Mahabharata Quiz - 108

 

Question – 108

If Vyasa didn’t mean a permanent appearance of change in the position he could have written so, but he didn’t - why?

Answer:

Vyasa did indicate that it was not a permanent appearance by classifying it as a nimitta.

Moreover, the very etymology of Arundhati is – one who never obstructs.

She is A- rundhe – meaning, one who never obstructs.

Obstructs what?

Obstructs the path of her husband, i.e., not going in front of her husband as to obstruct his movement.  She behaved so in real life. That is why a close pair of stars with the companion star always towing the bigger star was chosen as Vasishtha – Arundhati pair.

Vyasa planted a ‘Ganesh moment’ while talking about their appearance.

He said, “Arundhati who is famous over the three worlds and is celebrated by the righteous people (seers), even that Arundhati (the star Alcor) moving towards Vasiṣṭha caused him to be at pṛṣṭha” (MB: 6.9.9).

He could not have meant that Arundhati went ahead of Vasishtha because then it violates the very meaning of her name.

The verse sounds like a riddle. In the first line of the verse, Vyasa describes the universal truth about Arundhati as one praised by all in all the three worlds, obviously for having never obstructed the path of Vasiṣṭha, by towing behind him.

But the second line says that she had kept Vasiṣṭha at her back – which is not what the very name Arundhati stands for.

Of these two statements, if we accept the first one as true then the second statement is absolutely false. Since Vyasa could not have mouthed something false, what he reported must have been a momentary appearance – a nimitta, and he characterized it so.

If we accept the second statement as true appearance, then the first statement must be false for, the one who had kept Vasiṣṭha at her back could not have been praised as Arundhati in all the three worlds by the righteous people.

By keeping the inherent incompatibility and contradiction between the two statements within the same verse and by relating one with the other, Vyasa had delivered the judgement at that time itself-on which of the two statements is eternally true.

If we fail to grasp this clever trick of Vyasa, we will be getting nowhere. The text of the Mahabharata gives no room for superficial understanding. It challenges our thinking power, our knowledge of the symbolisms and the tradition, to even grasp that a trap has been laid by Vyasa and the Ganesha moment he had thrown up at us.