DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - A Historical account of the Mahabharata(m) war

**MannoFr** · 12-02-2005, 08:00 AM

Honestly, I am surprised by the analysis of the thumbai flower. This thought never occurred to me. However, I am a bit hesitant to accept the stated theories regarding the reference to this flower. To me it does not make any sense why Mudinagarayar would use a flower as a metaphor for a character who is clearly out of relevance in the concerned lines. Besides, Drona, as a character (if he did exist), is only peripheral to the story of the Mahabharata. Surely, Mudinagarayar could have picked more prominent and pertinent persona such as Bhishma, Karna or Krishna. To decide that Mudinagarayar was taking a cue from the character Drona seems a little hasty to me. Is it not equally likely that the thumbai flower was used because the 100 people were genuinely fond of (or identified with in some other way) with this flower? I consider Mudinagayar to have written this poem as a factual account of contemporary events; there would have been no need for him to use cryptic metaphors.

Please note that I have judiciously avoided usage of the terms ‘Pandavas’/ ‘Kauravas’ and have stuck to the terminology used by the poem itself i.e. ‘5 people’ and ‘100 people’. Though it is slightly unhelpful, the non-specific identification of these characters of interest could be explained by the presumption that the intended audience was already familiar with the events and characters portrayed in the poem.

While it is certainly a possibility, it is highly unlikely that the 5 people and 100 people who went to war over a land dispute arising from land-grabbing by the 100 people, as described in the poem, would be different from the 5 people and 100 people who went to war over a land dispute arising from land-grabbing by the 100 people, as described in the Mahabharata (m).

Considering this poem, it does appear that the war described in the Mahabharata (m) was based on historical fact. However, that is as far as I would go at this moment. To me, this poem does not provide any indication that the other characters and events portrayed in the Mahabharata (m) actually existed and happened.

Here are a couple more references to the same event:

º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ - ÁÐ¨Ãì ¸¡ñ¼õ - ¸ðÎ¨Ã ¸¡¨¾: 55-56
¦ÀÕï§º¡Ú ÀÂó¾ ¾¢ÕóÐ §Åø ¾¼ì¨¸
¾¢Õ¿¢¨Ä ¦ÀüÈ ¦ÀÕ¿¡û þÕì¨¸

º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ - Åïº¢ì ¸¡ñ¼õ - Å¡úòÐì ¸¡¨¾: °ºø ÅÃ¢ (24)
µ÷³Å÷ ®÷³õÀ¾¢ýÁ÷ ¯¼ý¦ÈØó¾
§À¡Ã¢ø ¦ÀÕï§º¡Ú §À¡üÈ¡Ð ¾¡ÉÇ¢ò¾
§ºÃý ¦À¡¨ÈÂý Á¨ÄÂý ¾¢Èõ À¡Ê

(¦À¡¨ÈÂý, Á¨ÄÂý = §ºÃ÷ ÌÊô¦ÀÂ÷)

To think about it, the non-mention of Krishna must actually make us think. Why does a character who is supposed to have been held as God, not find any mention whatsoever in references to the war? If he was such an important player in the general scheme of things, how come he is completely omitted? The war is fact, we can say. But what about the rest? What was Vyasa writing? Fact, fiction or fiction building on fact?

As for the mention of the Vedas, may I point out that the poem refers to the ‘4 Vedas’ but does not specify them as the ‘4 Vedas in Sanskrit’? Mr. Sabapathy may remember what I told him in a PM long time back.

P.S.: There is one more reference in the Akananooru (233). Could someone please provide a translation (I would take ages!)?

12-02-2005, 08:00 AM	#12
MannoFr Join Date Mar 2007 Posts 4,451 Senior Member	Honestly, I am surprised by the analysis of the thumbai flower. This thought never occurred to me. However, I am a bit hesitant to accept the stated theories regarding the reference to this flower. To me it does not make any sense why Mudinagarayar would use a flower as a metaphor for a character who is clearly out of relevance in the concerned lines. Besides, Drona, as a character (if he did exist), is only peripheral to the story of the Mahabharata. Surely, Mudinagarayar could have picked more prominent and pertinent persona such as Bhishma, Karna or Krishna. To decide that Mudinagarayar was taking a cue from the character Drona seems a little hasty to me. Is it not equally likely that the thumbai flower was used because the 100 people were genuinely fond of (or identified with in some other way) with this flower? I consider Mudinagayar to have written this poem as a factual account of contemporary events; there would have been no need for him to use cryptic metaphors. Please note that I have judiciously avoided usage of the terms ‘Pandavas’/ ‘Kauravas’ and have stuck to the terminology used by the poem itself i.e. ‘5 people’ and ‘100 people’. Though it is slightly unhelpful, the non-specific identification of these characters of interest could be explained by the presumption that the intended audience was already familiar with the events and characters portrayed in the poem. While it is certainly a possibility, it is highly unlikely that the 5 people and 100 people who went to war over a land dispute arising from land-grabbing by the 100 people, as described in the poem, would be different from the 5 people and 100 people who went to war over a land dispute arising from land-grabbing by the 100 people, as described in the Mahabharata (m). Considering this poem, it does appear that the war described in the Mahabharata (m) was based on historical fact. However, that is as far as I would go at this moment. To me, this poem does not provide any indication that the other characters and events portrayed in the Mahabharata (m) actually existed and happened. Here are a couple more references to the same event: º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ - ÁÐ¨Ãì ¸¡ñ¼õ - ¸ðÎ¨Ã ¸¡¨¾: 55-56 ¦ÀÕï§º¡Ú ÀÂó¾ ¾¢ÕóÐ §Åø ¾¼ì¨¸ ¾¢Õ¿¢¨Ä ¦ÀüÈ ¦ÀÕ¿¡û þÕì¨¸ º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ - Åïº¢ì ¸¡ñ¼õ - Å¡úòÐì ¸¡¨¾: °ºø ÅÃ¢ (24) µ÷³Å÷ ®÷³õÀ¾¢ýÁ÷ ¯¼ý¦ÈØó¾ §À¡Ã¢ø ¦ÀÕï§º¡Ú §À¡üÈ¡Ð ¾¡ÉÇ¢ò¾ §ºÃý ¦À¡¨ÈÂý Á¨ÄÂý ¾¢Èõ À¡Ê (¦À¡¨ÈÂý, Á¨ÄÂý = §ºÃ÷ ÌÊô¦ÀÂ÷) To think about it, the non-mention of Krishna must actually make us think. Why does a character who is supposed to have been held as God, not find any mention whatsoever in references to the war? If he was such an important player in the general scheme of things, how come he is completely omitted? The war is fact, we can say. But what about the rest? What was Vyasa writing? Fact, fiction or fiction building on fact? As for the mention of the Vedas, may I point out that the poem refers to the ‘4 Vedas’ but does not specify them as the ‘4 Vedas in Sanskrit’? Mr. Sabapathy may remember what I told him in a PM long time back. P.S.: There is one more reference in the Akananooru (233). Could someone please provide a translation (I would take ages!)?
	Quote