\|/ Aryavrat ki Sena #94 \|/ - Invites Only - Page 6

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

It says Rama is fortunate to have Sita, but doesn;t say the other way round *frowns* 

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Well, think about it this way. Mahalakshmi symbolizes fortune, both in the physical and spiritual sense. So He who has Mahalakshmi by his side is fortunate, and thus Hari is called fortunate for having the Goddess of fortune next to him.

For Mahalakshmi, Hari symbolizes pure love, peace and serenity, and she is blissfully happy when he is by her side. So Hari is fortunate to have Mahalakshmi, and Mahalakshmi is blissfully happy when next to Narayana. 😉 When fortune and happiness exist together eternally, the world is at peace. 

Originally posted by: Cluny13

Before the mahabharat war kunti had offered indraprastha and panchali to karna. How could she even offer panchali? She had no rights to do so whatsoever. That act of hers is something I can never digest.

Originally posted by: goli030291

you shouldnt digest as its untrue😆

Originally posted by: KalyaniPanchali

Hello everyone!

So, regarding the discussion you were having on Kunti and Draupadi, my opinion is this - I think Both suffered in different ways. We can't compare their sufferings. For Kunti, she lost her husband and sister. She has to raise her sons all alone without any support. Meanwhile, for Draupadi, even at the time of hardships she had one or another to support her. Her family, her husbands, and her God as well. Draupadi was humiliated badly infront of the court. Meanwhile, Kunti was respected much in the same court, of course not whole heartedly by the King or Queen. 

They have different circumstances, different mental turmoil. Both suffered. But I have to also say that, the wedding of Draupadi was on her own will. She loved the five and married them. It isn't weird to love five. When a man can, why not a woman? Why women disgrade themselves by saying that Draupadi was forced into polyandry? Kunti has nothing to do with that. It was Arjuna who told, he brought alms. It was Krishna who convinced Pandavas and Draupadi to accept the wedding. It was Pandavas and Draupadi who took the decision. It was them who married. Anywhere in our puranas, we don't see women being forced into marriages. Especially when Lord incarnated on earth, how can Krishna support a loveless marriage? 

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

Bhai 😆😆

But it is. Kunti never did that, and never will do that. Kunti is not that kind of character Sanju.

Bua suffered, and bore it. A woman of silent strength, she was. I always feel Panchali looked up to her. 

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

👏👏

👏👏👏

Every word you said is very true Sakhi. When Krishna Himself is there, will He let His Sakhi enter a loveless marriage? 

Originally posted by: goli030291

i heard ur mobile has been smuggled away ?😆