Mahabharata Quiz - 109

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 109

It is claimed that everything told in the Mahabharata falls under Shabda Pramana and as such the deviation in Arundhati’s position must be treated as Shabda Pramana – as something that did take place. Then how can that be denied?

Answer:

It is already said in the previous answer that two views on Arundhati were given by Vyasa in the same verse. We must first know which of them is qualified as Shabda. To understand this, we must know what Shabda Pramana is.

The pramanas are three – Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda and all these three fundamental pramanas must be applied to get the right knowledge. To give an example,

I see smoke in a faraway place. This is Pratyaksha.

I guess that there is a fire there. This is Anumana. But I cannot know anything more than the fact that there is fire - whether it is accidental or deliberately made for disposing of junk. Only Shabda will let me know what kind of fire it is.

I read the news the next day that an accidental fire had happened. This news report is about the Shabda.

So, Pratyaksha may be dubious (the smoke may be from a kiln or a homa); Anumana can be many; but only Shabda is factual.

Only by referring to Shabda can we know the right status of knowledge even though the Pratyaksha may have been done by us.

In the case of Arundhati, Vyasa says, (MB: 6-9-9)

yā caiṣā viśrutā rājaṃs trailokye sādhu saṃmatā

     arundhatī tayāpy eṣa vasiṣṭhaḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ kṛtaḥ

This means,

“She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back.”(Ganguli’s translation)

The first line gives a Universal truth about Arundhati that she is praised by one and all for not obstructing the path of her husband. Had she changed her position, she would not have been praised by the sages of all the three worlds. So, this is the firm truth about her which qualifies as Shabda.

But the second line says that she had kept Vasishtha at her back – which is not what the very name Arundhati stands for. This revolts against the first line which is Shabda Pramana.

In the case of any doubt, we must refer to the Shabda Pramana only.

What Vyasa had seen as a change in her position is only Pratyaksha Pramana which must be compared with Shabda.

That is why he recalled her permanent position (Shabda) and made an Anumana that what he had seen could not have been universal but a temporary phenomenon. That is why he qualified it as a nimitta.

In his verse, on seeing some deviation (indeterminate perception) in the position of Arundhati, Vyasa inferred (Anumana) that Arundhati had kept her husband at her prishṭha.

This is followed by Upamana – comparing what he saw with her generic position which blends with Shabda that she is a praiseworthy person for never deviating from her path. The Upamana blended with Shabda was remembered by him in the first line followed by what he saw and inferred (Pratyaksha and Anumana). The sequence of the ideas in the verse – of Shabda coming ahead of his Pratyaksha -Anumana statement conveys that a quick analysis was done in his mind by thinking of Shabda vacana or else he would not have brought first, her unwavering position for which she is praised, before expressing what he inferred from seeing.

This can happen, i.e. cross checking with the Shabda vacana and invoking the same to clear his mind of what he perceived - if what he saw lasted for a short duration.

On the contrary if it is true that Arundhati had been going ahead of Vasishtha for thousands of years before Vyasa’s time, there is no logic in recalling her generic position which Vyasa had never seen in his lifetime. A configuration that had been in existence for more than 5000 years before Vyasa’s times would have come to be accepted as a regular position and there is no place for comparative (first) statement in that verse.

Therefore, this verse is a subtle expression of comparing what he had seen with Shabda Pramana on Arundhati and coming to a clarity that the deviation was temporary and a nimitta.