Yashoda's Innocence! - Page 3

At that time when  subhdra and Arjuna marrred at dwarika  and after Arjun and subhdra get married  both stay at dwarika for 1 year as Arjun did not complete 12 years  repentance  then at that time kunti and  all pandavas were staying at indraprasth  when Arjun and  subhdra get married in dwarika 

So here also kunti and vasudev ( devki husband)did not meet  

Link of  subhdra haran and then marriage to arjun from  Shree madh bagwat as well from Mahabharata text 

https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/10/86/

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01224.htm

In Mahabharata text they did not mention  subhdra fell in love with Arjun while in  Shree madh bhagwat it is mentioned that subhdra fell in love with Arjun  when she  saw Arjun for first time and wish  in her heart  that Arjun to become  her husband when subhadra  saw Arjun eating dinner

Mahabharata is pretty clear that Krishn advises Arjun to abduct Subhadra and take her away since he didn't know whom she would chose in case of a Swayamwar. "He didn't know" simply means that Arjun wasn't the love of Subhadra's life, if Krishna was God and Subhadra loved Arjun, he should have known it and simply advised a Swayamwar, in fact even begin a God isn't needed, a brother could judge it easily if he tries. It isn't that Krishnaji wasn't strong enough to have not convinced Balram and Vasudev, he pretty easily does it after abduction. Aside since her Swayamwar wasn't even arranged I think she would have been around 14-15 years of age since by the time girls' were 16 the Swayamwars were arranged. Let's be honest how many girls of 14-15 years age would know about love and fall in first site? Be it any Yuga, 14-15 agers aren't that mature. Even if we ignore all these and take that Subhadra in actually loved Arjun, still she never gave the consent for their relation. A consent by both parties in necessary for Gandharva Vivah, here Subhadra didn't give that consent. It was 100% an abduction. Not just that he got her pregnant before she was even 16. The later texts try to justify the act by various excuses. Just like we do it by taking a step further ahead. 

We think Krishna n Arjun were Narayan and Nar, they can't err rather we want to believe this, but we forget they were Human Avtaars and Humans do err, they will behave the way the species they have taken an Avatar would do. Subhadra Haran was very much a Haran and if we consider abduction wrong (those days probably it wasn't though), they Krishna and Arjun are both culprits for it

Again when Pandavas were in forest after Lakshagriha, none of the Pandavas were married (excluding perhaps Yudhishtir since I don't know when he married Devika)  and they had Samb/Lakshmana marriage? Lakshmana was abducted from her Swayamwar, she should have been mature enough by then, around 16 years of age, do we really want to believe that Duryodhan (who was younger to Yudhishtir/Bheem), had a daughter of marriageable age, when Yudhishtir/Bheem were just in the process of getting married? I don't think it's much logical. Sreemad Bhagwatam often messes the timelines. 

Logic doesn't not work in any hari ( god katha) or in ancient text only  faith is work  in hari katha or in any ancient text

It is all because of faith that one believe that God reside in  stone  

Faith hai to stone mein bhi bhagwan hai aur faith nahi to bhagwan kahin bhi nahi hai 

We have never seen God in reality but it is our faith that God is there  and controlling word 

And coming to Lord krishna  whether he is God or not  it is already written in sb that sometimes  Lord krishna do behave as  human being

It is already written in  Shree madh bhagwat canto number 3 as describe by suk dev that some time Lord krishna behave as human being but he some time did that thing which human can't do 

More over logic doesn't not apply in  God acts only faith is apply in God act 

And it is also written that actually it  is difficult to understand God no one can understand God really  . No one can really describe God 

It is we are trying to just  describe God that whether he is God or human or not  

And coming to  Lord krishna   acts  we can't question his act   because he is God  and he is free from any boundation 

If he take incarnation  it is only because it is his will not because someone curse him that is why he take incarnation 

Curse is just excuses for Lord Vishnu to take incarnation on earth  

He can nullify   curse of  4 bhraman to  Jay Vijay but he did not . He even  said to jai Vijay that he nullify curse of bhraman but he will not because Jay Vijay  disrespect bhraman and Jay Vijay have to suffer by taking birth in earth 

. It is said to kill someone is sin  but that is not apply to God  because he made rule and he is owner of all love living beings 

In  geeta chapter 7  Lord krishna said  that he knows everything but no one can  know him 

And in Upanishads and in Vedic scripture   God is beyond scope our intellectual logic 

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/7/verse/26

In Ramayana it is also written that God cannot be anaylize by mind or any other way 

In short   no one can understand  actually

First  Lord krishna  born with four arm body  so that vasudev and devki know his son is supreme personality as vasudev and devki  were afraid of kans 

And as baby Lord krishna told vasudev and devki that it is  third time he is becoming their son  

Lord krishna as baby remind to vasudev and devki that in previous birth they have become mother father of God 

On request of vasudev  Lord krishna change himself   into human being  

Here also faith matter, no logic can be apply here in matter of God 

Whether we go by SB or MB, Subhadra and Arjuna didn't have a "love" marriage. It was a kidnap, but the whole love story theory came from the chapter later on when Subhadra meets Draupadi after her marriage, and she indicates that she loves Arjuna. Her behavior is not at all like that of Amba, who was averse to getting kidnapped like her sisters by Bhishma. But whatever may be her feelings, it was a kidnap, and as per Krishna's instructions, Arjuna returns to Dwaraka after kidnapping Subhadra and gets properly married to her once Krishna appeases Balarama. They did not have a gandharva vivaha. SB also describes how after the marriage, the Yadavas do follow the newlyweds to Indraprastha where they spend some months with their relatives there. Vasudeva is mentioned as part of the entourage, as is Balarama. 

So the whole theory of Vasudeva and Kunti never meeting each other doesn't make sense to me. There were ample opportunities, even if the text doesn't explicitly describe their names.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Did Krishna Balram meet Pandavas before Draupadi Swayamwar? 

I doubt it's specifically mentioned. Maybe Bheem since he took training from Balram but not others perhaps

Aside Krishna didn't know about Arjun's 12 years/13 months exile when he reached. 

But yes they should have met during Rajsuya Yagya. Not sure about Subhadra marriage because they married during abduction

That would depend on when Draupadi's marriage took place wrt Krishna's various marriages.  We know that Arjun was involved in Krishna's marriages w/ Bhadra, Mitravindya and Lakshmanaa.  So if those marriages happened before Draupadi's, then the answer would be yes

Subhadra already fell in love with arjun  even before   arjun kidnap her 

It is another thing  subhdra  never disclose her  feelings 

And we have go by  what is written in  text  around 5000 years ago unless it is proove that   some part of sb  written by modern writer 

If it is proove  in  vasudev never meeting devki before solar eclipse were written by modern writer  then we can it is false 

But  there is no proof that it is written by modern written so we have to go what is written in text 

Subhadra and arjun first went to indraprasth  and then return to  dwarika and get married  so it was either bhram vivah  or  gandharv vivah 

It cannot be pishach or rakshas vivah  because subhadra too loved arjun and wanted  him to as her husband 

And in Kshatriya dharma   abducting unmarried  girl for purpose of marriage is allow and aplaudable it is written in Mahabharata and said by Lord krishna 

In fact   before  abduction arjun  fell in love with  subhdra and even subhdra also   fell in love with arjun and wanted  as him husband 

But only thing is that arjun was unaware of  subhdra feeling and subhdra was unaware of arjun feeling before marriage 

A marriage can be said to be Gandharva Vivah only when both the parties has given both consent and expressed their willingness. 

Mahabharata is clear that Krishna wasn't sure on whom Subhadra will select in case of a Swayamwar, this clearly shows that Subhadra had never expressed her willingness towards the marriage with Arjun irrespective of her feelings towards him. 

Hence what Arjun did was simply an abduction, Har/Rakshas Vivah. Pishacha Vivah has man abducting girl by treachery while Rakshas Vivah is abduction by force and Arjun did the latter.

Now whether or not we consider Abduction for marriage a right thing or not is something completely our decision. But Arjun had kidnapped

Subhadra was not even 16 at this time, because her Swayamwar wasn't scheduled, and Arjun got her pregnant,.

The entire Sreemad Bhagwatam and Mahabharata as we have now are in Classical Sanskrit and not in Vedic/Premitive Sanskrit which was then language 5000 years back, hence there is no proof that, the one we have has been written by Vyas/someone else 5000 years back and is not a later translation with additions/substraction into it

To prove SB is a later text,it has a list of rulers of Magadh from Jarasangh to PushyaMitra Sunga, what was the use of it? Parikshit would have anyday been more interested in the future of Hastinapur/Indraprasth than that of Magadh.

But let's ignore it maybe Sukn muni just thought of telling about Magadh's future. But he uses the same word "will succeed" Dhanand for Chandragupta Maurya as he does "will succeed" Jarasangh for Sahdev, although by the time of Parikshit, Sahdev had already succeeded Magadh's throne and then died, his son too had already succeeded.

That is a proof big enough that the book we have today wasn't the same as Vyas/narrated by Sukn muni