Secondary Tales of the Two Great Epics

SR No.: 001566
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Rajendra I Nanavati
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1982
Total Pages: 210
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, Mythology, & Story
File Size: 15 MB

Page 99

Secondary Tales of the two Great Epics
of the Ist book, Viśvāmitra narrates various legends to Rāma. In about 15 more sections (51-65) Šatananda Angirasa narrates the greatness of Viśvāmitra to Rāma and others."'256 The reason given for this prominence of Viśvāmitra is that he is a relation of the Bhrgus" 257 But as we have pointed out above, it is not possible for any Bhārgava redactor to end the BK with an episode in which Parasurăma, the greatest of the Bhārgavas, is shown to be defeated. The only other reference in the entourage tales to Bhārgavas is in that single sloka in which Visnu is said to slay the wife of Bhỉgu for desiring the world to be without Indra.258 It is not a very honouring reference, and the tale showing Bhrgu's retaliation with a curse is not accepted in the critical text of the UK also. Since the Paraśurāma-episode seeks to show Rāma Dasarathi to be more valiant than even Rama Bhārgava, it can be surmised that the latter's martial reputation of having routed the Ksatriyas 3 x 7 times must have been firmly established by that time, and it is some anti-Bhārgava, or at least, non-Bhargava element that tries to handle the epic.
We may as well point out here that Viśvāmitra is finally shown to go to the Northern mountains 259 The places of his entourage are situated in the Kosala and Videha kingdoms, the north-eastern region of Aryāvarta. Agastya is intimately associated with the southern direction, Bhțgus are connected with the western part of the pristine Aryavarta. Now, if these sages are brought in to narrate various tales connected with various places, would it be too hazardous to suggest some sort of collective authorship of the epic in the later stages of its redaction ? It at least does not seem to be more hazardous than to suggest the Bhārgava authorship of RM in its final stage. In the case of MBh, it can be said that "The Bhțgus have to all asprearances swallowed up the epic nucleus such as it was, and digested it completely; and it would be hazardoes venture now to reconstruct the lost Ksatriya ballad of love and war” 260 In the case of RM, Bhrgus have not succeeded similarly. They must have tried to influence the epic, though In the Rāvaņa-katha cakra, for example, Rävaņa is shown to be defeated ridiculously at the hands of Arjuna Kārtavīrya. The tile has no curse-motif. It is not intended to motivate any incident of the principal narrative. Arjuna has no genealogical connection either with the hero or with the villain. Historically also, they cannot be contemporaries. What business does this Arjuna Kārtavirya Haihaya of Mābismati liave in RM ? The only reason we can imagine is that of the Bhārgava interest. It is this Arjuna who is said to have incited the wrath of Paraśurāma who consequently routed the Ksatriyas 3 x 7 times. We can, if we so wish, put the scale of martial superiority as Rāvaņa > Arjuna > Rāma Jāmadagnya >Rāma
256 ibid. 257 ibid. 258 BK. 24.18. 259 BK. 73.1. 260 On the meaning of the Mahābhārata, Suktha ukar, p.110.