Mahabharata Quiz - 110

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 110

Agreeing that the Arundhati -Vasishtha verse contains two conflicting natures of Arundhati, why can’t we take both as Shabda Pramana and accept that Arundhati could have gone in front of Vasishtha for many years?

Answer:

When two contradictory statements are given by no less a person than Vyasa in the context of an important observation of the surroundings around him, there is a way out to handle such paradoxical statements.

When two Pramanas with contradictory connotations are observed for the same frame of inference, the logical way to solve it is to apply Mimamsa axiom of Gunapradhana wherein Guna means subordinate and Pradhana means principal. This axiom has been used by the Indian judiciary in interpreting contentious clauses.

Gunapradhana axiom states that “if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter, or must be disregarded altogether.”

In the verse by Vyasa, Arundhati praised in all the three worlds by the righteous people is the Pradhana statement. The applause was for not obstructing the path of her husband by crossing his way or moving in front of him. The same Arundhati perceived as having put her husband at her back is Guna statement as that was reported only at that time or seen only at that time. Never before or never after anywhere in the text or by Vyasa himself, the second feature of Arundhati had ever been reported or recorded.

So, the second statement being Guna in nature has to be read as not disrupting the former (Pradhana)– meaning to say that Arundhati was not seen putting her husband at her prishṭha by others, but only by Vyasa – which is possible if it happened for a short period of time – not long enough to get to be noticed by others.

Secondly, when Guna does not match with Pradhana, such an observation (Guna) is fit to be discarded as an aberration. It can be said, that as per the logic of Purva Mimamsa, the reference to Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha is not factual.

That is why Vyasa qualified it as a ‘nimitta’!