Very detailed post. A question on the first post.....
Joint property is the only logical argument in this whole thing..................
1) But if everyone starts asking for their share, won't the kingdom get smaller and smaller, isn't that why in England, only the eldest son inherits and the others get nothing? If you keep dividing, how could you rule?
Didn't the known Indian history ( not mythology) indicate the eldest son ruled rather than all? In fact, Bharatha is the only story where I heard "joint". Any other examples where the kingdom is treated as such?
June 14, 2010
Continued Sandehams
June 8, 2010
ధర్మ సందేహము (Dharma Sandeham)
I. Claims:
1. Kourava Samrajyam, and in fact any Samrajyam, was considered joint family property those days. The inheritance was very clear-- from the eldest son to his first son. Not the eldest of the next generation. That was Duryodhana's claim. He was younger to Dhrama raju, if you remember.
Since Dhrutharashtra was the king, as his son, Duryodhana was entitled.
2. If the eldest was the king, the rest were there as Yuvarajas and were to follow the king, act as caretakers of the kingdom and do the king's bidding. ( Though elder, Bhishma acted the role of a younger son due to his promise--Bhishma Pratigna.) That was the role assigned to Pandu. Dhrutharashtra was the king throughout, including Vastrapaharana Scene, Rayabaram Scene and war scenes.
3. But the Joint family property was to be divided, if one of the heirs insisted. Pandavas, unable to bear the haughty and jealous nature of Duryodhana, wanted their share and with the approval of Bhishma, they were given their share of the kingdom with Indraprastha as the capital. This was bitterly opposed by Duryodhana and even Dhrutharashtra was not in favour.
You know the rest of the story.
II. Vamsam:
1. Any Vamsam was known by Vamsakartas' names (note the plural). LabdhaPratishtulu ( people who earned their fame through great deeds) were known as Vamsakartas and the dynasty was named after them. There were multiple names for the same dynasty.
Eg: Brahma--Marichi--etc.-----Ikshvaku---Dileepa-----Raghu-----Aja-Dasaratha-Rama-Lava and Kusa--etc.
This Vamsam is known as Ikshvaku Vamsam or Raghu Vamsam and not Aja Vamsam or Dasaratha Vamsam or even Rama Vamsam(though he is an incarnation of God)
2. Similarly puru--etc-kuru--etc-
vichitraveerya-Dhrutharashtra-Duryodhana etc.
|-Pandu-Pandavas.
It was called Pourava Vamsam and Kuru Vamsam.
Pandu was the next great man and hence his progeny were called Pandavas.
Duryodhana and brothers were called Kouravas as Dhrutharashtra did not enjoy any claim to great deeds. You will find occasional references to Dhartharashtras even, but not often enough.
So, I think the question about Kouravas and Pandavas is answered.
(in a lighter vein, even if you are a great director of a multinational, in Kavali, you will still be a daughter of Dr. Narasimham--Labdha pratishta and me, I am the son of Ramamurthy and we all belong to the Singampalli clan)
3. If you follow the current trend (patriarchy--Bija Pradhanyatha) then the Kourava dynasty ended in the generation of Bhishma, Chitrangada and Vichitraveerya. They were the proper progeny. Bhishma didnot marry. Chitrangada died and Vichitraveeraya had no child and died childless.
Dhrutarashtra ( Vyasa and Ambika) Pandu (Vyasa and Ambalika) were born outside wedlock. AND they were born to widows!!! ( In times of crisis, when the dynasty is on the verge of extinction, with the acceptance of the elders, children can be begotten by Devara Nyayam) Devara nyayam is having children by Brother-in-law. It is felt that the same blood is flowing through the veins of the husband and brother-in-law.
But, please note, even that is not true here as Vyasa (Parasara and Satyavathi) is of a different Vamsa to Vichitraveerya (Santanu and Satyavathi)
So you can see that Pitruswamyam was not strictly followed and even stepsons were considered sons.
So, if Dhrutharashtra and Pandu could lay claim to the throne, So can Pandavas by virtue of being Kuntiputras (even though they were not born to Pandu and Kunti)
III. Our comments
So, you see that Dharma varies with time and changes in the human society bring in strange occurances of inheritance. Right now, even a daughter has an equal share in the ancestral family property and the society is in a state of constant flux--living together, single mothers, unwed mothers etc.
But if we donot follow some system and go ahead with the concept of the importance of the individual, society will come under a lot of strain.
One should not just read a scripture as a story but try and understand the Desa Kala Paristhithulu prevailing at that time.
More in a later post.
Jointly by Sln and Sgr.
1. Kourava Samrajyam, and in fact any Samrajyam, was considered joint family property those days. The inheritance was very clear-- from the eldest son to his first son. Not the eldest of the next generation. That was Duryodhana's claim. He was younger to Dhrama raju, if you remember.
Since Dhrutharashtra was the king, as his son, Duryodhana was entitled.
2. If the eldest was the king, the rest were there as Yuvarajas and were to follow the king, act as caretakers of the kingdom and do the king's bidding. ( Though elder, Bhishma acted the role of a younger son due to his promise--Bhishma Pratigna.) That was the role assigned to Pandu. Dhrutharashtra was the king throughout, including Vastrapaharana Scene, Rayabaram Scene and war scenes.
3. But the Joint family property was to be divided, if one of the heirs insisted. Pandavas, unable to bear the haughty and jealous nature of Duryodhana, wanted their share and with the approval of Bhishma, they were given their share of the kingdom with Indraprastha as the capital. This was bitterly opposed by Duryodhana and even Dhrutharashtra was not in favour.
You know the rest of the story.
II. Vamsam:
1. Any Vamsam was known by Vamsakartas' names (note the plural). LabdhaPratishtulu ( people who earned their fame through great deeds) were known as Vamsakartas and the dynasty was named after them. There were multiple names for the same dynasty.
Eg: Brahma--Marichi--etc.-----Ikshvaku---Dileepa-----Raghu-----Aja-Dasaratha-Rama-Lava and Kusa--etc.
This Vamsam is known as Ikshvaku Vamsam or Raghu Vamsam and not Aja Vamsam or Dasaratha Vamsam or even Rama Vamsam(though he is an incarnation of God)
2. Similarly puru--etc-kuru--etc-
vichitraveerya-Dhrutharashtra-Duryodhana etc.
|-Pandu-Pandavas.
It was called Pourava Vamsam and Kuru Vamsam.
Pandu was the next great man and hence his progeny were called Pandavas.
Duryodhana and brothers were called Kouravas as Dhrutharashtra did not enjoy any claim to great deeds. You will find occasional references to Dhartharashtras even, but not often enough.
So, I think the question about Kouravas and Pandavas is answered.
(in a lighter vein, even if you are a great director of a multinational, in Kavali, you will still be a daughter of Dr. Narasimham--Labdha pratishta and me, I am the son of Ramamurthy and we all belong to the Singampalli clan)
3. If you follow the current trend (patriarchy--Bija Pradhanyatha) then the Kourava dynasty ended in the generation of Bhishma, Chitrangada and Vichitraveerya. They were the proper progeny. Bhishma didnot marry. Chitrangada died and Vichitraveeraya had no child and died childless.
Dhrutarashtra ( Vyasa and Ambika) Pandu (Vyasa and Ambalika) were born outside wedlock. AND they were born to widows!!! ( In times of crisis, when the dynasty is on the verge of extinction, with the acceptance of the elders, children can be begotten by Devara Nyayam) Devara nyayam is having children by Brother-in-law. It is felt that the same blood is flowing through the veins of the husband and brother-in-law.
But, please note, even that is not true here as Vyasa (Parasara and Satyavathi) is of a different Vamsa to Vichitraveerya (Santanu and Satyavathi)
So you can see that Pitruswamyam was not strictly followed and even stepsons were considered sons.
So, if Dhrutharashtra and Pandu could lay claim to the throne, So can Pandavas by virtue of being Kuntiputras (even though they were not born to Pandu and Kunti)
III. Our comments
So, you see that Dharma varies with time and changes in the human society bring in strange occurances of inheritance. Right now, even a daughter has an equal share in the ancestral family property and the society is in a state of constant flux--living together, single mothers, unwed mothers etc.
But if we donot follow some system and go ahead with the concept of the importance of the individual, society will come under a lot of strain.
One should not just read a scripture as a story but try and understand the Desa Kala Paristhithulu prevailing at that time.
More in a later post.
Jointly by Sln and Sgr.
June 7, 2010
How are Pandavas the rightful heirs to the Kuru throne?
I started reading the Amar Chitra Katha Mahabharata to Aditya, and as I was going through the story in detail for the first time after I "grew up", I have some questions for the learned ones in the family, and that includes Sasanna.
How do pandavas have a claim on the throne of Hastinapura?
Dhrutarashtra abdicated the throne => Pandu became king => Pandu's sons become kings
Then by the same argument
Pandu became king=> Pandu abdicated throne=>Dhrutarashtra became the king again=> Kauravas become kings
As counter argument, Pandu temporarily gave up throne => Dhrutarashtra is only a guardian,
Then Pandu is only a guardian for Dhrutarashtra from the beginning => Pandu is only a guardian=>Kauravas become kings
Besides, pandavas do not even have Kuru bloodline in them, born to Yama, Indra etc...
If you argue it is a matriarchal society and only mom matters, then their claim would be on Kunti's father's kingdom.
If you argue Pandu expanded the kingdom, if the act was that of a king, then abdicating the throne vacates the claim. If as a guardian, he is on par with a "senapati" who leads armies and gains victories with no claim on the throne.
So by what Dharma are pandavas heirs to the Kuru throne, when even the name Kauravas implies a better claim?
And please post your responses as posts rather than comments as I am hoping this thread would be long as my intent is to post other such "Dharma sandehams".....
How do pandavas have a claim on the throne of Hastinapura?
Dhrutarashtra abdicated the throne => Pandu became king => Pandu's sons become kings
Then by the same argument
Pandu became king=> Pandu abdicated throne=>Dhrutarashtra became the king again=> Kauravas become kings
As counter argument, Pandu temporarily gave up throne => Dhrutarashtra is only a guardian,
Then Pandu is only a guardian for Dhrutarashtra from the beginning => Pandu is only a guardian=>Kauravas become kings
Besides, pandavas do not even have Kuru bloodline in them, born to Yama, Indra etc...
If you argue it is a matriarchal society and only mom matters, then their claim would be on Kunti's father's kingdom.
If you argue Pandu expanded the kingdom, if the act was that of a king, then abdicating the throne vacates the claim. If as a guardian, he is on par with a "senapati" who leads armies and gains victories with no claim on the throne.
So by what Dharma are pandavas heirs to the Kuru throne, when even the name Kauravas implies a better claim?
And please post your responses as posts rather than comments as I am hoping this thread would be long as my intent is to post other such "Dharma sandehams".....
June 5, 2010
The Next Generation is here.........
Aditya won a $800 scholarship for top performance in academics and good comportment.
He earned his toy and book budget for next year :-)
He earned his toy and book budget for next year :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)