Intro: This post will describe various incidents in Mahabharat & Ramayana that have to do with ornamental language or basically exaggerations. When Valmiki said meghanada was beaten by Angada then he called Meghanada a ever victorious or undefeated fighter.
That is one such example, but their are incidents in both epics where ornamental language is used and my post shall elaborate upon those very incidents instead of just being related to action or a fight always. It will be about quotes that are contradictory or statements made in Ramayan/MB that are clearly false.
Like all sons of pratipa were said to resemble gods, they had god like appearances according to this narrative;
"Unto that lion among kings, who ruled his kingdom virtuously were born three sons of great fame and resembling three gods. Of them, Devapi was the eldest, Vahlika the next and Santanu of great intelligence, who, O sire, was my grandfather, was the youngest."
But in the next narrative this flaw in the appearance of a son is revealed;
"Devapi was liberal, virtuous, devoted to truth, and loved by the subjects, yet in consequence of his skin-disease, he was excluded from his inheritance."
Conclusion - either the translator messed up or maybe the original text was actually translated correctly but the author/whoever spoke (Souti or Vaisampayana) contradicted himself. My opinion is that Devapi was not a handsome human being at all.
=
2nd usage of ornamental language in MB.
Virat's kavach; "And the coat of mail that the king himself of the Matsyas put on was invulnerable and decked with a hundred suns, a hundred circles, a hundred spots, and a hundred eyes."
Basic's - his armor is considered impenetrable like the kavach kundal of karna because its called 'invulnerable' so its a clear exaggeration, most likely the armor karna wore was not invincible.
Usage 3 is this:
"The sons of Draupadi, rivalling their fathers in valour, strength, grace, and prowess, sat upon excellent seats inlaid with gold."
Logic - their is no way those guys were even rivals to sahadev (weakest among the 5 pandavas) based on the way they performed in Kurukshetra Parva. So clearly not each quote should be taken literally as a fact.
=
The 4th usage is an exaggeration in MB.
Agnidev:
"O Agni, the flames put forth by thee consume every creature. O thou of great splendour, this universe hath been created by thee. The Vedas are thy word. All creatures, mobile and immobile, depend upon thee. Water primarily dependeth on thee, so also the whole of this universe. All offerings of clarified butter and oblations of food to the pitris have been established in thee. O god, thou art the consumer, and thou art the creator and thou art Vrihaspati himself (in intelligence). Thou art the twin Aswins; thou art Surya; thou art Soma; thou art Vayu."
Explanation - this makes it seem as if Agni was the one who did the creation of the universe not BRAHMA (who is the true god of creation).
=
PART 5;
Metaphors regarding the divine-chariot of Arjuna.
1st metaphor: "Its splendour was great and the sounds of its wheels was tremendous. It delighted the heart of every creature that looked at it. It had been made by Viswakarman, the architect of the universe and one of the lords of creation, after severe ascetic meditation."
Logic - if the noise of its wheel movement will fill all the witnesses with delight then chances are they would be more enthusiastic to do battle against arjuna, so how come his opponents were said to be distressed, depressed, discouraged, unconfident repeatedly?
2nd quote:
"Its splendour, like that of the sun, was so great that no one could gaze at it. It was the very car from which the lord Soma had vanquished the Danavas."
Basic - this text implies that if a person did gaze at arjuna's chariot {for a lengthy period of time} then they could go blind cause of how it's brightness compared to that of the Sun's itself.
6TH EXAMPLE.
This's related to Bhishma.
Quote 1; He commanded his charioteer, saying "Lead thou my car to where Salya is, so that I may slay him instantly as Garuda slays a serpent."
Quote 2; 'He then vanquished that best of monarchs but left him with his life.'
Logic - bhishma was all bark no bite, he just made a empty threat. Or maybe slaying meant defeating or possibly Souti/vaisampayana made a error (their memory was inaccurate).
=
EXAMPLE 7
How the term pandava is utilized by characters of MB.
Pandavas is a term used for nameless monarchs/kings that karna attack's during Night 14.
{Start}
Then Pandavas, O monarch, and the Panchalas, celebrated for their prowess, beholding the mighty-armed Karna, loudly shouted saying "There is Karna Where is Karna in this fierce battle. O thou of wicked understanding, O lowest of men, fight with us!" Others, beholding the son of Radha said, with eyes expanded In wrath "Let this arrogant wretch of little understanding, this son of a Suta, be slain by the allied kings. He hath no need to live. This sinful man is always very hostile to the Parthas. Obedient to the counsels of Duryodhana, this one is the root of these evils. Slay him." Uttering such words, great Kshatriya car-warriors, urged by Pandu's son, rushed towards him, covering him with a dense shower of arrows, for slaying him. Beholding all those mighty Pandavas thus the Suta's son, trembled not, nor experienced any fear.
Ashwathama Saga: "Learning that thy son had been slain unrighteously by Bhima, we slaughtered the Pandavas after entering their camp buried in sleep."
Note - here the term pandava got used by ashwathama even after the souptika parva war came to an ending. Meaning he considers the other casualties (foot-soldier's anyone who is not a son of droupadi or a drupadaputra) to be Pandavas.
How the term 'kouravA' is used.
"O king, when thus I fell down on the earth, Rama, filled with joy, sent forth loud shouts along with his followers, while all the Kauravas who stood beside me and all those who came there to witness the combat were afflicted with great woe on seeing me fall."
Point: unless the duel between parshuram/bhishma occurs after the birth of duryodhan but before the death of pandu (subsequent arrival of pandavas) then it makes no sense for the kauravas to be mentioned here as standing beside Bhishma.
Of course their exist's a counterargument which can be used against my opinion/claim, that possibly the word 'kauravas' was a reference to family members of the Kuru family, the issue with this counterclaim is that apart from Vicitraveerya their were none that could be considered male-relatives of Bhishma, cause Vyasa is not a kaurava, if he had been their his name would have been actually mentioned.
A different explanation could be that maybe by Kouravas it was a reference for foot soldier's of the Kuru kingdom.
Adi Parva the pandavas get called "kaurava" instead.
Quote;
"He then gave, O monarch, unto the Pandavas and Kunti and Draupadi, and unto Drupada and Drupada's sons, the gems and various kinds of wealth that the Kauravas had sent through him."
Logic - This's another example of ornamental language. Its more sensible to believe that these gifts given through vidura were deployed by Bhishma, Drona & Dhritrashtra, not by Suyodhan or his kaurava brothers. Why would the kouravas give presents to people they hate/dislike or individuals that defeated them earlier (Drupada/Satyajeet/Bheem)?
.png)
Another misuse of terms & words is below.
18th day;
"Shikhandi, supported by the Prabhadrakas, fought with two Kuru bowmen, Kritavarma and the great car-warrior Kripa."
{End}
Comment - now it is obvious that Kritavarma was a younger brother to Satadhanwan, he was a member of the yadava lineage & bhoja tribe/dynasty, he was never a kuru family member, here he is likely called a "kuru archer" because he was fighting on the side of a kuru king named Suyodhana.
EXAMPLE 9) Kuru Emperor is Yudisther instead of Dhritrashtra/Suyodhan.
Quote;
"Beholding them in that plight, Yudhishthira, that foremost of righteous men, became deeply afflicted. That chief of the Kurus then began to weep aloud and fell down on the earth, deprived of his senses, along with all his followers."
Logic - the proper name should've been either kounteya king or pandava emperor.
=
Other example of Ornamentalanguage
Kripa fled but gets called unretreating hero:
[Quote]
"Understanding his master afflicted with shafts to be deprived of his senses, and believing him to be dead, the driver of Kripa's car bore Kripa away from the fight. And after Kripa, the son of Saradwat, had thus been borne away from the battle."
[Finish]
[BEGIN]
"I bow to that worshipful son of Gotama, to that unretreating hero."
[END]
=
11TH EXAMPLE - Virat Parva inconsistency;
[passage]
"Indeed, our ranks seem to have been already vanquished, for none is eager to go to fight. All our warriors are of pale face, and almost deprived of their senses."
Analysis; despite guru drona's quotes still karna bragged and was eager to fight while many kaurav brothers were willing to fight arjuna, not 1 of these warriors had their senses afflicted at all, so the lines of drona make no sense.
=
Praise given to warriors.
Sugriva praised by Laxman;
"You are the knower of virtuousness and gratefulness and you do not retreat from battlegrounds, or, on your own word, thus what you have said is conclusive as well as coherent."
Logic - yes its true that sugriva was powerful/capable but it is also wrong/false to claim that he had never run away from a single fight in his life. He clearly fled twice from Vali, first was when vali returned (and blamed him for the cave blockage) the second was during the time raam told him to fight vali and could not see a difference in the looks of both brothers.
Srikandi was labelled a person superior to Parshurama.
"Drupada's son Sikhandin, therefore who hath slain in battle that bull of Bharata's race, that hero acquainted with the highest weapons, that brave and accomplished warrior conversant with every weapon, is superior in energy, prowess, and might to the invincible Vargava endued with the highest energy."
Satyajit was overhyped by Souti & Vaisampayana;
"Satyajit, who was equal to the diadem-decked Arjuna himself in battle as regards energy and might, hath been slain in battle by Drona of sure aim."
.png)
LAST EXAMPLE.
Bad omen's & nightmares was a common thing whenever a city or town was in the eve of being destroyed or invaded.
Dwaraka:
"Vrishni ladies dreamed every night that a woman of black complexion and white teeth, entering their abodes, laughed aloud and ran through Dvaraka, snatching from them the auspicious threads in their wrists. The men dreamt that terrible vultures, entering their houses and fire-chambers, gorged themselves on their bodies. Their ornaments and umbrellas and standards and armour were seen to be taken away by terrible Rakshasas."
For Lanka the statement of Malyavan is below.
Quote;
"By seeing various kinds of unexpected events (portents) and many types of terrific things, I am perceiving a destruction of all the demons. With terrifying clamour, monstrous clouds, inspiring horror, rain hot blood on Lanka on every side. Drops of tears drop from the weeping elephants, horses etc. whose skins became discoloured, covered with dust and are not shining as before. Flesh-eating animals, jackals and eagles and howling horribly. Entering Lanka, they are in the groves, forming into groups. Black women, chattering incoherently in dreams and robbing different houses stand in front, laughing loudly with their white teeth. Dogs devour the sacred offerings offered in homes. Donkeys are born of cows and rats of mongoose. Cats mate with tigers, pigs with dogs, Kinnaras (a species of demi-gods with the human figure and the head of a horse or with a horse's body and the head of a man) with demons and men. Red-footed and white pigeons, messengers of death, move in different directions, foretelling the extermination of demons. Domesticated minas (a kind of birds) making a chirping sound, defeated by other bellicose birds drop down, being twined together in groups. Birds and wild animals, facing towards the sun, cry out. Death, in the form of a frightful, monstrous and cruel blackish fellow with a shaven head casts his eyes on all our dwellings, both morning and evening. These and such other sinister omens appear."
Logic - the reason i consider this to be a not genuine quote is that if blood red rain really did pour down atr lanka then it would be red in color instead of golden. And if elephants/horses were crying then its unlikely those same animals would follow ravans army to battle when they use them. So this can be passed off as ornamental language or a exaggeration.
No comments:
Post a Comment
?