The Rishis made Mahabharata interesting!

If there was one group of people changed the course of the Mahabharata (numerous times!), it was the rishis.

I was doing a bit of research after I wrote my 1st post on Shantanu and Satyavati. This led me to several instances in the Mahabharata where the rishis play key roles. Here are some of those:

(image courtesy http://divopics.blogspot.com)

We all know the story of Kunti and how Karna was born. Rishi Durvasa visits Kunti's adopted father Kuntibhoja (she is actually an aunt of Sri Krishna but was given away in adoption to the childless Kuntibhoja). Durvasa is pleased by Kunti's devotion and hospitality to him and teaches her a mantra with the blessings that she can use the mantra to invoke any God and have a son born through them.

Kunti (still a child) decides to test the mantra and invokes Surya, who hands her Karna, and the rest is history.

Durvasa's mantra comes in handy in a crucial time in the epic. Pandu is now the king of the Kurus, and accidentally kills the conjugal couple (means 'in the act') rishi Kindama and his wife. To be fair, the rishi had the powers to transform himself into any animal, and Pandu thought he was only shooting down a deer couple. Still, the badly hurt Kindama curses Pandu that if he ever indulges in any sexual activity, he shall die immediately. And the Pandavas are not yet born! Quite a tricky situation.

Pandu now becomes an ascetic and lives in the forest with Madri and Kunti. Kunti reveals Durvasa's secret Mantra to invoke any God, using which she begets 3 children - Yudhishtira, Bhima, and Arjuna. Kunti also teaches Madri the mantra and she begets 2 children - Nakula and Sahadeva.

Pandu, after 15 years, touches Madri out of passion, and is instantly killed. Out of guilt, Madri commits sati on the funeral pyre, and the story of the Pandavas continues with Kunti as their only mother.

(image from wikipedia, Javanese Wayang)           

Going back chronologically, Satyavati (Shantanu's wife) herself had an interesting history before Shantanu came along. Rishi Parashara ends up getting attracted to her and they have a child who becomes rishi Veda Vyasa (yes, the one who wrote the Mahabharata and organized the Vedas). Rishi Parashara also blesses Satyavati so she gets her virginity back(!).

Her sons (through Shantanu) Vichitravirya and Chitrangadha (step brothers of Bhishma) depart issueless, and Satyavati summons her 1st son Veda Vyasa to give their wives Ambika and Ambalika a son each. Dhritarashta and Pandu are hence born.

So, in two important places in the Mahabharata, the Kuru race itself could have been wiped out had it not been for Durvasa, Parashara (indirectly) and Veda Vyasa. There must be some more to these stories that I am missing. How can children of Veda Vyasa, who is not a kshatriya, be kshatriyas? Can they continue to claim to be part of the Kuru lineage? I read somewhere that according to the shastras the mother's caste determines her childrens' caste (gothra/lineage is different). Is that what is under play here, or does that go against the patriarchal system we've always had? This is most confusing to me.

In the case of Kunti and Madri, their sons are born instantly, or at least that is my reading of the stories. Neither Kunti nor Madri go through the process like Ambika and Ambalika did with Veda Vyasa (in fact the blind Dhritarashtra and the pale Pandu are the result of their respective mother's reactions to Veda Vyasa - one closes her eyes in horror and the other turns pale). This raises interesting questions, going by some of the modern world's developments. It is possible now to have children without actually carrying them, via test tubes. Maybe something similar happened here. Or maybe we should not try to explain things that are divine, where tools unavailable to humans might be in play.   

Are there shastra principles that say that exceptions such as the above (children via some man else or even by invoking God) are proper when the greater good of the people is in jeopardy? Had the Kuru lineage abruptly ended, either in the case of Pandu/Dhritarashtra or in the case of the Pandavas, the course of history could have been altered so massively that the world, and Bharatavarsha would have seen more chaos than resulted. 

The Intro

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana have always fascinated me, especially the former.

The range of characters, the presence of literally every divine being in the Hindu pantheon, the Lord Himself, history involving every part of Bharatavarsha, every tricky moral situation imaginable, the lead up to the decline of Bharatavarsha, the advent of Kali Yuga, and everything else that form the Mahabharata are so staggering and insightful that one can hardly ignore the epic.

(image courtesy hindugodwallpaper.com)

In the Ramayana, there can be no protagonist but Rama. There do exist versions or commentaries that might present Ravana as the hero, of course. With the Mahabharata, there are many claimants to the mantle of hero - including Yudhishtra, Arjuna, Karna, Bhishma, and probably some others. Still, in my mind the hero of the Mahabharata is clearly Krishna. There can be none other, even if some of the other characters appear more glamorous. More on this later.


There's one episode (and character) in the Mahabharata that moved me a lot. This episode also happens to be chronologically the start of the Mahabharata. The story of Kuru king Shantanu marrying Ganga and begetting Devavrata (later Bhishma) is arguably where it all begins. The story of Shantanu's marriage to Ganga itself is another post, but Shantanu lovestruck by a fisherwoman leads up to Devavrata becoming Bhishma.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Shantanu chances upon a fisherwoman Satyavati, is lovestruck, and goes to her parents to ask for her hand. The parents agree but upon condition that the son of Satyavati will become the king of Hastinapura, taking the Kuru lineage forward. Shantanu is shocked, is unable to do injustive to Devavrata his first-born, and returns in sorrow. Bhishma on seeing his father sad decides to investigate and finds out about his dilemma.

Several interesting questions arise. Was a Kuru king, one that had married Ganga previously, so out of control that he desired to marry someone again? Especially when his own son was of marriageable age? 

On the other hand, I appreciate him not forcing himself upon the fisherman's family. A king of his stature could have gotten away with abducting the girl and marrying her, or putting other pressure. He didn't do that, which is commendable. 

Lastly, why did the girl's parents want so much for giving away their daughter in marriage, that too to a king? Wouldn't any normal person be happy about marrying a king, especially one who is known to be a good king? Either they were not so keen on getting their daughter married to Shantanu (i.e., assumed Shantanu would laugh and go away), or they were really stupid, or they somehow knew that what they wanted would happen. A king during those times would not be able to bypass the first son to make someone else the crown price. Hence, if the fisherwoman's parents were aware of this, they might have expected that it would come down to Devavrata and were going in for a huge gamble. What if it never came down to Devavrata, and Shantanu forgot about their girl?

Devavrata goes to Satyavati's parents and asks for her hand for his father. The parents of course stick to their stand. Devavrata does not hesitate, but promises that Satyavati's son will be the future king. Even this does not convince the girl's parents who question whether his children will keep his word. At this point, Devavrata decides to do the unthinkable - he vows that he himself will never marry, so there will be only one thing to go by, his word. When Devavrata makes this promise, the Gods sprinkle him with flowers from the heavens, and proclaim him 'Bhishma'. On hearing this, Shantanu also grants Bhishma the boon that he would be able to decide the time of his death (this comes in handy when Bhishma prolongs his life on Arjuna's bed of arrows until the start of Uttarayana.)  

Several questions here. If Shantanu had powers to grant such boons, surely he was capable of bringing himself to forget the girl?


Bhishma's devotion to his father is exemplary. This is unparalleled, and Rama's story of taking Kaikeyi's word (on his father's wishes - going to the forest) is the only other such incident I am aware of.  


On the issue of trust, Satyavati's parents do not trust that Devavrata's children will honour his word, but trust him when he declares that he will never marry. I suppose that Devavrata's personality and conviction, his devotion to his father, and the Gods showering petals must have convinced them that his word was to be trusted.  

Just this one episode conveys so much about the institution of marriage, the consequences, greed, celibacy (never heard of any other kshatriya-sanyasi in our epics), devotion to parents, sacrifice, and keeping one's word.