Mahabharata

84 views
Skip to first unread message

Ravi Prakash

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 3:45:25 AM2/12/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Pranam to all distinguished Scholars.

 I have a query. I want to know as Pandava-s are also the descendant of Kuru clan and Duryodhana with his 99 brothers are also associated with Kuru dynasty, then why Pandava-s are called Pandava-s not Kaurava-s in general. Is there any motive behind it. I would be happy if you clear my doubt.

Ravi Prakash

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 6:35:10 AM2/12/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 6:42:34 AM2/12/20
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Dear Sri Ravi Prakash,

Yes, Panda as are also Kauravas.

Dhaartaraashtras are also Kauravas.

But to highlight the point that the traditionally inherited Kuru crown remained with the Dhaartaraashtras, they were referred to as Kauravas.

To distinguish, Pandavas  were referred to as Pandavas.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/41d7dc22-0f81-4462-af87-0b4aa429fdde%40googlegroups.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 7:25:19 AM2/12/20
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
कुरुनन्दन    is a sambodhana to Arjuna in the Bh.Gita a few times. 

In this link are many instances of the use of the word 'kaurava' in the Mahabharata.  If one examines each of them, maybe one will find instances of the term being used for any or all of the five Pandavas:  


regards
subrahmanian.v

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eae_TyS5XL%3DaEssm8MRMtKvYv7JxLx%3DxYRanMhK5ADjRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

BVK Sastry

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 10:17:40 PM2/12/20
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Namaste

 

<Pandava/ Kaurva> -   An interesting debate with deeper and complex technicalities from  Samskruth Grammar Taddhita pratyaya's and implications from  Dharma / Karma/ Artha-Shaastra.

 

( Complex and deep rooted technical issues cannot be  explained with a sutra like statement : ' The Kaurava- Padava' debate has the deep technicality of 'Taddhita Pratyaya' construction with implications on ' prajaa-tva' nirnaya for Dharma-Karma -artha - taatparya nirnaya'.

For those who comprehend the technicality of the language this much is enough to see why the statement ' Pandavas are also Kauravas'   carries serious limitations>.

 

 

The question of Duryodhana  was precisely  asking  for verifiable evidence to decide the issue  < Pandavas are also Kauravas. > On the same stature as  < Dhaartaraashtras are also Kauravas.  > .

 

The identity of ' Paandu' as a ' Kaurva' was not challenged. The challenged issues was on the derivative of this  position  and  ' Dharma' of  passing  the  title-identity- inheritance rights from  Pandu as a  'Kaurava' to 'children of Pandu's wife, who conceived from others'.   The entirety of debate is available in mahabharata.

 

The debatable issue being : What would be the difference between the rights of ' biological children of Pandu'  compared to the ' children of Pandu's wives, to whom Pandu lent his name?

 

 Did Pandu have the right to pass on the ' family title of Kuru- lineage' to members of family where there was no direct blood lineage'?

  The issue to be decided  is the continuity of  ' Vamsha- Gotra-Anvaya'  -  Identity Inheritance  framework for  Claims- Rights and Duties' ?

 

This demands the clarity on ' The Right application of the  ' Taddhita Pratyaya'  as ' Tasya - apatyam - Puman'  or ' gotraapatyam'  or ' Tatra bhavah'. And with that the full and deeper knowledge of 'Vedanga Vyakarana'  beyond Historical linguistics,  Interpreting Panini under Religion frame'.  

 

A side question worth investigating is : What was the grammar standard of ' Vyasa's 'Mahabharata-text, Text of ' Srimad Bhagavad-Gita' and how much do they  differ from 'Valmiki Ramayana in terms of Grammar framework of language :Samskrutham ( or even if it be Bhashaa ?!  part) OR if one wants further narrowing of window, How did Kalidasa  understand the text of 'Valmiki and story of Kings of Raghu lineage'? Did the poet lock himself to Panini or had a language - inheritance to guard from Valmiki- Vyasa ?   

 

Irrespective of our preference to interpret the ancient text/s and terms  in 21st century outlook, what seems  important is  to understand the  'internal stability and integrity of the language grammar anchored clarity to understand  the Samskruth  terms in the context of usage. Surely between Mahabharata time and Panini time, there is a gap of almost  three millennia; and between us and Panini, another three millennia ! The sandwich in between is the  lot of history and interpretations ( with translations to challenge the language models).        

 

   The question of Duryodhana  was never answered conclusively in the text of Mahabharata. The outcome was war.  

    Even in Gita, the army of Dharmaraja's  fighting  side is called ' Pandu-putraanaam/ Pandavaaneekam  (1-2 and 3).

 

     Arjuna is uniquely identified as ' Pandava' ( 1-14; 1-20,).  The usage  ' kurunandana' in Gita  (2-41; 6-43; 14-13)  , kuru-sattama( 2-41), kuru-shreshtha (10-19 )     Kuru-praveera (11-48),   does not make

    unequivocal clear evidence to substantiate ' Arjuna is     'Kaurava'   on par with ' Duryodhana'.

      Krishna addresses Arjuna by various names, including ' Pandava ( 4-35; 6-2; 11-13; 11-55; 14-22; 16-5;)  Partha (18-72 )  .

 

    The ' kula-kshaya-krutam'  war got pushed and eliminated  both  the ' Pandava- Kaurava' lineage identity in Bharath.

     The new  ' people-identity ( prajaa)- model that emerged after the war   was of  ' Prajaa'  in 'Dharma-Rajya' where society regulation is Sanatana Dharma  constitution and compliance.   

   The name of 'Dharma-Raja'  as the king in post war did not make Bharath a land of ' Pandavas'  or restore back the ' Kuru' identity. 

   On the same breath, it reworded the ideal of ' Rama-Rajya' : God incarnation as Iconic Person to  rule - from Valmiki's frame to ' Dharma-Rajya' where 'Society is Value-regulated by Sanatana  Dharma.

    The restored  ' people identity ( Prajaa)  was ' Bharateeya' referring back to ' Bharatam janah' of Vedas.

    Pareekshit, though the biological son of Pandava/ Arjuna'  died / still-born/   and was reborn- brought back to life by the blessings of Sri Krishna  who is a ' Yogeeswara'  with a self-declared responsibility    

   given in  Gita 11-18:  avyayah shaashwata -dharma -goptaa, sanatanastvam purusho ; Gita 14-27:  Pratishthaa ..Shaaswatasya cha dharmasya, sukhasyaikaantikasya cha.

 

     On < Kauravas> ;   The question leads to further exploration  of  the identity of people by land and lineage. Example: People of Indian origin / descent would be Indian.  Descendents of People of India migrating to different lands would be ' Non-Resident Indians'.  The convention is to identify a citizen of India as ' Bhaaratiya'  and  not as a ' Kaurava / Pandava/ Madra / Paanchaala....'.  

 As the  ' Kshetra' - the land anchor and context changes, the 'Dharma- Karma :: Rights, duties, responsibilities,  Rites of passage' -all undergo a change.  When one makes a wrong- identity claim, the outcome is a 'war'.  The decision to establish the identity with proof  rests  on the claimant to the title  and acceptance by the community -  society - constitution (Dharma Shaastra / Artha Shaastra in this case;  Safely keep out the Moksha Shaastra issues out of this debate).  Duryodhanas claim for title of  'Kaurava'  was based on claimed identity of Dhrutarashtra as a  blood- lineage person of ' Kuru's.  Pandavas could not establish this claim as ' direct blood lineage of Pandu:  who was as much a   kaurava with equal rights  as Dhrutarashtra. So Children of Kunti/ Maadri are given the name of ' Pandavas (Belonging to the family of Pandu;  and not as children of Pandu).

 

This is where the nicety  , neatness and technicality of understanding the ' Samskrutham language, specifically for the right application of ' Taddhita Pratyayas' comes in to picture. What should be the  ' apatya-pratyaya' that should be applied to explain the term ' Paandava'- Kaurava' ?  What are we taught in Vyakarana  and what is to be applied in understanding the Text of Mahabharata?  For Dharma shaastra, Artha shaastra and Moksha Shaastra? 

 

If ' tasyaapatyam' is invoked,   we are looking at  'Direct blood descendent' with  biological parentage interpretation for Pandava- Kaurava  (- like Daasharathi : son of Dasharatha; saumitir: son  of sumitraa).  The connected difficulty is to decide who would be ' Vruddha' in the ' gotra' ??

 

 

Or

If  it  is  ' gotraapatya /  tatra- bhavah ( resident - born and brought up in a specific place like   city of madra' - invoking a remote connection by relation of ' belongingness  to land and people there of  and staking claim for  inheritance-  residual value - remote connection by some DNA strand '  to explain  Pandava-Kaurava (- like Raaghava : Sri Rama belongs to Raghu's lineage: Kalidasa says - Raghoonaam ANVAYAM VAKSHYE) ?  What would the expression ' anivaasi- bhaaratiya / para-vaasi ( pravaasi ) bhaaratiya mean ?  The challenge becomes more interesting when the ' Identity stake shifts to 'Hindu definition by plurality and freedom of faith, dismembering the debate from land and lineage' , by pushing the anchor to ' FAITH (Call it by Religion or Value, God or Guru, Text or Tradition, Parentage  or Place of work-living, historic formation of a Nation as a time-line event)  and map it to 'SHRADDHAA'  (as ' Religion faith) from gita !

 

The term ' Hindu-ja', Haindava, Hindu - Rashtra' deserve attention here.   This could open new deliberation  lines to explore how traditional schools have wrestled with this  challenge  and integrate 'Mahabharata Characters as  elevated icons beyond people who might have walked on this sacred land to lay their mortal coil at Kuru-Kshetra'.

 

 

It may be interesting to contemplate the  pandava-kaurava term explanation  as a stake for  family title inheritance as ' identifier' of  members of   family lineage (Paternal and maternal) here.

 

Bhishma is   respectfully referred to as ' Gaangeya'  ( referring to mother- line ). Bheeshma is called ' Kuru-Vruddha' (Gita 1-12).

 

Karna is  insulted as '  radheya' where the name ' raadhaa' is said to be the name of mother who nurtured Karna ( Athiratha is fathers name; Raadhaa is mother's name).

 

Krishna is  respectfully  worshipped as ' Devaki- Nandana / yashodaa nandana' ( both biological and nurturing mother).

 

Dhrutarashtra does not seem to have any preferred reference to father or mother  or land related name.    Same case with Pandu.

 

When it comes to Pandavas, as members of Pandu family, the preferred name seems to be  ' Kaunteyas' (Children of Kunti) and  yamalau ( twins, children of mother Maadri). Still ' Paandavas' covers both Kaunteya and Madri's children.  I do not know of the origin of the popular statement ' mama- praanaa - hi - Paandavaah' attributed to  Sri Krishna ?!  Was Sri Krishna trying to side the 'children of Pandus, whose stake to the Kuru title was being challenged ? Was Sri Krishna having the  same identity challenge :as ' Yaadava ( Yadu family  related / groomed in the  gokula ) ' and 'Vaasudeva  (Son of Vasudeva: The king' ?  See the  lineage of Sri Krishna - (71 generations ) at https://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/71-generations-lord-krishna-family-tree/ . Inside Gita, Sri Krishna identifies himself with ' Vrushni' family (10-37).

 

 

When it comes to children of Dhrutarashtra, the group name is ' Kauravas' referencing to land,  family lineage of ' Kuru's.  The title of ' belonging to land and lineage of ' Kuru's (  and Panchalas:: refering to Draupadi  as ' Paanchaali) seems to be a matter of high pride.

 

In this sense, the mahabharata war looks like the challenge of ' Identity continuity for inheritance- rights', more by land-tradition lineage than the parentage.  The question to contemplate would be :Why was there a clash between two models of identity in the historic period : By Parentage  issue  ( decidedly linked to Dharma Shaastra - Marriage based)  and ' belonging to  and born in the specific lineage and land called ' Kuru' ?

 

The relevance of this line of thinking seems to get reflected in the 'Citizenship of Nation'  debate issue in almost every nation of today. Citizenship relates to the rights, duties, responsibilities  of a citizen of nation and Nation's reciprocal  obligation.

 

So Kaurava- Pandava debate  would like  the decisive struggle for ' Identity for Dharma  Rashtra / Desha':: Rashtra/ Desha Dharma as a part of Raja-Dharma and Prajaa-Dharma. The articulate question emerging as:

 

Is the given individual a ' prajaa of the desha /  desha-ja /  deshastha ( as used for brahmana community of specific places) :: Person born in the given identified land ( irrespective of parentage lineage by father, mother) - Kaurava

OR

Is the given individual a ' nivaasi  of the desha /  desha-stha :: Person resident  in the given identified land  AND/ OR   carries a blood lineage  connection (= Atmaja, Tanaya, Kshetra-ja)  to the  people of the people who stayed- lived in the given identified land  irrespective of parentage lineage by father, mother) - Pandavas.

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

Bijoy Misra

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 10:53:24 PM2/12/20
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Little more organization makes a short paper!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5e44bfce.1c69fb81.e44e7.360b%40mx.google.com.

Prabhu

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 11:46:58 PM2/12/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
namaH sarvebhyo

Well thought-out and analysed response Sastry-ji!

Just as the pancha pAnDava-s are not biological offsprings of Pandu, likewise even Dhritarasshtra, Pandu and Vidura are themselves not in the Kuru blood-line, right, due to the niyogakrama invloving Vyasa?
In the true sense of blood-line, did the Kuru vaMsha end with Bhishma? Your thoughts?

Regards
Prabhu

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

sharda shah

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 11:46:59 PM2/12/20
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
True sir,Pandavas too r descendants of King Kuru. Lord Krishna, in 11.48, of Bhagwat Geeta addresses Arjun as Kurupravir -bravest in Kuru dynasty. In Mahabharata , Yudhishthira is also said to be kaurupungav. But the king of Hastinapur was Dritarastra so his sons r called Kauravas. 

Sent from my iPhone

Achyut Karve

unread,
Feb 13, 2020, 12:16:49 AM2/13/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Dear Vidwans,

In fact the Mahabharata revolves around the question whether qualities indeed pass from generation to generation through heredity.  The Mahabharata in this sense deals with the nature of societal dharma.  

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/79508a22-12fb-43fe-ac5f-e5b184e2b54c%40googlegroups.com.

Sivasenani Nori

unread,
Feb 13, 2020, 3:21:40 AM2/13/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Sir

Kindly consider the following - 

1. According to Dharmasastra, the sons of Kunti and Madri begotten with the permission of Pandu, are indeed sons of Pandu - by Niyoga. Hence they belong to the vamsha of Kuru as well.
2. If it is to be interpreted that Duryodhana is questioning whether the sons of Pandu are indeed Kurus, it may be remembered that Pandu and Dhritarashtra are themselves born of Niyoga. So, to be consistent, Duryodhana also cannot be a Kaurava. (Duryodhana's stand for not returning the kingdom of Pandavas is that thirteen years have not passed from the day of Vijayadashami on which the game of dice was played and the end of Vasanta Navaratri when uttara-gograhaNam occurred [1])

In light of the above, my submission is that it is perfectly valid to address the sons of Pandu as Kauravas. Otherwise, Arjuna should also not be addressed as Bharata (a very frequent form of address), as the lineage is as much that of Bharata as it is of Kuru. Avoidance of Kaurava to address Pandavas may be due to the following:

a) Initially, the intent might have been to show exclusion of the Pandavas from the Kuru clan as far as right to the throne is concerned, and
b) In later times, the initial purpose of exclusion turned into celebration of Dharma,  not confuse and no more. 

Regards
Senani

[1] Duryodhana is wrong in his contention because a) for vratas such as the one concerning vanavaasa and ajnaatavaasa, the lunar calendar should be used, not the solar calendar, and b) in such vratas - along with application in pregnancy and computation of interest - the adhikamaasas (or malamaasas) need to be counted. When the adhika-maasas during the thirteen years are counted, thirteen years were indeed completed. Bhishma points this out before the battle between Arjuna and the Kauravas commences in the Virataparva.




To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5e44bfce.1c69fb81.e44e7.360b%40mx.google.com.

Mārcis Gasūns

unread,
Feb 13, 2020, 5:12:29 AM2/13/20
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Thanks for the detailed commentary.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

G S S Murthy

unread,
Feb 13, 2020, 5:33:20 AM2/13/20
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I am reminded of half a verse in दूतवाक्यम् of भास
" व्यासेन जातो धृतराष्ट्र एषः लभेत राज्यं जनकः कथं ते"
Thanks and regards,
Murthy

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/6f10413a-24e9-4ad1-9641-533eda30cc4b%40googlegroups.com.


--

BVK Sastry

unread,
Feb 14, 2020, 2:10:26 PM2/14/20
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Namaste

 

1. There is nothing to consider here ! Duryodhana had the same explanation based on 'Dharma Shaastra / Niyoga / Kshetra .....'  themes; and best advisors who knew Dharmashastras, including Vyasa, at some point. If the argument was strong enough, the only reason for Duryodhana/ Dhrutarashtra ... and many others to step away from that advise needs explanation.  Simply stating that there was a sanction from Dharma shastra, there was the 'consent, there was intervention of divine plans,.....' does not resolve the issue. The terms usage in the well retained text of Gita at least does not help to solve the problem.

 

There is no harm in accepting that Duryodhana raised a contentious issue for litigating and safeguarding his interest to the power- inheritance.

 

2. The question of Duryodhana did  not point to Pandu; it pointed to the legality of 'Pandu giving the title to children for whom he was not the biological father  ( Ourasatva =  born out of ones own body- elements, blood lineage as they say,   ,...; aatmajah....). This question was not there in Duryodhanas case.

 

 

3. Addressing Pandus children as Kauravas is a literary usage. to that extent it is covered.

 

any way our opinions are not changing the Mahabharata narrative.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages