First encounter with Mahabharata - Page 3

First off, let me make it clear I disliked Arjun Without A Doubt for what it did to Arjuna, Panchali, and Krishna.

Secondly, I'm not an Arjuna Panchali shipper. Far from it TBH😆. I loathe that pairing for what it does to the image of the woman who was the empire's finance minister and an accomplished lawyer.

Thirdly, I don't believe in any past life connections or carried over vendettas from previous births. So whatever their motive was for war came in the same life according to me. Since Dhrishtadyumna bluntly states his reason for being with Pandavas was his sister, I will take him at face value. Since Krishna says he owes Panchali a debt and WILL get rid of her enemies, I will take him as a man making those promises. Shikhandi doesn't say anything, but the Amba thing was only said by Bheeshma and not Shikhandi himself, leading me to believe Bheeshma was looking for a convenient excuse for being beaten. I assume Shikhandi was also there for his sister. 

FYI, Bheema was in the war for Yudhishtira, not Panchali. That he managed to get his revenge on the Kauravas was a side benefit.

The only Pandava who was always on her side was Sahadeva. Bheema and Arjuna to some extent in that they disobeyed Yudhishtira for her at times. Nakula never did though Kunti told him to follow in Panchali's footsteps.

Let me repeat: there was NO soulmate business going on in most of the romantic pairings. My only objection was to your saying Arjuna loved Panchali as part of the Pandavas. No, that's not how it works. A man doesn't automatically feel Kaama for a woman married to his brothers. Kaama is a VERY individual thing. Whatever Kaama Arjuna felt for Panchali, Chitrangada, and Subhadra, he felt for HIMSELF, not because he was a Pandava. He kept marrying because that's how political alliances were made those days. All 5 Pandavas married others for political alliances. 

And it seemed to me that the post was making the same mistake as the book you mentioned, except on behalf of Subhadra. From your later posts, it is clear I misunderstood. Apologies and #peace to you, too.

They were both awesome women. IMHO, Arjuna didn't deserve either. 

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

First off, let me make it clear I disliked Arjun Without A Doubt for what it did to Arjuna, Panchali, and Krishna.

Secondly, I'm not an Arjuna Panchali shipper. Far from it TBH😆. I loathe that pairing for what it does to the image of the woman who was the empire's finance minister and an accomplished lawyer.

Thirdly, I don't believe in any past life connections or carried over vendettas from previous births. So whatever their motive was for war came in the same life according to me. Since Dhrishtadyumna bluntly states his reason for being with Pandavas was his sister, I will take him at face value. Since Krishna says he owes Panchali a debt and WILL get rid of her enemies, I will take him as a man making those promises. Shikhandi doesn't say anything, but the Amba thing was only said by Bheeshma and not Shikhandi himself, leading me to believe Bheeshma was looking for a convenient excuse for being beaten. I assume Shikhandi was also there for his sister. 

FYI, Bheema was in the war for Yudhishtira, not Panchali. That he managed to get his revenge on the Kauravas was a side benefit.

The only Pandava who was always on her side was Sahadeva. Bheema and Arjuna to some extent in that they disobeyed Yudhishtira for her at times. Nakula never did though Kunti told him to follow in Panchali's footsteps.

Let me repeat: there was NO soulmate business going on in most of the romantic pairings. My only objection was to your saying Arjuna loved Panchali as part of the Pandavas. No, that's not how it works. A man doesn't automatically feel Kaama for a woman married to his brothers. Kaama is a VERY individual thing. Whatever Kaama Arjuna felt for Panchali, Chitrangada, and Subhadra, he felt for HIMSELF, not because he was a Pandava. He kept marrying because that's how political alliances were made those days. All 5 Pandavas married others for political alliances. 

And it seemed to me that the post was making the same mistake as the book you mentioned, except on behalf of Subhadra. From your later posts, it is clear I misunderstood. Apologies and #peace to you, too.

They were both awesome women. IMHO, Arjuna didn't deserve either. 

I love you 😆

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

First off, let me make it clear I disliked Arjun Without A Doubt for what it did to Arjuna, Panchali, and Krishna.

Secondly, I'm not an Arjuna Panchali shipper. Far from it TBH😆. I loathe that pairing for what it does to the image of the woman who was the empire's finance minister and an accomplished lawyer.

Thirdly, I don't believe in any past life connections or carried over vendettas from previous births. So whatever their motive was for war came in the same life according to me. Since Dhrishtadyumna bluntly states his reason for being with Pandavas was his sister, I will take him at face value. Since Krishna says he owes Panchali a debt and WILL get rid of her enemies, I will take him as a man making those promises. Shikhandi doesn't say anything, but the Amba thing was only said by Bheeshma and not Shikhandi himself, leading me to believe Bheeshma was looking for a convenient excuse for being beaten. I assume Shikhandi was also there for his sister. 

FYI, Bheema was in the war for Yudhishtira, not Panchali. That he managed to get his revenge on the Kauravas was a side benefit.

The only Pandava who was always on her side was Sahadeva. Bheema and Arjuna to some extent in that they disobeyed Yudhishtira for her at times. Nakula never did though Kunti told him to follow in Panchali's footsteps.

Let me repeat: there was NO soulmate business going on in most of the romantic pairings. My only objection was to your saying Arjuna loved Panchali as part of the Pandavas. No, that's not how it works. A man doesn't automatically feel Kaama for a woman married to his brothers. Kaama is a VERY individual thing. Whatever Kaama Arjuna felt for Panchali, Chitrangada, and Subhadra, he felt for HIMSELF, not because he was a Pandava. He kept marrying because that's how political alliances were made those days. All 5 Pandavas married others for political alliances. 

And it seemed to me that the post was making the same mistake as the book you mentioned, except on behalf of Subhadra. From your later posts, it is clear I misunderstood. Apologies and #peace to you, too.

They were both awesome women. IMHO, Arjuna didn't deserve either. 

Me too. Specially for the last statement. 

I disagree Arjun did deserve both of them. He might have not been as intellectual as Panchali or maybe even Subhadra but he definitely proved to be a good husband to both of them 

Maybe not so much to Chitrangada but the other two were as lucky to have him as their husband as was he to have both of them 

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I disagree Arjun did deserve both of them. He might have not been as intellectual as Panchali or maybe even Subhadra but he definitely proved to be a good husband to both of them 

Maybe not so much to Chitrangada but the other two were as lucky to have him as their husband as was he to have both of them 

I would disagree. Esp with re: Subhadra.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I would disagree. Esp with re: Subhadra.

Why do you say so? Because of the abduction thing or for some other reason??

If it's just because of abduction then that was an acceptable way to marry those days, why shall we judge someone by today's standards

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Why do you say so? Because of the abduction thing or for some other reason??

If it's just because of abduction then that was an acceptable way to marry those days, why shall we judge someone by today's standards

Abduction was more Krishna's fault than Arjuna's.

But Arjuna went meekly along with Yudhishtira's idiocies and ended up spending his child's growing up years in exile to the point Abhimanyu was known as Karshni. I know there was a discussion previously that it was because Arjuna was Krishna, but Krishna-Govinda is referred to as Uttara's FIL, so the Karshni certainly stood for him. 

Protecting his family and providing for them were major duties of husband and father even in those days. Subhadra was dependent on her family most of her life, financially and for security. 

Moreover, he sent KRISHNA to break the news about Abhimanyu's death! If that wasn't a point in their marriage where Subhadra needed Arjuna's support, what was? Even if there was worry/guilt involved, Arjuna didn't even follow Krishna to comfort Subhadra. He remained in the comfort of his tent and made a ridiculous vow to attack someone only peripherally involved in Abhimanyu's death to the point Krishna yelled at him. 

Panchali was the support Subhadra had when her son died. Subhadra blamed Arjuna, Bheema, even the Yadavas for failing to save her son but never Panchali for the war. Panchali was with Uttara when Parikshit was stillborn. I like to think the women rescuing Panchali in dice hall involved Subhadra. Those 2 women supported each other very much.

^^^

Then who amongst Pandavas deserved to be a husband? 

All of them went on exile, Their kids grew up without them, Draupadi's kids grew up without her, at least Abhimnyu had a mother and a loving family, a father figure in form of Krishna 

Who provided for his wife? Draupadi was with Pandavas rest went to their maternal homes. Arjuna's wives Uloopi and Chirtra visited Hastinapur after war, did Hidimba get this form of acknowledgement? Who consoled her after Ghato died? 

Pandavas were in the war, I feel its unfair to put this expectation of consoling on people who are fighting day after day putting their loved ones and themselves at risk.

Who consoled Arjuna when his son, his grandfather, his guru died? I am pretty sure he needed it too, so his wives didn't deserve him because they weren't there to console him when he was grieving? 

Krishna could have consoled Subhadra where Arjuna was an emotional wreck enough to make a reckless vow

Originally posted by: NoraSM

^^^

Then who amongst Pandavas deserved to be a husband? 

All of them went on exile, Their kids grew up without them, Draupadi's kids grew up without her, at least Abhimnyu had a mother and a loving family, a father figure in form of Krishna 

Who provided for his wife? Draupadi was with Pandavas rest went to their maternal homes. Arjuna's wives Uloopi and Chirtra visited Hastinapur after war, did Hidimba get this form of acknowledgement? Who consoled her after Ghato died? 

Pandavas were in the war, I feel its unfair to put this expectation of consoling on people who are fighting day after day putting their loved ones and themselves at risk.

Who consoled Arjuna when his son, his grandfather, his guru died? I am pretty sure he needed it too, so his wives didn't deserve him because they weren't there to console him when he was grieving? 

Krishna could have consoled Subhadra where Arjuna was an emotional wreck enough to make a reckless vow

Arjuna was under discussion, so I mentioned him. None of the Pandavas were good husbands/fathers. Their priorities were Yudhishtira, each other, Bheeshma, Kuru elders, Drona, in somewhat that order. The rest barely counted.

Arjuna had his brothers and his friend with him to console after the deaths of his grandfather and teacher. A wife would be ideal, but it's not the same as a son dying and a spouse refusing to go. Yes, Arjuna said he didn't want to go. 

A husband/wife has the responsibility to do that for spouse and not send her brother in his stead. That would be a non-negotiable part of any marriage (short of a physical impediment) if such terrible circumstances ever rose. Arjuna's emotional wreckitude is not close to being a good enough excuse for not going.

Krishna was also part of war and got shot at many times. He still went to his sister and returned to participate in the war. Driving a chariot is just as much physical activity.

The fact that Arjuna didn't do it for Iravan, and he didn't visit Babruvahana only proves the point, no? He was a terrible husband and worse father. 

Reckless vow interpretation would stand ONLY if he took it against the people responsible. He didn't vow to kill Drona or Karna or Suyodhana or even Dusshasana's son. He vowed to kill a peripheral player. 

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Arjuna was under discussion, so I mentioned him. None of the Pandavas were good husbands/fathers.

Arjuna had his brothers and his friend with him to console after the deaths of his grandfather and teacher. A wife would be ideal, but it's not the same as a son dying and a spouse refusing to go. Yes, Arjuna said he didn't want to go. 

A husband/wife has the responsibility to do that for spouse and not send her brother in his stead. That would be a non-negotiable part of any marriage if such terrible circumstances ever rose. 

Krishna was also part of war and got shot at many times. He still went to his sister and returned to participate in the war. Driving a chariot is just as much physical activity.

The fact that Arjuna didn't do it for Iravan, and he didn't visit Babruvahana only proves the point, no? He was a terrible husband and worse father. 

Reckless vow interpretation would stand ONLY if he took it against the people responsible. He didn't vow to kill Drona or Karna or Suyodhana or even Dusshasana's son. He vowed to kill a peripheral player. 

Subhadra had Draupadi and other women to console her too. Human emotions are equal for human, they are not different for men and women 

Is it mentioned that Krishna traveled to break the news to Subhadra? When I read it, it seemed Arjuna, Subhadra, Krishna were in one room and Arjuna asked Krishna to console Subhadra, He didn't ask Krishna to ride out and break the news to Subhadra, Can you provide the citation where he refused to go? 

So, Arjuna took a vow to kill Jayadrath (The long speech) because he was doing drama and wasn't upset over his son's death?