Originally posted by: Mahiima16
Shishupal trying to r*** Panchali?
Originally posted by: Mahiima16
Shishupal trying to r*** Panchali?
yes!!! W*F going on!!! Why disgracing even shishupal!!! We can't make evil more evil! Nd it was daamn silly!!!!
Yes True.Sisupal had a problem with Krishna.He is not a womanizer .But In SPK only Karna should be Mahan.So that's it.
yes!!! W*F going on!!! Why disgracing even shishupal!!! We can't make evil more evil! Nd it was daamn silly!!!!
Originally posted by: ltelidevara
Yes True.Sisupal had a problem with Krishna.He is not a womanizer .But In SPK only Karna should be Mahan.So that's it.
M
p. 88
these kings, have worshipped thee who art no king, deserve to be slain by me along with thee. Even this is my opinion, O Krishna, that they who from childishness have worshipped thee, as if thou deservest it, although thou art unworthy of worship, being only a slave and a wretch and no king, deserve to be slain by me.' Having said this, that tiger among kings stood there roaring in anger. And after Sisupala had ceased, Krishna addressing all the kings in the presence of the Pandavas, spoke these words in a soft voice.--'Ye kings, this wicked-minded one, who is the son of a daughter of the Satwata race, is a great enemy of us of the Satwata race; and though we never seek to injure him, he ever seeketh our evil. This wretch of cruel deeds, ye kings, hearing that we had gone to the city of Pragjyotisha, came and burnt Dwaraka, although he is the son of my father's sister. While king Bhoja was sporting on the Raivataka hill, this one fell upon the attendants of that king and slew and led away many of them in chains to his own city. Sinful in all his purpose, this wretch, in order to obstruct the sacrifice of my father, stole the sacrificial horse of the horse-sacrifice that had been let loose under the guard of armed men. Prompted by sinful motives, this one ravished the reluctant wife of the innocent Vabhru (Akrura) on her way from Dwaraka to the country of the Sauviras. This injurer of his maternal uncle, disguising himself in the attire of the king of Karusha, ravished also the innocent Bhadra, the princess of Visala, the intended bride of king Karusha. I have patiently borne all these sorrows for the sake of my father's sister. It is, however, very fortunate that all this hath occurred today in the presence of all the kings. Behold ye all today the hostility this one beareth towards me. And know ye also all that he hath done me at my back. For the excess of that pride in which he hath indulged in the presence of all these monarchs, he deserveth to be slain by me. I am ill able to pardon today the injuries that he hath done me. Desirous of speedy death, this fool had desired Rukmini. But the fool obtained her not, like a Sudra failing to obtain the audition of the Vedas."
@amrita di haawww!!!!!😲 yeh disguise toh at least thik hai, but ainvai queen ke kamre mein ghus jaana, hazam nhi hota hai...🤢
No it's not ok.Maybe he had entered the chamber of the princess in the same manner Sony Shishupal entered Sony Draupadi's chamber...only in disguise.Nonetheless...my point is...Shishupal is not considered a villain just bcoz he hurled those hundred insults at Lord Krishna during Rajsuya Yajna...He was a rapist already, if we believe Lord Krishna.I dont think Govind would lie in open court about something like this.
Yes I agree Govind never tell lies especially when it is related to the character of women. But in all certainty the great Samrajni of Inddaprasth would never be accessible to him as shown in SPK.Never.
Originally posted by: DramaQueenBride
wass up sakhis????
comment:
p_commentcount