What conditions does a promise hold ?

Vrishban promised - I will give you anything you want in this life for once. 

What does it mean ? Does it mean if Ugrapath wants something outside the possession of Vrishban, he is bound to give him as well ? Or is he bound to give him anything only from the property he owns ? For example, if Ugra wants the mukhiya chair of another village, or a diamond from someone else's possession, is Vrish bound to give him that as well ? And failing so, he has to go to banprasth ? 

So does Radha belong to Vrishban's property ? Isn't it the exact opposite of what Krishna has been teaching since Sudevi's wedding ? That the parents don't own the lives of their children ? Then how is Vrish bound to give Radha to someone else like she is a sack of wheat in his godown ? How is Ugrapath's claim legal or valid ? Why didn't Krishna prove it to be null and void in the similar way he handled Sudevi's wedding ?

In a nutshell, how can Vrishvan be asked to 'give' something which he doesn't own and thus doesn't have the right to give. 'Demanding' and 'giving' a human being is same as slavery and Krishna is supporting this whole thing. Once upon a time I thought this Krishna was a feminist. Oh Lord ! How wrong I was !!!!

I am not disappointed because of RK not getting married. But the reason they showed behind it holds no water.

Originally posted by: stormborn

Vrishban promised - I will give you anything you want in this life for once. 

What does it mean ? Does it mean if Ugrapath wants something outside the possession of Vrishban, he is bound to give him as well ? Or is he bound to give him anything only from the property he owns ? For example, if Ugra wants the mukhiya chair of another village, or a diamond from someone else's possession, is Vrish bound to give him that as well ? And failing so, he has to go to banprasth ? 

So does Radha belong to Vrishban's property ? Isn't it the exact opposite of what Krishna has been teaching since Sudevi's wedding ? That the parents don't own the lives of their children ? Then how is Vrish bound to give Radha to someone else like she is a sack of wheat in his godown ? How is Ugrapath's claim legal or valid ? Why didn't Krishna prove it to be null and void in the similar way he handled Sudevi's wedding ?

I am not disappointed because of RK not getting married. But the reason they showed behind it holds no water.

That's what we've been saying all along.

But we are criticized for only noting what is bad and not the good times.

Good times are good times, what's the point of talking about it? It's not going to change anything.

I have looked at their moment, but it no longer affects me as it used to because I see what is happening behind it. Their tears remind me of how Krishna came to tell Radha to marry Ayan when he knows who Ayan is...

I have said it a thousand times that Krishna has betrayed his teaching, that he is a very bad teacher. As much as I said it was Vrishban who made the promise, so it's up to him to pay and not Radha.

That RK's wedding didn't take place is not the issue, so we knew it, so we just wanted to see how this story would end. But it happened with Radha sacrificing herself and as you say, it makes the part wrong with Sudevi's marriage....

But we will never have the answers to our questions, they have done a very subtle job, a reverse psychology, so that we can accept the situation without complaining. 

These are not our Krishna and Radha, they are mere puppets in the hands of cvs. The most vulgar part is,--  the production house is asking us to learn 'love ' from this story, from their definition! Surrendering Radha as a sack of wheat [well-said friend] to anyone who demands it!! They ruined the Radha character, who was divine with her eternal love! They destroyed Krishna's divinity by inducing too much human possessiveness and recklessness! Yes, here Krishna failed to protect Radha, instead, thrown her in to fire like  jatila's house!! 

A much-needed thread it is !👏

Originally posted by: ReadLo

That's what we've been saying all along.

But we are criticized for only noting what is bad and not the good times.

Good times are good times, what's the point of talking about it? It's not going to change anything.

I have looked at their moment, but it no longer affects me as it used to because I see what is happening behind it. Their tears remind me of how Krishna came to tell Radha to marry Ayan when he knows who Ayan is...

I have said it a thousand times that Krishna has betrayed his teaching, that he is a very bad teacher. As much as I said it was Vrishban who made the promise, so it's up to him to pay and not Radha.

That RK's wedding didn't take place is not the issue, so we knew it, so we just wanted to see how this story would end. But it happened with Radha sacrificing herself and as you say, it makes the part wrong with Sudevi's marriage....

But we will never have the answers to our questions, they have done a very subtle job, a reverse psychology, so that we can accept the situation without complaining. 

You are right that Vrishban should be the one to pay instead Radha. But my point is why does even Vrishban has to pay anything. What Ugrapath is demanding is not Vrishvan's property. So he doesn't have any right to fulfil that demand and that makes Ugra's demand null and void. Ugra should be asked to demand something else from Vrishvan's possession, something Vrishvan has the right to give others.

Originally posted by: Viswasruti

These are not our Krishna and Radha, they are mere puppets in the hands of cvs. The most vulgar part is,--  the production house is asking us to learn 'love ' from this story, from their definition! Surrendering Radha as a sack of wheat [well-said friend] to anyone who demands it!! They ruined the Radha character, who was divine with her eternal love! They destroyed Krishna's divinity by inducing too much human possessiveness and recklessness! Yes, here Krishna failed to protect Radha, instead, thrown her in to fire like  jatila's house!! 

A much-needed thread it is !👏

Thanks.

Yes that's my point. How can Vrishvan be asked to 'give' something which he doesn't own and thus doesn't have the right to give. 'Demanding' and 'giving' a human being is same as slavery and Krishna is supporting this whole thing. Once upon a time I thought this Krishna was a feminist. Oh Lord ! How wrong I was !!!!

(This part is added to the main post in later edit.)

Originally posted by: stormborn

You are right that Vrishban should be the one to pay instead Radha. But my point is why does even Vrishban has to pay anything. What Ugrapath is demanding is not Vrishvan's property. So he doesn't have any right to fulfil that demand and that makes Ugra's demand null and void. Ugra should be asked to demand something else from Vrishvan's possession, something Vrishvan has the right to give others.

The problem is that Vrishban said that "he will carry out any request".

Vrishban left the way open. Logically, Ugrapat should have asked for something that Vrishban can give without harming anyone, but they needed drama.

Jatila thought the fact that Ayan married Radha would later allow her to demand Barsana's seat. So everything here is about "ownership", whether human or material.

Originally posted by: ReadLo

The problem is that Vrishban said that "he will carry out any request".

Vrishban left the way open. Logically, Ugrapat should have asked for something that Vrishban can give without harming anyone, but they needed drama.

Jatila thought the fact that Ayan married Radha would later allow her to demand Barsana's seat. So everything here is about "ownership", whether human or material.

It's not about what Jatila wants to own in future. My point is what Vrishvan doesn't own, he can't be asked to give. Simple.

I think it's the unofficial condition that one can only fulfill a promise he has the right to fulfill. Just like I said, if Ugrapath had wanted a diamond under someone else's ownership, that demand would have been null and void and he could have been made to change that claim or lose his right to the claim altogether. The same applies to Radha. It's not the question of whether anyone is getting harmed or not. It's the question of right and possession. They are showing a righteous society where verbal promises are bound by rock and don't need to be documented or official. Doing anything beyond your right is not righteous. So that shouldn't even be given the benefit of doubt. And Krishna is a magician with words. He has triumphed over situations using lesser loopholes.

I just hoped their reason had at least some practical angle if not ethical.

Originally posted by: stormborn

It's not about what Jatila wants to own in future. My point is what Vrishvan doesn't own, he can't be asked to give. Simple.

I think it's the unofficial condition that one can only fulfill a promise he has the right to fulfill. Just like I said, if Ugrapath had wanted a diamond under someone else's ownership, that demand would have been null and void and he could have been made to change that claim or lose his right to the claim altogether. The same applies to Radha. It's not the question of whether anyone is getting harmed or not. It's the question of right and possession. They are showing a righteous society where verbal promises are bound by rock and don't need to be documented or official. Doing anything beyond your right is not righteous. So that shouldn't even be given the benefit of doubt. And Krishna is a magician with words. He has triumphed over situations using lesser loopholes.

I just hoped their reason had at least some practical angle if not ethical.

I know what you meant.

Krishna has always played with words, and he's good at it. 

Anyway, the promises are like water and ask for them like salt. It's undrinkable!

They cannot justify what they have done because nothing is justifiable.

There are no rights in the show. Everyone can do what they want. Can ask for what he wants and is expected to do so. It's archaic.