{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata |} - Page 111

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

In that case, nothing can be concluded from the MB. Since it's a work of poetry, as opposed to a historical work, it is allowed to contradict itself in different places just so that the rules about the composition of verses are followed.

I said nothing about contradiction. If you read my post carefully, I only mentioned we need not read too much into Duryodhana not calling Karna by name and using epithets instead. That, I said, could be to maintain the syllabic meter.

Which is fine & dandy, except that once it starts contradicting itself in different places, its credibility is shot. And the number of holes one could poke would make it look like swiss cheese. Just one example at the drop of a crown - Shikhandi's son Kshatradeva is described in one place as being killed by Drona, and in another place as being killed by Duryodhan's Laxman. Do Sanskrit poetry licenses allow this as well?

Sanskrit poetry offers no licences whatsoever.

But, to answer your question- with all due respect, Shikhandi's son is, at best, a minor character, in the entire scheme of things and so is Duryodhana's son.

It is just possible that, while dealing with a work of this magnitude (over one lakh slokas), when being handed down orally from one generation to another, such inaccuracies may have crept in.

Valmiki's work, for instance, almost never has such internal contradictions, which is why one could pick a quote out of anywhere, and not have it contradicted elsewhere. Only exception - claiming in different places that Rama's rule was 10k and 11k years.

Vyasa, OTOH, not only is contradictory b/w his different works (which usually have to be read in combination to make sense of certain things: e.g. in Mausala parva, there is no way one would know about Kritavarma's role in the murder of Satyabhama's father, referenced by Satyaki just b4 he slays the former, unless one had read SB), but is even contradicted within a single work. Like in Adi Parva, there is no mention of Karna asking anything from Indra, but in Vana Parva there is. What does one conclude w/o doing a threadbare analysis?

My point being - if one puts the poetry rules disclaimer to refute conclusions made from a combined reading of different sections, it just feeds into the assertion of critics that the story is mythical, as opposed to mythological, much less historical.

Again, I repeat, I never offered poetry rules as a disclaimer.

Just because the work does not stand up to a detailed scrutiny need not take away its historical or mythological nature. Are the points that you raised (highlighted in purple) so serious to take away the intrinsic nature of the epic?

As I said elsewhere, today we have no way of knowing what exactly was Vyasa's contribution and what were later day interpolations.

This epic has been handed down orally for the last several several centuries. In the process of such an oral transmission, it is possible that a name got missed, a place got misrepresented, some facts got added.

To the best of my knowledge, unlike the Vedas (or even Ramayana or Srimad Bhagavatham) the MB was not taught by master to pupil. Reciting Ramayana or Srimad Bhagavatham is said to earn Punya. Not so in the case of MB, except for the Bhagavat Gita part. (Though the final chapters of Swargahorahana Parva have a detailed list of what are the benefits of reciting each parva, etc I have not seen it being practically followed).

This could have also contributed to the omissions and commissions.

Originally posted by: shani88

But I would like to know how long did the Gita itself take to get narrated completely? I mean, if the Pandava and Kaurava armies were completely aware of this particular conversation in progress between Krishna & Arjuna, surely they would be wondering about how long it would take for the conversation to wind up so that the battle would finally commence...