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.
