...and Fundamentalism in Pravrtti-impelled professed Monotheism

Continued from “Dharma-Yuddha, Duryodhana's Raajadharma and deficit of the 'Feminine'”

We cannot dispense with Duryodhana in the Mahabharata (Mbh.) and the Maha-Bharata (Bharata-India). He is too relevant a figure for that, and more relevant to understand our present times. Though not a Cirajivi (in any case, none so physically),he is so - an ever-living archetype. Every Age has her own Duryodhana – etymologically, ‘the Door to Conflict’. In our troubled times (the Kali Yuga, so to say), we need to understand him even better to understand many of our ‘modern’ socio-economic-political (national or international) characters and problems, the core-script of which is Matsyanyaya (“Law of Fishes” or power-game) in various forms – imperialism (geographical or land-grabbing, economical and cultural or all), deterioration of values, degeneration of governing principles, gender discrimination, sectarianism and religious fundamentalism. In Duryodhana is visible the archetypal-symptoms of many if not most religious leaders, modern rulers and ruling classes irrespective of time, place and gender-identity.

In an earlier article, I discussed why Duryodhana couldn’t be the Dharmaraja or the Ideal Kshatriya King and fit in Vyasa and Krshna’s Dharmarajya model, and why he is the Asura in the imagined ‘Deva vs. Asura’ conflict of Mbh. which has Bhubharaharana (‘De-burdening the Earth’, or ‘Bearing the Burden of the Earth’) as its mythical background. Even if this is late interpretation of Duryodhana’s character by late poets added to Vyasa’s Jaya-Bharata, it is still important as historical interpretation of Duryodhana within Mbh., which is a text of texts of cultural memories.

Duryodhana is explicitly identified with Manyu,[i] the “Old Indra” or Asura. In late Vedic philosophy,[ii] the one who has lost dynamism and turned static is Vrtra and Asura. Vrtra from √vr - ‘to cover, to shroud, to hide’ suggests stasis and obstacle to progress. Vrtra stemming from √vr suggests ‘covering’ or ‘protecting the cover’ or stasis and obstacle to progress, quite explicit in the RgVedic narrative of Vrtra obstructing the flow of River (River = dynamism, progress). Duryodhana is identified with Vrtra – a natural identification, given the Pandavas are Indras[iii] and sons of Devas – Dharma, Vayu, Shakra-Indra, and Ashvins – all having Indra significance.[iv] [Also see- Pandava Birth-Mystery Reconsidered: Vidura’s Nephews, Pandu’s Biological Sons]

Interestingly, Duryodhana is also identified with Namuci, and this gives us more insights into his character. In the RgVeda (RV.), Namuci is “war-loving” (makhasyum, 10.73.7), and “He came from Manyu and remained in houses”.[v] Manyu and Namuci are ‘natural’ connections and two aspects of Duryodhana’s nature. Further, Manyu suggests Kama[vi] and Krodha (the two foremost Shada Ripus), pointing to what makes Duryodhana spiritually vulnerable to his own self.

In Vedic philosophy, nothing is entirely negative or without social value. Manyu is “Old Indra” (?V. 10.83.2); he was enemy of both Arya and Dasa (1); he was also slayer of foemen, Vrtra and Dasyu (3, 6), wielder of Vajra (6); and he is existential reality in all human being (4). Manyu is army’s leader (?V. 10.84.2); capable of forcefully turning foemen into subjects (3); he is sovereign ruler (5); battle winner (6); and giver of wealth like Varuna (7).

Clearly, in today’s world, Manyu will be voted to power anyday. In an Artha-centric materialistic world, a ruler who gives and ensures wealth surely commands enviable popularity.

So, if Manyu is Vrtra-killer and Dasyu-killer, why couldn’t Duryodhana be the Dharmaraja and Ideal Kshatriya King? Despite having Indra-aspect to his followers like Karna[vii], why would Duryodhana be the Vrtra to Pandavas and Krshna?

The Vedic message is: Vrtra is relative identity, and there are multiple Vrtras. Manyu is Indra and necessary aspect of Indra; however, Manyu tends to be static, and it is then that he turns into “Old Indra” or Vrtra. Duryodhana is Indra-Manyu; however, relative to Pandava-Indras (and to Vyasa and Krshna’s reformist ideology), he is the “Old Indra” or Vrtra or degenerated Manyu-stasis.

Why does that happen? As I shall discuss, Vyasa gives us the clue of the reason in Duryodhana’s Namuci-aspect.

The Namuci-aspect brings in the stasis; and the most important and significant connection between Duryodhana and Namuci is that both profess Monotheism and justify their Pravrtti-impelled action by monotheistic creed. Even if the Namuci Puranik narrative is a late addition to Mbh., it is valuable still as the late poet’s interpretation that Duryodhana’s religious belief constituted part and parcel of his Vrtra nature.

What further complicates or rather illuminates matters is that, Karna too is Namuci-archetype. Duryodhana and Karna thus have natural affinity. To put it otherwise: Vyasa imagined Duryodhana and Karna in Namuci’s archetype as commentary on their natural alliance and the unity of their inclinations.

The Namuci aspect that manifests through Karna is orthodoxy. Namuci means one who does not liberate and gives delight – and here, Karna is in that role. Despite being known as Duryodhana’s most loyal friend, he actually obstructs Duryodhana’s spiritual evolution. [See – Duryodhana and Karna versus friendship]

There are other significant connections too. Karna has a supposed father-role to Kauravas after their ‘father-figures’ Bhishma and Drona die. Yet, this father-figure is Duryodhana’s Dasa (slave) and so he admits (Karna says “We are all servants of the king…’).[viii]In RgVeda, Namuci is called Dasa (RV- 5.30.7-8; 6.20.6; 10.73.7). The father-yet-Dasa would naturally remind of Dhrtarashtra, whose metaphoric blindness to his son’s misdeeds is also a form of mental slavery. If Dhrtarashtra is blind – both physically and metaphorically, Karna too is all ‘ears’ (literally) without the redeeming ‘eye’, and incapable of realizing the true significance of ‘Shruti’ – the ‘inner Ear’. [See- Draupadi Disrobing Episode - Allegory of Vak]

And without the ‘eye’, neither Dhrtarashtra-Duryodhana nor Karna can be the Indra, because the most important etymological significance of Indra is ‘eye’. One interesting pointer to how Dhrtarashtra lacks the ‘ear’ is how the Gita fails to produce any effect on his mind though Sanjaya reports to him the Gita. In fact, we know of the Gita from this reporting of Sanjaya.

Now if Karna actually acts as Vrtra and Namuci to Duryodhana, it also suggests, Duryodhana and Karna are Vrtra and Namuci to each other on a relative plane, affirming that much hyped ‘friendship’ or Karna’s loyalty for Duryodhana is Myth; and that they were actually antangonists to values of true friendship when Kama matters. Both became jealous of each other being love-struck with Draupadi at her Svayamvara. [See – Duryodhana and Karna versus friendship].

Contrary to popular belief, the ‘friendship’ of Duryodhana and Karna was never one of selfless love but of deep self-interest. Duryodhana even insulted Karna’s foster mother Radha (but knowing her to be Karna’s biological mother) in saying “a common woman even as a she-deer can never bear a tiger”.[ix] He was ironically right, but he and Karna knew at that time Radha as Karna’s mother. So, Karna, out of self-interest, simply swallowed that inslt to his mother. Karna took revenge later by abandoning Duryodhana during Ghosha-Yatra, and even later by staying away from the first ten crucial days of Kurukshetra War justifying that by a blatant betrayal of his ego.

There is narrative-paralleling between the Vedic Namuci and Duryodhana-Karna. Namuci is Indra’s opponent in RgVeda and finds many mentions. Indra slew him from far by tearing off his head with water’s foam.[x] Surya’s ‘vesture’ is the Rashmi – Sun Rays – which is identified with Namuci. In Mahabharata, terrified by Indra, Namuci enters sunrays (9.42.29)[xi]. The Namuci-Surya connection reemphasizes Namuci-Karna connection, Karna being hailed as Surya’s son. [See- Karna's Father Found]

The Brahmana texts provide more details. Indra and Namuci made a pact that none would kill the other either by night or by day, either with (what is) wet or (what is) dry. Indra cut off his head at dawn before sunrise with foam of water. What is at dawn before sunrise is ‘neither by night nor by day’, and foam of water is ‘neither wet nor dry’. Namuci accused Indra of cheating (Pancavimsha Brahmana 12.5. 8, 9). Shatapatha-Brahmana adds that Sarasvati (along with Ashvins) gave the Kuta-Buddhi to slay Namuci (12:7:3:1-4). The two Ashvins and Sarasvatî, having taken the energy, or vital power, from Namuci, restored them to hire Indra, and saved him from evil (12:7:1:14). Indra killed Namuci at the Joint of Day and Night, and Agni (Dry) and Soma (Moist) (12:7:3:1). Sarasvati suggested the strategy of using Foam to serve as Vajra with which Indra beheaded Namuci (12:7:3:3).

Sarasvati’s role parallels Draupadi's role in Yudhishthira, Bhima and Arjuna’s life. Draupadi is indeed in Vac-Sarasvati’s archetype, also hailed as Bharati’s Incarnation in the Puranas. [See- Draupadi the Lost Sarasvati]

By Vishvamitra’s curse, Sarasvati once bled – like Draupadi's menstruation - bearing blood in her current.[xii] Sarasvati then assumed shape of Aruna[xiii] so that Rakshasas can bath in that new river and cast off their body to go to Svarga.[xiv] When Indra killed Namuci, he bathed there and became cleansed of a grievous sin arising out of the slaughter of the Brahmin Vala.[xv] Namuci’s severed head also fell into that stream and the Asura obtained many eternal regions.[xvi]

In Indra-Namuci dialogue, Indra is curious to know whether Namuci – devoid of Shri - passes his day in grief, or cheerfully.[xvii] Namuci replies: “Indulgence in sorrow destroys personal comeliness, prosperity, life, and virtue itself, O chief of the deities![xviii] Without doubt, suppressing that sorrow which comes upon oneself and which is born of an improper disposition of the mind, one possessed of true knowledge should reflect in one's mind of that which is productive of the highest good and which dwells in the heart itself. When one sets one's mind upon what is for one's highest good, without doubt, the result that takes place is that one's objects are all accomplished. There is One Ordainer, and no second. His control extends over the being that lies within the womb. Controlled by the great Ordainer I go on as He sets me on, like water running along a downward path.”[xix]

We have a clue here why Duryodhana is modeled as Asura opposed to Pandavas-Indras. Once Duryodhana utters this same monotheistic belief echoing Namuci (using “ivambho” instead of “ivodakam”) (2.57.8).[xx]

Though both Duryodhana and Karna were killed in fair fight by Bhima and Arjuna respectively [See- The Myth of the Death of Bhisma, Drona, Karna, Duryodhana], later poets imagined the killings as effected through tricks. In my opinion, these later poets could be Buddhist-Brahmins whose purpose was to tamper with Krshna’s character, just like they did with Rama to construct Gautama Buddha into THE BUDDHA. [See-Why Buddhist-Brahmin Poets Tampered with Ramayana and the Shambuka Episode].

Just as Indra beheaded Namuci, Arjuna beheaded Karna, and Bhima-Indra kicked fallen Duryodhana’s head with his left foot[xxi] – a symbolic beheading. [That Ashvatthama had to dismember his Mani is also symbolic beheading and symbolizes his fall from Brahmana identity and ideal]

The most significant connection between Namuci and Duryodhana, as I mentioned before, is professed monotheism. Let us now analyse further.

Realization of ekamevadvitiyam (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) Ishvara is not same to ‘Belief in monotheism’, ‘professing monotheism’ and ‘boasting of that belief’. Vedas teach ‘One God but with different and multiple manifestations’, that is, ‘One but expressed in Many’. Vedas also teach necessity of pluralistic beliefs as essential steps to the realization of Oneness.

The Rshi says Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti (‘That Which Exists is One; Sages call the One by Various Names’).[xxii] One cannot jump over steps believing in One Ishvara without crossing steps of Devatas or concept-image or idols. The very concept-image of ‘1’ will bring into play concept-images of 0,2,3,4 etc whether one admits or not. Krshna explains this in the Gita (4.10.12; 9.23-27; 17.2-6). To name God is also to make an ‘audible idol’ of God because Vac (speech, words, and language) is ‘image-symbol’; to write name of God (writing in any form, or art of writing - calligraphy) is also to produce ‘visible idol’ of God because it is ‘image-symbol’. So, it is delusion that ‘Image / Idol’ of God is not produced by not making idols.

Thus every person ‘professing monotheism’, and every sect or religion with ‘professed monotheism’ is false and self-delusional. One who has really realized Ishvara (by whatever name) knows that Ishvara is avanmanasagocaram (that cannot be imagined in mind or expressed in words)[xxiii] – and therefore, does not indulge in social discourses claiming “I am Right, You are Wrong” or “My Path is the only Right Path” or “My Dharma-teaching is best” or “I am the best Dharma-Teacher”.

At times, Duryodhana appears rational and cynical which are apparently opposed to theism or belief in Ishvara. It indicates complexity in his character unless we understand that his monotheistic belief like his rationalism and cynicism are utilitarian, that is, he feigns to be so suitable to situation. Like the proverbial chameleon, he slips into any hue of ‘ism’, and justifies one ‘ism’ by another only to serve self-interest.

Monotheism is not problematic per se so long it is realized as belief with an open mind; then it is as valid as any other “ISM”: atheism, polytheism, agnosticism – because human mind cannot but operate in belief system (an Nastika in usual sense is actually Astika to his own belief), and provided the most valuable “ISM” Humanism and Head-HeartBalance is not lost. The Vedas, both through Form-Signifier and Content-Signified, represents what Shri Ramakrshna aptly summed up: “Yata Mat Tata Path” (As Many Opinions, So Many Paths). [See- How Vyasa conveys Truth through RgVedicSignifiers and structure-architecture] Every belief system (emphasis: atheism and materialism included) has Vedic sanction. [See- Vedic Hinduism The Mother Of Rationalism Liberalism And Secularism Part 1]

What sets Duryodhana apart, rather what makes him archetype to every nonsense monger of ‘isms’ in the world, is that, all his ‘isms’ are Pravrtti-propelled. The music of his colorful ‘isms’ is the rhythmic dance of his Shada Ripus (Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Mada, Matsyarya). Duryodhana’s friendship with Carvaka further provides the clue that Pravrtti is his main propeller, and his monotheistic creed is only a matter of convenient shroud to naked desire and demand of unbridled Kama and Artha.

This is a great lesson. It is often found that professed Monotheists are grossly materialists at heart, they are ‘literalists’ (read words at face value and cannot go into deep layers of words) and Shada Ripus-driven. Bhishma calls them ‘Wordy’ people as ‘traders in learning’ and ‘Rakshasa among men’[xxiv] – hinting at Kama and Artha-inclined Asurik nature without balance of Dharma. In short, Asurik people manipulate discourses on Dharma and interpret scriptures to suit their self-centric needs of Kama and Artha. By implication, one who is stuck at the surface layer of words of a text is Rakshasa or Asurik.

I would risk a generalization here that all “ISM” are indeed so and here Duryodhana is the Everyman following every“ISM” without Heart.

The reasons why Duryodhana failed to be Dharma-Indra-King are many. The Ideal King modeled after Indra in RgVeda must have Masculine-Feminine Balance in the Self[xxv]; that is, he/she should be both Mother and Father to Praja (not only human beings but all Beings, nature and environment.[xxvi]) All great Indian kings aspired to that ideal. For example, Ashoka (ruled c. 268 to 232 BCE) considered himself the Father to his Praja,[xxvii] and in the 4^th Pillar Edict (Delhi-Topra Text) he compared his Rajjukas (impliedly himself) with Female nurse. Obviously, Ashoka aspired to be the Dharma-Indra-King of RgVeda, Mahabharata, SHatapatha-Brahmana and Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

Duryodhana aspired to be the Father King only, and had the feminine-deficit; no compassion and motherly tenderness to the Prajas (- a stark contrast to Ardhanarishvara Arjuna – masculine-feminine balance). His popularity rested on the policies of appeasement – of Artha and Kama - very modern and common to our experience.

In another article, I compared Yudhishthira and Dhrtarashtra-Duryodhana’s kingship (see - Yudhishthira And Duryodhana's Rule - Study In Contrast And Lessons For Common People), and concluded that like father like son – Duryodhana considered the Ruling Class a privileged class, with Artha as the only Dharma.[xxviii] Discontent – that propels ambition - is the Mantra of Duryodhana’s dynamism[xxix] – which, he considered the root of Shri; his ambitions were propelled by discontent[xxx] - Rajah Guna and Tamah Guna.

Duryodhana’s ‘asamtoshah’ (dissatisfaction with Possession-Pelf, Pleasure and Power) is what puts him in diametric opposition to the Pandavas whose secret of unity is to be ‘samtushtah’,[xxxi] - the power of Sattva Guna, the power of Dharma that controls Artha yet not compromising Artha related policy in Rashtra. Dhrtarashtra viewed his officials as slaves (15.10.11),[xxxii] and his subjects as kine-asses – to be exploited (15.10.11-13).[xxxiii]

To sum up Dhrtarashtra-Duryodhana’s rule:

1) Dhrtarashtra-Duryodhana’s rule provided material security to his subjects but no spiritual succor. [This is most important to understand Duryodhana, why he is Vrtra-opposer Manyu-Indra, but Vrtra himself in Vyasa, Krshna and Pandavas’s eyes.]

2) The Ruler sought Stasis and did not favour quitting in favour of New Ruler [- there is a sarcastic saying in our times: dehatyag na hole padatyag hoy na (a political leader does not want to leave a post or retire until he/she leaves the body, that is, dies). In contrast, Yudhishthira and the Pandavas sought ‘volunatry retirement’]

3) The Ruler viewed the Ruler as the Centre and Praja as margin [In contrast, Vyasa, Krshna and Pandavas’ philosophy was exactly opposire]

4) The Ruler’s Artha-Centricity creating Disbalance of Purusharthas

5) Discontent at heart, therefore, false promise to met out contentment to Praja

Krshna red-carded Dhrtarashtra-Duryodhana for the same reasons we all, at times, want to oust our Rulers. [See - Why Krishna Red-Carded Duryodhana out of Dharma-Raajya?] Duryodhana is thus many of our most familiar contemporary Rulers irrespective of Gender and place and country; the one who gives us security by keeping us insecure within; the one, who rules by installing discontent in the subjects; the one, with whom some of us are content with in unique self-deception of being content; the Ruler, whom we elect to power being duped by promises of a static future of contentment, and soon seek his downfall once the spell of myth starts waning.

Duryodhana is not willing to share good things of life with his cousins. Utter self-centricity and Pravrtti-driven materialism makes him say: “I will not surrender to the Pandavas even that much of land that a sharp needle-tip pierces and holds.”[xxxiv]

This is a statement typical of imperialist annexionist, and one living under materialistic illusion and delusion that land can be grabbed and retained forever. Ironically, the Duryodhanian policy is a necessary inevitable in international politics today – justifying why Duryodhana is called Kali-Incarnate and why we are living in Kali Yuga. It would not be wrong to say that Duryodhanas run the international system – the global order – with the basic ideology of imperialism, Artha (money, wealth, possession, social power). The rest is just Name-Game – hnnadi bale decki tor pichan kalo (‘one pot calls the other pot’s butt black’).

Continued to Next Page

Endnotes

[i] Duryodhana is Manyu-Tree (manyumayo mahadrumah, 1.1.65)
>[ii] After the Veda-Avesta cultural split
[iii] In one Mbh. narrative, the 5 Pandavas are incarnates of 5 Indras: Vishvabhug, Rtadhama, Shibi, Shanti and Tejasvi (1.189.28d*1916_1-2)
[iv] Indra; etymologically from √und, 'to drop', 'to be powerful', ‘bright’, ‘to see’, ‘to subdue, conquer’, ‘lighting’[iv]; and Indra is (so called because) he divides food (ira + dr), or he gives food (ira + da), or he bestows food (ira + dha), or he sends food (ira + daraya), or he holds food (ira + dharaya), or he runs for the sake of soma (indu + dru), or he takes delight in soma (indu + ram), or he sets beings on fire (√indh). It is known: that because they animated him with vital breaths, that is the characteristic of Indra. He is (so called) from doing everything (lit. this), says Agrayana. ‘He is (so called) from seeing everything (idam + drsh),' says Aupamanyava. Or the word is derived from (the verb) ind, meaning to be powerful, i. e. being powerful he tears the enemies asunder, or puts them to flight or he honours the sacrificers. [Sarup, Lakshman. 1967. The Nighantu and the Nirukta, the oldest Indian treatise on etymology, philology and sementics [sic]. Critically edited from original manuscripts and translated for the first time into English, with introd., exegetical and critical notes, three indexes and eight appendices. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass]
[v] manyoriyaya harmyeshu tasthau, RV. 10.73.10
[vi] Manyu is Kama (Atharva Veda 9.2.23).
[vii] E.g. Karna compares Duryodhana with Indra (3.226.2c: bhunkshvemam prthivim eko divam shambaraha yatha)
[viii] Karna says “We are all servants of the king (Duryodhana) waiting upon him with joined palms! We should, therefore, do what is agreeable to him! (priyam sarve cikirshamo rajnah kimkarapanayah /na casya shaknumah sarve priye sthatum atandritah, 3.8.16)” On another occasion, to thwart Duryodhana’s committing suicide, Karna says, “If thou, O king, dost not act according to my words I shall stay here employed in reverentially serving thy feet” (sthasyamiha bhavatpadau shushrushann arimardana, 3.238.47c).
[ix] 08,024.160c kathamadityasadrshammrgivyaghramjanishyati
>[x] RV. 1.53.7; 2.14.5; 5.30.7-8; 6.20.6; 7.19.5; 8.14.13; 10.73.7; 10.131.4-
[xi] namucir vasavad bhitah suryarashmim samavishat / tenendrah sakhyam akarot samayam cedam abravit // 9.42.29
[xii] sa shapta tena kruddhena vishvamitrena dhimata/ tasmims tirthavare shubhre shonitam samupavahat // 9.42.1
[xiii] maharshinam matam jnatva tatah sa saritam vara / arunam anayam asa svam tanum purusharshabha // 9.42.24
[xiv] tasyam te rakshasah snatva tanus tyaktva divam gatah / 9.42.25a
[xv] sa muktah papmana tena brahmahatyakrtena ha / / 9.42.36a
[xvi] shiras tac capi namuces tatraivaplutya bharata / lokan kamadughan praptam akshayan rajasattama // / 9.42.37
[xvii] shriya vihino namuce shocasy aho na shocasi, 12.219.3c
[xviii] samtapad bhrashyate rupam dharmash caiva sureshvara, 12.219.5c
[xix] ekah shasta na dvitiyo 'sti shasta; garbhe shayanam purusham shasti shasta / tenanushishuah pravanad ivodakam; yatha niyukto 'smi tatha vahami, 12.219.8
[xx] There is only one Controller, no second. He controlleth even the child that is in the mother's womb. I am controlled by Him. Like water that always floweth in a downward course, I am acting precisely in the way in which He is directing me (ekah shasta na dvitiyo 'sti shasta; garbhe shayanam purusham shasti shasta / tenanushishuah pravanad ivambho; yatha niyukto 'smi tatha vahami// 2.57.8a)
>[xxi] evam uktva sa vamena pada maulim upasprshat / shirash ca rajasimhasya padena samalodayat // (9.58.5)
[xxii] [Dirghatamas Aucatya: RV. 1.164.46(2)]; other similar thoughts: ejad dhruvam patyate vishvamekam carat patatri vishunam vi jatam (‘Moving yet unmoving the One rules the whole, what walks and flies, all this manifest multiplicity’) [Prajapati Vaishvamitra or Prajapati Vacya: RV. 3.54.8(2)]; mahad devanamasuratvamekam [‘single and great is the high-lord-power of the gods’ (in which they partake to be gods or Asuras] [Prajapati Vaishvamitra or Prajapati Vacya: RV. 3.55]; ekam va idamvi babhuva sarvam (‘Being One it became all’) [ RV. 8.58.2(2)]; anidavatam svadhaya tadekam (‘that One breathed without air of its own’) [Prajapati Parameshuhin: RV. 10.129.2(2)]; suparnam viprah kavayo vacobhirekam santam bahudhakalpayanti (‘The wise seers in their adoration make into many forms the One Supreme’) [Sadhri Vairupa (or Gharna Tapasa): RV. 10.114.5(1)]; ‘Everything is produced from Purusha [Narayana: Purusha Sukta (10.90)]
[xxiii] Dashakumaracarita: 2, 9, 24.0; Ashuavakragita: 2, 14.2
[xxiv] tan vidyavanijo viddhi rakshasan iva – 12.140.15
[xxv] Just as Indra is Father, he is compared with Mother (RV. 8.1.6; 8.87.11)
[xxvi] Indra is both Father and Mother (tvam hi nah pita vaso tvam mata shatakrato babhuvitha, RV- 8.98.11a)
[xxvii] Second Separate Rock-Edict Dhauli [p 100], Second Separate Rock-Edict Jaugada [p 118], Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. 1
[xxviii] 2.50.14-15
[xxix] 2.50.18
[xxx] 12.173.23-24
[xxxi] 2.69.10
[xxxii] karmadrshuyatha bhrtyams tvam varayethah kurudvaha / karayethash ca karmani yuktayuktair adhishuhitaih (15.10.11)
[xxxiii] sarve janapadash caiva tava karmani pandava / paurogavash ca sabhyash ca kuryur ye vyavaharinah (15.10.13)
[xxxiv] yavad dhi sucyas tikshnaya vidhyed agrena marisha / tavad apy aparityajyam bhumer nah pandavan prati // (5.57.18)