The name Bharata in Mahabharata

[nagarajpaturi]

Did the name Bharata exist as the name of a geopolitical unit  by the time of composition of Mahabharata or was it coined during national movement ?

 

Sharing the portion of Bheeshmaparva where the name of Bharata varsha is used as the name of a geopolitical unit.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​The answer really depends on, did Mahabharata with all the verses we do have in the Vulgate edition did exist as a unified composition by a single author ? or Did the Mahabharata evolve from a small kernel of a smaller text? There is a theory,​ that the evolution was from Jaya  to Vijya then Bharatha and finally Mahabharata. If we believe the critical edition of the texts is the most accurate reconstruction of the original then a probable answer can be arrived at. The critical edition of Mahabharata was not based on nationalistic sentiments is clear from various writings of Prof.  Sukthankar S.  and other member of the editorial board.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, nagarajpaturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did the name Bharata exist as the name of a geopolitical unit  by the time of composition of Mahabharata or was it coined during national movement ?

 

Sharing the portion of Bheeshmaparva where the name of Bharata varsha is used as the name of a geopolitical unit.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am sorry, I thought my previous post failed to get posted due to network failure, that is was the error message said. But in fact , it too got posted at the same time as the present post.  

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, nagarajpaturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did the name Bharata exist as the name of a geopolitical unit  by the time of composition of Mahabharata or was it coined during national movement ?

 

Sharing the portion of Bheeshmaparva where the name of Bharata varsha is used as the name of a geopolitical unit.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> There is a theory,​ that the evolution was from Jaya  to Vijya then Bharatha and finally Mahabharata.

 

-------- Some of these 'theories' are scientific looking modern legends woven during modern times.

 

While there is nothing to disagree when it is said that a texts get interpolations in the course of transmission, to create a narrative that such interpolations were done in systematic stages: 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the version of the text at each stage had names such as Jaya, Vijaya, Bharata and Mahabharata is obviously a modern scientific looking legend making.   

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​The text itself talks about such a evolution according to Mahabharata (The Ur Mahabharta) edited by Keshvram Shastree K.​

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[rniyengar]

Dear Dr.Ajit

I had known that tradition holds the evolution as:  Jaya, (8800 verses), Bharata(24000) and MB(1lakh). I had not heard of 

Jaya--->Vijaya transition. Please provide the source for this. 

Thanks

RNI

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Mahabharata (The Ur Mahabharta) edited by Keshvram Shastree K. in two volumes and Jaya Samhita (The Ur Mahbharta) Keshvram Shastree K. in 2 volumes

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

So this is not about random interpolations. It is about systematic expansion of a text. Have these different stages been given dates?

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Please view the introductory pages here
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8tPyIaSpaefZFE3UGhudmFTd3M

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In any case, the name Bharata varsha being found in the epic is one way of looking at the idea of Bharat as a geopolitical entity at the time of composition of the epic.

 

There is another way of looking at it too.

 

The  geopolitical reality described in a narrative work can not be contradicting or unacceptably different from the one known to its readers. For example a novel written today can not describe a beach in Delhi and Kutub Minar in Mumbai, capital of India being Udaipur , India as including say Mayanmar. If it does such descriptions, it gets simply thrown out as a book with all wrongs.

 

Similarly Mahabharata which described different parts of Indic subcontinent as being ruled from Hastinapura would have got rejected if that perception was not shared by its readers.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[rniyengar]

Dear Prof.Paturi,

I like MBh for the indirect way that it upholds or paints on a broad colourful canvas "dharma". This dharma is not what the DharmaS'aastras prescriptively preach, except there may be some overlap here and there. MBh also has a geopolitical dimension, but I am unable to  understand your statement:    Mahabharata which described different parts of Indic subcontinent as being ruled from Hastinapura would have got rejected if that perception was not shared by its readers.

As far as I could follow the Mbh in the original, it does not say anywhere that a large country was ruled or controlled by a central king or emperor sitting at Hastinapura. The best one could gather is that in " Bharatavarsha" of that times there were several regions and rulers, some strong, some weak, some friendly, some enemies etc. Please provide the MBh text which gives you the perception that the Indic subcontinent was ruled from Hatinapura

regards

RN Iyengar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The following is from the portion of Bheeshma that was shared by me, as part of my initial post in this thread:

 

१० 

धृतराष्ट्र उवाच॥ 

यदिदं भारतं वर्षं यत्रेदं मूर्छितं बलम्।

यत्रातिमात्रं लुब्धोऽयं पुत्रो दुर्योधनो मम॥ १॥

 

What is the reason for the lobha of Duryodhana that is being mentioned by Dhritarashtra here ?

 

Sanjaya des the richness of resources of Bhaarata varsha as an answer to this question.

 

In what way does the richness of resources of Bhaarata varsha benefit Duryodhana if he wins the war?

 

This is not my full answer.

 

We can discuss further after an answer to this question from you.  

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sanjaya describes the richness of resources of Bhaarata varsha as an answer to this question.

 

not

 

Sanjaya des the richness of resources of Bhaarata varsha as an answer to this question.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Bharta Varsha means The Dynasty of Bharatha who were the most influential dynasty that ruled over Hastina Pura.  Right from Bharathas time the rulers of this dynasty were known for their valor. With the special boons Bhismma had received they were practically unbeatable. The rulers were rich enough without alienating the Pandavas. Sanjaya always tries impress upon the king and Duryodhana the path of righteousness which will lead to great wealth and prosperity of Hastinapura.  Hastinapura no doubt had imperial ambitions but never claimed all the kingdoms should be subversive to them. Mahabharata mentions several independent and powerful kingdoms.​Bharata had not still acquired the sense of a Single Geo Political Unit as per the epic. As we now have India Nepal Bhutan etc. there independent countries or Kingdoms then as per the epic. Many kingdoms did not completely agree with views of Hastinapura but did not want to confront Hastinapura directly. Many countries at present don't completely agree with US hegemony but still they don't directly confront US but negotiate so it was then.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Gargeshwari,

 

Bhaarata Varsha was not the dynasty. It is described as a land. Please go through the shared portion of Bheeshmaparva.

 

इदं तु भारतं वर्षं यत्र वर्तामहे वयम्।

पूर्वं प्रवर्तते पुण्यं तत्सर्वं श्रुतवानसि॥ ५०॥

and many other verses.

 

This portion is in fact part of Bhoomiparva.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bharta Varsha means The Dynasty of Bharatha who were the most influential dynasty that ruled over Hastina Pura.  Right from Bharathas time the rulers of this dynasty were known for their valor. With the special boons Bhismma had received they were practically unbeatable. The rulers were rich enough without alienating the Pandavas. Sanjaya always tries impress upon the king and Duryodhana the path of righteousness which will lead to great wealth and prosperity of Hastinapura.  Hastinapura no doubt had imperial ambitions but never claimed all the kingdoms should be subversive to them. Mahabharata mentions several independent and powerful kingdoms.​Bharata had not still acquired the sense of a Single Geo Political Unit as per the epic. As we now have India Nepal Bhutan etc. there independent countries or Kingdoms then as per the epic. Many kingdoms did not completely agree with views of Hastinapura but did not want to confront Hastinapura directly. Many countries at present don't completely agree with US hegemony but still they don't directly confront US but negotiate so it was then.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I have to mention the same reason here:  I was inspired to start this thread when Dr Gargeshwari said as part of the JNU related thread, ""At this point of time, we can discuss the notions like Rashtriya akhandata and the role of Sanskrit etc".

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Why Sanjaya describes the richness of resources of Bhaarata varsha is as answer to why there is a lobha for that land?

 

The relation between  lobha and the richness of the resources is this: the one who wins the war gets the taxes from the portions covered . The amount of taxes is proportional to the richness of the resources.

 

Even as part of Rajasooya, kings pay 'dhanas' to Dharmaraja.

 

The portion that I shared from Bheeshma parva here, thus, shows the idea of Bhaarata varsha as a geopolitical unit here.

 

Why I said that that was not my full answer is this.

 

It is true that the centralization of administration and economy was not so intense as, say, in Mohammadan period or during the British period in the period that is reflected in these verses (9th century BC)

 

The decentralized administration and economy was based on near autonomy of villages and tribal settlements. These units namely villages and tribal settlements were associated with the small kingdoms which did not wield much interference in the day to day administration of these units. Decentralization was in this sense. Even the interference of Hastinapura in the day to day administration of the kindoms that were part of their saamraajya was minimal. But still the concept of saamraajya, raajaraaja etc. were all there.

 

My thread initiating question was :

 

Did the name Bharata exist as the name of a geopolitical unit  by the time of composition of Mahabharata or was it coined during national movement ?

 

  

[N.R.Joshi]

Feb 20, 2016

 

Dear Prof N. Paturi, Thanks for posting verses from Bhees'ma Parva. I read them.In my opinion they describe lands of the earth even outside of subcontinent. Now how do we know today the exact meaning of Bharata Vars'a as understood by the ancients of the time of composition of the Epic. Again there was Bharata khanda.In what ways Vars'a and Khanda are different? Please offer the ancient reference. Thanks N.R.Joshi

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The name Bharata in Mahabharata
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:46:02 +0530

Dr Gargeshwari,

 

Bhaarata Varsha was not the dynasty. It is described as a land. Please go through the shared portion of Bheeshmaparva.

 

 

इदं तु भारतं वर्षं यत्र वर्तामहे वयम्।

 

पूर्वं प्रवर्तते पुण्यं तत्सर्वं श्रुतवानसि॥ ५०॥

 

and many other verses.

 

This portion is in fact part of Bhoomiparva.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bharta Varsha means The Dynasty of Bharatha who were the most influential dynasty that ruled over Hastina Pura.  Right from Bharathas time the rulers of this dynasty were known for their valor. With the special boons Bhismma had received they were practically unbeatable. The rulers were rich enough without alienating the Pandavas. Sanjaya always tries impress upon the king and Duryodhana the path of righteousness which will lead to great wealth and prosperity of Hastinapura.  Hastinapura no doubt had imperial ambitions but never claimed all the kingdoms should be subversive to them. Mahabharata mentions several independent and powerful kingdoms.​Bharata had not still acquired the sense of a Single Geo Political Unit as per the epic. As we now have India Nepal Bhutan etc. there independent countries or Kingdoms then as per the epic. Many kingdoms did not completely agree with views of Hastinapura but did not want to confront Hastinapura directly. Many countries at present don't completely agree with US hegemony but still they don't directly confront US but negotiate so it was then.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

____________________________________________________________
Get up to a $500 bonus
with a qualifying deposit to an Ally IRA from outside Ally Bank
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/299703265;126637921;p

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Joshi,

 

The focus of the thread is the name भारत , whether its use to refer to the area close to what we today call भारत is ancient one or whether the name and its use in this sense were coined during the days of the national movement. When youngsters here told me that their teachers told them that there was nothing called भारत in the days prior to the British rule, I felt the need to highlight this portion of the book.

 

I am not interested in whether the areas included in the description in the book are exactly the same as today's भारत or not.

 

If you can guide me to the context of use of  the word भरत खण्ड that you have in mind, we will be able to discuss the same.

 

Did you have the lines of sankalpa भरतवर्षे, भरत खण्डे in mind?    

[Janardana Hegde]

भारतविषये कश्चन लेखः एतेन सह अस्ति ।

- जनार्दन हेगडे

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks Mr.Hegde, for the beautiful article.

धन्यवादाः जनार्दनमहाभागाः भारतनामविषयकलेखनाय।

भागवतानुसारेण तु, न दौष्यन्तिर्भरतः, भारतनामकरणे निमित्तम्, अपि तु आदिभरतः, ऋषभयोगिनो नवसु पुत्रेषु प्रथमः। 

"५.०४.अथ ह भगवान् ऋषभदेवः स्व-वर्षं कर्म-क्षेत्रम् अनुमन्यमानः प्रदर्शित-गुरुकुल-वासो लब्ध-वरैर् गुरुभिर् अनुज्ञातो गृहमेधिनां धर्मान् अनुशिक्षमाणो जयन्त्याम् इन्द्र-दत्तायाम् उभय-लक्षणं कर्म समाम्नायाम्नातम् अभियुञ्जन्न् आत्मजानाम् आत्म-समानानां शतं जनयामास

येषां खलु महा-योगी भरतो ज्येष्ठः श्रेष्ठ-गुण आसीद् येनेदं वर्षं भारतम् इति व्यपदिशन्ति

०५.०७. भरतस्तु महा-भागवतो यदा भगवतावनि-तल-परिपालनाय सञ्चिन्तितस्तदनुशासन-परः पञ्चजनीं विश्वरूप-दुहितरम् उपयेमे

तस्याम् उ ह वा आत्मजान् कार्त्स्न्येनानुरूपान् आत्मनः पञ्च जनयाम् आस भूतादिरिव भूत-सूक्ष्माणि सुमतिं राष्ट्रभृतं सुदर्शनम् आवरणं धूम्रकेतुम् इति

।

अजनाभं नामैतद् वर्षं भारतम् इति यत आरभ्य व्यपदिशन्ति।

अर्थात् ततः पूर्वमेतद् वर्षम् अजनाभवर्षमिति ऋषभदेवेन पालितमिति भागवतस्याभिप्रायः। न ततः पूर्वं भारतमिति नामासीदिति।

भागवते ५.१६ अध्याये, सप्तद्वीपानां नववर्षाणां च मर्यादागिरयः वर्ण्यन्ते ---

यो वायं द्वीपः कुवलय-कमल-कोशाभ्यन्तर-कोशो नियुत-योजन-विशालः समवर्तुलो यथा पुष्कर-पत्रम्
यस्मिन् नव वर्षाणि नव-योजन-सहस्रायामान्य् अष्टभिर् मर्यादा-गिरिभिः सुविभक्तानि भवन्ति

 

भारते ऽप्य् अस्मिन् वर्षे सरिच्छैलाः सन्ति बहवो मलयो मङ्गल-प्रस्थो मैनाकस् त्रिकूट ऋषभः कूटकः कोल्लकः सह्यो देवगिरिर् ऋष्यमूकः श्री-शैलो वेङ्कटो महेन्द्रो वारिधारो विन्ध्यः शुक्तिमान् ऋक्षगिरिः पारियात्रो द्रोणश्चित्रकूटो गोवर्धनो रैवतकः ककुभो नीलो गोकामुख इन्द्रकीलः कामगिरिरिति चान्ये च शत-सहस्रशः शैलास् तेषां नितम्ब-प्रभवा नदा नद्यश्च सन्त्यसङ्ख्याताः
एतासामपो भारत्यः प्रजा नामभिरेव पुनन्तीनामात्मना चोपस्पृशन्ति।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Joshi,

 

Did you have the lines of sankalpa भरतवर्षे, भरत खण्डे in mind?    

It seems to be the case:

 जम्बूद्वीपे, भारतवर्षे भरतखण्डे, मेरोर्दक्षिणे पार्श्वे,  

The question can be raised whether भारतवर्ष and भरतखण्ड are two different for the भारतवर्ष as many bloggers on the net have equated both or भरतखण्ड is another portion inside भारतवर्ष. Mr. Joshi might have the second interpretation, भरतखण्ड within भारतवर्ष, within जम्बूद्वीप, which is one of the seven द्वीपon earth. Earth is called सप्तद्वीपा|

"सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती‚ त्रयो लोकाः‚ चत्वारो वेदाः साङ्गाः सरहस्या" महाभाष्य. पस्पशाह्निक.

[N.R.Joshi]

Feb 23, 2016

ख/शका(च तुखारा(च पVलवा hगSरग@वराः॥ ६६॥

ख/शका(च तुखारा(च पVलवा hगSरग@वराः॥ ६६॥

स__Bुहः कुEतला(च हूणाः पारतकैः सह॥ ६४॥

.षी_वदभा<ः काEतीका_त_गणाः परत_गणाः।

B_वडाः केरलाः ,ा]या भू_षका वनवा/सनः।

उEन;यका मा_हषका _वकVपा मूषका_तथा॥ ५७॥

कO

[कराता बब<राः /सIा _वदेहा_ता€/ल_गकाः॥ ५५॥

Gतलकाः पारसीका(च मधुमEतः ,कु;सकाः॥ ५१॥

शका Gनषादा Gनषधा_तथैवानत<नैरृताः।

अ_गा व_गाः क/ल_गा(च यकृVलोमान एव च॥ ४४॥

पा_चालाः कौ/शजा(चैव एकपृ_ठा युगEधराः।

हेमकूटा;परं चैव हSरवषR ,च_ते॥ ६॥

Dear Prof N. Paturi,

 

Thanks for posting verses from Bheeshma parva.

 

The countries I highlighted from Bheeshma parva verses you posted were outside of the Indic subcontinent. Mahabharata empire was not limited to Jambudvipa (Indic subcontinent). And hence Hastinapura was not in the Indic subcontinent. This point I would like to make. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

 

 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The na me Bharata in Mahabharata
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 09:17:15 +0530

Dear Dr Joshi,

 

The focus of the thread is the name भारत , whether its use to refer to the area close to what we today call भारत is ancient one or whether the name and its use in this sense were coined during the days of the national movement. When youngsters here told me that their teachers told them that there was nothing called भारत in the days prior to the British rule, I felt the need to highlight this portion of the book.

 

I am not interested in whether the areas included in the description in the book are exactly the same as today's भारत or not.

 

If you can guide me to the context of use of  the word भरत खण्ड that you have in mind, we will be able to discuss the same.

 

Did you have the lines of sankalpa भरतवर्षे, भरत खण्डे in mind?    

Ally Bank, Member FDIC
Consistently competitive rates, 24/7 customer care, Member FDIC
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/299707993;126233653;v

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Joshi,

 

You seem to have OCRed from the pdf.

 

It did not come through.

 

The verses you picked out seem to be from the description of ऊर्ध्व जनपदाः (Northern Janapadas)

 

You seem to have attempted to highlight words which you thought are places outside Indic subcontinent.

 

I am not sure I am in a position to locate  every Janapada  listed in these verses in the contemporary maps.

 

While working with one of the researchers at the University of Chicago, I realized that we are not able to match the places described in some 16th century 'maps' with the places known to us today. In that case, to be able to locate the places in these verses is obviously extremely difficult.

 

I already said, "I am not interested in whether the areas included in the description in the book are exactly the same as today's भारत or not."

 

The intention is to counter the misinformation spread by teachers with colonized mindset that the name भारत and the idea of a vast भारत beyond the little fragments of kingdoms is a product of the political unification 'gifted' by the British.

 

 

[N.R.Joshi]

Feb 24, 2016

 

Dear Dr. N. Paturi,

Thanks for explaining your position towards the name Bharata. I agree with you.

 

However I am not concerned about twisting of historical facts by colonial rulers and their scholars. I have gone ahead of them many years ago. The ancient histories of Afghanistan, Persia and Babelonia are well documented in hundreds of references because of interest of Europe in Bible. The land of Bible was the middle-east. In addition there was Persian Empire in the known history from Sindhu river to Egypt and wars between Persia and Greece.

 

It is not difficult to recognize the Mahabharata nations from Bheeshma Parva outside. Another clue-please look at the ancient history of Kashmira from the time of Lalitaditya. His military concquest was in the direction of Northwest. There you find the country Tukharas. In the history of Persian empire you find Shakas, Kambojas, Vahlikas (Bactria) many nations mentioned in Mahabharata.

 

The book of Savitri Saxena offers many clues. In addition I had direct contact with scholars from the middle east because I live in USA.

 

One Indian scholar who traveled in the middle east countries, visited their museums was presented during my presentation on Mahabharata in Hyderabad. At the end he told the audience that he saw all the things Dr, Joshi just discussed in his presentation. Where there is will, their is way. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Joshi,

 

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

Congratulations for being  able to identify all the places described in Mahabharata and for getting appreciation of 'one Indian scholar who travelled in the middle east countries' for this identification.

 

The places being outside the Indic subcontinent does not contradict the theory of presence of the idea a vast भारत beyond the little fragments of kingdoms by the time of composition of the cited verses.

 

You said, "It is not difficult to recognize the Mahabharata nations from Bheeshma Parva outside.". The use of the word 'nations' is problematic in this context. Janapadas were not 'nations'.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

 

 

[rniyengar]

 I am not interested in a question & answer session. 

Duryodhana had several types of Lobhas, but this does not add up to conclude that the subcontinent was ruled from Hastinapura; nor does it indicate that Duryodhana knew the geography of Indic land mass of his days and wanted to become the sole ruler of the subcontinent.  Any way Pandavas won the war!  Did they say anywhere in the Epic that they are ruling "Bhārata-varṣa"?  Even in the Sabhāparvan & As’vamedhikaparvan I could not find any concept that would indicate political unity or strong desire for centralization of the rulership of the subcontinent. But, there are plenty of evidences for promoting and celebrating cultural (dhaarmic) unity of the subcontinent.  The word “Bhārata” appears in every parvan while addressing the Kauravas or the Pandavas, in conversations. In the Bhagavadgita also Arjuna is addressed as Bhārata in several places.

But the phrase Bhārata-varṣa indicating the continent bounded by the Himalayas and the Oceans is typically Purāṇic (ex: Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa).  The use of Varṣa in the sense of a piece of land is quite sparse in MB.

The word Bhārata-varṣa appears six times in the Bhumiparva and later in the Śuka-upākhyāna of Śānti parvan once. The word Bharata and its derivatives, in the sense of persons, clan, group, people, community occurs several hundred times. Interestingly in the Sabhāparvan,  Kṛṣṇa is said to have arrived in the Bhāratapura. Perhaps this means the city of the Bharata clan (Pāṇḍavas). Even then it is nice to know that some parts of present NCR (Delhi) was once called Bhāratampuram !

0020300151/.asuuryam.iva.suuryeNa.nivaatam.iva.vaayunaa./

0020300153/.kRSNena.samupetena.jahRSe.bhaaratam.puram.//

0020300161/.tam.mudaa.abhisamaagamya.sat.kRtya.ca.yathaa.vidhi./

0020300163/.sampRSTvaa.kuzalam.caiva.sukha.aasiinam.yudhiSThirah.//

 Now, coming back to the Bhūmiparvan which is part of the Bhīṣmaparvan of MB, Sanjaya describes the topography, physical features, rivers, countries, communities known to him in Bhārata-varṣa.

0060100123/.aaryaa.mlecchaaz.ca.kauravya.tair.mizraah.puruSaa.vibho.//

0060100423/.azmakaah.paamsu.raaSTraaz.ca.gopa.raaSTraah.paniitakaah.//

0060100431/.aadi.raaSTraah.sukuTTaaz.ca.bali.raaSTram.ca.kevalam./

0060100683/.uddeza.maatreNa.mayaa.dezaah.samkiirtitaah.prabho.//

He also feels sad about the ensuing war for he touches upon the greed of the kings for fighting for the ownership of Earth/Land.

0060100693/.duhyed.dhenuh.kaama.dhuk.ca.bhuumih.samyag.anuSThitaa.//

0060100701/.tasyaam.gRdhyanti.raajaanah.zuuraa.dharma.artha.kovidaah./

0060100703/.te.tyajanty.aahave.praaNaan.rasaa.gRddhaas.tarasvinah.//70

0060100711/.deva.maanuSa.kaayaanaam.kaamam.bhuumih.paraayaNam./

0060100713/.anyonyasya.avalumpanti.saarameyaa;iva.aamiSam.//

0060100721/.raajaano.bharata.zreSTha.bhoktu.kaamaa.vasumdharaam./

0060100723/.na.ca.api.tRptih.kaamaanaam.vidyate.ca.iha.kasyacit.//

 

0060100731/.tasmaat.parigrahe.bhuumer.yatante.kuru.paaNDavaah./

0060100733/.saamnaa.daanena.bhedena.daNDena.eva.ca.paarthiva.//

 

My inference is that the name Bhāratavarṣa has come into vogue after the main episodes of the original Bhāratākhyāna. The Bhūmiparvan is added into the Vaiśampāyana-bhārata by others in making Bhārata into Mahābhārata. In M.R. Yardi’s statistical style analysis also, Bhīṣmaparvan chapters 1-40 and 61-70 come out as forming a separate group, which Yardi calls the B-style of the Sauti group. It was natural to refer to the geographical entity, as our ancients became aware of it, through wars and travels (tīrthayātrā) as ‘Bhārata’. The clan of Bharata : Bhāratam janam, the progeny of Bharata, is mentioned as early as in the Ṛgveda (III.53). 

RNI

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>  I am not interested in a question & answer session. 

You seem to have misunderstood a certain style of conversation to be a demand for a question and answer session. Sir, I did not ask you to participate in a question and answer session. I thought it was a persuasive style of making you follow my method of inference.

 

The word भारत is used in both the senses side by side in the following verses:

 

अत्र ते वर्णयिष्यामि वर्षं भारत भारतम्।

प्रियमिन्द्रस्य देवस्य मनोर्वैवस्वतस्य च॥ ५॥

अन्येषां च महाराज क्षत्रियाणां बलीयसाम्।

सर्वेषामेव राजेन्द्र प्रियं भारत भारतम्॥ ८॥

Your stand seems to be that the portion with lobha discussion and the mention of Bharata Varsha is interpolated later into the book. 

 

I stated my poorvapaksha as follows:

 

The focus of the thread is the name भारत , whether its use to refer to the area close to what we today call भारत is ancient one or whether the name and its use in this sense were coined during the days of the national movement. When youngsters here told me that their teachers told them that there was nothing called भारत in the days prior to the British rule, I felt the need to highlight this portion of the book.

 

Even if you consider these lines to be interpolations, done during the times when Puranas like Brahmanda Purana were composed, it does not vindicate the stand that there was nothing called भारत in the days prior to the British rule or that the name भारत and the idea of a vast भारत beyond the little fragments of kingdoms is a product of the political unification 'gifted' by the British. 

 

I made view with regard to centralization of administration and /or economy in ancient India clear in the following words:

 

It is true that the centralization of administration and economy was not so intense as, say, in Mohammadan period or during the British period in the period that is reflected in these verses (9th century BC)

 

The decentralized administration and economy was based on near autonomy of villages and tribal settlements. These units namely villages and tribal settlements were associated with the small kingdoms which did not wield much interference in the day to day administration of these units. Decentralization was in this sense. But still the concept of saamraajya, raajaraaja etc. were all there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In another thread on Kashmir, Vdwan Sri Ramchander Deekondaji quoted the verse:

 

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।

वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।। - Vishnu Purana (2.3.1)

 

The composition dates of Vishnu Purana mentioned by the various scholars include:

H. H. Wilson: first century BCE; one of the oldest of the Puranas

Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri: 320-255 CE

Rajendra Chandra Hazra: 275-325 CE

Moriz Winternitz: before 400 CE

Gavin Flood: fourth century CE

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This is from a post by Sri V. Subrahmanian on another list:

 Here are two uses of the word in the Bhāṣya of Shankaracharya, just informing us that the term was in use during his times:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । सन्ध्याधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ३ - भाष्यम्

कालविसंवादोऽपि च स्वप्ने भवति — रजन्यां सुप्तो वासरं भारते वर्षे मन्यते ; तथा मुहूर्तमात्रवर्तिनि स्वप्ने कदाचित् बहून् वर्षपूगान् अतिवाहयति । 

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १ - भाष्यम्:

हे सम्राट् — सम्राडिति वाजपेययाजिनो लिङ्गम् ; यश्चाज्ञया राज्यं प्रशास्ति, स सम्राट् ; तस्यामन्त्रणं हे सम्राडिति ; समस्तस्य वा भारतस्य वर्षस्य राजा ॥

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am sorry, the previous post was from this list only. To post it here was in a confusion.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I heard the following argument from Sri Vamadeva Acharya ( Sri David Frawley) during one of his lectures at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan a few decades ago. Hyderabad. I was trying if it was documented somewhere. I found it today on http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/arjuna/india_and_hinduism_in_the_mahabharata/page7.htm:

INDIA AND HINDUISM IN THE MAHABHARATA

 

One not uncommonly comes across the opinion today that India was never really a nation but that its nationhood was only recently invented by the British through their definition of the region as part of their empire. Similarly we are told that Hinduism was up to recently not a religion at all but merely various local cults and that Hinduism as a single religion was an idea developed along with the idea of India as a nation that as a religion Hinduism is basically a creation of modern political interests.

These ideas are often used to discredit India as a real country or Hinduism as a valid religion. They are used by Marxist and leftist elements or by non-Hindus to draw Hindus into their fold. However, such ideas are clearly refuted by the most important work of literature that we have from India, the Mahabharata.

The Mahabharata of 1000,000 verses dates from at least two thousand years ago, though portions of it are much older, and its story goes back perhaps more than thirty-five hundred years. A version of it was noted in the Tamil Nadu region of South India as early as the first century BC. Mahabharata literally means "Great India" as Bharata is the traditional name for India.

The Mahabharata presents peoples from the entire subcontinent of India. The story centers on the conflict between the Kauravas and Pandavas, who were members of the same ruling family of the Kuru-Panchala kingdom which extended through the Ganges-Yamuna region. The mother of the Kauravas was Gandhari of Gandhara, which is now Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan.

 

The mother of the Pandavas was Kunti of the Yadava line of what would now be Madhya Pradesh. The Pandavas were allied with Krishna who was originally a king of Mathura on the Yamuna south of Delhi, but moved his capital to Dwaraka in the southern part of his kingdom in Gujarat. Krishna's main enemy Jarasandha, King of Magadha (Bihar).

Kings of all India participated in the Mahabharata war including from Pragjyotish (Assam) and Sind. In their pilgrimages (tirthayatras) And victory marches (digvijayas) the Pandavas traveled all over India from Afghanistan in the west, to Tibet in the north, Assam in the east, to Kanya Kumari in the south. Sri Lanka is also mentioned.

Whether the Mahabharata is an historical account or a mere story makes no difference in this issue. The existence of such a story factually or on a literary level proves the same thing-that the idea of the subcontinent of India as a cultural unit clearly existed at a time contemporaneous with the Roman empire-long before any of the modern nation-states had come into being and long before most of Europe was even populated. 

The Mahabharata reflects that India as a cultural unit already formed some two thousand years ago. In this regard no nation, subcontinent or religion has an epic of such proportion or which reflects the integration of such a large region as India through the Mahabharata. There is no such epic as Great Europe or Great China. There is no great epic of Christianity or Islam that encompasses such a clearly defined cultural region which still exists today.

Based on the evidence of the Mahabharata it could be argued that India is perhaps the oldest nation in the world. It is the same case with Hinduism as a religion. Hinduism as we know it today is basically the same religion taught in the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata presents a synthesis of the worship of the great Hindu Gods of Shiva, Vishnu and the Goddess (Devil), as well as the lesser figures of Ganesh, Skanda, and Surya. 

Their worship is integrated on an earlier Brahman cal basis and a respect for the Vedas, the Vedic Rishis and the Upanishads, which includes the great truths of Vedanta. The Mahabharata makes Krishna into a great teacher and avatars as well as recognizes Rama and the other avatars of Vishnu. The Mahabharata presents a synthesis of the teachings of Vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga. It contains teaching on the duties of kings, classes and stages of life, medicine and astrology.

In fact it compasses all the domains of knowledge and all the issues of human life and culture. It is not just a religious book but the document for an entire civilization.  Interestingly the Mahabharata does not present itself as a new religion or cultural document but as a development of the older Vedic tradition.  Even in the order Upanishads and the Brahmanas kings and sages are mentioned from such diverse regions as Gandhara (Afghanistan), Videha (eastern Bihar and Nepal) and Vidarbha (Maharashtra).

This is a considerably larger region than the Bible which reflects mainly the people of the small country of Palestine or the Koran which reflects and Arabs of Mecca and Medina. The Vedas also present a much great diversity of personages, with many great sages and yogis, rather than a few prophets only.

We must note that when the Mahabharata was televised in India a few years ago, the entire country was mesmerized. Trains stopped. Government offices were closed to allow people to watch the program. A comparable phenomenon has never occurred in the West when films of the Bible were shown on television, not has any other national epic so gripped the attention of any country.

This shows that the Mahabharata still unites the country and is indeed a national epic.  Those who would deny any real history to India as a nation or Hinduism as a religion have only to look at the Mahabharata to see the absurdity of their views. Even the title of the book challenges their view.

[N.R.Joshi]

July 12, 2016

 

Dear Prof N Paturi, Congratulations for your effort on collecting references to the word Bharata as the name of the Indian subcontinent.

 

But since you posted something on Mahabharata, I am tempted to write this. You did not discuss your own posting (names  of the countries mentioned in Mahabharata). Now let us forget that.

 

When are you going to visit the countries of Shakas, Shaakalas, Kambojas, Uttara Kurus, Tukharas, Yugandharas, Shalvas, Trigartas, Vaalhikas, Srinjayas, Sahadevas, Somakas, Krivis, and many more. They were mentioned in Mahabharata.

 

Your previous posting mentioned  Vasvoukasaaraa. Where was it located?  More interesting part of Mahabharata is never discussed. N.R.Joshi

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The name Bharata in Mahabharata

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks for understanding the purpose of my efforts.

I did not discuss the names of different parts of Bhaarata varsha mentioned in Mahabharata, since that is not the purpose of the thread and also because I am not as a big expert as Dr NR Joshi in this matter.

Coming to my visiting of those places, I am happy with being acquainted with globe-trotters like Dr Joshi who visited those places.

I am just quoting the verses of Mahabharata verbatim. Since locating any place including Vasvoukasaara in the contemporary world was not was not my purpose, I did not do that.

You seem to know where in the contemporary world that place is located. Please enlighten me about that.

Your knowledge about these places based on your first hand research in fact is useful for my purpose because that proves that the places mentioned in the verses are not fictitious but real.

Please share your travel experiences and your research. 

[N.R.Joshi]

July 14, 2016

 

Dear Prof N Paturi,

 

I do not want to keep you guessing on Vasvoukasara. It is the name of one of the cities of Devas. You may be knowing the word Divoukasah from Amara kosha. Amaravati was the city of Indra where the sun never gets strong.

 

Indra's heaven was on the western border of the ancient China beyond Pamira Plateau. On this list it was discussed some years ago that Indra had war with Namuchi and Indra captured his two lady soldiers of Abalaa Senaa (Ladies kingdom).

 

The cities of Devas were beyond Uttara Kuru. Pandu says to his wife that ladies from Uttara kuru were endowed with natural beauty. N.R. Joshi.

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The na me Bharata in Mahabharata

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Joshi,

You wrote ;

< Indra's heaven was on the western border of the ancient China beyond Pamira Plateau.>

Which time period are you referring to ? Was that conquered by any of the Indian kings. in the past.?
S K Bhattacharjya