Jem

Platonic or romantic the society would shun away any possibility also for such a deep connection to imply something more than friendship and no showmaker would want that

So god/devotee becomes the easiest dynamic to show the deep connection without the audience having to have any deep thoughts about them two

It's less about the god/mortal part because Madhurya Bhakti exists and I haven't really seen anyone even imply that tbh.

But it is indeed about:

1. Homophobia/internalized homophobia and that queerness should "stay out of religious texts/not everything has to be queer and woke" etc.

2. "They're just best friends/brothers" mentality/general headcanon but that is simply the cherry-picked version of them. But I have already shown that if Krishna said the things he says to/about Arjun to someone he considers platonic, say Draupadi, or even Sudama, it would sound weird as fuck.

3. Most people expect Krishna to only love his female love interests, like Radha, Rukmini, Satyabhama, etc., because most people either identify with/relate to the female love interest (usually female devotees/stans/madhurya bhakts) or with Krishna having said female love interest (usually male devotees/stans).

4. The only male lover some of them are willing to accept is Gadadhar, but that is again because he's literally the male version of Radha.

5. They are "NarNarayan" and hence brothers so they cannot be together. Ig that's the only strong argument. However, many ppl using this argument usually ship Subhadra and Arjun, who are maternal cousins. So...

At the end, especially in times like this, where queer rights are already at almost their lowest in India, we will probably never see a KrishnArjun adaptation that implies a kind of tension that's just more than platonic, or truly capture their obsession with each other. Or even make Krishna even dare say canon monologues like "I cannot live on this earth without Arjuna" or "My family, my wives, none are as dear to me as Arjuna is".

Until people actually do 💀

Then suddenly love has a Terms & Conditions page.

Like damn 😭 I thought we said the divine was beyond human limitation??? Why does transcendence keep stopping exactly where social discomfort begins?

It’s always: “Krishna belongs to everyone 🥰✨🌸”

right up until someone loves him in a way that disrupts heteronormativity or rigid social boundaries. Then it's blasphemous.

People are fine with Krishna being: a cowherd, a king, a strategist, a charioteer, a thief, a diplomat, a husband to thousands of wives, a cosmic being, the universe itself, both terrifyingly divine AND deeply human at once.

But the SECOND someone explores him through queer intimacy or emotional fluidity, suddenly everyone remembers “boundaries,” “tradition,” and “proper interpretation.”

Like wow. Fascinating. So he can contain the cosmos but apparently not bisexuality. Noted.

We can handle Vishvarupa. We can handle him casually bending reality and delivering cosmic truths beyond human comprehension. But two men having suspiciously intense emotionally codependent dialogue? THAT is where the realism breaks for people 💀

People are comfortable with divine love as an aesthetic. The second it becomes specific, the universality develops walls very quickly.

They also don't have a problem with Mitra-Varuna, but we all know that's because no modern Hindu is as attached to them as they are to Krishna, given that he's one of, if not THE MOST prominent deity in hinduism rn. This is why they feel uncomfortable.

Male madhurya bhakti the lukewarm progressives still accept. But not someone male who is directly attached to Krishna. Who has actually met LIVING Krishna and spent time with him, for years. Who Krishna would give his own life for. Who Krishna can't stop obsessing over, again, CANONICALLY.

Platonic or romantic the society would shun away any possibility also for such a deep connection to imply something more than friendship and no showmaker would want that

So god/devotee becomes the easiest dynamic to show the deep connection without the audience having to have any deep thoughts about them two

It's less about the god/mortal part because Madhurya Bhakti exists and I haven't really seen anyone even imply that tbh.

But it is indeed about:

1. Homophobia/internalized homophobia and that queerness should "stay out of religious texts/not everything has to be queer and woke" etc.

2. "They're just best friends/brothers" mentality/general headcanon but that is simply the cherry-picked version of them. But I have already shown that if Krishna said the things he says to/about Arjun to someone he considers platonic, say Draupadi, or even Sudama, it would sound weird as fuck.

3. Most people expect Krishna to only love his female love interests, like Radha, Rukmini, Satyabhama, etc., because most people either identify with/relate to the female love interest (usually female devotees/stans/madhurya bhakts) or with Krishna having said female love interest (usually male devotees/stans).

4. The only male lover some of them are willing to accept is Gadadhar, but that is again because he's literally the male version of Radha.

5. They are "NarNarayan" and hence brothers so they cannot be together. Ig that's the only strong argument. However, many ppl using this argument usually ship Subhadra and Arjun, who are maternal cousins. So...

At the end, especially in times like this, where queer rights are already at almost their lowest in India, we will probably never see a KrishnArjun adaptation that implies a kind of tension that's just more than platonic, or truly capture their obsession with each other. Or even make Krishna even dare say canon monologues like "I cannot live on this earth without Arjuna" or "My family, my wives, none are as dear to me as Arjuna is".

Until people actually do 💀

Then suddenly love has a Terms & Conditions page.

Like damn 😭 I thought we said the divine was beyond human limitation??? Why does transcendence keep stopping exactly where social discomfort begins?

It’s always: “Krishna belongs to everyone 🥰✨🌸”

right up until someone loves him in a way that disrupts heteronormativity or rigid social boundaries. Then it's blasphemous.

People are fine with Krishna being: a cowherd, a king, a strategist, a charioteer, a thief, a diplomat, a husband to thousands of wives, a cosmic being, the universe itself, both terrifyingly divine AND deeply human at once.

But the SECOND someone explores him through queer intimacy or emotional fluidity, suddenly everyone remembers “boundaries,” “tradition,” and “proper interpretation.”

Like wow. Fascinating. So he can contain the cosmos but apparently not bisexuality. Noted.

We can handle Vishvarupa. We can handle him casually bending reality and delivering cosmic truths beyond human comprehension. But two men having suspiciously intense emotionally codependent dialogue? THAT is where the realism breaks for people 💀

People are comfortable with divine love as an aesthetic. The second it becomes specific, the universality develops walls very quickly.

where you can dwell back into your past life and i wonder what if there is really someone with us who was in dvapara in there past life

who witnessed krishna somehow or it can be one of his wife's too because according to harivamsha krishna had more wives including satyabhama's sisters not just the ashtamāhishi's and 16000 queen's and it's interesting in a psychological way too

Does anyone know about this ? And what you guys think about this ?

It's a fun place tbh .

And yes , it is definitely possible that we existed in dwapar . Because souls get recycled (I'm using that for a lack of better word). The cycle of life and death isn't something that one can escape easily .

We do not even know if it's possible to escape it . (I'm not including the merging with paramaatma here . That's inevitable .)

So , we have all existed in dwapar . In this brahmand , or in another brahmand , some of us might've been closer to krishna , or maybe we hated him , maybe we were one of the soldiers who shot an arrow at him or one of the milkmaids who threw flowers at him.

It's a possibility lol .

And the fun part is , it's not just past life reading . You can even peek into your future existences if you're powerful enough . Which we aren't . But yeah .

Because time isn't a linear concept in universe.

Past present future are all happening now .

So you can absolutely peek into it . Even though it's not set in stone .

And before someone says “well Krishna is Vishnu so moksha blah blah blah he transcended" yes, and? Vishnu chooses to return. That's literally the whole point of avatars. Maybe within traditional theology, Krishna isn’t just some random reincarnating soul; that’s NOT even the point.

The interesting part is the psychological boundary people hit.

People are comfortable imagining proximity to the divine. Participation. Witnessing. Devotion. You can be a spouse, sibling, friend, devotee, even an enemy.

But the second the idea crosses into identity-with/divinity itself, suddenlyy everyone panics, and the conversation becomes taboo.

Which is funny in traditions that ALSO constantly talk about non-duality, atman/brahman, divinity within all beings, ego dissolution, maya, etc.

Like I’m not even saying “I was Krishna” calm DOWN lol. I’m saying it’s fascinating where people suddenly decide the metaphysical sandbox stops.

I'm not entirely sure if his commissions are open, but I'd definitely recommend you guys to check out his account if you want to see more pretty art!💚