panchali before the mother. Not only that, why in the world did he apologize unless he did something before which needed Panchali's forgiveness? Another marriage in those days was nothing to apologize for, and even if that were the case, wouldn't his 2nd visit have been to his mother? Plus, Panchali's reaction has been mistranslated by almost everyone. The Sanskrit version says Panchali said things "pranayat." That is, out of love. Not jealousy.

I think he was apologizing for the misbehavior which got him exiled. She refused to relent, so he sent Subhadra.

4. Arjuna-Panchali-Krishna dynamic is very interesting. Arjuna tried to cajole Krishna into doing things Panchali didn't approve of. She succeeded in making Krishna see things her way. She then threw a speaking glance at Arjuna who once admitted defeat and the second time, tried again, but Krishna said he'd do what needed to be done, anyway.

5. Panchali missing Arjuna. Janmejaya actually orders the narrator to describe how Pandavas and Panchali were missing Arjuna. Since Vaishampayana's dakshina came from the king, he obliged. The wording is subtle mockery from Vaishampayana. He actually says Panchali preferred being sexually assaulted in the dice hall than have Arjuna off on the trip! Also, she starts by saying she misses Arjuna and ends by saying she misses Pundarikaksha 😆 - Krishna, not Arjuna.

Centuries of fan fiction and more recently, TV shows have made Panchali into a lovesick puppy which she never was. In fact, most of the romantic idiocy comes from Arjuna's side in the actual text. Unfortunately, audiences then and now prefer the man to have the upper hand.

I don't think any of them needs to be cut down. Especially Panchali who is certainly a more compelling character than every man in the epic. In fact, to me Arjuna-Panchali seems to be a relationship of equals in which Panchali has equal authority. As you pointed out, he goes to apologise to her, when he doesn't have to. He goes to her before his mother. Later, she along with Subhadra is involved in Khandava dahana, which I think has a lot more to it than the supernatural stuff given in the text. In Virata, when Kauravas strike it is Panchali who decides Arjuna will be Uttar's charioteer. Arjuna isn't even present there and Uttar orders his sister to bring him there. This speaks of authority as well as trust to me. As for the inappropriateness, it's literally mentioned that Yudhishtira was lying with Panchali where all the Pandavas kept their weapons, not just Arjuna. If anything's inappropriate, it's that. Arjuna barging him of course has a lot of connotations but I don't think that the later apology was for this. Draupadi is angry about the marraige, which she specifically states. As for that later declaration about preferring being sexually assaulted, BORI thankfully, removes that nonsense. And Pundarikaksha also means Arjuna, not Krishna alone.

Originally posted by: ScorcherOfFoes

I don't think any of them needs to be cut down. Especially Panchali who is certainly a more compelling character than every man in the epic. In fact, to me Arjuna-Panchali seems to be a relationship of equals in which Panchali has equal authority. As you pointed out, he goes to apologise to her, when he doesn't have to. He goes to her before his mother. Later, she along with Subhadra is involved in Khandava dahana, which I think has a lot more to it than the supernatural stuff given in the text. In Virata, when Kauravas strike it is Panchali who decides Arjuna will be Uttar's charioteer. Arjuna isn't even present there and Uttar orders his sister to bring him there. This speaks of authority as well as trust to me. As for the inappropriateness, it's literally mentioned that Yudhishtira was lying with Panchali where all the Pandavas kept their weapons, not just Arjuna. If anything's inappropriate, it's that. Arjuna barging him of course has a lot of connotations but I don't think that the later apology was for this. Draupadi is angry about the marraige, which she specifically states. As for that later declaration about preferring being sexually assaulted, BORI thankfully, removes that nonsense. And Pundarikaksha also means Arjuna, not Krishna alone.

Weapon:

Logic dictates that Arjuna would've 1) borrowed weapons from a guard and rushed off, not gone to the armory to find one 2) guards at the armory would have told him the couple were inside.

Most people who avoid divinity in interps, do interpret it as Arjuna approaching Panchali inappropriately. Weapon in chamber is mother of all sexual euphemisms.

Subhadra:

Panchali does not state she is angry about the marriage. Nor does the narrator. The word used is pranaya. Not anger.

Missing Arjuna:

Pundarikaksha is nowhere the descriptor for Arjuna. Pundarikaksha is Krishna or Vishnu.

Virat:

Panchali had authority to order Arjuna because she was Yudhishtira's wife. She actually does the same with Bheema multiple times.

__________________

Once again, I prefer to avoid relationship discussions because those invariably descend into who loved whom more debates. As for the original question about Arjuna having love for her: he certainly had a huge thing for her (pun intended). Vyasa didn't hide it.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Arjuna and panchali were friends i never denied that all i don't agree is the age old fanfiction that panchali preferred Arjuna over her other husbands or she pinned or lamented for him which she didn't. He pinned for her not the other way around . For panchali arjuna was as special as bheem or sahadev. Nothing more nothing less

Arjuna knew about the Polyandry thing and he went along with it. He was not the poor he who was betrayed by mother and big brother He was as much part of it as yudhishtra and his other brothers.

If one reads vana parva conversation arjuna was clearly trying to divert krishna s attention. Panchali trumps him in his game. That look was of triumphant not of asking assurance.

This is the first time i am hearing Arjuna having a mame pudrikaksha. Krishna being pudrikaksha is more probable imho

Krishna mentioning arjuna hardly says anything apart from that nobody can defeat Arjun as lomg as krishna is with him

Plus one thing to note is that krishna claim enimity against kauravas because of panchali. And the goes on to say that he is only helping Arjuna because he also has enimity against kauravas. Basically for krishna Krishnaa takes more importance than arjuna.

As i said Arjuna was friend bheem was confidant and sahadev was supporter. Nobody was more important than the other

Krishna was all the three for her.

I don't think we can speak in absolutes where feelings are concerned. For me, thinking Arjuna was special to her doesn't lessen her in any way. None of them were lovesick puppies. Loving someone, and missing them when they're gone, doesn't make anyone a lovesick puppy to me.

As for that interaction. KMG only mentions an oblique glance. Triumphant is your interpretation. Mine can be something different. BORI doesn't keep this afaik since Debroy jumps to Drishtadyumna's promise. So there's that.

So, she's been speaking of Arjuna the whole time and then adds Krishna out of nowhere? That's absurd. Arjuna does have lotus petal eyes, which are described in other places. Pundarikaksha is an epithet not a name.

That speech comes with the context of repaying the debt to Krishnaa. The only way to do that is war. And Krishna doesn't say Arjuna is undefeated as long as Krishna is with him. He speaks of Arjuna's feats without him too. Especially what happened in Virata. It's a clear threat that they will have to face Krishna and Arjuna in war, the reasons being Krishna's debt to Panchali and his friendship with Arjuna.

Again, one can't speak in absolutes. Krishna was Draupadi's friend and confidant. That is not up for debate. For me, Arjuna was too. Since she has shown authority over him, trusts him to follow her unsaid order in Virata, says herself that he is her protector along with Krishna, and has a close friendship with him.

Originally posted by: ScorcherOfFoes

I don't think we can speak in absolutes where feelings are concerned. For me, thinking Arjuna was special to her doesn't lessen her in any way. None of them were lovesick puppies. Loving someone, and missing them when they're gone, doesn't make anyone a lovesick puppy to me.

As for that interaction. KMG only mentions an oblique glance. Triumphant is your interpretation. Mine can be something different. BORI doesn't keep this afaik since Debroy jumps to Drishtadyumna's promise. So there's that.

So, she's been speaking of Arjuna the whole time and then adds Krishna out of nowhere? That's absurd. Arjuna does have lotus petal eyes, which are described in other places. Pundarikaksha is an epithet not a name.

That speech comes with the context of repaying the debt to Krishnaa. The only way to do that is war. And Krishna doesn't say Arjuna is undefeated as long as Krishna is with him. He speaks of Arjuna's feats without him too. Especially what happened in Virata. It's a clear threat that they will have to face Krishna and Arjuna in war, the reasons being Krishna's debt to Panchali and his friendship with Arjuna.

Again, one can't speak in absolutes. Krishna was Draupadi's friend and confidant. That is not up for debate. For me, Arjuna was too. Since she has shown authority over him, trusts him to follow her unsaid order in Virata, says herself that he is her protector along with Krishna, and has a close friendship with him.

There are numerous citation to shows how deep bheem and drapaudi s relationship was. And then there are instances for drapaudi and sahadev too. So no text explicitly never mentions anything anytime and anywhere about arjuna being extra special to her. All that is just fanfiction nothing more

Drapaudi had authority over arjuna being yudhishtra s wife.and the empresy She even blesses him before he leaves for his penance. It has got nothing to do with arjuna and everything to do with drapaudi s status in the family and in the Aryavarth in general which was anyday more than Arjuna. Thanks to her political equipped mind.

And regarding krishna s stand for war then it has more to do his friendship with drapaudi their common thought process common goal and the fact that her plight genuinely pained her. Probably more than it pained any of her husbands or anyone else expect probably drishtdyum.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

There are numerous citation to shows how deep bheem and drapaudi s relationship was. And then there are instances for drapaudi and sahadev too. So no text explicitly never mentions anything anytime and anywhere about arjuna being extra special to her. All that is just fanfiction nothing more

Drapaudi had authority over arjuna being yudhishtra s wife.and the empresy She even blesses him before he leaves for his penance. It has got nothing to do with arjuna and everything to do with drapaudi s status in the family and in the Aryavarth in general which was anyday more than Arjuna. Thanks to her political equipped mind.

And regarding krishna s stand for war then it has more to do his friendship with drapaudi their common thought process common goal and the fact that her plight genuinely pained her. Probably more than it pained any of her husbands or anyone else expect probably drishtdyum.

Well, that's your opinion. I've put my points across. It's not as if this can have any end since, again feelings are subjective. I don't really think it has to be a competition between husbands. But saying that Arjuna didn't care for her is too much. As for this authority as Yudi's wife, Bheem curiously seem to be immune from that since she has to convince him for a long time to act against Keechaka, where she speaks of every one of her husbands. Again, these are subjective interpretations. My only point is, saying she had a special relationship with Arjuna doesn't demean either of them. Nor is it "fanfiction" any more than what you quote in your signature is. It's a subjective interpretation and not any less significant than any of yous. I think that's all from my side. Thanks for all the info you both gave me. It increased by knowledge about mahabharata.

Originally posted by: ScorcherOfFoes

Well, that's your opinion. I've put my points across. It's not as if this can have any end since, again feelings are subjective. I don't really think it has to be a competition between husbands. But saying that Arjuna didn't care for her is too much. As for this authority as Yudi's wife, Bheem curiously seem to be immune from that since she has to convince him for a long time to act against Keechaka, where she speaks of every one of her husbands. Again, these are subjective interpretations. My only point is, saying she had a special relationship with Arjuna doesn't demean either of them. Nor is it "fanfiction" any more than what you quote in your signature is. It's a subjective interpretation and not any less significant than any of yous. I think that's all from my side. Thanks for all the info you both gave me. It increased by knowledge about mahabharata.

I don't think it took much to convince bhim Bhim was ready to kill keechak as soon as he dragged panchali into the court It was yudhishtra king s authority overiding queen not bhims. Panchali anyday had more authority than all the four brothers combined but yudhishtra still was the king.

My signature is from Aryavarth chronicles. Never claimed that it is from the actual text . But the citation i post in favour of krishna Krishnaa s deep friendship is definitely from the text that i assure you. And not literally but the quote does describes them well. Instances which can be found in the epic itself. Same is not true Arjuna-drapaudi fanfiction.

On this note let us agree to disagree.

1. Arjuna is not described as lotus-eyed or called Pundarikaksha. Pundarkiaksha is given as proper name for Krishna/Vishnu. It is not for Arjuna.

If you take Pundarikaksha as epithet, then Savyasachi is also epithet. Panchali could've been talking about any ambidextrous man.

Also, Panchali happily sent Arjuna on a years-long conquest of kingdoms for rajasuya and only missed him when he went on a short trip to Indraloka? In fact, text itself says though Arjuna's stay was so many years, it felt like a short time back where Pandavas were. 😆 I'm sure it was meant to be supernatural, but taken in the logical sense, it would mean no one missed him.

Actually, that entire scene was inserted specifically on Janmejaya's orders even within the text.

2. Panchali orders Bheema around constantly! Throughout the exile!

She even sent him on a mission to destroy Kubera's village and steal the saugandhika gems. No, they were not flowers as is commonly believed. Panchali was building the war chest.

She actually tells Bheema to kill Keechaka in secret and then deliberately draws attention to herself so he can then publicly help her with Upakeechakas, something not possible with Keechaka himself.

In fact, Kunti was so sure Bheema follows Panchali's orders that she sends a message through Krishna to ASK Arjuna and Nakula to follow Panchali's orders. Sahdeva was smart enough to do his own thing. Kunti called Yudhishtira a coward. I guess by that time both Kunti and Panchali lost all faith Yudhishtira would behave himself.

____________________

See? Down to debating who loved whom more. This is a very minor point in the middle of the mega story. Panchali was the empress of Aryavarta, the finance minister of the place, the citizen liaison.

Arjuna was the foreign minister and commander-in-chief of the army (not during Kurukshetra, but generally).

I'm sure they both had things to do other than romance.

It's an extremely weird statement to make that you're trying to refute the claim Arjuna didn't care for her when all the supporting posts you made are suggesting Panchali cared, not Arjuna. Also, you're repeating the statement over and over that it's too much to say Arjuna didn't care for her. I've been around Mbh forums and groups too much not to recognise the tired old tactic of using that nonexistent one-sided love story to cut her down to prop him up.

No one, absolutely no one, said Arjuna wasn't madly in love with Panchali.😆 Because even a first-time reading of the text would show Arjuna not only cared very much, he carried a torch for her the rest of his life.

My responses have been about the silly mistranslations and fan fictions which say she was mooning over him when she actually wasn't.

So you're right in a way... he was pining over her. Almost constantly. Panchali to Arjuna? Not so much.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. Arjuna is not described as lotus-eyed or called Pundarikaksha. Pundarkiaksha is given as proper name for Krishna/Vishnu. It is not for Arjuna.

If you take Pundarikaksha as epithet, then Savyasachi is also epithet. Panchali could've been talking about any ambidextrous man.

Also, Panchali happily sent Arjuna on a years-long conquest of kingdoms for rajasuya and only missed him when he went on a short trip to Indraloka? In fact, text itself says though Arjuna's stay was so many years, it felt like a short time back where Pandavas were. 😆 I'm sure it was meant to be supernatural, but taken in the logical sense, it would mean no one missed him.

Actually, that entire scene was inserted specifically on Janmejaya's orders even within the text.

2. Panchali orders Bheema around constantly! Throughout the exile!

She even sent him on a mission to destroy Kubera's village and steal the saugandhika gems. No, they were not flowers as is commonly believed. Panchali was building the war chest.

She actually tells Bheema to kill Keechaka in secret and then deliberately draws attention to herself so he can then publicly help her with Upakeechakas, something not possible with Keechaka himself.

In fact, Kunti was so sure Bheema follows Panchali's orders that she sends a message through Krishna to ASK Arjuna and Nakula to follow Panchali's orders. Sahdeva was smart enough to do his own thing. Kunti called Yudhishtira a coward. I guess by that time both Kunti and Panchali lost all faith Yudhishtira would behave himself.

____________________

See? Down to debating who loved whom more. This is a very minor point in the middle of the mega story. Panchali was the empress of Aryavarta, the finance minister of the place, the citizen liaison.

Arjuna was the foreign minister and commander-in-chief of the army (not during Kurukshetra, but generally).

I'm sure they both had things to do other than romance.

1. Yeah, Savyasachi is an epithet. She could be talking of any ambidextrous man, but since it is given that she's talking about the husband in the middle, so with context in mind, it's obviously Arjuna. She starts the speech with the name Arjuna. I don't recall any other person with the epithet Savyasachi. Pundarikaksha means lotus eyed. Draupadi can just as well use that for Arjuna. She's been speaking of him for a paragraph and suddenly inserts Krishna in the last line? How?

Also, this is what Janmejaya asked-

Janamejaya said, ‘O illustrious one! When my great-grandfather Partha left Kamyaka forest, what did the Pandavas200 do without Savyasachi? It seems to me that the great archer, the vanquisher of enemy armies, was their refuge, like Vishnu is that of the Adityas. Without him, who is the equal of Indra in valour and has never withdrawn from the field of battle, how did my brave grandfathers spend their time in the forest?’"

He's asking what they were doing. How does it mean that he was ordering Vaishampayana to tell him of how much his family missed him? It doesn't seem that way to me. So again, what you're saying is a subjective opinion. Janmejaya also specifically asked about Karna's Kavacha-Kundala harana. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2. Haven't read the Saugandhika incident in detail. But I did read the part where Draupadi asks Bhima to conquer the mountain. This is her 'order' to Bhima-

At that time, when the mighty-armed Bhimasena was comfortably seated at a secluded spot on the mountain, Krishna told him, “O bull among the Bharata lineage! As a result of the forceful wind generated from the suparna’s great force, five-coloured blossoms have been dropped near the river Ashvaratha and all the beings have witnessed this. Your great-souled brother,98 always driven by truth, once restrained gandharvas, serpents, rakshasas and even Vasava himself, in Khandava. After killing the ones who resort to maya,99 he obtained the bow Gandiva. You also possess enormous energy and great strength of arms. You are indomitable and irresistible and are the equal of Shatakratu100 in your strength. Let all the rakshasas be terrified of the force and strength of your arms. O Bhimasena! They will leave this mountain and flee in the ten directions. Then, devoid of all fear and delusion, let all your well-wishers behold this supreme mountain, auspicious and adorned with colourful flowers. O Bhima! This thought has been in my mind for a long time. Protected through the strength of your arms, I wish to see the top of this mountain.”

In Virata Parva, Draupadi basically decides for Arjuna that he will go with Uttar. There isn't any conversation between Arjuna and Draupadi where she asks or even tells him what she's going to do. I don't think the two situations are comparable.

I don't know when this became about who loved who. It certainly isn't from my side. As for romance, I'm certain as people who lived full lives, it would have been a part of their life. I don't think that's demeaning to either of them. To say that their lives were driven by it, sure is demeaning.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

It's an extremely weird statement to make that you're trying to refute the claim Arjuna didn't care for her when all the supporting posts you made are suggesting Panchali cared, not Arjuna. Also, you're repeating the statement over and over that it's too much to say Arjuna didn't care for her. I've been around Mbh forums and groups too much not to recognise the tired old tactic of using that nonexistent one-sided love story to cut her down to prop him up.

No one, absolutely no one, said Arjuna wasn't madly in love with Panchali.😆 Because even a first-time reading of the text would show Arjuna not only cared very much, he carried a torch for her the rest of his life.

My responses have been about the silly mistranslations and fan fictions which say she was mooning over him when she actually wasn't.

So you're right in a way... he was pining over her. Almost constantly. Panchali to Arjuna? Not so much.

My original comment was about Arjuna's part. It's only when I got responses where I've replied about Draupadi. There's no one sided love story. I'm not sure where you got that. Both cared about each other a lot, in my opinion. And I don't think anyone mooned over each other. Also, saying that Panchali loved Arjuna doesn't cut her down. I think a first time reader would also be able to see that she cared about him. The first real conversation she has in the epic is with Arjuna, when he returns from his 'exile'. Anyway, I degress. This is about the statement I read that except Krishna and Drishtadyumna nobody cared about Panchali, not even "husband dearest". In my original comment, I've made points about how he did care. The responses were about her side, especially the Vana Parva part and I responded in kind. That's all. Also, again, I don't understand how saying either of them cared for/loved each other is cutting them down.