Mahabharat: A Myth or a Reality

[Guest guest]

Mahabharat: A Myth or a Reality

By Prasad Gokhale

 

It has been believed by some historians and laymen that Mahabharat is

just a fictitious fable emerged from the fantastic brain of the Sage

Ved Vyas. It has been contended that such a 'war' could not have

occured owing to the detailed description of various facets of the

'epic'. However, tradition as well as many Bharatiya scholars have all

along maintained that Mahabharat did actually occur and is a complete

reality.

 

Mahabharat is not just a story, but the detailed account of a event

occured in the past. The few points are noted below that indicate a

few differences in what is 'reality' and 'myth'.

 

1. It has been written in the epic from time to time that

Mahabharat is a "itihas" which exclusively means "thus occured". The

words "Puraan" and "Itihas" were specifically coined by the Arya

people to catagorize the "ancient" and "recent" events. Both the words

denote history that has occured at different times.

 

2. It is mentioned in Aadiparva, Adhyaya 62 that the annals of

the Bharat-Dynasty are recorded in the work.

 

3. It has been clearly stated in the Aadiparva, Bheeshmaparva

etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to

write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a

"mahakavya" or "katha".

 

4. It would to absurd to say that the Mahabharat is not a

"itihas" due to its poetic nature. It was a custom in those days to

write everything in poetic form.

 

5. Ved Vyas had decided to write down the "itihas" even before

the initiation of the Mahabharat War. Therefore during the course of

the War, Vyas meticulously noted down all the possible details. If it

were a work of fiction, why would a person like Vyas want to fill his

work with such minute and unnecessary details ?

 

6. A number of dynasties with their lond lineage of kings have

been presented in the work. More than 50 kings from King Barhi to the

Pandava King have been recorded. Additional information about the

King, his wife, his scions, his relations, etc. have been accounted in

great detail. If it were just fiction, only 4-5 kings would have

sufficed to build the story on. Then why such mind-boggling details ?

 

7. The dynasties recorded in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat

concur without a difference. Even the relations between different

kings and their dynasties in both the great "epics" match with each

other. If both were mere "epics" written by two entirely different at

two different times, why would everything match even upto minor details ?

 

Mahabharat is of a later date than the Ramayan. Why would the author

of the Mahabharat borrow the same ideas and characters as those of the

author of Ramayan ?

 

8. Usually, the story of any "Maha-Kaavya" circulates about one

or two main characters. If this were the case with Mahabharat, who

would then be considered the "hero" of the drama ?

 

9. Many events mentioned in the Ramayan and Mahabharat are the

same. Eg.: The mother of (latter) King Sagar was poisoned by his

step-mother so that her child would be aborted. But the child was born

nevertheless, who was therefore named Sagar.

 

10. The cities established by certain kings has been noted in

detail.

 

11. All the characters in the "epic" are well-portrayed. Even

single facet of their character and important events in their life

have been recorded. Are such detailed accounts important in a

"Maha-kavya"?

 

12. The weapons mentioned in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat are

somewhat same. Infact, some weapons in the Ramayan are not mentioned

in the latter "epic". (eg. Soorya'stra, Yamya'stra,

Shoolva'stra..etc.) [ Considering the true occurance of the two great

events, the above mentioned weapons might have disappreared in the era

in-between the two events took place].

 

13. If it were a poetic fiction, such comprehensive account of

the events on the battle-field would'nt have been given. For a poem,

it is far-fetched. It will only serve the purpose of boring the reader

to death!

 

14. The description of such myriad of characters is astonishing.

It is impossible for one single-mind to be the genesis of that number

of personality-types. It could only be true if the Mahabharat is the

recording of a real-life drama.

 

15. The time and place of events have been accurately recorded.

All such recordings are redudant for a "Maha-kavya".

 

16. Not much poetic description of the flora-and-fauna is given.

Such description in ornate language is only used in fictional works

and not while recording history.

 

17. Vyas mentions to have written this "itihas" after the death

of King Dhrutarashtra. Why would he write so ? Did Shakespeare say

that he wrote "Hamlet" after the death of Hamlet himself ?

 

18. The Greek historian Megasthenes has stated that Chandragupta

Maurya was the 138 King in the lineage of Shri Krishna. This means

that Shri Krishna did exist in the bygone era and that Mahabharat did

really occur.

 

19. It was a custom to keep a track of the Kings lineage. The

Chinese traveller confirms the above. Manahbharat being a true account

of a occured War, such lineages are seen to be recorded.

 

20. Archaeological excations has discovered the submerged city

of Dwaraka. This is the same Dwaraka as mentioned in the Mahabharat. [

The city of Dwaraka has been reckoned to have drowned in between

2000-3000 B.C.]

 

21. The astronomical recordings in the Mahabharat "epic" and

other scriptures (Bhagwat), given the correct positions of the planets

and stars during that time. How could a work of fiction be proved

using mathematical tools ?