Is the claim of the Pandavas just?

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Friends,

The question described below bothers me a lot.  I would like to be advised by a leaned member  of this Group whether this question has been posed before, and, if so, what answer has been given.

We have been brought up with the belief that in the Mahabharata story, the Pandavas were on the side of justice and the Kauravas were the villains, denying to the Pandavas their just due.  This injustice led to the Great War and we have been brought up on that story.  Is it possible that the story as it appears to us was written by the victors, who have succeeded in demonizing and demeaning the defeated side?

As far as can be seen, in ancient India the rule of succession of kingship was that of primogeniture, that is, the crown passed from the father to the eldest son.  The earlier successions in the dynasty of Bharatas followed this principle and so did successions in other dynasties like that of Raghu, or more historically, the Mauryas, the Nandas and the Guptas.  

Following primogeniture, Vichitravirya succeeded Shantanu - Bhishma having renounced his claim - and Dhritarashtra succeeded Vichitravirya.  He was blind from birth but that has not been and cannot be held against him.  His younger brother, Pandu, helped him run the kingdom for some years but later renounced that life and retired to the forest.  By the same rule of primogeniture, Duryodhana was the rightful successor to the whole kingdom.  Where arises the right of the Pandava brothers to claim the kingdom or even a part of it for themselves?  We do not know of any other case where a kingdom was divided between two brothers because it is not the old king's private property.  Then how do we justify Pandavas taking recourse to arms to wrest it from the Kauravas?  Also how do they justify the claim when King Dhritarashtra is alive and well?  Such behavior is called treachery and the perpetrator deserves the Traitor's Death.  (In medieval England this was particularly gruesome, involving 'hanging, drawing and quartering'.  The traitor was hanged, then cut down while still alive, his entrails were excised out of his body and burned before his eyes and then he was cut in four pieces and those pieces were strung up on the town gates.  But that is just an aside...)

It has not been the case that the rule of Dhritarashtra was unjust to the subjects and lacking in Dharma.  No such case has been made out.  If that had been the case there was the precedent of King Vena being pulled down from his throne.  That precedent does not apply here.  There is no mention of any discontent among the subjects or their participation in the war, which seems to have been purely a fight between kings and their soldiery on the rival sides.

It is noteworthy that all learned men in Dhritarastra's court stayed loyal to him till death.  Bhishma and Kripa fought on the Kaurava side and perished in the war.  It is also noteworthy that more kings had sided with Kauravas than Pandavas.

On this background I find in perplexing that everyone, starting from Vyasa himself and Krishna, is on the Pandava side and only villains like Shakuni and Jayadratha back Kauravas.

There are narrations of several injustices perpetrated by Kauravas against the Pandavas.  There is also the fact that Kauravas have names like Duryodhana and Duhshasana, which, though not bad names in themselves when translated literally, still start with inauspicious particle 'Duh'.  Now which father would willingly select such inauspicious-sounding names for his sons?  Such stories and names could well be the result of the writing of History by the victors to suit themselves.  It is well-said that History is written by the victors!

On this background, I am perplexed by the total silence in the last 2500 years to mention or comment upon what looks like a patently undeserved claim of the Pandavas.  The pendulum, on the other hand, has swung to the other side and everyone in only full of praise for the Pandavas.  Why is that so?

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 09, 2013.

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

The question described below bothers me a lot.

Happy to know this. These days not many people care about the Epics.
 

 I would like to be advised by a learned member  of this Group whether this question has been posed before, and, if so, what answer has been given.

I Confess- not much learned though, I will try.

We have been brought up with the belief that in the Mahabharata story, the Pandavas were on the side of justice and the Kauravas were the villains, denying to the Pandavas their just due.

It is fact. No body forced that upon us. vyAsa just describes the series of events and his job is done. One who has the knowledge of dharmAdharma can easily make out the difference. Source books are to be referred.
 

 This injustice led to the Great War and we have been brought up on that story.  Is it possible that the story as it appears to us was written by the victors, who have succeeded in demonizing and demeaning the defeated side?

Which Indian source for this statement? Please do not apply rules of Non-Indian on संस्कृतवाङ्मयम्। vyAsa is the writer. I do not think he fought the war. Everyone follows "Be a Roman in Rome.." So, similarly- "Be Indian to understand Indian things." That would answer your question about this issue as well as many other similar ones, too.

As far as can be seen, in ancient India the rule of succession of kingship was that of primogeniture, that is, the crown passed from the father to the eldest son.  The earlier successions in the dynasty of Bharatas followed this principle and so did successions in other dynasties like that of Raghu, or more historically, the Mauryas, the Nandas and the Guptas.  

True. Indeed.

Following primogeniture, Vichitravirya succeeded Shantanu - Bhishma having renounced his claim - and Dhritarashtra succeeded Vichitravirya.

No - pANDu did. dhrRtarAShTra was blind. Never a fit candidate for king-hood.
 

 He was blind from birth but that has not been and cannot be held against him.  

What base for this decision of yours? Which dharma-ShAstra declared this? dhrRtarAShTra himself was aware that he is not the real king.. was only playing "king" when pANDu had gone for "jaitra yAtrA" . After returning- pANDu was given back his duty.

His younger brother, Pandu, helped him run the kingdom for some years but later renounced that life and retired to the forest.  

No- He was THE CROWNED KING.

By the same rule of primogeniture, Duryodhana was the rightful successor to the whole kingdom.

No way. If his father were the king, he would get a chance. But blind father left him no chance. He regretted that all his life.

 Where arises the right of the Pandava brothers to claim the kingdom or even a part of it for themselves?

yudhishThira was the eldest among the KuruVamsha next generation. pANDu was crowned king. He put his elder brother only as an in-charge. Then he died of ShApa. So his sons are rightful owners. duryodhana was only taking advantage of the situation. Otherwise why would he try to kill the pANDavas with so many odd  plans and unfair ways? Because he was aware of his no-right thing. If he were rightful, he would have approached elders to do him justice.

 We do not know of any other case where a kingdom was divided between two brothers

What about Lava-Kusha of rAmAyaNa?

because it is not the old king's private property.  

What base? Any reference to King-hood codes in any dharma-shAstra? Please quote for this statement.
 

Then how do we justify Pandavas taking recourse to arms to wrest it from the Kauravas?

We need not. The epic does the justification job. Can read the "udyoga parva" for clarification.
 

 Also how do they justify the claim when King Dhritarashtra is alive and well?  Such behavior is called treachery and the perpetrator deserves the Traitor's Death.  

On basis of dharmaShAstras. All decisions were took on only one base in Old India. Even today - we follow that books for present day Laws.

The rishis and munis had brought pANDavas to the kingdom declaring them the successors of pANDu after pANDu's death in the forest. The munis cannot be charged of not studying dharma-ShAstras. Do they? Then, are all dharmaShAstras are lies too?

 

(In medieval England this was particularly gruesome, involving 'hanging, drawing and quartering'.  The traitor was hanged, then cut down while still alive, his entrails were excised out of his body and burned before his eyes and then he was cut in four pieces and those pieces were strung up on the town gates.  But that is just an aside...)

Please stop looking at issues related to India in non-Indian grounding. This is unfair. What if we start to "judge" so many issues where non-Indians are "wrong" according to Indian Rules? Will that be appreciated?

It has not been the case that the rule of Dhritarashtra was unjust to the subjects and lacking in Dharma.  No such case has been made out.  If that had been the case there was the precedent of King Vena being pulled down from his throne.  That precedent does not apply here.  There is no mention of any discontent among the subjects or their participation in the war, which seems to have been purely a fight between kings and their soldiery on the rival sides.

Great. Yes. All kings were aware of all dharmas. They were perfect people as kings. But dhRtarASTra was a blind father. Never tried to do justice to pANDavas when his son was openly trying to kill them. pANDavas were silent- they never asked for justice. It was others who fought for them. Eg.. Vidura.

It is noteworthy that all learned men in Dhritarastra's court stayed loyal to him till death.  Bhishma and Kripa fought on the Kaurava side and perished in the war.

They were very well aware of fighting war the adharma side. And were literally ashamed inside. Reference- Bhishma's speech on the bed of arrows. He clearly mentions this point.
 

 It is also noteworthy that more kings had sided with Kauravas than Pandavas.

Yes. Duryodhana took great care while preparing for war. Even pANDava's side people were supporting him. That's rAjanIti of duryodhana.

On this background I find in perplexing that everyone, starting from Vyasa himself and Krishna, is on the Pandava side and only villains like Shakuni and Jayadratha back Kauravas.

vyAsa gives reasons for his backing-up throughout the epic. Krishna is always where dharma is. Please refer original epic sources. (I can do it for you- but some time needed.)
In fact, when everyone was prepared to kill duryodhana because of his ill-traits been discovered right at his birth by jyotiSha, it was vyAsa who backed him up and stopped them who wanted to kill him by mentioning need of keeping duryodhana alive.

There are narrations of several injustices perpetrated by Kauravas against the Pandavas.

Yes. Very much. Very brutal, and well-planned and designed treachery. They are enough for filing a non-bailable case against duryodhana.

 There is also the fact that Kauravas have names like Duryodhana and Duhshasana, which, though not bad names in themselves when translated literally, still start with inauspicious particle 'Duh'.

 Now which father would willingly select such inauspicious-sounding names for his sons?

Good question. Need some thinking. May be- their traits at time of birth- revealed their nature. Its jyotiSha that helped people decide this issue..?
 

 Such stories and names could well be the result of the writing of History by the victors to suit themselves.  It is well-said that History is written by the victors!

I repeat- vyAsa is the writer. I do not think he fought the war. pANDavas need to be writers.. or makers of mahAbhArata for your statement to be true. And why would yudhiShThira wail so much after war- if he cherished the war?

On this background, I am perplexed by the total silence in the last 2500 years to mention or comment upon what looks like a patently undeserved claim of the Pandavas.

Does this not raise any doubt in you, that it might be your own wrong viewing of the issue?

 The pendulum, on the other hand, has swung to the other side and everyone in only full of praise for the Pandavas.  Why is that so?

There is an immediate need to change your vision, not facts- to suit your conclusions. Much background of dharma-adharma knowledge is needed before deciding upon these issues. There are many नीतिशास्त्रs, धर्मग्रन्थs.. PLEASE Read mahAbhArata epic original. Your doubts should be cleared. All the best.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 09, 2013.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[venugopal gudimetla]

Shri Arvind Mahodaya,
Firstly primogeniture alone doesn't decide who should succeed. The first dharma of a king is to protect his subjects, his kingdom and the dharma. Dhritarashtra was born blind. Even though this is not something he is responsible for, but this certainly will hinder in his duties as a king. You, yourself have mentioned that Pandu helped him in taking care of his Kingdom. This was one of the reasons that he was not the chosen for the kingdom. If that is the case, the throne doesn't belong to him to be given away by primogeniture of Duryodhana. And treachery is on the part of Kauravas that they denied even 5 villages to Pandavas and even were tried to be killed mercilessly multiple times, not to forget the disrobing of Panchali, the intrigue behind burning of lakgruha to kill the Pandavas.

Dhritarashtra had his own demons. He was not only blind, but he also blinded by his affection to Duryodhana. Vidhura repeatedly cautioned him about the adharmic acts of Duryodhana and yet his blind love for his son prevented him from taking action or from admonishing his son. Duryodhana in the process collects some of the very dark characters of that era around him. And you rightly pointed out as we know, there will be always few dharmic men who aligned with padavas. Certainly Dhrona, Bheeshma and the like were with Kauravas not because they were loyal to the Kauravas, but it was their dharmic duty which bound them to the kingdom. For example Bheeshma took the oath to protect the king whoever ruled Hastinapura.

Secondly, even though you quoted Mauryans, don' t know why you missed Asoka and Chandragupta. Primogeniture didn't play a part when they were made kings. Even in Artha sastra, Kautilya stresses the importance of the king to uphold dharma and his ability to defend his kingdom and his subjects. My examples are given without much research. One can research more to show that Primogeniture even though is important in Indian context, it is not the only deciding factor when it comes to someone to be declared the king.

Just curious which version of Mahabharata did you read? Is it vyasa? Among other things, how you understand it depends on your perspective, you need not take Mahabharata to be a true story, but if you consider it as a lesson in dharma and each character has a role, you might reconcile with the names, roles and parts they played. Reading Mahabharata alone might not give you all the answers, you may have to refer to other puranas for reasons.

Say you are stinking rich, have zillions of $ and estates to protect and you are very zealous about your hard earned estate, and say you have 3 sons, and say the first one is handicapped and depends on his siblings for support and he cannot do much alone, and if your estate is in the crosshairs of your rivals, whom do you think you will give your estate?

Regards,
Venu

[Naresh Cuntoor]

[Mod. note]

This thread runs the risk of degenerating into a general indology quarrel. To avoid that, please make reasoned arguments and quote from source texts in Samskrit. Let us use the question raised as an excuse to dig into verses of Mahabharata rather than simply voicing opinions. Going forward, the moderators may deny posts in this thread that do not follow this general guideline.

Naresh

[Sunder Hattangadi]

anantashAstraM bahuveditavyaM
      alpashcha kAlo bahavashcha vighnAH |
yatsArabhUtaM tadupAsitavyaM
       haMso yathA kShIramivAmbumishram ||
अनन्तशास्त्रं बहुवेदितव्यं
       अल्पश्च कालो बहवश्च विघ्नाः ॥
यत्सारभूतं तदुपासितव्यं
        हंसो यथा क्षीरमिवाम्बुमिश्रम् ॥
Endless are the scriptures to be studied.
        Brief is the life-span, numerous are the hurdles.
The essence it is that needs to be practised
         Like the swan separating the milk mixed with water.
                                                     uttara gItA  3:1   उत्तर गीता  ३:१
Nowhere would this this be more apt than the study of Mahabharata.
Scholars who have spent their life-time extracring the essence are still working at it.
Mahabharata - A Criticism (1905) by C.A.Vaidya; and
Prologomena to the Critical Edition of Mahabharata  (1942) by
                V.S.Sukthankar, the master architect of the Critical                     Edition (BORI), need to be studied first even before                 we start quoting the "Mahabharata".
Both are available online for download.


Regards,

sunder
      
    
        

[Prabha Pillai]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jay Chittenipat" <cpjayac...@gmail.com>
Date: 10 Dec 2013 22:34
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Is the claim of the Pandavas just?
To: "Prabha Pillai" <prabha...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ravindran C P" <cprav...@gmail.com>, "Rema" <rema...@gmail.com>, "Ajithkumar CP" <cpa...@gmail.com>, "ajaykumar cp" <cpaja...@gmail.com>, "chandran Chennai" <cp....@gmail.com>, "Hari Ravindran" <hari.a...@gmail.com>, "Sivasankaran Muttamparambath" <smuttamp...@gmail.com>, "sindhu unnikrishnan" <sind...@yahoo.co.in>, "Subramanian Narayanan" <sub...@gmail.com>, <ramakumar...@yahoo.co.in>, "RAMACHANDRAN NAYAR" <nay...@gmail.com>, "Madhavankutty Pillai" <madh...@gmail.com>, "bala nair" <chitra...@gmail.com>, "Balu" <pillai.ba...@gmail.com>

A much debated question - I know we don't have to reply to this question to the original "asker" - but i had been wondering about this for quite sometime too and read up a little on this, hence i thought i would put down my thoughts. :) . Quite common sentiments all across the debates too :)

Based on eldest son will be king rule - Duryodhana should be the rightful heir.

1. Dhritarashtra gives kingdom/rule to Pandu. If Pandu had children when he was ruling, they should be the heir. But Pandu is childless.

2. Pandu then hnds over the kingdom / rule to Dhritarashtra and takes up vanavasa. So when he has his children, he is no longer the king.

And therefore Duryodhana should get the kingdom by right of primogeniture. But, (and always someone's but-ting :P )

Even though Dhritarashtra was elder, he was advised / pressured / told by the advisors to hand over the rule to Pandu. Similarly, with the Pandavas and KAuravas under the gurus, upon seeing the righteousness of the pandavas, Drona and Bhishma advise Dhritarashtra to give the rule to them.

Dhritarashtra was asked to give up his rule due to a physical shortcoming, and he was asked to give up his eldest son's right due to a moral/ behavioural shortcoming

So that's what i could learn about the right to rule...

Now about the names, this is very interesting by itself :)

I read that the names were suyodhana, which means great warrior and duryodhana means the one who is difficult to fight and win against. We have this popular perception of using "Dur" for anything bad.. and hence we give it a negative spin....

Interesting to read and interesting to perceive :)

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Prabha Pillai <prabha...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
prabha

--
http://about.me/cpjay

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

<Even though Dhritarashtra was elder, he was advised / pressured / told by the advisors to hand over the rule to Pandu. Similarly, with the Pandavas and KAuravas under the gurus, upon seeing the righteousness of the pandavas, Drona and Bhishma advise Dhritarashtra to give the rule to them.>

True, DhritaraShTra was asked to yield to Pandu because of his physical defect, which he did.  Later, Pandu gave up the throne and proceeded into Vanaprastha.  At that time, he had no child.  When he did get his own children - in the Niyoga sense -, he was not a king.  How could he pass on anything to his children that he himself did not possess?

<Dhritarashtra was asked to give up his rule due to a physical shortcoming, and he was asked to give up his eldest son's right due to a moral/ behavioural shortcoming...>

Dhritarashtra, despite his physical disability, was allowed to resume kingship by the same elders after Pandu retired.  Kingship thus came back to him which could, under primogeniture, could only pass to his eldest son.  I think I have already said that the perceived wickedness of Duryodhana et al could just be interested propaganda.  The only side that has come down to us is the Victors' side. 

<I read that the names were suyodhana, which means great warrior and duryodhana means the one who is difficult to fight and win against. We have this popular perception of using "Dur" for anything bad.. and hence we give it a negative spin....>

Adhyaya 116 of Adiparva gives the names of all sons of DhritaraShTra.  The given name of the eldest was Duryodhana and not Suyodhana.  Only Dharmaraj, because he was such a good man at heart, used to call him Suyodhana.  The name Durydhana is a good name by literal meaning but again, as I asked, which parent would choose it for his son?  Hence my suspicion of the Victor's spin.

In the end, let me state my position again.  At this stage, it makes little difference whether Pandavas were in the right or not.  My only query is, how in the last 2500 years, this question about the legitimacy of the Pandava claim did not occur to anyone out if the hundreds of learned commentators of Mahabharata?  This is a very basic and straight-forward query and should be capable of being demolished with ease, if it is so utterly silly.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 11, 2013.

[venugopal gudimetla]

Prabha ji,
Namaskar, Some questions and observations:
1. Did Pandu abdicate his kingdom and make Dhritarashtra the king before he went to Vanavasa? he didn't.
2. You forgot that Kunti's eldest son is Karna actually...the eldest of all.
3. If you want to consider only the known sons of Kunti, even then Duryodhana wasn't the eldest, it was Dharma raja. Ghandhari becomes impatient after a prolonged pregnancy and after she comes to know that Kunti ha given birth to Dharma raja.

Being eldest is not the only rule.

Regards,
Venu

[venugopal gudimetla]

Learned Scholars could clarify, Duryodhana means someone "difficult to fight with"? so what is so negative about it? well he was duratma as he grew up anyway.

Regards,
Venu

[Suresh Hegde]

There were NOT many people who used to have the syndrome of "know it all" till recent times. When we try to interpret "Mahabharata" with current social context, without understanding the social and spiritual context during the period, it is no wonder such questionable questions can arise. Before going down that path of questioning the wisdom of many many many many.........people, we have to have humbleness of questioning our "know it all" syndrome, then we will get the correct interpretation skills. I don't think one lifetime is enough to understand the depth of Bhagavadgeeta. Somewhere I heard that Mahabharata is the Practical manifestation of Bhagavadgeeta, the characters in Mahabharata represent many facets of the Dharma Shaastra in Bhagavadgeeta

- Suresh

[venugopal gudimetla]

Suresh ji, I agree with you. Imagine, for 2500 years, India had no scholar worth his salt who could think of this, even gurus such as Adi-Sankara et al didn't think about this. They simply wanted the "bad kauravas" to pay at the cost of Dharma or not, may be there is deep seated conspiracy against Kauravas who knows great gurus themselves got stumped. We certainly have matured now to attribute treachery to Pandavas of all things. I thought I heard it all.

Regards,
Venu

[Anand Ghurye]

Dear friends ,

As I see from the sabhaparva

"Sakuni then said,--'The old king hath given ye back all your wealth. That is well. But, O bull of the Bharata race, listen to me, there is a stake of great value. Either defeated by ye at dice, dressed in deer skins we shall enter the great forest and live there for twelve years passing the whole of the thirteenth year in some inhabited region, unrecognised, and if recognised return to an exile of another twelve years; or vanquished by us, dressed in deer skins ye shall, with Krishna, live for twelve years in the woods passing the whole of the thirteenth year unrecognised, in some inhabited region. If recognised, an exile of another twelve years is to be the consequence. On the expiry of the thirteenth year, each is to have his kingdom surrendered by the other. O Yudhishthira, with this resolution, play with us, O Bharata, casting the dice.'

The sanskrit shlokas are

  9 वयं दवादश वर्षाणि युष्माभिर दयूतनिर्जिताः
      परविशेम महारण्यं रौरवाजिनवाससः
  10 तरयॊदशं च सजने अज्ञाताः परिवत्सरम
     जञाताश च पुनर अन्यानि वने वर्षाणि दवादश
 11 अस्माभिर वा जिता यूयं वने वर्षाणि दवादश
     वसध्वं कृष्णया सार्धम अजिनैः परतिवासिताः
 12 तरयॊदशे च निर्वृत्ते पुनर एव यथॊचितम
     सवराज्यं परतिपत्तव्यम इतरैर अथ वेतरैः

Sabha parva book 2 Chapter 67

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs02067.htm

As per this , if the pandavas are successful in the Adnyatvas then their kingdom was to be given back . This promise Duryodhan refused to keep . Hence the war became necessary .

Dear group members please let me know on the right track .

Regards ,

Regards ,

Anand Ghúryé

*Training*Development*Synectics
Space Page : 9820489416

[venugopal gudimetla]

Ananad ji, Even though that appears to be the primary reason. Mahabharata was destined to happen. Hence that episode merely acted as a pretext for the war. The primary purpose Sri. Krishna's avatara was for the purpose of destruction of rakshasas who by that time had taken various forms who joined forces with Duryodhana. Some even assumed the forms of yadavas. Hence if your remember Sri Krishna gives away some of his own army to Duryodhana. The only way the destruction of these millions of rakshasas is possible easily if they were somehow made to go to war against the righteous. Hence the war.

Regards,
Venu

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Thank you, Anand Ghurye, your answer is the only one that has actual substance in it.  I was looking for some such thing...

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 13, 2013.

[Sunder Hattangadi]

In Adi Parva, Ch. 208, Viduragamana parva , Dhritarashtra himself proclaims the right of Pandavas for a share of the kingdom

SECTION CCVIII
(Viduragamana Parva continued)
"Vaisampayana said, 'Hearing these various speeches, Dhritarashtra said, The learned Bhishma, the son
of Santanu, and the illustrious Rishi Drona, and thyself also (O Vidura), have said the truth and what
also is most beneficial to me. Indeed, as those mighty car-warriors, the heroic sons of Kunti. are the
children of Pandu, so are they, without doubt, my children according to the ordinance. And as my sons
are entitled to this kingdom, so are the sons of Pandu certainly entitled to it. Therefore, hasten to bring
hither the Pandavas along with their mother, treating them with affectionate consideration. O thou of
Bharata's race, bring also Krishna of celestial beauty along with them. From sheer good fortune the sons
of Pritha are alive; and from good fortune alone those mighty car-warriors have obtained the daughter of
Drupada. It is from good fortune alone that our strength hath increased, and it is from good fortune alone
that Purochana hath perished. O thou of great splendour, it is from good fortune that my great grief hath
been killed!'


Regards,

sunder

[Sunder Hattangadi]

The English translation by Ganguly gave Ch. no. as 208.

Exactly the same words appear in Ch. 198 of the BORI Critical Edition, and Ch. 225 of the Southern Recension, as follows:

  198
dhRRitarAShTra uvAcha||

bhIShmaH shAntanavo vidvAndroNashcha bhagavAnRRiShiH |
hitaM paramakaM vAkyaM tvaM cha satyaM bravIShi mAm || 1||

yathaiva pANDoste vIrAH kuntIputrA mahArathAH |
tathaiva dharmataH sarve mama putrA na sa.nshayaH || 2||

yathaiva mama putrANAmidaM rAjyaM vidhIyate |
tathaiva pANDuputrANAmidaM rAjyaM na sa.nshayaH || 3||

kShattarAnaya gachChaitAnsaha mAtrA susatkRRitAn |
tayA cha devarUpiNyA kRRiShNayA saha bhArata || 4||

          १९८
धृतराष्ट्र उवाच||

भीष्मः शान्तनवो विद्वान्द्रोणश्च भगवानृषिः |
हितं परमकं वाक्यं त्वं च सत्यं ब्रवीषि माम् ||१||

यथैव पाण्डोस्ते वीराः कुन्तीपुत्रा महारथाः |
तथैव धर्मतः सर्वे मम पुत्रा न संशयः ||२||

यथैव मम पुत्राणामिदं राज्यं विधीयते |
तथैव पाण्डुपुत्राणामिदं राज्यं न संशयः ||३||

क्षत्तरानय गच्छैतान्सह मात्रा सुसत्कृतान् |
तया च देवरूपिण्या कृष्णया सह भारत ||४||

BORI Critical edition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##Mahabharata - Adi Parva - Chapter Text##

1\-225\-0 (9738)
dhR^itarAShTra uvAcha. 1\-225\-0x (1228)
bhIShmaH shAntanavo vidvAndroNashcha bhagavAnR^iShiH .
`hitaM cha paramaM satyamabrUtAM vAkyamuttamam.'
hitaM cha paramaM vAkyaM tvaM cha satyaM bravIShi mAm ..  1\-225\-1 (9739)
yathaiva pANDoste vIrAH kuntIputrA mahArathAH .
tathaiva dharmataH sarve mama putrA na saMshayaH .. 1\-225\-2 (9740)
yathaiva mama putrANAmidaM rAjyaM vidhIyate .
tathaiva pANDuputrANAmidaM rAjyaM na saMshayaH .. 1\-225\-3 (9741)
kShattarAnaya gachChaitAnsaha mAtrA susatkR^itAn .
tayA cha devarUpiNyA kR^iShNayA saha bhArata .. 1\-225\-4 (9742)
1-225-0 (9738) धृतराष्ट्र उवाच। 1-225-0x (1228)
भीष्मः शान्तनवो विद्वान्द्रोणश्च भगवानृषिः।
`हितं च परमं सत्यमब्रूतां वाक्यमुत्तमम्।' हितं च परमं वाक्यं त्वं च सत्यं ब्रवीषि माम्॥ 1-225-1 (9739)
यथैव पाण्डोस्ते वीराः कुन्तीपुत्रा महारथाः। तथैव धर्मतः सर्वे मम पुत्रा न संशयः॥ 1-225-2 (9740)
यथैव मम पुत्राणामिदं राज्यं विधीयते। तथैव पाण्डुपुत्राणामिदं राज्यं न संशयः॥ 1-225-3 (9741)
क्षत्तरानय गच्छैतान्सह मात्रा सुसत्कृतान्। तया च देवरूपिण्या कृष्णया सह भारत॥ 1-225-4 (9742)
Southern recension
================================================

[narayana...@gmail.com]

Dear Members: Discussion on MB is a measure of the vibrancy of Hindu culture. let us not avoid it even if we may not know all the history. Here is my two paise worth of discussion. MB is not the history of the victors, even if Krishna oriented interpolations might have taken place.

I wonder why "succession issue" is relevant for MB? From MB text it is known that Dhrtaraashtra died 18 years after the war in a forest fire. The legal question of succession was not the cause of the war and the so called claims. While we do not know the whole political situation at that time, there were kinglings, kings and chief-kings. Dhr. was the Maharaja (De jure). Others in his kingdom were perhaps like chiefs,dalavoys, samantas,  knights, courtiers etc.  KarNa was called Anga-Raja but MB does not describe him ruling at the Anga-capital, but shown more as a friend and courtier of Duryodhana (De facto chief of Kurus). It is the jealousy between the cousins which was the basic reason for the story. Dharmaraja would have been happy as a courtier with some rank at Hastinapura. But it was the scheming of a few Kauravas which forced them out to VaraNavata etc. So when they returned with a wife, Dhrta, rightly wanted to rehabilitate them and gave them KhaanDava which was a forest. They developed a small kingdom but still under the Hastinapura jurisdiction. Even though under the advice of Krishna they consolidated their territory & did Rajasuya (not Ashvamedha, which happened only after the war) MB does not say that they fought against Hastinapura. Like in Europe a warrior could not refuse to fight when challenged, during MB time kings could not refuse to gamble! [Even some 1000 years back it is said scholars challenged for a debate could not refuse. The defeated usually were thrown out of their country]. To cut the story short, it is the false sense of honour which led Pandavas to lose their share ( not the main throne which they never claimed). When Krishna was asked why he did not prevent the game, his explanation was that he learnt about it too late as he was fighting against  kings from the western islands [Possibly the island kings in the present day dried up Rann-of-kutch region]. 

My conclusion: Pandavas never claimed the throne at Hastinapura. It was jealousy and jealousy to which Shakuni added his share of evil designs.

I am writing from memory but can produce the originals to the above effect if required.  But this will take a long time as I am away from Bangalore without access to the sources.

Regards

RN Iyengar

[Sunder Hattangadi]

Some more extracts from Adi Parva may throw light on the law of primogeniture at the time of Mahabharata:[Ganguli translation] -

Adi Parva
SECTION CXV
(Sambhava Parva continued)
"As soon as Duryodhana was born, he began to cry and bray like an ass. And hearing that sound, the asses, vultures, jackals and crows uttered their respective cries responsively. Violent winds began to blow, and there were fires in various directions. Then king Dhritarashtra in great fear, summoning Bhishma and Vidura and other well-wishers and all the Kurus, and numberless Brahmanas, addressed them and said, 'The oldest of those princes, Yudhishthira, is the perpetuator of our line. By virtue of his birth he hath acquired the kingdom. We have nothing to say to this. But shall this my son born after him become king? Tell me truly what is lawful and right under these circumstances.'
=========================================
SECTION CXLV
(Jatugriha Parva continued)
"The Pandavas, having performed propitiatory rites for obtaining (their share of) the kingdom, and finishing their preparations, set out for Varanavata.'"
==========================================
SECTION CCV
(Viduragamana Parva continued)
"Vaisampayana said, 'Asked by Dhritarashtra to give his opinion, Bhishma replied, 'O Dhritarashtra, a quarrel with the Pandavas is what I can never approve of. As thou art to me, so was Pandu without doubt. And the sons of Gandhari are to me, as those of Kunti. I should protect them as well as I should thy sons, O Dhritarashtra! And, O king, the Pandavas are as much near to me as they are to prince Duryodhana or to all the other Kurus. Under these circumstances a quarrel with them is what I never like. Concluding a treaty with those heroes, let half the land be given unto them. This is without doubt, the paternal kingdom of those foremost ones of the Kuru race. And, O Duryodhana, like thee who lookest upon this kingdom as thy paternal property, the Pandavas also look upon it as their paternal possession. If the renowned sons of Pandu obtain not the kingdom, how can it be thine, or that of any other descendant of the Bharata race? If thou regardest thyself as one that hath lawfully come into the possession of the kingdom, I think they also may be regarded to have lawfully come into the possession of this kingdom before thee. Give them half the kingdom quietly. This, O tiger among men, is beneficial to all. If thou actest otherwise, evil will befall us all. Thou too shall be covered with dishonour. O Duryodhana, strive to maintain thy good name. A good name is, indeed, the source of one's strength. It hath been said that one liveth in vain whose reputation hath gone. A man, O Kaurava, doth not die so long as his fame lasteth. One liveth as long as one's fame endureth, and dieth when one's fame is gone. Follow thou, O son of Gandhari, the practice that is worthy of the Kuru race. O thou of mighty arms, imitate thy own ancestors. We are fortunate that the Pandavas have not perished...."

Regards,

sunder

[Prabha Pillai]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Uday Chandran C P <cp....@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Is the claim of the Pandavas just?

To: Jay Chittenipat <cpjayac...@gmail.com>
Cc: Prabha Pillai <prabha...@gmail.com>, Ravindran C P <cprav...@gmail.com>, Rema <rema...@gmail.com>, Ajithkumar CP <cpa...@gmail.com>, ajaykumar cp <cpaja...@gmail.com>, Hari Ravindran <hari.a...@gmail.com>, Sivasankaran Muttamparambath <smuttamp...@gmail.com>, sindhu unnikrishnan <sind...@yahoo.co.in>, Subramanian Narayanan <sub...@gmail.com>, ramakumar...@yahoo.co.in, RAMACHANDRAN NAYAR <nay...@gmail.com>, Madhavankutty Pillai <madh...@gmail.com>, bala nair <chitra...@gmail.com>, Balu <pillai.ba...@gmail.com>

The ordained king of Hastinapur was Pandu, and not Dritharashtra. Pandu ruled it, but was childless. He was infertile. But his elder brother had children. So, rule is that the Suyo/Duryo-dhana becomes the rightful heir after Pandu's death. Dritharashtra was happy at that.

But Pandu thinked otherwise. Whilst he was still in his prime, he decides to recede to a forest for making obeisance to gods and for treatment to beget children. He hands over the charge of the Kingdom (does not relinquish) to his elder brother, DR.

So DR was a custodian of the Kingdom till his younger brother returns. He is not the King. He cannot also lay claim "LEGITIMATELY" to the kingdom nor can he insist that his son be coronated as the next king, if Pandu or his children return. 

Which is exactly what happened. Kunti returned with her children after Pandu's death. The five that returned were Pandu's children, whether he was their biological father or not. Even if they were adopted, the right could not have been questioned.

I feel Bheeshma, the most revered one, was most opportunistic parasite. The whole battle can be attributed to his selfish interest to enjoy the power without owning the accompanying responsibilities. He could have accepted the request for marriage to right a wrong befallen on the woman (Amba). He chose to back out.

He could have accepted the right to rule after Vichitraveerya died (Satyavathi in fact requested, he did not). He shied away from that. His oath had only a simple purpose. it was only to get his father's desire for marriage fulfilled. That purpose was well over.

The choice to accept responsibilities of life came much after his vow and much after they were relevant any more.  He could have assumed them since they were larger responsibilities which could have saved the tribe of a major and unnecessary war, but he chose to take the easy way that he was used to all his life. 

He could have prevailed upon DR to see justice ad fairness in the demand to hand over the kingdom to Yudhishtir, but he continued to look the other side of his responsibility. I sometimes felt that his irresponsibility was the key reason for the war. 

Whatever be the propriety of refusing DR the right to rule coz he was blind, the right of Yudhisthira cannot be wished away at all. 

But the funny aspect is Mahabharata is a story that proves that there is no dharma that cannot be termed as adaharma and there is no adharma which cannot be termed as dharma. All it requires is a Machiavellian character like Krishna to do either!!! :) 

So, the conflict starts. The Mahabharatha war is never ending :)

On 10 December 2013 22:34, Jay Chittenipat <cpjayac...@gmail.com> wrote:

A much debated question - I know we don't have to reply to this question to the original "asker" - but i had been wondering about this for quite sometime too and read up a little on this, hence i thought i would put down my thoughts. :) . Quite common sentiments all across the debates too :)

Based on eldest son will be king rule - Duryodhana should be the rightful heir.

1. Dhritarashtra gives kingdom/rule to Pandu. If Pandu had children when he was ruling, they should be the heir. But Pandu is childless.

2. Pandu then hnds over the kingdom / rule to Dhritarashtra and takes up vanavasa. So when he has his children, he is no longer the king.

And therefore Duryodhana should get the kingdom by right of primogeniture. But, (and always someone's but-ting :P )

Even though Dhritarashtra was elder, he was advised / pressured / told by the advisors to hand over the rule to Pandu. Similarly, with the Pandavas and KAuravas under the gurus, upon seeing the righteousness of the pandavas, Drona and Bhishma advise Dhritarashtra to give the rule to them.

Dhritarashtra was asked to give up his rule due to a physical shortcoming, and he was asked to give up his eldest son's right due to a moral/ behavioural shortcoming

So that's what i could learn about the right to rule...

Now about the names, this is very interesting by itself :)

I read that the names were suyodhana, which means great warrior and duryodhana means the one who is difficult to fight and win against. We have this popular perception of using "Dur" for anything bad.. and hence we give it a negative spin....

Interesting to read and interesting to perceive :)

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Prabha Pillai <prabha...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Subject: [Samskrita] Is the claim of the Pandavas just?
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
prabha

--
http://about.me/cpjay

--
Regards.
cp udayachandran.

--
prabha

[venugopal gudimetla]

>>The ordained king of Hastinapur was Pandu, and not Dritharashtra. Pandu ruled it, but was childless. He was infertile. But his elder brother had children. So, rule is that the Suyo/Duryo-dhana becomes the rightful heir after Pandu's death. Dritharashtra was happy at that.

----
Pandu was cursed by a rishi that if he ever tries to enter into a sexual congress with his wife, he would die, this is for killing him and his wife while they were engaged in kaama kreeda in the form of two deers. This is not because he was infertile. Secondly when Dharma Raja was born, Gandhari was still pregnant, she infact breaks her womb into 100 pieces hence the Kaurava princes are 100. She does so after hearing the news that Kunti has given birth to Yudhistira and she becomes impatient with the prolonged pregnancy.

>> I feel Bheeshma, the most revered one, was most opportunistic parasite. The whole battle can be attributed to his selfish interest to enjoy the power without owning the accompanying responsibilities. He could have accepted the request for marriage to right a wrong befallen on the woman (Amba). He chose to back out.
He could have accepted the right to rule after Vichitraveerya died (Satyavathi in fact requested, he did not). He shied away from that. His oath had only a simple purpose. it was only to get his father's desire for marriage fulfilled. That purpose was well over.

The choice to accept responsibilities of life came much after his vow and much after they were relevant any more. He could have assumed them since they were larger responsibilities which could have saved the tribe of a major and unnecessary war, but he chose to take the easy way that he was used to all his life.

He could have prevailed upon DR to see justice ad fairness in the demand to hand over the kingdom to Yudhishtir, but he continued to look the other side of his responsibility. I sometimes felt that his irresponsibility was the key reason for the war.

----
Interesting, Why do you think Bheeshma was opportunistic? What opportunism did you see in his renunciation of the throne for his father's progeny? What opportunism and parasitic behaviour did you see in him being in the camp of Kauravas even though he was insulted by Duryodhana, Karna and such at every given opportunity? What parasitic behaviour did you observe in Bheeshma's oath of not marrying at all?
After taking an oath, it is dharmic duty to keep the promise made, which Bheeshma did till the end. Bheeshma wa bound by dharma to keep the promise come what may, hence the oath he made is called Bheeshma pratingya. Assume responsibilities and assume the throne doesnt even arise, given that he was bound by the promise he made to stay loyal to the throne and never ascend it.

Bheeshma who was able to defeat Parashurama, who made Sri Krishna fear for the protection of Pandavas in the war, you think he shied away from responsibilities? If he so wanted he could have been the king when none of his step brothers Were blessed with sons. What stopped him wasnt his fear nor that he give up his responsibilities, but his dharma nista.

Duryodhana, since as a kid never liked Pandavas, he tried to kill Bheema not once but several times. His hate and jealousy for the Pandavas made him ignore every advice he was given. He was also advised by Bheeshma to give 5 villages if not more to Pandavas. He implored Duryodhana but fell of deaf years. Sri Krishna explains to Arjuna in the Geeta that the war was unavoidable, as Arjuna was a mere agent, Bheeshma, Dronacharya, Karna, Duryodhana were destined to die even if Arjuna doesn't want to fight the war. Which means that the MB war destined to happen. In fact the very reason and purpose of Sri Krishna's avatara was that among others. So not Bheeshama, not anyone could have prevented the war. It was destined to happen right from the start.

Regards,
Venu

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Prabha Pillai <prabha...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Uday Chandran C P <cp....@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Is the claim of the Pandavas just?

To: Jay Chittenipat <cpjayac...@gmail.com>
Cc: Prabha Pillai <prabha...@gmail.com>, Ravindran C P <cprav...@gmail.com>, Rema <rema...@gmail.com>, Ajithkumar CP <cpa...@gmail.com>, ajaykumar cp <cpaja...@gmail.com>, Hari Ravindran <hari.a...@gmail.com>, Sivasankaran Muttamparambath <smuttamp...@gmail.com>, sindhu unnikrishnan <sind...@yahoo.co.in>, Subramanian Narayanan <sub...@gmail.com>, ramakumar...@yahoo.co.in, RAMACHANDRAN NAYAR <nay...@gmail.com>, Madhavankutty Pillai <madh...@gmail.com>, bala nair <chitra...@gmail.com>, Balu <pillai.ba...@gmail.com>

The ordained king of Hastinapur was Pandu, and not Dritharashtra. Pandu ruled it, but was childless.

Which Mahabharata is it? vyAsa's? 

He was infertile.

May I know the source?

 

But his elder brother had children.

Then why is yudhiShThira elder than duryodhana? 

So, rule is that the Suyo/Duryo-dhana becomes the rightful heir after Pandu's death.

Where are Pandavas gone then? They never existed in the scene?? 

Dritharashtra was happy at that.

But Pandu thinked otherwise. Whilst he was still in his prime, he decides to recede to a forest for making obeisance to gods and for treatment to beget children.

He hands over the charge of the Kingdom (does not relinquish) to his elder brother, DR.

So DR was a custodian of the Kingdom till his younger brother returns. He is not the King. He cannot also lay claim "LEGITIMATELY" to the kingdom nor can he insist that his son be coronated as the next king, if Pandu or his children return. 

Which is exactly what happened. Kunti returned with her children after Pandu's death. The five that returned were Pandu's children, whether he was their biological father or not.

It is not kaliyuga we are talking about. Its dvApara yuga. There are accepted ways of getting children, that too for a purpose of pANDu, to reach heaven. he was denied it, just because he was childless. But was cursed. So he adopts a very appropriate method to get children.

Even if they were adopted, the right could not have been questioned.

By whom? Us? People of this era? What about yuga dharma?

I feel Bheeshma, the most revered one, was most opportunistic parasite.

What part of his role in mahAbhArata made you "feel" so?

 

The whole battle can be attributed to his selfish interest to enjoy the power without owning the accompanying responsibilities.

Then why did he fight wars in honour of kingdom? Why did he bring brides for vicitravIrya? Why did he always work to protect kingdom? Why was he a War-Head in the Great mahAbhArata war and die?

 

He could have accepted the request for marriage to right a wrong befallen on the woman (Amba). He chose to back out.

Why did he do that? 

He could have accepted the right to rule after Vichitraveerya died (Satyavathi in fact requested, he did not). He shied away from that. His oath had only a simple purpose. it was only to get his father's desire for marriage fulfilled. That purpose was well over.

Oath was for life long. Not just till his father's death. It was related to throne and was a question of kingdom as a whole, not just his person.

The choice to accept responsibilities of life came much after his vow and much after they were relevant any more.

Did he not know it while taking oath?

 He could have assumed them since they were larger responsibilities which could have saved the tribe of a major and unnecessary war, but he chose to take the easy way that he was used to all his life. 

What role did he play in creating the war?  

He could have prevailed upon DR to see justice ad fairness in the demand to hand over the kingdom to Yudhishtir, but he continued to look the other side of his responsibility. I sometimes felt that his irresponsibility was the key reason for the war. 

Where is duryodhana here in this picture?

Whatever be the propriety of refusing DR the right to rule coz he was blind, the right of Yudhisthira cannot be wished away at all. 

?? 

But the funny aspect is Mahabharata is a story that proves that there is no dharma that cannot be termed as adaharma and there is no adharma which cannot be termed as dharma.

For example? According to what standards?

 

All it requires is a Machiavellian character like Krishna to do either!!! :) 

Krishna of your creation? Or mahAbhArata Krishna?

So, the conflict starts. The Mahabharatha war is never ending :)

It ended long back in vyAsa's story. There is no more any war. All dhArtarAShTras died in war and pANDavas ruled the kingdom.. and after doing their duties well, they went off to svarga. 

On 10 December 2013 22:34, Jay Chittenipat <cpjayac...@gmail.com> wrote:

A much debated question - I know we don't have to reply to this question to the original "asker" - but i had been wondering about this for quite sometime too and read up a little on this, hence i thought i would put down my thoughts. :) . Quite common sentiments all across the debates too :)

Based on eldest son will be king rule - Duryodhana should be the rightful heir.

Whose eldest son? King's or his brother's? 

1. Dhritarashtra gives kingdom/rule to Pandu.

No. It is Elders who decide it based on dharma. 

If Pandu had children when he was ruling, they should be the heir. But Pandu is childless.

He went to forest, just for spending some time after serious series of wars. Kingdom was just entrusted to his brother.

  

2. Pandu then hnds over the kingdom / rule to Dhritarashtra and takes up vanavasa. So when he has his children, he is no longer the king.

?? 

And therefore Duryodhana should get the kingdom by right of primogeniture. But, (and always someone's but-ting :P )

There was no duryodhana before yudhiSThira was born. duryodhana came later.

Even though Dhritarashtra was elder, he was advised / pressured / told by the advisors to hand over the rule to Pandu.

What reason? 

 

Similarly, with the Pandavas and KAuravas under the gurus, upon seeing the righteousness of the pandavas, Drona and Bhishma advise Dhritarashtra to give the rule to them.

Where is this new reason mentioned? 

Dhritarashtra was asked to give up his rule due to a physical shortcoming, and he was asked to give up his eldest son's right due to a moral/ behavioural shortcoming

Where is this new reason mentioned?(2)

So that's what i could learn about the right to rule...

because vyAsa never explained?   

Now about the names, this is very interesting by itself :)

I read that the names were suyodhana, which means great warrior and duryodhana means the one who is difficult to fight and win against. We have this popular perception of using "Dur" for anything bad.. and hence we give it a negative spin....

(This one was answered previously before me.) 

Interesting to read and interesting to perceive :)

Yes. Very much. 

Thankyou

Regards

Usha

[Sai Susarla]

Maybe it is Yesu mahabharata :-)

- Sai.

[G S S Murthy]

Bhasa discusses this in Dutavkyam through a lively dialogue between Krishna and perhaps Duryodhana.( I do not have the text readily) and I am tempted to quote this verse from memory:

विचित्रवीर्यो विषयी विपत्तिं क्षयेण यातः पुनरम्बिकायाम् ।

व्यासेन जातः धृतराष्ट्र एषः लभेत राज्यं जनकः कथं ते ॥

Regards

Murthy

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

नियोगव्यवस्था was apt for dvApara yuga- so declares मनुस्मृतिः। It is not good for कलियुग because people are विषयलोल and lack इन्द्रियनिग्रह. Hence vyAsa who is satyvati's son is legitimately eligible in giving children to his half brother's wives. 

Bhasa, (for that matter any drAma writer,) is no smRtikAra or RShi or atleast even a sAdhaka. He is a kavi. So kavi's words are to be taken as kavi's, and not as a dhArmic head's. He did not write any dhArmic granthas that we can take as pramANam. It is his mere "opinion" or "look" at that issue. Poetry divorced from nIti long back. So please do not confuse poetry issues with dhArmic issues. They need separate light to study, like a Cellular bilology, Nuclear Science. Not just anybody can talk of it.

युगधर्म and contextual rules and regulations are very important and should be taken into consideration while talking of epics. Close scrutiny at mahAbhArata reveals that- side that won was that which was on side of dharma. And the most soothing thing is all rules are mentioned in smRti granthas, and are followed in tact. And the decisions were made after consulting elders and learned people of that time.., not casually or "conveniently" manipulated by half-learned. 

This thinking of parentage question arises when we look at issues from kaliyuga dharma point of view. 

More on this- for Telugu speaking people- by Devisetty Chalapathi Rao = 

www.srichalapathirao.com 

and archive.org

Thanking you

Sincerely yours

Usha

[sivanis...@gmail.com]

namaste....why was pandu not disqualified in the same manner as his grandfather devaapi?

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

devApi was SAntanu's elder brother. He had gone away to tapovanam right in his childhood. When it was time for throne (after pratIpas' death), he was made to return back and accept kingship. But he had adhArmic life at forest with impious people, which was revealed later. So he was dethroned.

pANDu has not one quality similar to devApi. Why should he be disqualified?

[G S S Murthy]

There may be no takers for my view in this august group. But, still, I Have always considered Mahabharata as a largely fictional story, based on a skeletal frame of facts. Vyasa is indeed a Kavi.

Regards

Murthy 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

There may be no takers for my view in this august group. But, still, I Have always considered Mahabharata as a largely fictional story,

For a long time people thought same about all epics and purANas of India.

based on a skeletal frame of facts.

But now by arrival of planetary software, things changed. They give exact time of each occurence the stories describe. All the incidents are now proved facts.

please explore http://sarojbala.blogspot.in/ for more details.  

Vyasa is indeed a Kavi.

vyAsa= kRShna dvaipAyana, Suka's father, parASara's son, vaSiShTha's great grandson, Sakti's grandson, vibhAjaka of vedas (by which he derives the name- vedavyAsa), writer of mahAbhArta, purANas, 

मुनीनाम् अप्यहम् व्यासः- so declares SrIkRShna in gItA.. 

... Can such a person ONLY be a mere kavi? 

-Usha 

Regards

Murthy 

[G S S Murthy]

With due regard to scholars in this group, I am extremely reluctant to enter into arguments. These are all matters where different views can be held by different people without any of the views being capable of being proved or disproved.

For all I know, Vyasa could himself be a fictional character. It is highly improbable that one person wrote all the Puranas and the Mahabharata, especially when methods of writing were very crude.

A set of books on mathematics dealing with the fundamentals of mathematics has been written by one called Bourbaki. Those who know, know that Bourbaki never existed. A group of mathemticians created "Bourbaki".

In historical novels dates are precisely mentioned and fiction is intermixed with what really happened. That does not prove that historical novels are not fiction.

Novelists often create a frame work of some one writing the novel, which is also a part of the fiction. In Kannada DVG has created a frame work where a person called Timma composes the verses called "Mankutimmana kagga". Again,there is in Kannada Ramasvamedha, written in "old Kannada" by "Muddana". Muddana is a fictional character created by the real author, Nadalike Naranappa.I am sure there would be similar instances in English and other languages. 

There have been attempts, in my view meaningless, to identify "Malgudi" of RK Narayan or "Egdon Heath" of Thomas Hardy. In the same manner we can identify times and places mentioned in Mahabharata and Puranas. That does not prove anything.

As regards astronomical calculations based on what is given in epics and Puranas, I have been told, (I am subject to correction and I am not sure on this) that it is not possible to correctly calculate backwords planetary events. 

Regards

Murthy

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Anand Ghurye]

Dear Mr. Murthy ,

The discussion is now going into history , and prehistory and I do not know how much it concerns the subject matter of the egroup. The moderator will be justified if he does not allow my email through .

Quote

For all I know, Vyasa could himself be a fictional character. It is highly improbable that one person wrote all the Puranas and the Mahabharata, especially when methods of writing were very crude.

​ Unquote

Could be . But the continuity and nonambiguity that is exhibited in these books is unparalleled .

I will give an example . P G Wodehouse wrote some 90 books in his lifetime . There are inconsistencies in his descriptions . For example was Aunt Dahlia a maternal aunt or paternal aunt of Wooster is not clear . This kind of inconsistencies do not exist in any of the above books.

​

A set of books on mathematics dealing with the fundamentals of mathematics has been written by one called Bourbaki. Those who know, know that Bourbaki never existed. A group of mathemticians created "Bourbaki".

In historical novels dates are precisely mentioned and fiction is intermixed with what really happened. That does not prove that historical novels are not fiction.

Novelists often create a frame work of some one writing the novel, which is also a part of the fiction. In Kannada DVG has created a frame work where a person called Timma composes the verses called "Mankutimmana kagga". Again,there is in Kannada Ramasvamedha, written in "old Kannada" by "Muddana". Muddana is a fictional character created by the real author, Nadalike Naranappa.I am sure there would be similar instances in English and other languages. 

There have been attempts, in my view meaningless, to identify "Malgudi" of RK Narayan or "Egdon Heath" of Thomas Hardy. In the same manner we can identify times and places mentioned in Mahabharata and Puranas. That does not prove anything.

​So many places , and so many things which can be correlated and still cannot prove anything ? Beats me .

Secondly only time you see eight constellations in the sky is when you are high above in the sky - at about 2 kms height . This corresponds correctly to description of vimanas in the Ramayana period . ​

 

As regards astronomical calculations based on what is given in epics and Puranas, I have been told, (I am subject to correction and I am not sure on this) that it is not possible to correctly calculate backwords planetary events. 

​The planetary events are neither backwards or forwards . Given our software we can go thousands of years in the future or thousands of years in the past . The movements are constant or change as per precession which can be mathematically determined . You can see the ephemeris given by NASA or the swiss ephemeris . What we cannot see are the sudden events that may change a number of things  . For example an unknown comet colliding with some planet . But that leaves the solar system by and large constant and intact . For example how do we know that the star we call as pole star keeps changing every 27000 years or so .  If you need further clarification please send me personal mail . I will be happy to respond . ​

​Regards ,​

​Anand Ghurye ​

 

[Naresh Cuntoor]

As Sri Anand Ghurye has observed, this discussion is way off on tangents now. Shall we call this a closed thread for now?

Thanks,

Naresh

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group,

I had a look at the blog mentioned by Usha Sanka.  I have several doubts about its contents but here I will restrict myself to one of them.

The blog mentions that the positions of stars at the time of the birth of Rama has been noted in Ramayana and if the date, as per the current calendar, of those positions is calculated by by using modern software, it turns out to be January 10, 5114 BC.  (One really does not need modern software for these calculations.  They can be done, with some patience, with pencil and paper too.  The modern software only removes the 'grunt factor' of these calculations!)

I had a look at verse 1.18.9 of Ramayana as available at http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga18/bala_18_frame.htm.  It reads 

ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह || १-१८-९  (This suffers from bad grammar but I do not have a better Devanagari version).

The meaning is the planets Jupiter and Moon were in the Rashi of Cancer.

My problem with such calculation is the fact that according to experts the concept of Rashis was absent around the year 5114 BC.  I consulted Shankar Balkrishna Dixit's authoritative Marathi book  भारतीयज्योतिषशास्त्राचा इतिहास  (1896).  After discussing the state of knowledge of Astronomy at the time of Vedang Jyotishas and Mahabharata he has made the following observations on pp 97 and 113 in the Marathi book.   Dixit's Marathi book has been translated into English by RV Vaidya under the auspices of the Meteorological Department of the Government of India and is digitally available at www.scribd.com/doc/76777633/Bharatiya-Jyotish-Sastra-1‎ and www.scribd.com/doc/76935732/Bharatiya-Jyotish-Sastra-2‎

‎Vaidya's V translation of these two passages is as under:

<Mesha and other signs.

It does not mention any Rashis (signs) nor was the system of stating a planet's place with respect to 12 divisions of the ecliptic.  The position of the sun and the moon are given with respect to the nakshatras. 

(p.96. Vaidya translation)

Nowhere in the Mahabharata is found a single reference to Yoga, Karana, or Rashi.  Had Rashis been in vogue at any stage of Mahabharata's compilation, they would certainly have come into the text.  This definitely shows that the terms Aries (Mesha), Tauraus (Vrishabha) etc. were not current in the age when the Mahabharata was compiled.  In the same way it was not the system to mention a planet's position with reference to a part after dividing the ecliptic into 12 parts.  Everywhere in the Mahabharata we find the position of the moon and other planets with reference to stars. 

(p. 147 Vaidya translation.)>

If the concept of Rashis itself did not exist in the year 5114 BC, how could anyone have noted by observation that Jupiter and Moon were in the the rashi of Karkata (Cancer)?

Secondly, if Indians of 5114 BC had such knowledge of Astronomy, where did it disappear for the next 3,500 years without leaving a single trace of its existence and only re-emerge at the time of the compilation Vedanga Jyotisha and Mahabhaarata/Ramayana?

The way to explain this is to question the contemporaneousness of  these astronomical observations.  In all probability they were inserted into Ramayana by an interpolator. The interpolator either had sufficient knowledge of Astronomy to lay down a combination of astronomical observation to suit his belief that Ram was a very ancient personality or he picked up this a combination out of his imagination.  (It is known that due to the constant movement of heavenly bodies, for any randomly laid down combination, it is to possible to find a time of its having come about at some time in the past.)

(I believe with Murthy that both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are vastly elaborated and embroidered versions of much simpler events that took place on a far smaller scales and that  bards built over them for centuries to give them their present epic forms.  I know that this view will be totally unacceptable to many.)

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 25, 2013. 

[Anand Ghurye]

Dear Mr. Kolhatkar ,

Let us take for the argument sake that the concept of Rashis was not existent at the time of Ramayana ( as per Mr. Dixit ) , then one more conclusion can be drawn from it can be Ramayana belongs to sometime in the pre Rashi period . When would that place it ?

Mr. Dixit's work is definitely authoritative but not necessarily definitively authoritative .

One Dr. Bhave , a medical doctor and an avid pilot , has surveyed the route described in Ramayana aerially and has written a detailed book on the logistics , the journey and the timings which closely match those given in Ramayana . Interestingly he has also mentioned that several locations as depicted in the epic may be recognised as such only from aerial survey . Seen from the ground , these do not make any sense .

Some of parts of the epic may be exaggerated , but we need not deny the essence . A lot of research needs to go into it . By the way as per some researchers  , Sanskrit itself is an artificial code language designed to ensure a particular group's dominance on the rest .  That does not take away the beauty,  strength and utility of the language .

Regards ,

Anand Ghúryé

*Training*Development*Synectics
Space Page : 9820489416

[Anand Ghurye]

One correction .

The reference in by Pandit Dixit is to Mahabharata . He says in his book " Nowhere in the Mahabharata  is found a single reference to Yoga , Karana or Rasi . " His opinion is about Mahabharata and we are taking a reference of Rashi from Ramayana . Am I missing something here ?

Secondly just a few lines given above , Pandit Dixit talks about two eclipses in 13 days reference given in Mahabharata . Two eclipses in same location in 13 days time is a rarity and can be used for timing of Mahabharata .

Regards ,

Anand Ghúryé

*Training*Development*Synectics
Space Page : 9820489416

[Shreevatsa R]

(An attempt to steer the conversation back towards the original question.)

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

There may be no takers for my view in this august group. But, still, I Have always considered Mahabharata as a largely fictional story, based on a skeletal frame of facts. Vyasa is indeed a Kavi.

Regards

Murthy 

Whether the Mahabharata is a fictional story or not, it still makes sense to ask the original question "Is the claim of the Pandavas just?".

Even if the Mahabharata is a story, it is a story set in a particular universe, with a particular sequence of events, a particular set of principles (the dharma-śāstras, etc.), and a particular (for the most part) internally consistent logic to things. So it makes sense to ask questions like "Is the Pandavas' claim valid?", "Why did Bhīṣma do this or that?", etc., and expect "in-universe" answers, the same way one can ask such questions about novels or movies. (For example, see some questions and answers at http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/harry-potter which are all about Harry Potter, which is clearly acknowledged as fictional.) Of course, there can always be out-of-universe glib answers like "the poet wrote it that way to make the story more interesting", or "the actor did it that way because the director told him to do so", but if we care about the story, we must first attempt to seek in-universe answers.

From this point of view, answers in this thread like 

- Anand Ghuye's quoting of Sabha parva book 2 Chapter 67 (which mentions the agreement before the dice-game of returning the kingdom after the 13th year if conditions are met),

- Sunder Hattangadi's quoting of Adi Parva, Viduragamana parva, Ch. 208(Ganguly)/198(BORI)/225(Southern) (which mentions Dhṛtarāṣṭra acknowledging the Pāṇḍavas' entitlement to the kingdom), 

are the kinds of answers that may be expected.

Now for my own non-answer. There are, as I see it, two separate questions:

(1) Just before the war, did the Pāṇdavas have a valid claim? This seems to have been answered, with a clear yes: before the dice game, they already had a kingdom (Indraprastha) that had been given to them by the king Dhṛtarāṣṭra, and of which they were the undisputed rulers (at least "officially", though some specific people without a say in it, like Duryodhana, might have disagreed). (These will need some sources to substantiate.) The conditions of the dice game were that they would be returned it, an agreement which was not upheld.

(2) Did they have a valid claim to Indraprastha itself? It appears that Duryodhana did not acknowledge so. Answering this question would require some sources both from the Mahabhārata, and from the Dharmaśāstras (whether or not a king is indeed allowed to divide his kingdom thus). Our personal modern-day morals ("of course he can" or "of course he can't; it's not his private property") have no bearing on this matter.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः]

On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:41:58 AM UTC-8, murthy wrote:

There may be no takers for my view in this august group. But, still, I Have always considered Mahabharata as a largely fictional story, based on a skeletal frame of facts. Vyasa is indeed a Kavi.

Here you have one taker :-). केचन महाभारतकथायां उत्तरभारते राजकीय-साम्प्रदायिक-परिवर्तनकथाम् ईक्षन्ते। (नाम वैदिकपरम्परायां पुराणारोपणम्, पाञ्चालकुर्वोः क्षयश् च।)