What people forget is that Mahabharata was written as Kavya. Hyperbole and metaphors abound.
Inexhaustible quiver doesn't mean literally inexhaustible. Akshaya patra didn't actually have endless supply of food until Panchali ate; it only meant she ate last.
It's like saying "Aishwarya Rai is the rose of female beauty" which doesn't mean she is actually a rose. Or Byron's "she walks in beauty like the night" doesn't mean the lady in question is the incarnation of the night.
The characters likely talked normally and didn't address each other as "slayer of Keshi" or "bull of Bharata race" or "she of deep bosoms and elephantine gait."
Definitely they are hyperboles
As I had said in another topic even the ages of characters and rough time estimates given are something to indicate, definitely they didn't mean it literally
In fact even the 18 akshauni number is a hyperbole meaning a huge number of soldiers, 18 akshauni is roughly 400k soldiers, that wouldn't have even been the male population of India in 1000BCE and definitely not everyone participated
What people forget is that Mahabharata was written as Kavya. Hyperbole and metaphors abound.
Inexhaustible quiver doesn't mean literally inexhaustible. Akshaya patra didn't actually have endless supply of food until Panchali ate; it only meant she ate last.
It's like saying "Aishwarya Rai is the rose of female beauty" which doesn't mean she is actually a rose. Or Byron's "she walks in beauty like the night" doesn't mean the lady in question is the incarnation of the night.
The characters likely talked normally and didn't address each other as "slayer of Keshi" or "bull of Bharata race" or "she of deep bosoms and elephantine gait."
It depends on whether you wish to keep the divinity aspect involved in the story or not. If the involvement of the Deities & their boons / curses, the divine weapons etc can be considered to be real, then things like inexhaustible quivers, invincible bows, akshay patra etc can also be assumed to have existed. It totally depends on how you interpret.
About inexhaustible quivers, it is clearly mentioned that Arjuna himself asked for a mighty bow that could bear the strength of his arms & an inexhaustible supply of arrows that can keep up with his speed.
Bibhatsu told the fire, who wished to burn down Khandava, despite being restrained by Shatakratu.“I have many excellent and divine weapons with which I am capable of fighting many wielders of the vajra. O illustrious one! But I do not possess a bow that can bear the strength of my arms and withstand the strength and speed I bring to battle. Because of my speed, I need arrows that are inexhaustible. My chariot cannot bear all the arrows that I desire. I want divine horses that are white and as swift as the wind. And a chariot that will shine like the sun in its energy and will thunder like the clouds. Nor does Krishna possess a weapon that can equal his valour and Madhava requires one to kill the nagas and demons in battle. O illustrious one! Tell us the means so that we may be successful and are able to restrain Indra from raining down on this extensive forest. O fire! We are ready to act according to our prowess. O illustrious one! But you should give us the means that can support us.”
With this much explanations, it is a metaphor?
It depends on whether you wish to keep the divinity aspect involved in the story or not. If the involvement of the Deities & their boons / curses, the divine weapons etc can be considered to be real, then things like inexhaustible quivers, invincible bows, akshay patra etc can also be assumed to have existed. It totally depends on how you interpret.
About inexhaustible quivers, it is clearly mentioned that Arjuna himself asked for a mighty bow that could bear the strength of his arms & an inexhaustible supply of arrows that can keep up with his speed.
Bibhatsu told the fire, who wished to burn down Khandava, despite being restrained by Shatakratu.“I have many excellent and divine weapons with which I am capable of fighting many wielders of the vajra. O illustrious one! But I do not possess a bow that can bear the strength of my arms and withstand the strength and speed I bring to battle. Because of my speed, I need arrows that are inexhaustible. My chariot cannot bear all the arrows that I desire. I want divine horses that are white and as swift as the wind. And a chariot that will shine like the sun in its energy and will thunder like the clouds. Nor does Krishna possess a weapon that can equal his valour and Madhava requires one to kill the nagas and demons in battle. O illustrious one! Tell us the means so that we may be successful and are able to restrain Indra from raining down on this extensive forest. O fire! We are ready to act according to our prowess. O illustrious one! But you should give us the means that can support us.”
With this much explanations, it is a metaphor?
Yes. Because it is physically impossible.
He is asking for weapons supply line here, not a quiver which produced its own arrows.
"Indra, we are in need of weapons for the war we plan. You have the means. Will you consider supplying us and keep the supply line going as long as I need it?" likely will not fit into anustubh meter. Hence, "I'm strong, I'm invincible, I'm an archer, I'm a man. I need an inexhaustible quiver."
Edited by HearMeRoar - 3 years agoSuryaputra Karna had nothing to do with the historical Mahabharata
It was a fanfiction on Star Mahabharata
The people here didn't carry an arrow, they would just pull the bow and an arrow will magically appear at pin point
The thing also bothered me! I thought it's because of the divine weapons. They recite some mantra & the arrow appears. But when they practiced in teenage, the arrows were very much present. That maybe a reason IDK.
Yes. Because it is physically impossible.
He is asking for weapons supply line here, not a quiver which produced its own arrows.
"Indra, we are in need of weapons for the war we plan. You have the means. Will you consider supplying us and keep the supply line going as long as I need it?" likely will not fit into anustubh meter. Hence, "I'm strong, I'm invincible, I'm an archer, I'm a man. I need an inexhaustible quiver."
There are many things in Mahabharata that are physically impossible. That's why I said it depends on the interpretations of the readers. If you are trying to find logic or accurate history, you need to cancel out the divine involvements itself and that would disturb the storyline a lot.
Bibek Debroy even argued that the characters Arjun, Nakul & Sahadev did not even exist. It was only Yudhistir & Bheem. But that would totally kill the story.
Many people suggest that even Kurukshetra war never happened, it's all a metaphoric representation. But what would be Mahabharata without Kurukshetra?
Different readers interpret it differently. Personally, I take it as a fictionalised retelling of true events (Like how historical fictions are written/made). Since I believe the events have been fictionalised, I have no problem in accepting the divine aspects. The Mahabharata we know is hardly an accurate account of history.
The problem is we are hell bent on proving Mahabharat is 100% history. Well, some of it must have happened and similar people and characters must have existed but just because one of the authors who have contributed to Mb has said it is ITIHASA doesn't mean that holds. (i don't believe Vyas was one person. I think MB is a story that has been written by several people and several stories were added the result of which is today's epic)
I think it's okay to also understand that not everything HAVE TO make 100% realistic sense as per today's terms. Also, none of us have seen the so called Yugas which came before. Why do we keep arguing thinking this is 100% true.
Yes, Yaksha Prashna cannot be true. Dead men don't regain life. It's a story. Why can't it be a story?
Mahabharat is literature before history. Unpopular opinion but yeah.
There are 3 possibilities:
1. It is 100% literature. In which case there is no argument about any of it. Karna really was the son of the Sun God, Arjuna's quiver was really inexhaustible, Panchali was rescued by never-ending supply of cloth. After all, GoT has to be whatever GRRM says.
2. It is 100% history. In which case every bit of it has to be obey the laws of physics. If not, the only interpretation can be that it was poetic hyperbole/metaphor. After several people over several generations and several centuries putting their stamp on it, I doubt the current form is 100% history.
3. It is fictionalized history which I'm leaning toward. But even there, historical elements have to follow science and logic. Whatever doesn't is either poetic license or added spice by later generations. Once again, akshaya patra therefore never existed or simply meant Panchali ate last.
Edited by HearMeRoar - 3 years ago^^ The chances of it being 100% history is really slim. 80% of events, as described, are impossible to have happened for real.
It can be 100% literature though. It's written in Sanskrit, in kavya from & the description of society / civilization etc doesn't fit with what we know from history of that time.
It can also be historical fiction where the base story is true events that have been fictionalized to be presented in a interesting way to captivate the readers. I personally believe this & treat it as historical fiction. And while reading / watching historical fiction, I don't overlook the part fiction present in it. I overall take Mahabharata as a fictionalized representations of a feud between two groups of cousins over a throne that has been turned into an epic by poets & their imagination. And I don't try to decipher each & everything and decide whether this things happened or not...that would strip down the fiction part & leave only the history, which I don't feel has too much contribution in it.
Padmavat dekhte dekhte you can't debate over whether Queen Padmini really existed or not. That will make the whole movie meaningless😆
Posting what I commented in another topic
See here are a few proofs actually. I had been researching on the same and studying the works of different historians
1) The epic mentions the names of the kings across the country and that serves no purpose purpose excluding increasing the number of Shlokas. Why on the earth for example would a fictional writer take efforts to write that Chhitrayudh was the king Tripura kingdom which is kingdom at the foothills of Himalayas near Bang Desh was a Kshatriya king?? The only work in the epic he does it to lose to Sahdev during Yudhishtir's Rajsuya, attend the Rajsuya Yagya's closing ceremony and later again lose to Karna during his Digvijay Yatra? What change did it make to the fictional story (if we take it) that Vyasas were writing? Tripura wasn't even a very important kingdom in ancient Indian history nor is a part of the 16 Janpads of Bharat. Why take care of mentioning this detail if it wasn't for documentation of a real event?
That isn't how fictional stories are written.
2) The fictional stories have unanimous antagonists and protagonists, No group calls Harry Potter for example a villain or Lord Voltemor a hero, but the historical figures become antagonists or protagonists basis the affliction of people. Indians for example have Abdali or Ghaznavi as villains but they are heroes in Afghanistan. Same is the case in Mahabharata, the aren't unanimous protagonist/antagonist, Duryodhan becomes a defeated protagonist in Oriya Mahabharata (and don't forget Orrisais the state of Jagganath Krishna) probably because he was a loving husband to a Kalinga princess. There have been temples dedicated to Duryodhan even in ancient India. Aside how did Duryodhan being the husband of Kalinga princess become an acceptable fact in various Mahabharata accounts (regional ones) that isnt mentioned in the original book
3) The states like Magadh, Pandayas etc. have unbroken line of kings names documented from the king mentioned (in the epic) to rule there in Mahabharata era to early common era (till around 2nd century AD) that is just not possible in case the events were fictional
4) Kings like Cholas have their mentioned in their records about the happening of a war, why would they do that?? Mahabharata is clear that Cholas didn't even participate. Karnataka and Delhi are too far and has some basic language differences to have this narration by a rumour
5) Contary to the element of fiction, none of the characters think (or the authors think for them), its just a narration of how things happened.
6) If it was a fiction what was the reason to extend it till Swargarohan Parva?? It could have ended with the war, Yudhishtir becoming the king or at the Max the Rajsuya Yagya, what exactly did the authors of the epic aim to achieve by writing about Mausal Parva, and the abduction of women by Abheers when Arjun was returning?
7) Underground Dwarika found
The writing style doesn't match fiction, the historical records suggest war, unbroken chain of rulers in at least two states (which weren't completely related to the epic,) and the people choosing heroes by their affliction and not religious statements are very much a proof that Mahabharata is real.
Most of the historians (western) believe in its historicity of Mahabharata and have a near consensus on it(slight unacceptance always remain) have read multiple papers and majority believe that Mahabharata happened, ,(no such claim for Ramayana)
Rest there is definitely additions, the book Vyasji composed was only 6000 shloks, that of Vaishampayan was 10,000 shlokas, the one we have is 1,00,000 shlokas. Not sure when, but somewhere I read that Raja Bhoja mentioned the epic having 18000 shlokas at his fathers time and increasing to 25000 at his time. Till the time it wasnt written, it kept increasing.
Definitely not everything is true, definitely not everything means what it says(it being a poem) definitely not the statements are exact replica, but this is what we have nearest to the Itihas
Also, while I was talking about the quivers, I did not intend to start a debate over whether Mahabharata & the incidents shown in it are real or not.
TV adaptations of Mahabharata, be it Star Bharat or BRC Mahabharata, did not analyse the historical accuracy. They took the narration at its face value. They did not remove the fictionalized parts & stick to only history. They very much showed the Pandavas & Karna being sons of various Devtas, Kauravas taking birth from the same piece of flesh when kept in buttered pots, Draupadi & Dhrishtadyumna coming out of holy fire, Arjuna fighting even Devtas & defeating them & so on. They showed Arjuna receiving his Gandeeva bow from Agni Dev after Khandava Dahana, so the inexhaustible quivers could be mentioned / added easily. I was just stating that Star Plus could not or did not show it because the way they had presented the automatic appearance of arrows, practically everyone had inexhaustible quivers and Arjuna's quivers wouldn't have looked anything special or different.
