ekalavya and mahabharata

Keywords Ekalavya Æ Mahabharata Æ Subaltern ÆRing-composition Æ Promises Æ Archery Æ Poona edition

Introduction

Any textual scholar will approach a text with a particular textological agenda,looking for particular types of textual feature on which to build an appreciation,interpretation, or commentary. This agenda, which is always complex, may changedepending on the text being investigated. It will be constrained by what kinds ofthings the scholar has heard said of different texts or groups of texts (for thisreason alone the grouping of texts is a perilous business); and it will also beconstrained, one way or the other, by what the text is perceived to say about itself.In this paper I analyze part of the Mahabharata from a perspective that seeks toprivilege the text’s geometry, its structural forms. After the introduction, the nextthree sections of the paper outline three different symmetrical structures orcompositional rings, each of which extends over Adiparvan 121–28. Each of thesestructures is built from a different set of compositional units: there is a ring ofpromises made and kept, a ring of adhyayas (chapters), and a ring of verses orsyllables, and each of these rings has a different center or axis of symmetry.Adhyayas 121–28 of the Adiparvan seem to constitute, as it were, a jewel that hasbeen cut with several faces, and the interactions and implications of these varioussymmetrical structures are discussed. In the final section of the paper several otheradhyaya rings in the Mahabharata are mentioned, followed by some brief thoughts

S. Brodbeck (&)Department of the Study of ReligionsSOAS, University of LondonLondon, UKe-mail: [email protected]

123

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34DOI 10.1007/s11407-006-9000-x

ORI GI N A L P A PE R

Ekalavya and Mahabharata 1.121–28

Simon Brodbeck

Accepted: 3 April 2006 / Published online: 31 October 2006� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

(in terms of natural polarized dualities) on what the generic content of thestructural form of the bisected ring might be; and the paper ends with reference toanother of the Mahabharata’s text-structural forms, the group of 18. I show that ina variety of oblique ways the Mahabharata talks about its own structures and aboutthe ability to discern them and to appreciate the text on the basis of them. Therehas been a good deal of authorial effort in the matter of textual symmetry andornament, resulting in an interestingly ‘‘self-conscious’’ text.1

We begin with the brief story of Ekalavya the nis: ada, which is told at 1.123:10–39,2 and divides neatly into three scenes.

(1) Verses 10–14. Dron:a is the martial tutor of the young Pan:d:avas and Kauravas;Ekalavya, son of the nis: ada chief Hiran:yadhanus (golden-bow), also comes fortuition, but Dron:a refuses him because he is a nis: ada.3 Undeterred, he lives in thewoods, makes a clay model of Dron:a, practices under its unseeing eye, and becomesan expert archer.

(2) Verses 15–24. When the Pan:d:avas are out hunting, their dog discoversEkalavya in the forest. Ekalavya shoots the Pan:d:avas’ dog in the muzzle with sevenarrows, and the Pan:d:avas witness his skill. When interrogated, he says he is Dron:a’spupil.

(3) Verses 25–39. After Arjuna has complained to him of Ekalavya’s skill, Dron:acomes to see Ekalavya, who receives him as his guru. Dron:a says that to gurus a feeis due; Ekalavya says he will give whatever Dron:a wants; Dron:a chooses Ekalavya’sright thumb; and Ekalavya severs and gives it willingly, thus sacrificing his archeryskills.

Before we move on to consider certain specific structural features of this and thesurrounding text, some introductory remarks are in order concerning Ekalavya. Hisstory has been particularly celebrated by dalits, members of communities formerlyknown (to others) as ‘‘untouchable,’’ by whom he is revered as a martyred fore-father. The ethnic discrimination that led to his downfall is something these com-munities have felt and continue to feel, and his dignity in the face of it makes him asuitable role model. Key here is his nis: ada identity. ‘‘Nis: ada’’ in the Mahabharata isa subtle concept (or construct), expounded gradually through an array of different

1 This paper grew out of an earlier one presented at, and published in the proceedings of, the ValmikiStudies Workshop, held at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, onFebruary 21, 2004 (see Brodbeck, 2004). I am grateful to Sıan Hawthorne and also to Brian Black,John Brockington, Paul Dundas, James Hegarty, Steven Lindquist, John Smith, and SimonWeightman, among others, for their invaluable comments and suggestions at various stages of mywork; to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, under whose funding most of the researchpresented here took place; and most especially to Julia Leslie, whose work on Valmıki was andcontinues to be the inspiration for my thinking on Ekalavya and to whom this paper is dedicated withlove and �soka.2 Unless otherwise stated, references are to the Poona edition of the Mahabharata (J. Smith, 1999;Sukthankar, Belvalkar, & Vaidya, 1933–1971). I generally use the form ‘‘parvan (book).adhyaya(chapter):�sloka (verse).’’ Where a parvan number is omitted, the Adiparvan is intended.Mahabharata translations, which sometimes omit vocatives, are adapted from those of van Buitenen(1973, 1978, 1981), Fitzgerald (2002b), and/or Ganguli (2000).3 On the perils of teaching Sudras, which might apply also in the case of nis: adas, see 13.10.

2 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

characters and stories.4 It seems to combine ideas of outland location,5 of hunting/fishing lifestyle, of polity (though nis: ada must be distinguished from Nis:adha), and ofbad breeding.6

To understand Ekalavya’s interactions with Dron:a and his pupils, we mustacknowledge Sheldon Pollock’s notion of ‘‘the Sanskrit cosmopolis’’ (1996) and notethe words of Daud Ali:

The interaction between the people of the hills and forests and the men of‘‘good society’’…may be generally conceived as the diverse integration of theformer into the political and economic structures of agrarian society—aspeasants, royal servants and even as recognised semi-independent rulers ofrealms. Though this integration was complex and involved mutual influenceand accommodation in specific regional contexts, one element of this processfrom the sources of the Gupta era would suggest that the opposition betweenthe wild and violent ways of the forest people and the restrained and hon-ourable ways of the nobility formed a behavioural ‘‘continuum’’ along whichmen moved to enter the pale of ‘‘good society’’ and once there exhibited thefact as a mark of their moral superiority over others (2004, p. 101).

Debate will continue over the extent to which this kind of scenario is usefully termed‘‘colonial’’ and the extent to which it is still evident. In an insightful article,S. Shankar (1994) approaches Ekalavya’s story from a postcolonial perspective inorder to address Ekalavya’s and also his own position and strategy vis-a-vis thedominant culture. The story is also a multivocal meditation on the teacher–pupildynamic, given added piquancy, when considered academically, by the dependenceof scholarly institutions on that very dynamic.

Ekalavya’s Mahabharata appearances after the thumb incident are rather ghostly,perhaps in keeping with the sometime equation of thumb and soul: Duryodhanafeverishly recollects Ekalavya having presented the sandals at Yudhis:t:hira’s rajasuya(2.49:9), and Kr:s:n:a is thrice said to have killed him (5.47:71, 7.155:29, 16.7:10); he is alsomentioned in the Harivam: �sa (for example at 81:44 and 84:28) and in various Puran:as.

The ring of promises

If we begin with the scene where Ekalavya cuts off his thumb and move outwardsfrom there into the surrounding text in either direction, we discover that there is an

4 In addition to Ekalavya, one might consider the nis: adas who are eaten by Garud:a at the seaside(1.23–25); the nis: ada king who incarnates one of Kalaka’s asura sons (1.61:48); the nis: adas who areburned in the firehouse intended for the Pan:d:avas (1.129–37); the nis: adas conquered beforeYudhis:t:hira’s rajasuya, some of whom are said to be cannibals (2.27–28); the nis: adas that theSarasvatı went underground to avoid (3.130:3–4); the nis: adas who fight and are killed on Kuruks:etra(at 6.50 for example); the primordial nis: ada, Pr: thu’s elder brother, churned by the r: s: is out of KingVena’s corpse’s thigh (12.59); the nis: ada halfbreed Kapavya, king of the wilds, domesticator ofdasyus (12.133); and the nis: adas who catch the r: s: i Cyavana in their fishing net by accident and go toheaven (13.50–51), among others. Nis: ada is also one of the seven primordial sounds (see 12.177:35–36, 14.49:51–52).5 On the grama/aran: ya duality (broadly, settlement/wilderness), see Malamoud (1996, pp. 74–91).6 In the Mahabharata, as in the Dharmasutras and Dharma�sastras, nis: adas are numbered amongother human groups said to have arisen from interbreeding between the four varn: as (12.285:4–9). At13.48:12 they are said specifically to result from the union of a Sudra male and a Ks:atriya female (seealso Brockington, 1995; Jha, 1970, 1974, 1975; Parasher, 1991, pp. 197–202; R. Sharma, 1980).

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 3

123

intricate network of promises governing the action. Four different promises form aconcentric ring, and they suggest that our initial focus on the story of Ekalavya beexpanded to cover adhyayas 121–28 (see Diagram 1). We will discuss these fourringed promises in turn, from the inside out.

(1) Ekalavya’s promise. When Dron:a goes with Arjuna to the forest to confrontEkalavya, Ekalavya greets Dron:a and declares himself to be Dron:a’s pupil.

tato dron: o ’bravıd rajann ekalavyam idam: vacah: |yadi �sis: yo ’si me turn: am: vetanam: sam: pradıyatam ||ekalavyas tu tac chrutva prıyaman: o ’bravıd idam |kim: prayacchami bhagavann ajnapayatu mam: guruh: ||na hi kim: cid adeyam: me gurave brahmavittama |tam abravıt tvayan_gus: t:ho daks: in: o dıyatam: mama ||

Then Dron:a said this speech to Ekalavya: ‘‘If you are my pupil, a fee must begiven at once.’’ Having heard that, Ekalavya, delighted, said: ‘‘What do I give,sir? Let the guru direct me. Greatest of Brahman-knowers, there is nothing Iwould not give for my guru.’’ He said to him: ‘‘You must give me your rightthumb’’ (1.123:33–35).7

Ekalavya now has to comply, or else be a liar. His voluntary self-mutilation isdemanded by his promise (pratijna; verse 36c) to give whatever was requested: he is,as narrator Vai�sam: payana points out, ‘‘always devoted to the truth’’ (satye niratah:sada; verse 36d).

a

b

Diagram 1 The ring of promises. a: This is the much later point at which Dron:a tells Bhıs:ma ofDrupada’s childhood promise. The promise is not mentioned in Vai�sam: payana’s description ofDron:a and Drupada’s childhood friendship (121:8–10), but may be interpretively relocated there. b:Dron:a’s promise to Arjuna is kept here only for the time being.

7 There is a pun here: daks: in: a means ‘‘right’’ (as in ‘‘right hand’’), daks: in: a means ‘‘gift, reward, fee.’’


123

(2) Dron:a’s promise. Before Ekalavya appears, the text tells us about the rela-tionship between Dron:a and Arjuna. Dron:a is very impressed by Arjuna, who beginsto practice archery at night.

tasya jyatalanirghos: am: dron: ah: �su�srava bharata |upetya cainam utthaya paris: vajyedam abravıt ||prayatis: ye tatha kartum: yatha nanyo dhanurdharah: |tvatsamo bhavita loke satyam etad bravımi te ||

Dron:a heard the slapping noise of his bowstring, and he rose and came andembraced him and said: ‘‘I will do anything to make sure that no other archerin the world will be your equal—I say this to you truly’’ (1.123:5–6).

The Pan:d:avas subsequently witness Ekalavya’s skill, hear him claim to be Dron:a’spupil, and tell Dron:a; but it is Arjuna who makes Dron:a intervene:

kaunteyas tv arjuno rajann ekalavyam anusmaran |raho dron: am: samagamya pran: ayad idam abravıt ||nanv aham: parirabhyaikah: prıtipurvam idam: vacah: |bhavatokto na me �sis: yas tvadvi�sis: t:o bhavis: yati ||

Arjuna son of Kuntı, remembering Ekalavya, approached Dron:a in private andsaid frankly: ‘‘Wasn’t I the one you embraced and affectionately told, ‘No pupilof mine will be better than you’?’’ (1.123:26–27).

Finally, when Ekalavya is handicapped, we are told that:

tato ’rjunah: prıtamana babhuva vigatajvarah: |dron: a�s ca satyavag asın nanyo ’bhyabhavad arjunam ||

Arjuna, fever gone, became pleased in mind, and Dron:a was a speaker of thetruth: no other surpassed Arjuna (1.123:39).

This frame story dramatically contextualizes Dron:a’s treatment of Ekalavya. He wasbound by his promise to Arjuna. As Rick Jarow says, speaking of Arjuna: ‘‘Thepromise extracted from Dron:a protects him from any rival’’ (1999, p. 67).

(3) Arjuna’s promise. Dron:a’s promise to Arjuna and its fulfillment are nestedwithin, and balanced by, a promise of Arjuna’s to Dron:a and its fulfillment; bothparties use the other’s promise to their own advantage. Dron:a’s intention all along inhis tuition is to gain forces to settle an old score by attacking Drupada, a boyhoodKs:atriya friend who has since become a king and rejected him (121:8–9; 122:1–11,24–38). The first thing he does upon receiving pupils is to try to extract a promisethat, when trained, they will aid him in a secret military task. We are told that theKauravas remained silent and that Arjuna gave his promise (122:39–44).8 It is in lightof Arjuna’s promise that Dron:a makes his own promise. Dron:a’s careful nurturing ofArjuna is now explained, and in adhyaya 128 he claims his second disciples’ fee,demanding that his pupils raid and subjugate Drupada. Though this raid is presented

8 Dron:a asks the pupils to say truly (r: tam; verse 42d) that they will do it; Arjuna promises completely(prati+

pjna, plus adverb sarvam; verse 43cd). The other Pan:d:avas are not mentioned.


123

as a group expedition carried out by the Bharatas, Arjuna is the main differencebetween the two sides: he thus discharges his promise and the debt to his guru.9

It is curious that the disciple’s fee is overlaid with a promise on both of theoccasions that it occurs here. These promises operate as text-positional tags, allowinga certain aspect of the text’s structure to be viewed clearly; but from anotherperspective, they perhaps make it harder for Ekalavya and Arjuna to avoid givingthe demanded fee. We hear of a precedent for abrogating �sis: yadharma whenBhıs:ma, preparing to duel with his guru Rama Jamadagnya about Amba (5.178),says: ‘‘You do not behave like a guru, so I will fight with you’’ (guruvr: ttam: na janıs: etasmad yotsyamy aham: tvaya; verse 25cd), and adduces various other arguments tojustify his disobedience. The fact that Ekalavya and Arjuna have given their word toDron:a means that they cannot respond in this way.

(4) Drupada’s promise. Drupada, after he is made king, rejects his penniless oldfriend Dron:a. But he once promised he would never do such a thing. Dron:a moansto Bhıs:ma about Drupada and reports a promise that he says Drupada made to himyears ago:

aham: priyatamah: putrah: pitur dron: a mahatmanah: |abhis: eks: yati mam: rajye sa pancalyo yada tada ||tvadbhojyam: bhavita rajyam: sakhe satyena te �sape |mama bhoga�s ca vittam: ca tvadadhınam: sukhani ca ||

‘‘Dron:a, I am the favorite son of my distinguished father. When the Pancalaanoints me to the kingdom, the kingdom will be yours to enjoy. Friend, I swearto you truly. My pleasures and wealth and comforts will be yours’’(1.122:29–30).

When Dron:a conquers Drupada with Arjuna’s might, he immediately returns half ofthe conquered kingdom to Drupada, keeping half for himself. In this way, Drupada’spromise is fulfilled: the two of them share Drupada’s father’s kingdom.10

Drupada’s keeping his promise depends on Arjuna keeping his, which depends onDron:a keeping his, which depends upon Ekalavya keeping his. So the conclusion of128 is a result of all four promises:

evam: rajann ahicchatra purı janapadayuta |yudhi nirjitya parthena dron: aya pratipadita ||

Thus was the city Ahicchatra with its countryside conquered in battle by theson of Pr: tha and made over to Dron:a (1.128:18).

9 Arjuna later leads another military expedition by way of a disciple’s fee for Indra (3.165–70): herealso the giving of the fee is overlaid with a promise, and here also the guru announces that Arjunawill not be surpassed (3.165:1–8, 3.170:67–68). Some manuscripts give an extended version of thebattle between Dron:a’s pupils and Drupada (1.app78): the Kauravas attack first, but Drupada repelsthem; Bhıma causes some mayhem among Drupada’s troops, but Arjuna then takes over, defeatingDrupada’s senapati Satyajit, capturing Drupada himself, and stopping Bhıma from killing everyoneelse.10 This is merely the first chapter in their conflict. Now Drupada wants revenge, and in 1.155 heacquires a heroic son for this purpose—but both rivals are killed in the Kuruks:etra war, and then allof their descendants are destroyed apart from A�svatthaman, who is banished for three thousandyears (10.16:9–12).


123

These promises clustered around the Ekalavya incident fix it within the wider text ofadhyayas 121–28, which begins with Dron:a’s birth and childhood and ends with hisvictory over Drupada. I call this text ‘‘the Dron:a–Drupada cycle’’ or just ‘‘the cycle.’’

The narrative effect of these promises calls for further comment. It seems that thewords previously uttered may be used as an explanation of what then happens, as if,through utterance, a spell has been put upon the text-world, which then fits into shape.This technique is common in the Mahabharata, working through vows, boons, curses,satyakriyas, or simply off-the-cuff remarks. For example, when Vyasa senses at the endof the war that Gandharı is minded to curse Yudhis:t:hira, he appears and reminds herthat she had previously told Duryodhana that ‘‘where there is dharma, there is vic-tory’’: the implication is that either she is a liar or the Pan:d:ava victory was dharmic, soshe should not be angry (11.13:1–11). Sometimes several utterances made by differentpeople converge on a single event: Alf Hiltebeitel speaks of ‘‘multiple and deepeningcausalities, overdeterminations, and intriguing contradictions’’ (2001, p. 164).11

The effect of this is to destabilize the notion of individual agency while obscuringthe details of individual psychology. Ekalavya’s promise, once spoken, means thathis experience of keeping it is inaccessible: we cannot properly ask why he still kepthis word even when he knew what the price was. This point is exemplified at itslogical extreme by Drupada, who keeps his promise unwittingly, without anyawareness that this is what is happening. Drupada is not the agent of the keeping ofhis promise, but if we might like to transfer agency to Dron:a instead, we must thenpass some of it on to Arjuna and then to Ekalavya also; if it is not to dissolve intothe background, the agency must come to rest within the promising utterancesthemselves. We are repeatedly told in the Mahabharata that truth is the highestdharma,12 and perhaps this is not just to encourage truth-telling among the audiencebut is also to state a primary axiom of the textual universe. This is a very difficultaspect of the literature, and it is difficult to know how best to theorize it. Oneapproach, which has been articulated by M. A. Mehendale (2001, p. 204), is to seepromises and curses as intended to spare certain characters from criticism in terms ofdharma, by contextualizing their adharma within the dharma of truth.13 Since weknow what Drupada said to Dron:a and what Dron:a and Arjuna said to each other,we cannot blame Dron:a as much as we might. Ekalavya’s losing his thumb mightalso be contextualized by his prior cruelty to the Pan:d:avas’ dog—indeed, the crueltyinherent in the nis: ada lifestyle contextualizes their cruel treatment in general.

The adhyaya ring

The world runs rings around and before the creatures in it. On a journey from A to Band back, one’s viewing of landmarks is palindromic. A riverside tree, when viewedfrom the other shore, appears doubled by its own reflection; a stone, dropped intowater, makes waves in rings. The year, the month, and the day are symmetrical, as is

11 See, for example, the various ‘‘explanations’’ for Draupadı ’s polyandry (1.182, 187–90); see alsoKr: s:n:a’s justification to Baladeva of Bhıma’s striking Duryodhana below the belt (9.59:11–22).12 For references, see Hiltebeitel (2001, p. 207n80); see also Brown (1972); Sohnen-Thieme (1995),and Thompson (1998).13 Just as, by implication, Kr:s:n:a in the Bhagavad Gıta contextualizes the adharma of Arjuna’s killingrelatives and gurus, first within the dharma of Ks:atriyas and then within the mysterious andimplacable dharma of the cosmos as a whole.


123

the full human life, with adulthood nested between two childhoods. Perhaps weshould not be any more surprised to see such symmetry in texts than we are to see itin buildings. Compositional rings have been found in Vedic (see Brereton, 1997,1999; Hock, 2002; Witzel, 1987, p. 411), Avestan (Hintze, 2002), Homeric (Stanley,1993), and Old Testament (Douglas, 1993, 2002) literature;14 Calvert Watkins (1995,p. 34) says that this technique functions to demarcate the boundaries of a particulartext segment (here 121–28). Renate Sohnen (1979) has identified ring structures inspeeches of the Ramayan: a. John Brockington, summarizing this work, writes that‘‘Sohnen’s strong emphasis on the purposiveness with which the speeches are con-structed provides a valuable corrective to the tendency implicitly to exclude creativeartistry from the production of ‘anonymous’ literature’’ (1998, p. 349). By implica-tion, knowing Sanskrit and knowing how to read a certain Sanskrit text are twodifferent things. Meaning may come through the configuration of textual elements asmuch as through the words and sentences themselves; but this is not congruent withour usual reading methods (Brereton, 1997, p. 3n7). The identification of textual ringstructures stands to revolutionize the way in which one interprets the text: certainevents and characters are suddenly highlighted, and many repetitions are understoodas parallel tags flanking a central node.15 But Brockington also sounds a note ofcaution: ‘‘What constitutes a ring is somewhat varied, since the similarity may rest ontheme, mode of expression, wording, or merely the attitude of the speaker, while thebalancing elements may differ considerably in length, which means that there is asubstantial subjective element to the interpretation’’ (1998, p. 349).

The Mahabharata, with its frame stories and nested levels of narration, naturallyattracts attention in terms of structural rings. Christopher Minkowski (1989) relatesthe Mahabharata’s concentric textual structure to concentric ritual structure,16 andDennis Hudson (2001) has identified a ring of five adhyayas in the Bhagavad Gıta(12–16 [Mahabharata 6.34–38]), which, he argues, maps the ritual ring of the five-daypurus: amedha ritual.17 I submit that the Dron:a–Drupada cycle in the Poona editionconstitutes a ring of adhyayas with 124 at the center (see Diagram 2). This adhyayaring is, as far as I can tell, a textual ring only.18 The symmetry only appears whenadhyaya 123 is separated into two parts, thus turning an eight-adhyaya text into anine-section text with the fifth section at the center. Adhyaya 123 is more than twicethe average length of the other adhyayas in the section and divides exactly into two

14 Examples could easily be multiplied (see, for example, Stanley, 1993, pp. 307–308).15 For example, Vidura’s plea at 2.55–57, that Duryodhana be curbed, is flanked by two sets of tendice throws: this, it seems, is a way of underlining it.16 He explains that the ritual action of the year-long Vedic sarpasattra was concentrically organizedand suggests that the storytelling embedded within the ritual mirrored that concentric structure (seealso Brereton, 1997, pp. 1–5; Hegarty, 2004; Witzel, 1987, p. 413).17 The purus: amedha is described at �Satapatha Brahman: a 13.6.1:9 in terms of a ‘‘barleycorn’’ (yava)arrangement. The center of the Bhagavad Gıta ring, adhyaya 14, contains ‘‘the ultimate knowledge ofknowledges’’ (jnananam: jnanam uttamam; verse 1b) and is linked by Hudson to the day of full moon.The thematic links between the two pairs of adhyayas may, as Brockington warns, seem rather inci-dental—for a critique, see Hiltebeitel (2002)—but Tubb (2002) has taken Hudson’s work onwards,mapping some of the Mahabharata’s various groups of 18 onto each other and identifying day 14 of theKuruks:etra war as the center of a ring formed by Karn:a’s entry (day 11) and death (day 17) (see furtherbelow).18 Evidence of ancient Indian ritual tends to be textual in any case: the ritual we can access mostdirectly is that of textual composition and preservation.


123

self-contained halves.19 Either two adhyayas have accidentally turned into oneduring textual transmission or this ring is deliberately obscured. But the ring ofpromises highlights Ekalavya and his thumb within the Dron:a–Drupada cycle, andthe key to the release of the adhyaya ring is contained in the name of the centralpromiser, Ekalavya, which indicates singularity and cutting (lavya is a participle ofnecessity from the verb

plu). The name can thus be read as a textual signal, high-

lighted by the ring of promises, and telling us to cut the adhyaya once. When this isdone, thematic parallels are visible between linked adhyayas, as shown on theDiagram: 121 parallels 128, and so on, with 124 at the center.20

This use of the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ is very interesting. The characters within thescene do not use the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ themselves. The narrator Vai�sam: payanadoes use it, and he thus announces the grisly denoument to his audience in advanceand at the same time gives a dual instruction: a stage instruction to Dron:a, tellinghim what to do with Arjuna’s rival, and a hermeneutic instruction to us, telling uswhat to do with this adhyaya. Once we conceive the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ in theseterms, we might also view it as a summary of the general method of reading andinterpreting in terms of ring structures. To read by this method is to cut the textonce, along an axis of symmetry; to match parallel units on both halves (I have calledthese tags, but they might equally be ears); and to examine the central node (theknife point, as it were). Different cuts would point to different centers. So we couldsay that the hermeneutic instruction given by the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ refers toadhyaya 123 at the same time as it refers, in a related (and, as we will see, triple)sense, to the whole Dron:a–Drupada cycle.

Working again from the inside out, we will discuss each pair of adhyayas in thering, grouping the central adhyaya with the outermost pair.

(1) The pair 123b/125: The parallel Arjunas. In 123b, now that Ekalavya has beendealt with, Arjuna’s superiority is repeatedly asserted and demonstrated. Dron:a testshis pupils: he puts a bird in a tree and sees who can hit it in the head. Arjuna does so,after all the others have failed: poised with bow drawn, they cannot concentrate onlyon the target, so Dron:a does not let them shoot. Then, while bathing, Dron:a isgrabbed by a crocodile: he makes it another test, to see who can free him, andArjuna kills the crocodile with five arrows. Satisfied with Arjuna, Dron:a tells him the

19 Adhyaya 121 is 23 verses long; 122, 47; 123, 78 (=39+39); 124, 33; 125, 32; 126, 39; 127, 24; and 128,18. The two halves of 123 are, to an extent, symmetrical. Dron:a twice promises that no one will bestArjuna as an archer, once at the beginning of the adhyaya (verse 6) and once at the end (verse 78),and the center of the adhyaya is marked by a narratorial link to these promises (verse 39cd: ‘‘andDron:a was a speaker of the truth: no other surpassed Arjuna’’). In this way, the text shows the readerexactly where to bisect the adhyaya, even without counting the verses.20 My approach here separates off 1.120 from the Dron:a–Drupada cycle. This may raise someeyebrows, since 120, which relates Kr:pa’s birth, seems in many ways to be a doublet with 121: bothKr:pa and Dron:a are produced, without the aid of any human woman, from a solitary sage’s seminalemission after his sighting of an apsaras; and both will go on to train the princes and fight against thePan:d:avas at Kuruks:etra. But Kr:pa hardly features in the cycle (apart from his asking for Karn:a’slineage), and in my opinion, which I hope to elaborate elsewhere, the juxtaposition of Kr:pa andDron:a here sets the stage for a contrast between the two characters, which runs right through the textand which is reflected by their differing destinies (Dron:a is killed on Kuruks:etra, but Kr:pa survivesand continues to tutor young Bharatas; see 1.45:11, 17.1:13). For the motif of motherless birth, seeEpstein (1994), Hara (1975), M. Smith (1991), and Thomas (1998). Many manuscripts also relateDrupada’s motherless birth; see 1.app79:170–72 (following adhyaya 128, and thus framing the cycle,parallel to the Dron:a and Kr:pa birth stories). Motherless sons tend to suffer from varn: a ambiguities(see footnote 30).


123

Dia

gra

m2

Th

ea

dh

yay

ari

ng

(su

mm

ari

es

ad

apte

dfr

om

va

nB

uit

en

en

,1

97

3)

12

11

28

Th

er :s:i

Bh

ara

dv

aja

see

sth

ea

psa

ras

Gh

r :tacı

nu

de;

he

catc

he

sh

isse

ed

ina

tro

ug

h;D

ron :

ais

bo

rnfr

om

it.

Bh

ara

dv

aja

tea

che

sh

imth

eag

ney

am

issi

le.

Dru

pa

da

,so

no

fK

ing

Pr :s :

ata

,is

Dro

n :a’s

sch

oo

lmate

.D

rup

ad

asu

cceed

sto

the

thro

ne

of

Pan

cala

.D

ron :

aw

ed

sK

r :pı;

A� sv

att

ha

ma

nis

bo

rn.

Wh

en

Ram

aJa

ma

da

gn

ya

reti

res,

Dro

n :a

ob

tain

sh

ism

ira

cle

we

ap

on

s.

Eq

ua

lity

(bet

we

en

Dro

n :a

an

dD

rup

ad

a)

Dro

n :a

de

ma

nd

sth

at

his

pu

pil

sca

ptu

reK

ing

Dru

pa

da

as

the

ird

isci

ple

s’fe

e.

Th

ey

raid

his

city

Ah

icch

atr

aa

nd

cap

ture

him

.D

ron :

are

turn

sth

ek

ing

’se

arl

ier

insu

lts,

bu

tse

tsh

imfr

ee

an

dg

ive

sh

imb

ack

the

sou

ther

nh

alf

of

the

kin

gd

om

.D

rup

ad

acl

aim

sto

be

Dro

n :a

’sfr

ien

do

nce

mo

re,

bu

tb

roo

ds

an

dh

op

es

for

aso

n.

12

21

27

Dro

n :a

vis

its

Kin

gD

rup

ad

a,

wh

od

iscl

aim

sh

isfr

ien

dsh

ip.

Insu

lte

d,

Dro

n :a

go

esto

Hast

ina

pu

ra.

He

lift

sth

ep

rin

ces’

toy

fro

ma

dry

we

llw

ith

ach

ain

of

arr

ow

s.B

hıs :

ma

rece

ive

sh

im.

Dro

n :a

com

pla

ins

of

Dru

pa

da

’sh

yp

ocr

isy

.Bh

ıs :m

ae

nga

ge

sh

ima

sa

tea

che

r.D

ron :

ad

em

an

ds

of

his

pu

pil

sa

ssis

tan

cein

ase

cre

tta

sk;

Arj

un

ag

ive

sh

isp

rom

ise

.D

ron :

aa

lso

tea

che

sth

eV

r :s :n :

isa

nd

Ka

rn:a

.

Dis

pu

teo

ver

rela

tiv

est

atu

s(

‹D

ron :

a/D

rup

ad

a)

(Arj

un

a/K

arn :

afi

)

En

ter

Ad

hir

ath

a,

Kar

n :a

’s(f

ost

er)

fath

er.

Fa

the

ra

nd

son

em

bra

ce.

Bh

ıma

de

rid

es

Ka

rn:a

for

his

low

bir

th,

say

ing

he

ha

sn

ori

ght

eit

he

rto

fig

ht

Arj

un

ao

rto

rule

A_ ng

a.D

ury

od

han

ad

efe

nd

sK

arn :

a,

say

ing

tha

to

rig

ins

are

ob

scu

rea

nd

tha

tK

arn :

ash

ou

ldb

eju

dg

ed

on

his

ow

nm

eri

ts.

Th

esu

nse

tsb

efo

reth

eis

sue

isre

solv

ed

.D

ury

od

han

an

olo

ng

er

fea

rsA

rju

na

;Y

ud

his :

t :hir

an

ow

fea

rsK

arn:a

.

12

3a

12

6

Dro

n :a

tea

che

sA

rju

na

an

dp

rom

ise

sth

at

no

arc

he

rw

ill

be

his

eq

ua

l.T

he

nis :

ad

aE

ka

lavy

aco

mes

for

tuit

ion

.D

ron :

are

fuse

sh

im.

He

go

es

into

the

fore

sta

nd

pra

ctic

es

be

fore

an

ima

geo

fD

ron :

a.

Wh

en

the

pri

nce

sg

oh

un

tin

g,

the

ird

og

dis

cove

rsE

ka

lav

ya

,w

ho

sho

ots

ite

xp

ert

ly;

he

isre

cog

niz

ed

.A

rju

na

com

pla

ins

toD

ron :

ath

at

he

ha

sa

pu

pil

be

tte

rth

an

Arj

un

a;

Dro

n :a

go

esto

fin

dE

ka

lav

ya

,w

ho

ho

no

rsh

ima

sh

iste

ach

er.

Dro

n :a

de

ma

nd

sE

ka

lavy

a’s

rig

ht

thu

mb

as

his

fee

,w

hic

hE

ka

lav

ya

giv

es.

Arj

un

ain

da

ng

ero

fb

ein

gb

est

ed

(‹

by

Ek

ala

vya

)(b

yK

arn :

afi

)

Ka

rn:a

en

ters

,sa

ys

tha

th

ew

ill

ma

tch

all

of

Arj

un

a’s

fea

ts,

an

dd

oe

sso

.D

ury

od

han

aw

elc

om

es

him

;A

rju

na

be

rate

sh

ima

sa

nin

tru

de

r.K

arn:a

cha

lle

ng

esA

rju

na

toa

du

el.

Ind

rara

ins

on

Arj

un

a;

the

sun

shin

eso

nK

arn :

a.

Fa

mil

ya

nd

pu

bli

cta

ke

sid

es;

Ku

ntı

fain

tsa

nd

isre

viv

ed

by

Vid

ura

.K

r :pa

qu

ote

sA

rju

na

’sli

ne

ag

ea

nd

ask

sfo

rK

arn:a

’s;

Ka

rn:a

ha

ng

sh

ish

ea

d.

Du

ryo

dh

an

aq

uic

kly

inst

all

sK

arn:a

as

kin

go

fA

_ ng

a.

Kar

n :a

pro

mis

es

Du

ryo

dh

an

ah

ise

tern

al

frie

nd

ship

.

10 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

12

3b

12

5

Arj

un

ae

xce

lso

ver

all

oth

er

pu

pil

s.D

ron :

ap

lace

sa

na

rtif

icia

lb

ird

ina

tre

eto

pa

nd

test

se

ach

pu

pil

’sco

nce

ntr

atio

nin

aim

ing

.A

rju

na

win

s.A

cro

cod

ile

gra

bs

the

ba

thin

gD

ron :

a;

Arj

un

ash

oo

tsit

.D

ron :

ag

ive

sth

eb

rah

ma� si

ras

mis

sile

toA

rju

na

,w

ho

pro

mis

es

no

tto

mis

use

it.

Dro

n :a

sta

tes

tha

tn

oo

ne

wil

lm

atc

hA

rju

na

at

arc

he

ry.

Arj

un

ash

ow

sh

issu

pe

rio

rity

;D

ron :

ad

ecl

are

sit

Wh

en

the

pu

bli

cb

eco

me

sp

art

isa

n,

Dro

n :a

ha

sA

� sva

tth

am

an

sto

pth

em

atc

h.

Dro

n :a

intr

od

uce

sA

rju

na

as

the

be

sto

fa

rms-

me

n,

wh

om

he

lov

es

mo

reth

an

his

ow

nso

n.

To

the

acc

laim

of

the

spe

cta

tors

,A

rju

na

de

mo

nst

rate

sh

issu

pe

rio

rsk

ills

,b

oth

ma

gic

al

an

dm

art

ial.

At

the

ga

teth

elo

ud

sla

pp

ing

of

arm

sis

he

ard

.

�

Eq

ua

lity

(be

twee

nD

ury

od

han

aa

nd

Bh

ıma

)

12

4

æ

At

the

en

do

fth

ep

rin

ces’

tra

inin

g,

Dro

n :a

pro

po

ses

aw

ea

po

nsh

ow

toth

eK

au

rav

ae

lde

rsa

nd

pre

pa

res

the

are

na

wit

hV

idu

ra.

Th

efa

mil

ya

nd

the

pu

bli

ca

sse

mb

lea

nd

wa

tch

the

pri

nce

sp

erf

orm

.D

ury

o-

dh

an

aa

nd

Bh

ıma

sta

rta

clu

bd

ue

l.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 11

123

secrets of the brahma�siras weapon, which must never be used on human beings.Arjuna promises not to misuse the weapon, and Dron:a tells him again that he willalways be the greatest archer.

At the beginning of 125, at the tournament, the duel beginning between Bhımaand Duryodhana is dividing the crowd. To prevent trouble, Dron:a tells A�svatthamanto halt proceedings and instead introduces Arjuna:

yo me putrat priyatarah: sarvastravidus: am: varah: |aindrir indranujasamah: sa partho dr: �syatam iti ||

‘‘The best of all knowers of weapons, the son of Indra, and a match for Indra’syounger brother: may the son of Pr: tha, who is dearer to me than my son, beseen’’ (1.125:7).

The crowd go wild, echoing Dron:a’s general assessment, and Arjuna does a soloshow:

agneyenasr: jad vahnim: varun: enasr: jat payah: |vayavyenasr: jad vayum: parjanyenasr: jad ghanan ||bhaumena pravi�sad bhumim: parvatenasr: jad girın |antardhanena castren: a punar antarhito ’bhavat ||

With the agneya weapon he shot fire, with the varun: a he shot water, with thevayavya he shot wind, with the parjanya he shot clouds; with the bhauma heentered earth, with the parvata he shot mountains, and with the disappearingweapon it became invisible again (1.125:19–20).

Acrobatic, bow, sword, and club routines follow. The adhyaya ends with noises at thegate, and all stand to see who is coming.

The parallels are striking: in both adhyayas, Arjuna displays his excellence and ishailed by Dron:a—who plays a part in not letting others get much of a chance toprove him wrong—as the best of warriors.21 It is clear that Arjuna’s distinction isyogic as well as martial.22 He passes the test with the bird in the tree because of his

21 Arjuna’s salience in the Dron:a–Drupada cycle is somewhat unexpected because, although his birthwas attended by various indications of his superlative destiny (1.114), Bhıma has been the mainPan:d:ava hero so far and will be again (slaying raks: asas and so on) until the Pan:d:avas hear ofDraupadı’s svayam: vara. By featuring Arjuna, the cycle focuses on a Ks:atriya of a very different kindfrom Bhıma. Allen (1999) theorizes Arjuna as representing the para-Dumezilian ‘‘fourth functionpositive,’’ which encompasses and transcends the three social functions represented by the first threevarn: as.22 For the crocodile in the ‘‘river of life’’ metaphor, see 12.227:20, 12.307:8. From the late Vedicperiod onwards success in yoga is compared to good chariot driving, and in the Mahabharata it is alsocompared to accurate archery (see 12.289:31 [apramatto yatha dhanvı laks: yam: hanti samahitah: |yuktah: samyak tatha yogı moks: am: prapnoty asam: �sayam || Just as a vigilant, concentrated archer hitsthe target, in the same way an integrated yogin certainly attains moks: a], 12.289:36–37, 12.318:3,14.30, 3.2:65). Sulabha and Suka may travel at arrow-speed due to their yogic attainments (12.308:11,12.314:27). Allen (1998) has established detailed points of comparison between Arjuna’s journey toindraloka to obtain special weapons (3.37–45) and yoga as detailed in the Yogasutra and the�Sveta�svatara Upanis: ad. Arjuna’s practising his archery at night may evoke yogic sleep-avoidance (see6.24:69, 12.232:4–5, 12.266:14; Allen, 1998, p. 18n10). Some of the powers Arjuna demonstrates at thetournament may be compared to the yogic siddhis as described at 12.228:15c–27b. On yoga in theMahabharata in general, see Brockington (2003) and Hopkins (1901). As will become clear, I thinkthat textual competence (an immediate concern for both authors and audience) is often intersym-bolic with other competences within the narrative, including archery, yoga, and perhaps dicing too.

12 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

power to concentrate on one object alone; and many of his tricks at the tournamentare magical ones. Arjuna has supplanted A�svatthaman in Dron:a’s affections andeffectively becomes a hybrid, hyper-powerful Brahman:a–Ks:atriya figure. This isshown by his receipt of divyastras (divine weapons), special mantras which allowarrows to be charged with specific types of supernatural destructiveness and whichare normally known only by Brahman:as.23

(2) The pair 123a/126: Ekalavya and Karn: a. Links between Ekalavya and Karn:ahave been discussed by Jarow in terms of generosity, ‘‘the issue of birth versuspower,’’ and ‘‘dissonance…between…seemingly good nature…and…cruel fate’’(1999, pp. 66–67). In the Dron:a–Drupada cycle, Ekalavya and Karn:a both threatento surpass Arjuna but are disallowed from competing with him directly. In adhyaya126 Karn:a appears at the tournament, announces that he will best Arjuna, and, withDron:a’s permission,24 matches all of Arjuna’s solo tricks. Duryodhana welcomesKarn:a, who flytes briefly with Arjuna,25 and a duel is in store; but first Kr:pa asks forKarn:a’s Ks:atriya ancestry, which he cannot give, for he thinks himself a suta.Duryodhana intervenes and gives Karn:a the country of A _nga.26 Karn:a is anointedthere and then and promises Duryodhana his eternal friendship.

Karn:a’s instant kingdom parallels Ekalavya’s clay model of Dron:a. Both areintroduced after the candidate’s eligibility has been put into doubt by an apparentdeficiency in ancestry; both attempt to mark the candidate as eligible, but neither isable to do so convincingly. Karn:a’s token of eligibility, like Ekalavya’s, is a make-shift substitute (‘‘It is hard to believe that this consecration is more than symbolic,the more so since the Anga country was not actually under Kaurava dominion’’

23 On divyastras, see Debroy (1986) and Whitaker (2000, 2002). As the name suggests, particulardivyastras are often associated with particular devas.24 Karn:a has already been studying at Dron:a’s school (1.122:47). His suta background may explainwhy he is allowed to matriculate where Ekalavya is not: sutas are of mixed blood, produced byBrahman:a–Ks:atriya interbreeding, but they may require military training since, as Salya says, theyare the attendants of Brahman:as and Ks:atriyas (8.22:36ab). The identification of sutas as ‘‘bards’’ isassociated with various misunderstandings (see Hiltebeitel, 2000; Jha, 1970, p. 286; A. Sharma, 2000,pp. 229, 253–255) and is perhaps linked to what we might call ‘‘the Ossianic feeling’’ among latter-day commentators.25 On flyting (verbal duelling), see Parks (1990). For summary and discussion of the tournamentscene, see Jarow (1999, pp. 64–65); Ramanujan (1991a, pp. 427–434, reproducing van Buitenen’stranslation).26 1.126:34–35:

acarya trividha yonı rajnam: �sastravini�scaye |tatkulına�s ca �sura�s ca senam: ya�s ca prakars:ati ||yady ayam: phalguno yuddhe narajna yoddhum icchati |tasmad es: o ’n_gavis:aye maya rajye ’bhis: icyate ||

‘‘Master [Kr:pa], according to the �sastras the origin of kings is threefold: there’s the pedigreeone, the hero, and the one who leads an army. Perhaps this Phalguna [Arjuna] does not wantto fight a duel with one who is not a king; so I will anoint this one [Karn:a] to sovereignty in theA _nga country.’’

Compare Shakespeare:

‘‘If this fall into thy hand, revolve. In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness.Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em. ThyFates open their hands. Let thy blood and spirit embrace them’’ (Twelfth Night; or, What YouWill 2.5.155–59).

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 13

123

[van Buitenen, 1973, p. 460]),27 and the arrival of his (foster) father Adhirathareopens the controversy at the end of adhyaya 126.

Karn:a’s and Ekalavya’s ability to match Arjuna’s level of attainment is related totheir extraordinary dedication. We are told of Ekalavya:

tasminn acaryavr: ttim: ca paramam asthitas tada |is: vastre yogam atasthe param: niyamam asthitah: ||paraya �sraddhaya yukto yogena paramen: a ca |vimoks: adanasam: dhane laghutvam: param apa sah: ||

There [in the forest] he diligently treated this [image of Dron:a] as his teacherand practiced the yoga of the bow, observing strict discipline. United with greatfaith and superlative discipline, he acquired a superb deftness at fixing arrow tobowstring, aiming, and releasing (1.123:13–14).

Earlier, we are told of Karn:a:

a pr: s: t:hatapad adityam upatasthe sa vıryavan ||yasmin kale japann aste sa vırah: satyasam: garah: |nadeyam: brahman: es: v asıt tasmin kale mahatmanah: ||

That hero worshiped the sun until his back was burned. While that distin-guished hero, whose word was truth, was reciting quietly, there was nothing hewould not give to the Brahman:as (1.104:16cd, 17).28

In terms of dedication and self-discipline, these two match Arjuna.29 But they areexcluded, and their generosity and truthfulness is turned against them. Ekalavya’skept promise, to give Dron:a whatever he asks for, brings about his ruin and his fameand parallels Karn:a’s promise to give Duryodhana whatever he asks for, which iseternal friendship (1.126:38–39) and which brings about Karn:a’s ruin—fighting

27 In the Puran:as, King Vena’s father (the primordial nis: ada’s grandfather) is named A _nga after theregion he represents, which ‘‘during Vedic times was mostly inhabited by autochthonous groups’’(Nath, 2002, pp. 51–52). The connection between Karn:a, Duryodhana, and A _nga is also madeelsewhere in the Mahabharata: at 12.5 A _nga is a gift of friendship from Jarasam: dha to Karn:a after awrestling match, but Karn:a rules it with Duryodhana’s permission; A _ngas fight for Duryodhana atKuruks:etra alongside other hına groups (see, for example, 8.49:78–79); and they feature with nis: adasin a list of peoples defeated earlier by Karn:a for Duryodhana (8.5:18–20). Karn:a seems to representthe acculturation of outsiders, and the discovery of his Ks:atriya ancestry goes hand in hand with this.According to 12.49:72 King A _nga, a pedigree Ks:atriya, survived Rama Jamadagnya’s massacres andwas ‘‘watched over by a Gautama on the banks of the Ga _nga’’ (gautamenapi gan_gakule ’bhiraks: itah: ),that is, in a community of non-Ks:atriyas (see Manusmr: ti 2:38–40, 10:43–44), and likewise Karn:a isknown as a suta but is later revealed as the Ks:atriya son of Kuntı and Surya. Harivam: �sa (24:27), VayuPuran: a (2.34:187), and Brahman: d: a Puran: a (3.71:190) also make Ekalavya a (Vars:n:eya) Ks:atriya bybirth, fostered into a nis: ada family (see More, 1995, p. 41). This underlines the symmetry betweenEkalavya and Karn:a and may be taken as evidence of a suspicion—more forceful in theMahabharata in the case of Karn:a—that anyone as powerful and as proper as Ekalavya must bethoroughbred.28 Ekalavya’s generosity is marked at 1.123:35 by the same formula, na+adeyam (see Ekalavya’spromise in section ‘‘The ring of promises’’). On sun worship, see 13.app14:197–98.29 Discipline, whether in terms of archery practice, yoga, bhakti, or Brahman: ical svadharmas, gen-erates internal power, whose interactive application may be martial (if eligible or allowed to par-ticipate in Ks:atriya activities), quasi-martial (through the use of divyastras or burning at distancewith the eyes), or verbal (through boons, curses, satyakriyas, or other forms of miraculous elo-quence).

14 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

against his brother Arjuna on Kuruks:etra—and his fame. As if further to connectKarn:a with Ekalavya, at 3.294:35–38 Karn:a mutilates himself, cutting off hisinborn golden earrings and cuirass—which otherwise would have ensured hisinvincibility—with his sword and giving them to Indra, because Indra is disguised asa Brahman:a and Karn:a has a longstanding vow never to refuse Brahman:as (see also1.104:17–19, 3.284–86; McGrath, 2004, pp. 133–142).

(3) The pair 122/127: The inclusion/exclusion debate. Adhyayas 122 and 127 bothcontain debates over the eligibility of non-Ks:atriyas to participate alongside Ks:atri-yas. Adhyaya 122 treats the Dron:a/Drupada relation set up in 121 (Brahman:a/Ks:atriya), and adhyaya 127 treats the Karn:a/Arjuna relation set up in 126 (suta/Ks:atriya). The parallel between these adhyayas is most convincing if the specifictheoretical details of Brahman:a–Ks:atriya and Ks:atriya–suta relations, as expoundedin the Mahabharata’s didactic sections and in the Dharma�sastras, are overlooked30

and the situations are instead viewed in terms of a general Ks:atriya discourse ofdiscriminatory exclusion. In both cases the non-Ks:atriya (Dron:a/Karn:a) is excludedfor the time being; in both cases eligibility is later effectively obtained regardless ofconvention. At the end of the cycle Dron:a takes half of Drupada’s kingdom, as aKs:atriya might; and later he fights at Kuruks:etra. Karn:a also fights at Kuruks:etra,finally having his duel with Arjuna, despite the fact that he is still publicly thought a

30 This is not to say that such specific theoretical details might not be vital to any number of non-geometric understandings of the Dron:a–Drupada and Karn:a–Arjuna relationships. For a sensitivediscussion of the Dron:a–Drupada dynamic in terms of varn: adharma, see Biardeau (1981, pp. 82–88).Almost all manuscripts (but not the Poona edition) include, in Dron:a’s speech to Bhıs:ma, an accountof how Dron:a sought a cow in order to reduce the economic differential between A�svatthaman andother children; failing to obtain one, he resolved never to serve anyone out of desire for wealth,regardless of the disapproval of others. Dron:a approaches Drupada looking for wealth withoutservice, but Drupada says:

sauhr: dam: me tvaya hy asıt purvam: samarthyabandhanam ||yayor eva samam: vittam: yayor eva samam: kulam |tayoh: sakhyam: vivaha�s ca na tu pus: t:avipus: t:ayoh: ||

‘‘My former friendship with you was bound up with our common purpose….There is onlyfriendship and connubiality for those who are both of equal wealth and rank; not for the richwith the poor’’ (122:4cd, 8).

When he gives Drupada half the kingdom back after the raid, Dron:a pointedly remarks that theirparity of wealth should now allow renewed friendship. Drupada is shown that even a pennilessBrahman:a has power enough to avenge insults, and he reflects that he cannot defeat Dron:a by ks: atrapower alone (128:16–17) and next seeks a Brahman:a for assistance in obtaining a son heroic enoughto kill him (1.154–55, including a summary of the story so far). On Kuruks:etra, when Drupada isrepelled by Dron:a, he twice recollects Dron:a’s Arjuna stunt (6.73:45, 6.100:24).

The debate over Karn:a in adhyaya 127 consists of one speech each from Bhıma and Duryodhana,whose aborted duel thus resurfaces in a different form. Duryodhana does not mind who Karn:a’sparents are, as long as he helps to fight against the Pan:d:avas, particularly Arjuna; and he first arguesfor the openness of Ks:atriya-hood to those of diverse births (127:11–14), before implying thatKarn:a’s qualities show him to be really a pedigree Ks:atriya (verse 15). This second, biologicallydeterminist view is aired again when Duryodhana persuades Salya to drive Karn:a’s chariot onKuruks:etra (8.24:159–60). The first view is effectively corroborated by von Stietencron’s (1997, pp.504–507) discussion of non-Ks:atriya kings in Dharma�sastra texts and their commentaries; and in theMahabharata, in addition to the many references to Sudras who are effectively Brahman:as fromcertain points of view (and vice versa), actual change of varn: a or prakr: ti within one lifetime is said tohave occurred in certain exceptional cases (9.38–39, 12.285:14–16, including Kr:pa, Dron:a, andDrupada as named examples). The tension between Duryodhana’s two views is also evident in Siva’swords to Uma at 13.131 (verse 6/verses 47–49).

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 15

123

suta. Karn:a’s later inclusion is commensurate with his true identity (which is ‘‘a secretof the gods’’; 12.2:3), but Dron:a has no such true identity, and thus on the battlefieldhe is criticized for paradharma by the r: s: is (7.164:89–92), by Bhıma (7.165:28–32), andby Drupada’s son Dhr: s:t:adyumna (7.168:22–24).31

On another level, we can see the structures of both the Dron:a/Drupada struggleand the Karn:a/Arjuna struggle as replicating the structure of the Mahabharata’slarger struggle between Duryodhana and Yudhis:t:hira. The stages of the strugglemight be sketched in preliminary and provisional fashion as follows: there is initialparity (Dron:a and Drupada are childhood friends; Karn:a and Arjuna have the samemother; Duryodhana and Yudhis:t:hira grow up as equal cousins); disparity is intro-duced (Drupada but not Dron:a becomes king; Arjuna but not Karn:a can name hispedigree; Yudhis:t:hira but not Duryodhana marries Draupadı and becomes samraj);the excluded is scorned by the successful (Drupada rejects Dron:a; Karn:a is tauntedfor his low birth; Duryodhana is humiliated at the rajasuya); the excluded gainsascendancy once more, with assistance (Dron:a takes half of Drupada’s kingdom; atthe dice match Karn:a scoffs at the Pan:d:avas; Duryodhana wins Yudhis:t:hira’skingdom); the newly excluded works towards revenge (Drupada obtains Dhr:s:t:a-dyumna and Draupadı; Arjuna obtains divyastras; Yudhis:t:hira garners merit andlearning); the newly excluded takes revenge (Dhr:s:t:adyumna kills Dron:a; Arjunakills Karn:a; Yudhis:t:hira triumphs over Duryodhana); but revenge is by no meanssweet (A�svatthaman takes terrible counter-revenge; Karn:a turns out to have beenArjuna’s brother; Yudhis:t:hira is permanently traumatized).32

(4) The pair 121/128, and 124: Dron: a and Drupada as equals, and the center. Theparallels between adhyayas 121 and 128 have already been discussed insofar as theyoverlap with the effect of the outer promise in the ring of promises. In both adhyayasthere is a functional equality between Dron:a and Drupada. In 121 the equality isthat of friends and college-mates and follows on the friendship of their fathersBharadvaja and Pr:s:ata; but it is broken by Drupada’s accession. In 128 the equalityis re-established by Dron:a’s army but is now both volatile (because of Drupada’sresentment) and controversial (in terms of varn: adharma).

This equality, featured in the ring of promises as well as the adhyaya ring, seemsto constitute the outer frame of the cycle, and accordingly the other themes visible inthe adhyaya ring might be viewed in light of it. It is consonant with this impulse thatthe prevailing wisdom on ring composition often locates the principal theme, whichis highlighted by careful structuring of units, both in the center of the composition(at the point of turning) and at its outermost edges (see Hintze, 2002, p. 39). If weexamine from this angle the central adhyaya 124, in which the princes’ graduationtournament begins, we will note that all the princes display their skills in order of age

31 On varn: adharma and paradharma (someone else’s dharma), see 6.40:45–48, 12.72–79; Biardeau(1981), Fitzgerald (2001, 2004), Hiltebeitel (1976, pp. 281–282; 2004), and B. Smith (1994, pp. 26–57).Various kinds of bad Brahman:a (often called brahmabandhus) are discussed in the text, usually withcondemnation, although some departure from Brahman:a-dharmas is to be expected in times of apad.Dron:a received his divyastras from Rama Jamadagnya, another Brahman:a who trespasses onKs:atriya-dharma (1.121:16–23; on the chronic conflicts between Bhargavas and kings, see Fitzgerald,2002a; Goldman, 1972, 1977, pp. 93–112). For criticism of A�svatthaman in terms of varn: adharma, see8.39:33, 8.42:27. When A�svatthaman is appointed leader of the Kaurava forces, Duryodhana claimsdharmic authority, as king, to make Brahman:as fight (9.64:39; see also A�svatthaman’s self-justifi-cation at 10.3).32 Notable with regard to these correlations is the theory that the text’s Kaurava–Pan:d:ava conflictrevamps tales of a Kaurava–Pancala conflict (see Bhattacharya, 1969; Katz, 1991; Mazumdar, 1906).

16 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

(that is, no one is yet singled out by the quality of their performance) and that a duelbetween Bhıma and Duryodhana, two Ks:atriyas of equal pedigree and (as will befinally demonstrated at the end of the war) equal ability, is about to begin. So we canidentify functional equality as a theme in 121, 128, and 124. In the interveningadhyayas various inequalities are negotiated: Ks:atriya/Brahman:a; rich man/poorman; Ks:atriya/nis: ada; Arjuna/everyone else; and Ks:atriya/suta.

Even having identified a ‘‘principal theme,’’ it is possible to make sense of thistheme in different ways. From a broadly humanist perspective,33 we might like tointerpret it in terms of an innate equality of all people. This kind of interpretationwould pick up on the yogin’s equanimous treatment of items ordinarily of polarizedvalue (soil and gold, for example, and Brahman:a and can: d: ala), and the essentialequality of atmans:

sarvabhutastham atmanam: sarvabhutani catmani |ıks: ate yogayuktatma sarvatra samadar�sanah: ||

The one whose self is united with yoga, who views all places equally, sees theatman residing in all creatures and all creatures in him/herself (6.28:29).34

In this vein, we might refer to the words of the renounceress Sulabha to King Janaka:

yady atmani parasmim: �s ca samatam adhyavasyasi ||atha mam: kasi kasyeti kimartham anupr: cchasi |idam: me syad idam: neti dvam: dvair muktasya maithila |kasi kasya kuto veti vacane kim: prayojanam ||

‘‘If you apprehend the equality of self and other, then for what purpose do youask me, �Who and whose are you?� For one freed from the pairs of opposites(�this is mine, this is not�), son of Mithila, what is the point of the speech, �Who,whose, and whence are you?’ ’’ (12.308:126ef, 127).35

Here Sulabha is implying that if Janaka was really a yogin, possessed of the atma-vidya, then he simply would not judge a person on the basis of their gender orlineage or reject a Brahman:a for being penniless, or a student for being a nis: ada, or adueling partner for being a suta.36 This kind of perspective might easily be identifiedas the structural ‘‘meaning’’ of the cycle.37

33 Here I am not speaking just of the European humanist tradition but of an inclusivist egalitarianstrain identifiable (alongside suitable caveats) in many branches of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,and the post-Vedic culture of bhakti.34 Gender option supplied in translation! Similar slogans recur throughout the Mahabharata.35 The qualitative identity of atmans or purus: as must not be confused with numerical identity.36 Or, we might add (for this is exactly what Sulabha then does), reject a partner-in-moks: a-seekingfor his ruling a kingdom. Despite the fact that it is as damning of herself as it is of Janaka, thisargument of Sulabha’s has been approved by many commentators on this scene (see Fitzgerald,2002b; Piantelli, 2002; Sutton, 1999; Vanita, 2003). Although it seems that Sulabha ‘‘won the argu-ment,’’ such public victory is in the first instance rhetorical only (see Black n.d. in press).37 Regardless, that is, of any commentatorial assessment of the validity of such a perspective. Onreflection, the equality of atmans might be seen not to entail the equal treatment of all but rather tounderpin inequality of treatment; for if the possibility of being (or having been) a different varn: a inone’s next (or previous) life (with which the present one is karmically linked) is seen as an attempt torationalize inequality of treatment, then it must be pointed out that this possibility absolutelydepends on the personal interchangeability of atmans.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 17

123

I think here it is also tempting to interpret the central adhyaya in its own right, that is,not necessarily through its thematic identity with the outermost frame. If we do this, wecan emphasize the tournament as a foreshadow of the Kuruks:etra war:38 both eventsare spectacles of Ks:atriya prowess, attracting large and diverse audiences, and theduels that are prevented from occurring at the tournament, that is, Karn:a’s with Arjunaand Duryodhana’s with Bhıma, resurface as two of the war’s most significant episodes.

We have now completed our sketch of the Dron:a–Drupada cycle’s adhyayasymmetries in the Poona edition. One of the most striking conclusions to be drawnfrom this is that V. S. Sukthankar’s reconstructed Adiparvan is credible to a high buthitherto untested degree of accuracy. It contains special features which must havebeen deliberately intended by ancient authors or editors but which are invisible inmost of the manuscript traditions, as we will see.

The adhyaya ring will be preserved in the various Mahabharata manuscript tra-ditions as long as the adhyaya junctions remain intact, with one exception: a newadhyaya beginning at 123:40 would not disrupt the ring but, other things being equal,would make it more visible, since the double adhyaya 123 would not then have to bebisected according to the ‘‘Ekalavya’’ instruction. But if we look at the criticalapparatus for 1.121–28 (Sukthankar, 1933, pp. 536–572, 919–924),39 we see that thering is usually lost. Although the adhyaya structure of the second half of the cycleremains intact in all manuscripts,40 the first half tends to be disrupted, containing avariety of extra colophons (end-of-adhyaya markers) and omitting others.41

Nineteen of the fifty-nine manuscripts surveyed by Sukthankar (S1, K0–3, K5–6,V1, D5, T3, G7, M1–8) preserve the ring exactly as in the Poona edition. In additionnine manuscripts, despite moving some colophons and/or introducing an extra one inadhyaya 123, preserve the ring in its basic form—that is to say, the parallel themessketched above are still there, one per adhyaya.42 But in more than half of themanuscripts the ring is lost. It is curious that the adhyaya structure is so variable inthe first half of the cycle but so invariable in the second. While this might be purelyaccidental, we might equally suggest that deliberate editorial efforts were made,somewhere along the line, to hide the ring. To mar the symmetry it is enough totamper with just one half, and if the symmetry is to be (or was or might have been)

38 Thus Ramanujan (1991a, pp. 432–434). On foreshadowing, see Morson (1994, pp. 42–81).39 I use Sukthankar’s codes for the individual manuscripts. I assume, for the time being, that thePoona edition, although created long after the various manuscripts, reconstructs an ancient text; so Iwrite as if it were the basis of those manuscripts and not vice versa.40 Except G4, which has no colophon at the end of the cycle.41 Extra colophons: after 122:11 (K4, N1–3, B1–6, Da1–2, T2, G2, and G4–6); after 122:20 (N2); after122:38 (K4 [Sukthankar is ambiguous here], N1–3, B1–6, Da1–2, Dn1–3, Dr1–4, D1–4, D6–14, T2,G1–2, and G4–5); after 123:24 (B6 and D4); after 123:39 (T1–2 and G1–6); and after 123:57 (N2,Dn1–3, and D1). Missing colophons: after 120 (Dn1–3 and G3); after 121 (T2 and G5); after 122 (N1–3, B1–6, Da1–2, Dn1–3, D1–2, D4, T2, G1–2, and G4–5); and after 123 (T2 and G4–5). Of course inany particular manuscript an ‘‘extra’’ colophon and a nearby ‘‘omitted’’ one might cancel each otherout; the colophon is then effectively moved.42 D2 moves the colophon from the end of 122 to stand after 122:38. Dn1–3, D1, D4, T1, G1, and G3preserve the ring and add a colophon between Ekalavya’s threatening to surpass Arjuna and Arjunademonstrating his superiority, thus cutting 123 once (Dn1–3 omit the colophon after 120, move the122 colophon as D2 does, and add a colophon after 123:57; D1 has the D2 move and adds a colophonafter 123:57; D4 has the D2 move and adds a colophon after 123:24; T1 adds a colophon after 123:39;G1 has the D2 move and adds a colophon after 123:39; G3 omits the colophon after 120—this doesnot hide the ring but just expands its first section—and adds one after 123:39).

18 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

interpreted in terms of equality, then it is easy to see why some editors might haveobjected to it. Or perhaps if the ring of themes remains, there is simply no need forthe ring of adhyayas to survive in detail.43

The idea of hiding or discarding a ring, remarkably enough, is present in a storythat occurs in all but five manuscripts and which is not in the Poona text of 1.122.44

According to this version, when Dron:a impresses the princes (and thus wins hisaudience with Bhıs:ma) by making a chain of arrows and rescuing their lost toy fromthe bottom of a well, he also rescues his own ring (mudrika), which he has justthrown in deliberately. This makes his feat more dramatic, since he has effectivelymade a bet in advance, with his ring as a stake, that his archery is up to the task. Iwould suggest in addition that this is a text-hermeneutic clue, alerting the audienceto the presence of a disguised ring structure in the text.45 Even before the adjust-ments in the later manuscript traditions, and whether or not there is a colophon at123:39 or thereabouts, the ring is not immediately obvious and has to be brought upfrom the well. Here, then, accurate archery (more specifically, the shooting of eacharrow into the center of the previous one, which thus frames it, and the manipulationof the whole set by means of the most multiply framed arrow) seems to denote ayoga of reading, a text-reception method that is alert to structural patterns and tointerpretations on the basis of them. Competence as an archer within the text is,among other things, a model for a text-receptional competence in the audience.46

The motif of finding or penetrating or being centrally located within a ring isrepeatedly presented elsewhere in the Mahabharata,47 sometimes in doublets.Uta _nka, in order to furnish his disciple’s gift (itself a significant link to the Dron:a–Drupada cycle), goes on a quest for Paus:ya’s (or Saudasa’s) wife’s earrings (kun: d: ala),which he must acquire twice, first above ground and then, after they have been

43 On this point I am indebted to James Hegarty (personal communication, June 2005).44 Sukthankar’s ‘‘star passages’’ 1365 and 1368, in all manuscripts except S1 and K0–3 (see Ganguli,2000, ‘‘Adi Parva,’’ p. 276).45 This implication might be there to some degree already in the form of the princes’ toy, the vıt: a,which according to Monier-Williams (1990, p. 1004) is barleycorn shaped, a shape that Hudson,following the �Satapatha Brahman: a, links with ring composition (see footnote 17).46 Hegarty (2004) argues that the Mahabharata contains a model of how to read (or hear) itself. Hetalks of the ‘‘idealised participant’’ (that is, audience member; Hegarty, 2004, pp. 28–29), ‘‘functionalparticipation with the text’’ (117), and the text’s setting out a model of ‘‘narrative competence’’(230), which includes the ability to make bandhus between one part or level of the text and another.See also Hegarty (2001), where the aks: ahr: daya, the touchstone of competence in dice, is understoodmetacommunicatively to model competent reception of, and engagement with, the text. Dicing isconnected to kingship in a way that archery, yoga, and textual study are not, and this example thusbrings up some of the Mahabharata’s central open questions (Are there perfected kings? And what isthe relation between success-in-kingship—on its own terms, as it were—and perfectedness?Ekalavya’s story is very much to the point here; see also footnote 48); the aks: ahr: daya is a bewitchingnotion indeed (see 2.53, 3.50–78; Bowlby, 1991; White, 1989; compare 6.31:1–3).47 To say nothing of other old Indian texts. On Rama Da�saratha’s ring, see Ramanujan (1991b,pp. 22–24, 46–48); on rings of rejection and recognition, see Doniger (1998). Johnson (2001, pp. xii–xiv) sets out the seven acts of Kalidasa’s Abhijnana�sakuntalam as three pairs (1 and 7; 2 and 6; 3 and5) framing the central fourth act, but he does not call this a ring, and so when he discusses theprovenance of the motif of the ring (of recognition, p. xxviii), he does not link this with the play’sstructure. Admittedly the term ‘‘ring-composition’’ is ours, but nonetheless, I suggest, there is a linkin the tradition between this type of textual structure and that type of ornament. Compare alsoSarvadamana’s crucial wrist ornament in the final act of Abhijnana�sakuntalam. Kat: t:hahari Jataka, inwhich the ring of recognition seems first to be introduced into the story, might resolve into a ring-composition with the parents’ face-off at the center.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 19

123

purloined by a snake, in the netherworld. The whole story is told twice, oncenear the beginning and once near the end of the text (1.3:93–176, 14.55–57).Elsewhere Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu is the only warrior able to penetrate thecakravyuha (circular battle-array) that Dron:a sets up on day 13 of the Kuruks:etrawar (7.33–35). Dron:a is repeatedly associated with rings: at 7.93:29 his chariot isdragged in 1000 circles like the sun, and at 1.125:30–32, just before Karn:a entersthe tournament arena, Dron:a and Duryodhana are ringed by the Pan:d:avas andKauravas respectively (see also 17.1:25–26, where Yuyutsu is ringed by Kr:pa andothers and Pariks:it is ringed by women). At 1.123:60, as Arjuna stands ready forDron:a to give him the command to shoot, his bow is drawn into a circle. Thesereferences resonate in a new way once the Dron:a–Drupada cycle is viewed as aring. The fully drawn bow is a particularly good image: the bow-and-string circleis broken once, by the arrow and the arm, into two equal halves. Dron:a’s mes-sage is explicitly this: after training, draw the bow and hold this position, havingmade a circle, with an arrow ready, bisecting the circle; then concentrate exclu-sively on where the arrow points; hence you will hit the mark.48

The real-time ring

We have analyzed the Dron:a–Drupada cycle in terms of two different rings, one ofpromises and one of adhyayas, each with a separate center (the Ekalavya incidentand the Bhıma/Duryodhana duel). Now let us consider the cycle in terms of itstemporal extent in recitation. If the length of the text is x, then at x ‚ 2 we have, as itwere, its ‘‘real-time’’ center. To consider the text in these terms, imagine it as takingone hour to recite: then if we represent the text as a circle (the full hour on a clock’sface), we can plot various events within it at their corresponding points on thecircle’s circumference.49

The Dron:a–Drupada cycle is made up of 294 numbered verses in the Poonaedition. Since this is an even number, effectively there are two central verses, 147and 148. These are the last two verses (77–78) of adhyaya 123 (Dron:a is givingArjuna the brahma�siras weapon):

badhetamanus:ah: �satrur yada tvam: vıra ka�s cana |tadvadhaya prayunjıthas tadastram idam ahave ||tatheti tat prati�srutya bıbhatsuh: sa kr: tanjalih: |jagraha paramastram: tad aha cainam: punar guruh: |bhavita tvatsamo nanyah: pumam: l loke dhanurdharah: ||

‘‘When any nonhuman enemy troubles you, use this weapon for his death inbattle.’’ The Terrifier, performing a salutation, made the promise—

48 The text also uses other motifs that might allude to reading skills. For example, Duryodhana’sdistress at Yudhis:t:hira’s rajasuya (due to his finding glass where he expects to find water, and vice versa;2.43:1–10) and Yudhis:t:hira’s distress after he dies (due to his finding heaven where he expects to findhell, and vice versa; 18.1–2) are structurally similar. In both cases things are not what they seem, but thecharacters (neither of whom is famed as an archer) are unable to read the situation. Like the twoversions of the Uta _nka story, these events are located more or less at opposite ends of the text.49 The text does not take exactly an hour to recite, but this is not the point. Imagine the clock beingsped up or slowed down such that the recitation extends over one full revolution of the minute hand.

20 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

‘‘Tatha’’—and took the ultimate weapon. Again the guru told him, ‘‘There will beno other bow-holding man in the world equal to you’’ (1.123:77–78).50

But we may be in error here, because not all of the 294 verses in the cycle are thesame length. Most of them are standard 32-syllable anus: t:ubhs, but 23 are long verses,each with an extra 16 syllables.51 To correct for these irregularities, our passage maybe thought of as a sequence of 16-syllable sets. We will call these metrical sets: a longverse may be envisioned as a triplet of these metrical sets, which normally occur indoublets.52 There are 611 of these sets (294 · 2 ¼ 588, + 23 ¼ 611). In this case, thecenter is the 306th metrical set, flanked by 305 such sets on either side. This setconstitutes the first third of the long verse 123:78: ‘‘The Terrifier, performing asalutation, made the promise—‘Tatha.’ ’’

But we have not taken into account the suprametric ‘‘so-and-so uvaca’’ inter-jections which sporadically punctuate the text. If these were all clustered at thebeginning of the cycle, for example, we would certainly be in error in our calcula-tions, unless these interjections are somehow extraneous, a feature of the ‘‘stored’’text only, like the directions in a theater script, which in performance are not recitedbut actualized. Because of this possibility, or something like it,53 the count of met-rical sets is a useful exercise. But D. Kosambi has argued (1946, 1951) that the figuresgiven in the Mahabharata’s Parvasam: graha (1.2) for the length (in verses) of thedifferent parvans were obtained not by counting the number of verses but bycounting the total number of syllables, including ‘‘-uvaca’’ interjections, and thendividing the total by 32, the syllable-count of the standard anus: t:ubh �sloka. If theParvasam: graha’s editors counted every syllable, then we might also; we will thusarrive, with great precision, at a central syllable or syllables, which will also be the‘‘real-time’’ center when every syllable of our text is imagined to occupy the samelength of time (in recitation).

The ‘‘so-and-so uvaca’’ interjections in the Dron:a–Drupada cycle constitute 220syllables.54 So in sum total, all told, we have 611 metrical sets, · 16 ¼ 9776 syllablesin sets, plus 220 suprametric syllables, = 9996 syllables. I have not counted thesyllables of each and every anus: t:ubh pada in the passage, so I cannot say that thereare no extra ones lurking anywhere in it; but if we assume that there are not, then thecentral syllables are the 4998th and 4999th. These syllables do not occur in theabove-quoted ‘‘central metrical set,’’ which was calculated without taking intoaccount the ‘‘-uvaca’’ interjections; they occur in the following such set. I reproduce

50 ‘‘Tatha’’ might be translated ‘‘amen.’’51 Verses 125:32 and 127:24 are jagatıs with 4 padas of 12 syllables each. Verses 121:11 and 20; 122:23,27, 46, and 47; 123:4, 41, 43, 71, 74, and 78; 124:8, 10, and 14; 126:32, 36, and 38; 127:14; and 128:15and 17 are mahapan_kti anus: t:ubhs with 6 padas of 8 syllables each.52 This is slightly awkward, because although a mahapan_kti anus: t:ubh may easily be viewed as atriplet, a 4-pada jagatı does not naturally resolve into three parts. But bear with me.53 New speakers within a narrated story are frequently indicated and named within the metrical verses,and the dialogue sometimes switches around many times in plainly signaled fashion in between one‘‘-uvaca’’ interjection and the next; but nonetheless the interjections (some of which, in any case, do notindicate a new speaker but a continuation of the one already speaking) enhance the performativepossibilities of the metrical text. Sukthankar (1933, pp. x–xi) notes that the Sarada manuscript and allthose of the southern recension omit the ‘‘uvaca,’’ supplying only the speaker’s name.54 Tallies of number of ‘‘-uvaca’’ interjections per speaker: Vai�sam: payana, 18; Rama, 1; Dron:a, 3;Drupada, 2; Ekalavya, 1; Vidura, 1; Dhr: taras:t:ra, 1; Duryodhana, 2; and Karn:a, 2.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 21

123

the verse 123:78 once more in full, with the central syllables in bold, the central wordnon-italicized, and syllable counts interspersed:

[4977] tatheti tat prati�srutya bıbhatsuh: sa kr: tanjalih: | [4993]jagraha param�astram: tad aha cainam: punar guruh: | [5009]bhavita tvatsamo nanyah: pumam: l loke dhanurdharah: || [5025]55

I am a little uncertain how precise this as-it-were ‘‘real-time’’ center is intended to beand how it was calculated. But I think at the very least that there is such a center, inthe form of a central event, which points to and links with another event just after thewar. This central event is Arjuna’s receipt of the most powerful weapon, and hispromise to use it properly, which is immediately balanced by Dron:a’s counter-promise that no one will surpass him at archery. These promises are not part of thering of promises discussed earlier: they point forward, beyond the end of the cycle.56

The brahma�siras weapon is used by Arjuna at 10.14 but only in an attempt toneutralize another brahma�siras weapon which A�svatthaman has unlawfullyunleashed on human beings.

a

Diagram 3 All promises in cycle. a: Promises marked [T] are made with the formula ‘‘Tatha.’’

55 The lengths of the central syllables would tend to tell against a link with the mantra ‘‘Rama’’ (onwhich see Leslie, 2003, pp. 115–157).56 For an expanded version of Diagram 1, including all promises made in the cycle, see Diagram 3,where the interlocking nature of different nests of promises emerges clearly (such diagrams coveringlarger sections of the text, and incorporating also other varieties of truth-act, might be veryrevealing). The restatement of Dron:a’s promise to Arjuna is curious. In sequential narrative terms, itis as if the previous such statement (at 123:6) governed Ekalavya’s threatening Arjuna, and thisrestatement governs Karn:a’s threatening Arjuna, which will continue until Arjuna kills Karn:a at8.67. In text-structural terms, as was noted above (footnote 19), the restatement is approximatelyparallel to the earlier statement when the adhyaya is folded at the center.

22 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

Having roughly identified a new center, we must now ask: Are there parallels andreflections between the two halves thus created? I have found three (see Diagram 4).

(1) The ‘‘Tatha’’ promises. Karn:a promises eternal friendship to Duryodhana. Theformula is as follows. Karn:a, having received A _nga, offers in return a boon ofDuryodhana’s choice; Duryodhana chooses eternal friendship; and Karn:a agrees(126:38–39, = verses 251–52, = metrical sets 519–23, = syllables 8479–558):

asya rajyapradanasya sadr: �sam: kim: dadani te |prabruhi raja�sardula karta hy asmi tatha nr: pa |atyantam: sakhyam icchamıty aha tam: sa suyodhanah: ||evam uktas tatah: karn: as tatheti pratyabhas:ata |hars: ac cobhau sama�slis:ya param: mudam avapatuh: ||

‘‘What can I give you that matches this gift of a kingdom? Speak, tiger amongkings, and I will do it.’’ Suyodhana said to him, ‘‘I want absolute friendship.’’Then, addressed in this way, Karn:a answered, ‘‘Tatha’’; and the two of themembraced out of joy and became very happy (1.126:38–39).

Reflecting this, at the corresponding point in the first half of the real-time ring, thesame formula is used between Dron:a and the young princes: the princes, havingreceived their rescued toy from Dron:a, offer in return a boon of his choice; Dron:achooses that they tell Bhıs:ma about him, and they agree (122:19–21, = verses 42–44,= metrical sets 85–90, = syllables 1393–501).

abhivadayamahe brahman naitad anyes: u vidyate |ko ’si kam: tvabhijanımo vayam: kim: karavamahe ||dron: a uvaca |acaks:adhvam: ca bhıs:maya rupen: a ca gun: ai�s ca mam |

Start Finish

Tathapromise

The princes’ Tatha promise

Arjuna’sarrow trick

Ekalavya’sarrow trick

Drona’s intervention(Bh1ma/Duryodhana,

Drona’s intervention (Ekalavya, = center of ring of promises)

Arjuna’sTatha promise

→→

≈center of adhyaya ring)

Karna,s

Diagram 4 The real-time ring

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 23

123

sa eva sumahabuddhih: sam: pratam: pratipatsyate ||vai�sam: payana uvaca |tathety uktva tu te sarve bhıs:mam ucuh: pitamaham |brahman: asya vacas tathyam: tac ca karmavi�ses: avat ||

‘‘We salute you, Brahman. This [skill] is not found in others. Who are you? Aswhom should we know you? What must we do [for you]?’’ Dron:a said, ‘‘Makeme known to Bhıs:ma by appearance and qualities. He has very great intelli-gence and will do what is proper.’’ They all said ‘‘Tatha’’ and related tograndfather Bhıs:ma the Brahman:a’s exact words and that extraordinary feat(1.122:19–21).

We can calculate to various degrees of precision, and in different ways, according towhether we envisage a ring of verses, of metrical sets, or of syllables. If we take theabove quotations (even though they are of different lengths) as constituting the mir-rored events, there are 41 verses, 84 metrical sets, and 1392 syllables before the firstevent and 42 verses, 88 metrical sets, and 1438 syllables after the second event.

The most specific verbal parallel is the one-word agreement formula ‘‘Tatha.’’The princes say this to Dron:a, and Karn:a says it to Duryodhana. Arjuna also says itto Dron:a at the real-time center upon receipt of the brahma�siras; but notablyEkalavya does not say ‘‘Tatha’’ at 123:36–37 when agreeing to Dron:a’s request forhis thumb, despite the fact that this exchange is very similarly structured to the twopresently under discussion and is the counter-tag of Karn:a’s promise in the adhyayaring. If we condense these mirrored events into the uttering of ‘‘Tatha,’’ we canposition them to the syllable. The princes’ ‘‘Tatha’’ constitutes syllables 1470–71, andKarn:a’s constitutes 8535–36; there are 1469 syllables before the first of these and1460 syllables after the second. But it seems odd to imagine the syllable-center asthe axis around which these ‘‘Tathas’’ are reflected, because ‘‘rama’’ is thesyllable-center, and yet Arjuna’s central ‘‘Tatha’’ is in the immediately precedingand central metrical set (123:78ab). Reverting to the count by metrical sets, then, wefind that the princes’ ‘‘Tatha’’ occurs in the 89th metrical set (122:21ab) and Karn:a’soccurs in the 522nd (126:39ab); there are 88 complete sets before the princes’‘‘Tatha’’ and 89 complete sets after Karn:a’s. It is difficult to know which method ofcalculating to prefer, and none of them will quite give us an exactly positionedreflection. But whichever method we use, the parallel positioning is striking.

(2) The arrow tricks. Ekalavya first revealed himself as a superb archer to thePan:d:avas by shooting their dog (123:19, = verse 89, = metrical sets 184–85, =syllables 2998–3029):

tada tasyatha bhas: atah: �sunah: sapta �saran mukhe |laghavam: dar�sayann astre mumoca yugapad yatha ||

Then, displaying deftness with weapons, he released seven arrows almostsimultaneously into the muzzle of the barking dog (1.123:19).

One of Arjuna’s tricks at the tournament is very similar (125:23, = verse 204, =metrical sets 422–23, = syllables 6871–902):

bhramata�s ca varahasya lohasya pramukhe samam |panca ban: an asam: saktan sa mumocaikaban: avat ||

24 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

He released five separate arrows smoothly into the snout of a moving metalboar, as if they were a single arrow (1.125:23).

These two feats closely resemble Dron:a’s earlier feat for the princes, of shooting onearrow behind another. Ekalavya’s and Arjuna’s imitations parallel each other and arepositioned accordingly: they reflect each other around the real-time center.57 Thereare 88 verses, 183 sets, and 2997 syllables before Ekalavya’s feat and 90 verses, 188 sets,and 3094 syllables after Arjuna’s. We note that Arjuna’s tally is two arrows short of thenis: ada’s: but we now also suspect, since both are odd numbers, that a reference totextual ring-hermeneutics may be intended. Perhaps the inexact positioning of thereflection is congruent with Arjuna’s two-arrow deficit.

(3) Dron: a’s interventions. When Ekalavya is discovered in the woods and revealshis skill, the limelight falls upon him. Dron:a intervenes, acts decisively by gettingEkalavya to remove his own thumb, and restores the limelight onto Arjuna. Later, atthe tournament, when Bhıma and Duryodhana are in the limelight, beginning theirduel, Dron:a intervenes, acts decisively by getting A�svatthaman to stop the duel,and restores the limelight onto Arjuna. These are parallel interventions, rightdown to Dron:a’s use of a proxy agent. They are also positionally parallel. At1.123:36–37 (= verses 106–7, = metrical sets 218–21, = syllables 3557–620):

ekalavyas tu tac chrutva vaco dron: asya darun: am |pratijnam atmano raks: an satye ca niratah: sada ||tathaiva hr: s: t:avadanas tathaivadınamanasah: |chittvavicarya tam: pradad dron: ayan_gus: t:ham atmanah: ||

Ekalavya, always devoted to the truth, heard that harsh speech of Dron:a’s butkept his promise. So, his face cheerful, his mind undistressed, he cut off his ownthumb without deliberation and gave it to Dron:a.

At 1.125:3–5 (= verses 184–86, = metrical sets 382–87, = syllables 6210–305):

tatah: ks:ubdharn: avanibham: ran_gam alokya buddhiman |bharadvajah: priyam: putram a�svatthamanam abravıt ||varayaitau mahavıryau kr: tayogyav ubhav api |ma bhud ran_gaprakopo ’yam: bhımaduryodhanodbhavah: ||tatas tav udyatagadau guruputren: a varitau |yugantanilasam: ks:ubdhau mahavegav ivarn: avau ||

Then the intelligent [Dron:a] son of Bharadvaja looked at the arena thatresembled a stormy ocean and said to his beloved son A�svatthaman, ‘‘Stopthese two of great heroism, who are joining in combat. May there not be thistumult in the arena arising from Bhıma and Duryodhana.’’ Then the pair withclubs raised, who were like two great foaming currents tossed together by thewind at the end of the age, were stopped by the guru’s son.

Once again we have parallel events of different lengths; notwithstanding this, thereare 105 verses, 217 sets, and 3556 syllables before the first event and 108 verses, 224sets, and 3691 syllables after the second event.

57 Like Karn:a’s promise, this trick of Arjuna’s operates as a tag with a symmetrical twin in both theadhyaya ring and the real-time ring, for the shooting of the crocodile was also achieved with a salvoof five arrows (123:71).

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 25

123

This particular reflection is not quite so precisely positioned; but it is to be notedthat the first of these two events is the center of the ring of promises and that thesecond is more or less (since the equally matched duel does not actually take place)the center of the adhyaya ring. So the centers of those two rings reflect each otheraround the real-time center. The rings are interlocking; the second half of thereal-time ring begins at the beginning of the central adhyaya in the adhyaya ring.58

The three parallels sketched above should suffice to establish the real-time ring.But such precise symmetries will tend to disappear very quickly indeed whenseparate manuscript traditions begin to expand the text. When Dron:a gratuitouslythrows his ring down a well in the interpolated story, we might now interpret this as areference to the loss of the real-time ring. But certainly no real-time ring could bevisible in our Poona edition unless the Poona edition is, at least here in this section ofthe Adiparvan, an accurate reconstruction of a precisely finished ancient text.59

Further reflections

There are other ring-compositional cycles elsewhere in the Mahabharata. Here Imention seven sections towards the end of the text, which appear at first glance to beadhyaya rings with a central adhyaya (I have not yet analyzed any of these in detail).All seven contain an odd number of adhyayas and, in narrative terms, fall easily intotwo halves.

(1) The story of �Suka. Passage 12.310–20 tells of Vyasa’s son Suka, who attainsmoks: a. In the first half Suka is born (by apsaras, like Kr:pa and Dron:a) and educated byBr:haspati, Janaka, and Vyasa. In the central adhyaya 12.315 Vyasa’s other pupils go toearth, but in the Himavat, Vyasa and Suka meditate; Narada comes and comparestheir a�srama to a nis: ada village, whereupon they recite the Vedas, and Vyasa teachesSuka one last time, then leaves for the celestial Ga _nga. In the second half Naradateaches Suka, who resolves on moks: a, attains it, and, to Vyasa’s sorrow, is gone.60

(2) The naga and the uncchavrata. Passage 12.341–53, the last text in the �Santi-parvan, tells how a Brahman:a heard about the uncchavrata, a herbivorous gathering

58 The Mahabharata divides itself into 100 upaparvans as well as into 18 parvans (at 1.2:70–71 thedivision into 100 is understood to be earlier). In the Chicago edition (van Buitenen, 1973) the Dron:a–Drupada cycle straddles the junction between 2 upaparvans (Sam: bhavaparvan, ‘‘The Origins,’’ andDaho Jatugr: hasya, ‘‘The Fire in the Lacquer House’’; see 1.2:35), but this seems to me to be contrary tothe manuscript evidence. The story of the plot to kill the Pan:d:avas in the firehouse at Varan: avata isrelated as a continuous episode beginning at 1.129 as soon as the Dron:a–Drupada cycle has ended, andmost of the manuscripts that indicate, at the end of each adhyaya, which upaparvan it is in, begin thenew upaparvan at this point. Van Buitenen begins the new upaparvan with the tournament, adhyaya124, the central adhyaya in the adhyaya ring, and with verse 124:1, the first verse in the second half ofthe real-time ring: thus he inadvertently marks out the pivot of the cycle.59 By this I mean that the text cannot be worked on any more without spoiling some of its importantdeliberate aspects. Having said this, there may have been an aversion to perfect symmetry.60 See Hiltebeitel’s (2001, pp. 286–312) commentary: he notes (p. 311) that the story is framed by twoappearances of Siva (in adhyayas 12.310 and 320) and that Urva�sı ’s speech (in 319) links back to Suka’sapsaras-led birth (in 311), but, in my view, he does not go far enough. If in addition 312–14 and 316–18are seen as parallel sections of teaching flanking the pivotal 315, then Suka’s splitting apart of theconjoined Himavat and Meru (adhyaya 320; Hiltebeitel, 2001, pp. 304–307) will suggest that the twomountains be reinterpreted as the halves of this 11-adhyaya text and Suka’s moks: a as a text-interpretiveachievement. Compare Dron:a’s division of Drupada’s kingdom, which also happens at the end of a ring.And Bhıma and Duryodhana, separated by A�svatthaman at Dron:a’s command, are man-mountains.

26 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

and gleaning lifestyle, from a naga.61 The first half sees the Brahman:a hear about,travel to the town of, and wait patiently for the naga who will teach him; in thecentral adhyaya 12.347 the naga returns home; and the second half features hisdiscourse to the Brahman:a and the results thereof.

(3) Marutta’s sacrifice. Passage 14.4–10 tells the story of King Marutta’s sacrifice,conducted by Br:haspati’s younger brother Sam: varta. The first half deals withMarutta’s ancestry, his failure to persuade Br:haspati to officiate at his sacrifice, andNarada’s suggestion that he ask Sam: varta instead; in the central adhyaya 14.7 thenaked Saivite oddball Sam: varta agrees to the task; and the second half describes theprogress of the rite, including Indra’s attempted disruption and eventual blessing.

(4) Arjuna and the a�svamedha horse. Passage 14.73–85 gives an account ofArjuna’s various encounters and battles while protecting Yudhis:t:hira’s a�svamedhahorse. The first half ends with Arjuna’s being felled by his own son Babhruvahana; inthe central adhyaya 14.79 Ulupı and Citra _ngada, two of Arjuna’s wives, discuss thesituation, Citra _ngada suggesting that Ulupı revive Arjuna; and the second halfdescribes this revival, Ulupı’s explanation of why Arjuna was felled, and the rest ofArjuna’s a�svamedha adventures, including his defeat of Ekalavya’s son (14.84:7–10).

(5) The Mausalaparvan. The whole Mausalaparvan (16.1–9)62 tells of the end ofKr: s:n:a’s folk, the Vr:s:n: is, 36 years after the war. The first half relates how the Vr: s:n: imen killed each other; in the central adhyaya Baladeva and Kr:s:n:a die; and in thesecond half Arjuna takes the survivors, mostly women, to Indraprastha, many ofthem being abducted by dasyus en route.

(6) The Mahaprasthanikaparvan. The Mahabharata’s penultimate parvan has onlythree adhyayas (17.1–3). In the first, the Pan:d:avas arrange their retirement, handover the kingdom to Yuyutsu and Pariks:it, and begin to circumambulate the earthwith Draupadı. In the central adhyaya Yudhis:t:hira’s wife and brothers fall down anddie one by one. In the third, Indra comes and negotiates Yudhis:t:hira’s departurefrom the earthly realm, which is complicated by his reluctance to leave his dog.

(7) The Svargarohan:aparvan. The final parvan has five adhyayas (18.1–5). Thefirst two relate Yudhis:t:hira’s consternation at seeing Duryodhana in heaven and hisbrothers and Draupadı in hell (see footnote 48) and end with his rebuking Dharma.In the central adhyaya the illusion is explained to Yudhis:t:hira, and he bathes in thecelestial Ga _nga and finally sheds his grief. The second half of the parvan describesthe characters’ celestial sojourn and final destiny, the end of Janamejaya’ssarpasattra, and the merits of hearing and reciting the Mahabharata.

What lies behind these structures or rather this repeating structure? There aremany possible answers to this question. At one level, perhaps, it no more stands inneed of explanation than does the symmetry of a natural product such as a leaf or aface. At another level, as we have seen, symmetrical textual structure may encodemeanings that are not obvious if the text is read sequentially without recognizing itssymmetry. But at another level still, we may ask whether any particular symmetricalstructure has been brought from elsewhere and used as a model for these circular

61 For a preliminary study of nagas, see Semeka-Pankratov (1979).62 There are 9 adhyayas in the Poona Mausalaparvan but only 8 according to the Parvasam: graha(1.2:229). See Tieken (2004) for detailed comparisons between the Mausalaparvan and the episodeof the Khan:d:ava Forest fire (1.214–25), which again are found at opposite ends of the text.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 27

123

texts. We are immediately put in mind of the two halves of the lunar and solar cyclesas repeatedly elaborated in old Sanskrit literature:63

agnir jyotir ahah: �suklah: s: an:masa uttarayan: am |tatra prayata gacchanti brahma brahmavido janah: ||dhumo ratris tatha kr: s: n: ah: s: an:masa daks: in: ayanam |tatra candramasam: jyotir yogı prapya nivartate ||�suklakr: s: n: e gatı hy ete jagatah: �sa�svate mate |

Fire, light, day, the bright fortnight [of the waxing moon], the six months of[the sun’s] northward progress: dying there, people who know Brahman go toBrahman. Smoke, night, the dark fortnight [of the waning moon], and the sixmonths of [the sun’s] southward progress: [dying] there, the yogin obtains thelunar light and returns. These two, the bright and the dark, are considered to bethe world’s eternal paths (6.30:24–26b).64

This passage makes a series of polarized homologies; moreover, the two poles areranked. The postmortem concern evident here is linked to the Upanis:adic idea of thedevayana and the pitr: yana,65 but this kind of polar logic is visible elsewhere in otherterms. The polarity ‘‘high’’ class/‘‘low’’ class (at limit, Brahman:a/can: d: ala) fits thepattern, with the latter associated with soteriological failure and dark hue; likewisein some contexts the male/female polarity.66 There is a vertical spatial analogue: inthe macrocosm, celestial/chthonic, deva/asura, and above ground/below ground (orunderwater);67 in the microcosm, above the waist/below the waist (see Manusmr: ti1:92).68 A corresponding horizontal spatial analogue is also found and links with ourearlier comments about nis: adas: center/periphery, town/wilderness, and innerchambers/outer chambers (see Aktor, 2000; Ali, 2004, pp. 67–68, 219–220). We seealso a temporal analogue: younger/older and son/father.

Many of these polarities are at play in the Dron:a–Drupada cycle: light/dark (Arjunais a ‘‘Pan:d:ava,’’ Ekalavya is explicitly said to be dark; 123:18); town/wilderness; ‘‘high’’class/‘‘low’’ class; up/down (in 123b Arjuna shoots the bird in the treetop, then thecrocodile under the water); and north/south. The idea of totality—both poles side by

63 On links between the Mahabharata and the annual cycle, see van Buitenen (1978, pp. 4–5) and vonSimson (1984, 1989–1990, 1999).64 The analogy is slightly strained: since in the case of the month and the year what is critical is notthe net brightness but the direction of change, one might have expected the polarity morning/afternoon rather than day/night. On polarities, see White (1996, pp. 15–47).65 Vyasa’s final teaching to Suka in the central 12.315 includes this idea (see also ChandogyaUpanis: ad 5.10; Br: hadaran: yaka Upanis: ad 6.2:15–16; Pra�sna Upanis: ad 1:9–10; Mun: d: aka Upanis: ad1.2:7–11; Kaus: ıtakı Upanis: ad 1; Bodewitz, 1996; Hiltebeitel, 1977; Killingley, 1997).66 Consider Bha _nga�svana (13.12) and Vi�svamitra (13.3:7–8; Aitareya Brahman: a 7.17–18): the formerhas 200 sons, 100 in town as their father and then 100 in the forest as their mother; the latter has 101sons, the eldest 50 of whom he curses to become outland �svapacas.67 See again Ramanujan (1991b) for Rama’s ring, lost in the depths. Consider also the Mahabharatacharacters (Vasu, Nahus:a, and others) who fall from heaven into the underworld, then out again. Fora survey of ‘‘epic dualism’’ in terms of characters, see Johnsen (1966).68 The Jain cosmos preserves this vertical hierarchy, with heavens above and hells below (seeDundas, 2002, pp. 90–93).

28 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

side—is present here and is also evident in the disciple’s fee quest of Uta _nka.69 There isno simple key here, since the polarized symbology is so multifaceted, but there aremany intriguing clues. Karn:a, for example, who is both ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ class, has aname meaning ‘‘ear’’ (see McGrath, 2004, pp. 31–43),70 which may evoke the waxingand waning crescents of the moon, or the handles of a pot, or the termite-mound, portalto the underworld, which is known as the earth’s ear (see Taittirıya Sam: hita 5.1:13;Oertel, 1907, pp. 88–95);71 he is also the son of the sun, which daily visits both realms.

Further exploration in these directions must be left for another time and place. Buthere we must note the close connection between Dron:a and Karn:a, who are linked bythe parallels between adhyayas 122 and 127 and who in many ways representBrahman:a and Ks:atriya versions of a single type. They are the subject of a short articleby Georg von Simson (1968), who hypothesizes a character Dron:akarn:a,72 equivalentto Kumbhakarn:a in the story of Rama Da�saratha (dron: a and kumbha both mean‘‘pot’’). He points to the name of the territory Dron:a captures (Ahicchatra, ‘‘serpentcanopy’’) and to Karn:a’s solar connections and elephant-girdle battle-standard, andargues for ‘‘the demonic or rather chthonic origin of the two epic heroes’’ (von Simson,1968, p. 41). The link between Karn:a and Kumbhakarn:a is provided by their late entryonto the battlefield—Karn:a sits out the first ten days of the Kuruks:etra war due to aquarrel with Bhıs:ma, and Kumbhakarn:a is asleep underground until woken by hisbrother Ravan:a—which also fits with Karn:a’s late entry into the tournament. Evenbefore Karn:a’s entry onto Kuruks:etra (I am supplementing von Simson’s data now),‘‘the Karn:as’’ help to protect Dron:a from attack (6.47:12–14); once there, Karn:aproposes Dron:a as senapati (7.5:12–20), defends him against Duryodhana’s criticisms(7.127:12–24), and fights with him as a unit (7.147).

Gary Tubb’s emphasis (2002; see also footnote 17) on day 14 of the Kuruks:etrawar as a center between days 11 (Karn:a’s entry to the fray) and 17 (his death)effectively assimilates Dron:a, whose stint as senapati lasts five of these seven days, toKarn:a. More crucially with respect to von Simson’s thesis, in the Mahabharata’sRamopakhyana Kumbhakarn:a’s participation in the battle for La _nka is limited tothe 14th of the 18 adhyayas telling the story (3.271 of 3.258–75), and the battle itselfspans adhyayas 11–17 (3.268–74). By now, I hope, we would half expect this kind ofcorrelation. A desideratum, then, is a thorough survey of other 18-unit sections inthe text:73 here a few preliminary comments will suffice.

The Sauptikaparvan has 18 adhyayas. It has no immediately identifiable sectioncomprising adhyayas 11–17; however, 10.14 is the climax of the brahma�siras fightbetween A�svatthaman and Arjuna, prefigured by Arjuna’s promise at the real-time

69 Uta _nka requests a commission from his guru but is referred to the guru’s wife, who issues it; heobtains the earrings from a female above ground, then from a male underground. By completing hisquest, then, he goes beyond the pairs of complementary opposites (dvam: dvas; compare 6.24:45,6.26:22, 6.27:3, 6.29:28, 6.37:5). Galava too goes on a quest, to supply his guru Vi�svamitra with the giftof 800 horses, each with one black and one white ear (5.104–17).70 On Kuruks:etra Karn:a is hit in the ear, by Abhimanyu (7.46:10) and by Bhıma (7.114:3).71 On termite-mounds, see 3.82:5–8, Irwin (1982), Leslie (2003, pp. 126–136), Shulman (1978), andSmith and Carri (1994).72 Von Simson gives examples of the dvam: dva ‘‘dron: akarn: a’’ in the text and suggests ‘‘the originalunity of Dron:a–Karn:a’’ (1968, p. 44).73 On the number 18 in ancient India in general, see Stein (1936, 1937); in the Mahabharata inparticular, van Buitenen (1978, pp. 141–142). Direct links with the lunar cycle, such as thoseenvisaged by Hudson (2001, pp. 189–192), are hampered by the discrepancy between 18 and 28.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 29

123

center of the Dron:a–Drupada cycle. Arjuna launches his brahma�siras to neutralizeA�svatthaman’s, but a blazing tumult results, and Vyasa and Narada save the world bystanding between the two weapons. Here we see, as we saw repeatedly in the cycle, thebeginnings of a duel (Arjuna/Ekalavya, Bhıma/Duryodhana, Arjuna/Karn:a, nowArjuna/A�svatthaman) which is then aborted. This scene also looks forward to a centralevent of the A�svamedhikaparvan (the 14th parvan of 18), where Pariks:it, born dead asa result of A�svatthaman’s brahma�siras weapon, is revived by Kr: s:n:a (14.68).

The Narayan: ıya section of the �Santiparvan also has 18 adhyayas (12.321–39).74

The 14th (12.335) contains the story of the horse-head form of Vis:n:u-Narayan:a, astold by Vyasa, as follows. Brahma sits in the lotus that emerges from Vis:n:u-Nara-yan:a’s navel; two drops on the lotus become the danavas Madhu and Kait:abha;75

they steal the Vedas from Brahma and hide in the ocean; Brahma rouses Vis:n:u-Narayan:a, who becomes the horse-head, enters the ocean, distracts the danavas byproducing the sound ‘‘om: ,’’ retakes the Vedas, then goes back to sleep; the danavaswake him up for a fight, which they lose, and in conclusion various glories of Vis:n:u-Narayan:a are sung. Vis:n:u-Narayan:a’s feat resembles Uta _nka’s journey to theunderworld to reacquire the earrings, which was also only successful due to equineassistance (this horse is said to be Agni; see 1.3:154–62; 14.57:38–53).76 But there isno sign of Vis:n:u-Narayan:a (in his incarnation as Kr:s:n:a Vasudeva) in the Dron:a–Drupada cycle.

I would like to close with 12.308:91, the 14th of the 18 verses with which Sulabhaprefixes her answer to King Janaka and which center on rhetorical method. Whenapplied not to speakers and hearers but to authors and eventual recipients, this verseis particularly tantalizing, provocative, and ironic:

vakta �srota ca vakyam: ca yada tv avikalam: nr: pa |samam eti vivaks: ayam: tada so ’rthah: praka�sate ||

When the speaker, the hearer, and the speech agree, without impairment, overthe intended sense, then the meaning appears (12.308:91).77

References

Aktor, M. (2000). Untouchables, women, and territories: Rituals of lordship in the Para�sara Smr: ti. InJ. Leslie & M. McGee (Eds.), Invented identities: The interplay of gender, religion, and politics inIndia (pp. 133–156). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ali, D. (2004). Courtly culture and political life in early medieval India. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Allen, N. J. (1998). The Indo-European prehistory of yoga. International Journal of Hindu Studies,2(1), 1–20.

Allen, N. J. (1999). Arjuna and the second function: A Dumezilian crux. Journal of the Royal AsiaticSociety (Series 3), 9(3), 403–418.

74 Brockington comments: ‘‘The Critical Edition [Narayan: ıya] in fact has 19 adhyayas since, againstthe majority of the manuscript evidence, it divides 329 and 330 (24 manuscripts have no colophon atthis point, while 6 read one). In view of the significance of the number 18 in the tradition, this total isalmost certainly intended’’ (1998, p. 293n142). For present purposes I take adhyayas 329 and 330 asone adhyaya, the 9th of 18.75 The dual is surely significant. At 6.63:12 Madhu is said to be karn: asrotodbhava, that is, to haveoriginated from the ear-passage or ear-wax (of Vis:n:u-Narayan:a).76 On fire, water, and horses, see O’Flaherty (1971).77 Many thanks to Vaughan Pilikian for help with this verse.

30 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

Bhattacharya, N. N. (1969). The Kuruks:etra war and the Pan:d:avas. In D. C. Sircar (Ed.), TheBharata War and Puran: ic Genealogies (pp. 37–41). Calcutta: University of Calcutta.

Biardeau, M. (1981). The salvation of the king in the Mahabharata. Contributions to Indian Soci-ology (ns), 15(1), 75–97.

Black, B. n.d. (In Press). The character of the self in ancient India: Priests, kings and women in theearly Upanis: ads. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bodewitz, H. W. (1996). The pancagnividya and the pitr: yana/devayana. In A. K. Goswami &D. Chutia (Eds.), Studies on Indology: Professor Mukunda Madhava Sharma felicitation volume(pp. 51–57). Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

Bowlby, P. (1991). Kings without authority: The obligation of the ruler to gamble in theMahabharata. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 20(1), 3–17.

Brereton, J. P. (1997). ‘‘Why is a sleeping dog like the Vedic sacrifice?’’: The structure of anUpanis:adic brahmodya. In M. Witzel (Ed.), Inside the texts, beyond the texts: New approaches tothe study of the Vedas (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies,Harvard University.

Brereton, J. P. (1999). Edifying puzzlement: R: gveda 10.129 and the uses of enigma. Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society, 119(2), 248–260.

Brockington, J. L. (1995). Concepts of race in the Mahabharata and Ramayan:a. In P. Robb (Ed.),The concept of race in South Asia (pp. 97–108). Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Brockington, J. L. (1998). The Sanskrit epics. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Brockington, J. L. (2003). Yoga in the Mahabharata. In I. Whicher & D. Carpenter (Eds.), Yoga: The

Indian tradition (pp. 13–24). London: RoutledgeCurzon.Brodbeck, S. (2004). The story of Ekalavya in the Mahabharata. In J. Leslie & M. Clark (Eds.),

Creating a dialogue: Text, belief and personal identity (pp. 15–24). London: School of Orientaland African Studies, University of London.

Brown, W. N. (1972). Duty as truth in ancient India. Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety, 116(3), 252–268.

van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1973). The Mahabharata, vol. 1: 1. The book of the beginning.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1978). The Mahabharata, vol. 3: 4. The book of Virat:a; 5. Thebook of the effort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1981). The Bhagavadgıta in the Mahabharata: A bilingualedition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Debroy, D. (1986). Divyastras of the Kuruks:etra War. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute, 67, 1–15.

Doniger, W. (1998). Rings of rejection and recognition in ancient India. Journal of IndianPhilosophy, 26(5), 435–453.

Douglas, M. (1993). In the wilderness: The doctrine of defilement in the book of numbers. Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press.

Douglas, M. (2002). Ring composition, ancient and modern. The F. D. Maurice Lectures, Depart-ment of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College, London, March 5–7.

Dundas, P. (2002 [1992]). The Jains. London: Routledge.Epstein, A. G. (1994). Miscarriages and miraculous births in Indo-European tradition. Journal of

Indo-European Studies, 22(1–2), 151–163.Fitzgerald, J. L. (2001). Making Yudhis:t:hira the king: The dialectics and the politics of violence in

the Mahabharata. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 54(1), 63–92.Fitzgerald, J. L. (2002a). The Rama Jamadagnya ‘‘thread’’ of the Mahabharata: A new survey of

Rama Jamadagnya in the Pune text. In M. Brockington (Ed.), Stages and transitions: Temporaland historical frameworks in epic and puran: ic literature (pp. 89–132). Zagreb: Croatian Academyof Sciences and Arts.

Fitzgerald, J. L. (2002b). Nun befuddles king, shows karmayoga does not work: Sulabha’s refutationof King Janaka at MBh 12.308. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(6), 641–677.

Fitzgerald, J. L. (Ed. and trans.) (2004). The Mahabharata, vol. 7: 11. The book of the women; 12. Thebook of peace, part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ganguli, K. M. (Trans. [and Pratap Chandra Roy, publisher]) (2000 [1884–1896]). The Mahabharataof Krishna–Dwaipayana Vyasa: Translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit text. 4vols. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Goldman, R. P. (1972). Akr: tavran:a vs. Srıkr:s:n:a as narrators of the legend of the Bhargava Rama apropos some observations of Dr. V. S. Sukthankar. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute, 53, 161–173.

Goldman, R. P. (1977). Gods, priests, and warriors: The Bhr: gus of the Mahabharata. New York:Columbia University Press.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 31

123

Hara, M. (1975). Indra and tapas. Adyar Library Bulletin, 39, 129–160.Hegarty, J. M. (2001). An apprenticeship in attentiveness: Narrative patterning in the Dyutaparvan

and the Nalopakhyana of the Mahabharata. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 54(1), 33–62.Hegarty, J. M. (2004). A fire of tongues: Narrative patterning in the Sanskrit Mahabharata. PhD

dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester Library.Hiltebeitel, A. (1976). The ritual of battle: Krishna in the Mahabharata. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.Hiltebeitel, A. (1977). Nahus:a in the skies: A human king of heaven. History of Religions, 16(4), 329–

350.Hiltebeitel, A. (2000). Review of John L. Brockington’s The Sanskrit epics. Indo-Iranian Journal,

43(2), 161–169.Hiltebeitel, A. (2001). Rethinking the Mahabharata: A reader’s guide to the education of the dharma

king. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Hiltebeitel, A. (2002). Allusion and explication in the Gıta’s epic world. Journal of Vais: n: ava Studies,

11(1), 131–139.Hiltebeitel, A. (2004). Role, role model, and function: The Sanskrit epic warrior in comparison and

theory. In J. S. Hirst & L. Thomas (Eds.), Playing for real: Hindu role models, religion, andgender (pp. 27–50). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hintze, A. (2002). On the literary structure of the older Avesta. Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies, 65(1), 31–51.

Hock, H. H. (2002). The Yajnavalkya cycle in the Br: had Aran: yaka Upanis: ad. Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society, 122(2), 278–286.

Hopkins, E. W. (1901). Yoga-technique in the great epic. Journal of the American Oriental Society,22, 333–379.

Hudson, D. D. (2001). The ‘‘barley-corn’’ pattern of Bhagavad-Gıta 12–16. Journal of Vais: n: avaStudies, 9(2), 181–194.

Irwin, J. C. (1982). The sacred anthill and the cult of the primordial mound. History of Religions,21(4), 339–360.

Jarow, E. H. R. (1999). The letter of the law and the discourse of power: Karn:a and controversy inthe Mahabharata. Journal of Vais: n: ava Studies, 8(1), 59–76.

Jha, V. N. (1970). Varn:asa _mkara in the dharma sutras: theory and practice. Journal of the Economicand Social History of the Orient, 13, 273–288.

Jha, V. N. (1974). From tribe to untouchable: The case of Nis: adas. In R. S. Sharma & V. N. Jha(Eds.), Indian society: Historical probings in memory of D. D. Kosambi (pp. 67–84). New Delhi:People’s Publishing House.

Jha, V. N. (1975). Stages in the history of untouchables. Indian Historical Review, 2(1), 14–31.Johnsen, G. (1966). Varun:a and Dhr: taras:t:ra. Indo-Iranian Journal, 9(4), 245–265.Johnson, W. J. (Ed. and trans.) (2001). Kalidasa: The recognition of �Sakuntala. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Katz, R. C. (1991). The Sauptika episode in the structure of the Mahabharata. In A. Sharma (Ed.),

Essays on the Mahabharata (pp. 130–149). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Killingley, D. (1997). The paths of the dead and the five fires. In P. Connolly & S. Hamilton (Eds.),

Indian insights: Buddhism, Brahmanism and bhakti (pp. 1–20). London: Luzac Oriental.Kosambi, D. D. (1946). The parvasa _mgraha of the Mahabharata. Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 66(2), 110–117.Kosambi, D. D. (1951). Parvasa _mgraha figures for the Bhıs:maparvan of the Mahabharata. Journal of

the American Oriental Society, 71(1), 21–25.Leslie, J. (2003). Authority and meaning in Indian religions: Hinduism and the case of Valmıki.

Aldershot: Ashgate.Malamoud, C. (1996 [1989]). Cooking the world: Ritual and thought in ancient India (trans. David

White). Delhi: Oxford University Press.Mazumdar, B. C. (1906). Mahabharata (Adiparva, ch. 94). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,

225–226.McGrath, K. (2004). The Sanskrit hero: Karn: a in epic Mahabharata. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Mehendale, M. A. (2001). Interpolations in the Mahabharata. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, 82, 193–212.Minkowski, C. Z. (1989). Janamejaya’s sattra and ritual structure. Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 109(3), 401–420.Monier-Williams, M. (1990 [1899]). A Sanskrit-English dictionary. Etymologically and philologically

arranged, with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.More, S. (1995). Kr: s: n: a: The man and his mission. An enquiry into the rationale of inter-relationship

between Kr: s: n: a’s life, mission, and philosophy. Pune: Gaaj Prakashan.

32 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

Morson, G. S. (1994). Narrative and freedom: The shadows of time. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Nath, V. (2002). King Vena, Nis:ada and Pr: thu: A recurrent puran: ic myth re-examined. IndianHistorical Review, 29(1–2), 48–65.

Oertel, H. (1907). Contributions from the Jaiminıya Brahman:a to the history of the Brahman:aliterature. Sixth series: The story of U�sanas Kavya, the three-headed Gandharvan, and Indra.Journal of the American Oriental Society, 28, 81–98.

O’Flaherty, W. D. (1971). The submarine mare in the mythology of Siva. Journal of the Royal AsiaticSociety, 1(1), 9–27.

Parasher, A. (1991). Mlecchas in early India: A study in attitudes towards outsiders up to AD 600.New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Parks, W. (1990). Verbal duelling in heroic narrative: The Homeric and old English traditions.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Piantelli, M. (2002). King Janaka as a male chauvinist pig in the Mahabharata. In A. Monti (Ed.),Hindu masculinities across the ages: Updating the past (pp. 35–55). Turin: L’Harmattan Italia.

Pollock, S. (1996). The Sanskrit cosmopolis, 300–1300: Transculturation, vernacularization, and thequestion of ideology. In J. E. M. Houben (Ed.), Ideology and status of Sanskrit: Contributions tothe history of the Sanskrit language (pp. 197–247). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Ramanujan, A. K. (1991a). Repetition in the Mahabharata. In A. Sharma (Ed.), Essays on theMahabharata (pp. 419–443). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Ramanujan, A. K. (1991b). Three hundred Ramayan: as: Five examples and three thoughts ontranslation. In P. Richman (Ed.), Many Ramayan: as. The diversity of a narrative tradition in SouthAsia (pp. 22–49). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Semeka-Pankratov, E. (1979). A semiotic approach to the polysemy of the symbol naga in Indianmythology. Semiotica, 27, 237–290.

Shakespeare, W. (1936). Twelfth night; or, What you will. In G. L. Kittredge (Ed.), The completeworks of Shakespeare (pp. 401–430). Boston: Ginn & Company.

Shankar, S. (1994). The thumb of Ekalavya: Postcolonial studies and the ‘‘Third World’’ scholar in aneocolonial world. World Literature Today, 68(3), 479–487.

Sharma, R. S. (1980 [1958]). �Sudras in ancient India: A social history of the lower order down to circaAD 600. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Sharma, A. (2000). Of Sudras, Sutas and Slokas: Why is the Mahabharata preeminently in theanus: t:ubh metre? Indo-Iranian Journal, 43(3), 225–278.

Shulman, D. (1978). The serpent and the sacrifice: An anthill myth from Tiruvarur. History ofReligions, 18(2), 107–137.

von Simson, G. (1968). The mythic origin of Dron:a and Karn:a. Journal of the Bihar Research Society,54, 40–44.

von Simson, G. (1984). The mythic background of the Mahabharata. Indologica Taurinensia, 12,191–223.

von Simson, G. (1989–1990). Remarks on the Suparn:a/Garud:a myth (later Vedic period). IndologicaTaurinensia, 15–16, 353–360.

von Simson, G. (1999). Narrated time and its relation to the supposed year myth in the Mahabharata.In M. Brockington & P. Schreiner (Eds.), Composing a tradition: Concepts, techniques, andrelationships (pp. 49–66). Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Smith, M. C. (1991). Epic parthenogenesis. In A. Sharma (Ed.), Essays on the Mahabharata (pp. 84–100). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Smith, B. K. (1994). Classifying the universe: The ancient Indian varn: a system and the origins of caste.New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, J. D. (Ed.) (1999). The Mahabharata (electronic text). Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute.

Smith, F. M., & Carri, S. J. (1994). The identity and significance of the valmıkavapa in the Vedicritual. Indo-Iranian Journal, 37(3), 201–231.

Sohnen, R. (1979). Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Reden und Gesprachen im Ramayan: a. 2vols. Reinbek: Dr Inge Wezler/Verlag fur Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.

Sohnen-Thieme, R. (1995). On the concept and function of satya (‘‘truth’’) in ancient Indian lit-erature. In C. Galewicz et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Sanskrit and Related Studies,September 23–26, 1993: Proceedings (pp. 235–244). Cracow: Enigma Press.

Stanley, K. (1993). The shield of Homer: Narrative structure in the Iliad. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Stein, O. (1936). The numeral 18. The Poona Orientalist, 1(3), 1–37.Stein, O. (1937). Additional notes on the numeral 18. The Poona Orientalist, 2(3), 164–165.

Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 33

123

von Stietencron, H. (1997). The non-existence of impurity and the legitimation of kings. InS. Lienhard & I. Piovano (Eds.), Lex et litterae: Studies in honour of Professor Oscar Botto(pp. 487–508). Turin: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Sukthankar, V. S. (Ed.) (1933). The Mahabharata for the first time critically edited, vol. 1: TheAdiparvan. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Sukthankar, V. S., Belvalkar, S. K., & Vaidya, P. L. (general editors), and others (Eds.) (1933–1971).The Mahabharata for the first time critically edited. 24 vols. (including Harivam: �sa). Poona:Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Sutton, N. (1999). An exposition of early Sa _mkhya, a rejection of the Bhagavad-Gıta, and a critiqueof the role of women in Hindu society: The Sulabha-Janaka-Sa _mvada. Annals of the BhandarkarOriental Research Institute, 80, 53–65.

Thomas, L. (1998). Fathers as mothers: The myth of male parthenogenesis. In L. Spaas & T. Selous(Eds.), Paternity and fatherhood: Myths and realities (pp. 204–218). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Thompson, G. (1998). On truth-acts in Vedic. Indo-Iranian Journal, 41(2), 125–153.Tieken, H. (2004). The Mahabharata after the great battle. Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde

Sudasiens, 48, 5–46.Tubb, G. A. (2002). Numbers that matter. Journal of Vais: n: ava Studies, 11(1), 147–152.Vanita, R. (2003). The self is not gendered: Sulabha’s debate with King Janaka. National Women’s

Studies Association Journal, 15(2), 76–93.Watkins, C. (1995). How to kill a dragon: Aspects of Indo-European poetics. New York: Oxford

University Press.Whitaker, J. L. (2000). Divine weapons and tejas in the two Indian epics. Indo-Iranian Journal, 43(2),

87–113.Whitaker, J. L. (2002). How the gods kill: The Narayan: a astra episode, the death of Ravan:a, and the

principles of tejas in the Indian epics. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(4), 403–430.White, D. G. (1989). Dogs die. History of Religions, 28(4), 283–303.White, D. G. (1996). The alchemical body: Siddha traditions in medieval India. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Witzel, M. (1987). On the origin of the literary device of the ‘‘frame story’’ in old Indian literature. In

H. Falk (Ed.), Hinduismus und Buddhismus: Festschrift fur Ulrich Schneider (pp. 380–414).Freiburg: Hedwig Falk.

34 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

123

ekalavya and mahabharata

Documents