22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2009
It is well known that the Mahābhārata sometimes contains narrative inconsistencies. In this article I consider a number of these, particularly certain cases in which one or more characters appear to be presented in an inconsistent manner. After considering possible explanations for the existence of such seeming discrepancies, I put forward the possibility that they are more apparent than real, and that the Mahābhārata was never intended to be read as a smooth-flowing temporal sequence.
1 ekāgramanaso bhūtvā pāṇḍavānāṃ varūthinīm / babhañjur bahuśo rājaṃs te cābhajyanta saṃyuge: 6.53.3.
2 tato droṇaś ca bhīṣmaś ca saindhavaś ca jayadrathaḥ / purumitro vikarṇaś ca śakuniś cāpi saubalaḥ / ete samaradurdharṣāḥ siṃhatulyaparākramāḥ / pāṇḍavānām anīkāni babhañjuḥ sma punaḥ punaḥ / tathaiva bhīmaseno ’pi rākṣasaś ca ghaṭotkacaḥ / sātyakiś cekitānaś ca draupadeyāś ca bhārata / tāvakāṃs tava putrāṃś ca sahitān sarvarājabhiḥ / drāvayām āsur ājau te tridaśā dānavān iva: 6.53.25–8.
3 anugrāhyāḥ pāṇḍusutā nūnaṃ tava pitāmaha / yathemāṃ kṣamase vīra vadhyamānāṃ varūthinīm: 6.54.35.
4 bahuśo hi mayā rājaṃs tathyam uktaṃ hitaṃ vacaḥ / ajeyāḥ pāṇḍavā yuddhe devair api savāsavaiḥ / yat tu śakyaṃ mayā kartuṃ v 
ddhenādya n pottama / kariṣyāmi yathāśakti prekṣedānīṃ sabāndhavaḥ / adya pāṇḍusutān sarvān sasainyān saha bandhubhiḥ / miṣato vārayiṣyāmi sarvalokasya paśyataḥ: 6.54.40–42.
5 ayaṃ sa kālaḥ saṃprāptaḥ pārtha yaḥ kāṅkṣitas tvayā / praharāsmai naravyāghra na cen mohād vimuhyase / yat tvayā kathitaṃ vīra purā rājñāṃ samāgame / bhīṣmadroṇamukhān sarvān dhārtarāṣṭrasya sainikān / sānubandhān haniṣyāmi ye māṃ yotsyanti saṃyuge / iti tat kuru kaunteya satyaṃ vākyam ariṃdama: 6.55.41–3.
6 tasya tat pūjayām āsa lāghavaṃ śaṃtanoḥ sutaḥ / sādhu pārtha mahābāho sādhu bho pāṇḍunandana / tvayy evaitad yuktarūpaṃ mahat karma dhanaṃjaya / prīto ‘smi sud ḍhaṃ putra kuru yuddhaṃ mayā saha: 6.55.55–6.
7 tataḥ k ṣṇas tu samare d ṣṭvā bhīṣmaparākramam / saṃprekṣya ca mahābāhuḥ pārthasya m duyuddhatām / bhīṣmaṃ ca śaravarṣāṇi s jantam aniśaṃ yudhi / pratapantam ivādityaṃ madhyam āsādya senayoḥ / varān varān vinighnantaṃ pāṇḍuputrasya sainikān / yugāntam iva kurvāṇaṃ bhīṣmaṃ yaudhiṣṭhire bale / am ṣyamāṇo bhagavān keśavaḥ paravīrahā / acintayad ameyātmā nāsti yaudhiṣṭhiraṃ balam / … arjuno ‘pi śarais tīkṣṇair vadhyamāno hi saṃyuge / kartavyaṃ nābhijānāti raṇe bhīṣmasya gauravāt: 6.55.63–6, 70.
8 ehy ehi deveśa jagannivāsa / namo ‘stu te śārṅgarathāṅgapāṇe / prasahya māṃ pātaya lokanātha / rathottamād bhūtaśaraṇya saṃkhye / tvayā hatasyeha mamādya k ṣṇa / śreyaḥ parasminn iha caiva loke / saṃbhāvito ‘smy andhakav ṣṇinātha / lokais tribhir vīra tavābhiyānāt: 6.55.94–5.
9 na hāsyate karma yathāpratijñaṃ / putraiḥ śape keśava sodaraiś ca / antaṃ kariṣyāmi yathā kurūṇāṃ / tvayāham indrānuja saṃprayuktaḥ: 6.55.100. The epithet “younger brother of Indra” is occasionally used for K
ṣṇa; Viṣṇu is the youngest of the Ādityas, of whom Indra is chief.
10 tasya tat pūjayām āsa lāghavaṃ śaṃtanoḥ sutaḥ / sādhu pārtha mahābāho sādhu kuntīsuteti ca: 6.102.46.
11 vāsudevas tu saṃprekṣya pārthasya m duyuddhatām / bhīṣmaṃ ca śaravarṣāṇi s jantam aniśaṃ yudhi / pratapantam ivādityaṃ madhyam āsādya senayoḥ / varān varān vinighnantaṃ pāṇḍuputrasya sainikān / yugāntam iva kurvāṇaṃ bhīṣmaṃ yaudhiṣṭhire bale / nām ṣyata mahābāhur mādhavaḥ paravīrahā: 6.102.50–52.
12 ehy ehi puṇḍarīkākṣa devadeva namo ‘stu te / mām adya sātvataśreṣṭha pātayasva mahāhave / tvayā hi deva saṃgrāme hatasyāpi mamānagha / śreya eva paraṃ k ṣṇa loke ‘muṣminn ihaiva ca / saṃbhāvito ‘smi govinda trailokyenādya saṃyuge: 6.102.60–61. Compare the triṣṭubh passage 6.55.94–5 cited above. This is a beautifully clear case of the adaptation of a formulaic passage from one metre to another: a single set of “given essential ideas” is expressed in much the same words but not “under the same metrical conditions”.
13 I cite from the edition published by Disha Books (New Delhi, 1991).
14 In Karve's view, this implies that the passage is a late addition: “The Krishna in the Mahabharata is definitely not a god, as depicted in later literature” (pp. 167–8).
15 One might question whether these two adjectives do indeed characterize the “usual style” of the epic, or indeed whether it has a single “usual style”.
16 The close parallelism between the two incidents, which, as we have seen, extends to repeated verbal echoes, may indeed suggest that one has been modelled on the other. If this is in fact the case, one could argue that 6.55 is more likely to represent the earlier passage, since its account of Kṣṇa admonishing Arjuna for fighting weakly against Bhīṣma immediately follows Duryodhana's admonition of Bhīṣma for fighting weakly against Arjuna.
17 Elsewhere Karve argues that this reputation is not entirely deserved.
18 This is by no means the only case where Karve's account of events in the Mahābhārata differs from that found in the Poona Edition.
19 mamaiṣa bhāraḥ sarvo hi haniṣyāmi yatavratam / śape mādhava sakhyena satyena suk tena ca / antaṃ yathā gamiṣyāmi śatrūṇāṃ śatrukarśana: 6.102.67–8. In the final line I have translated the variant reading kariṣyāmi rather than gamiṣyāmi: cf. 6.55.10 cited above.
20 This is meant sincerely. I disagree with much that Karve has to say, but her approach is refreshingly innovative and stimulating.
21 Mehendale, M. A., “Interpolations in the Mahābhārata”, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute LXXXII, 2001, pp. 193–212Google Scholar.
22 “Winged words revisited: diction and meaning in Indian epic”, BSOAS 62/2, 1999, pp. 267–305.
23 In Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London, 1978, pp. 230–49.
24 Kṣṇa is arguing that in the new age of barbarism breaches of dharma are to be expected.
25 dharmacchalam api śrutvā keśavāt: 9.59.22.
26 Reading viduradroṇak pagāṅgeyasaṃjayaiḥ at 20b.
