Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MB Bhrugisation PDF
MB Bhrugisation PDF
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BHIRGUISATION OF THE
MAHABHARATA RECONSIDERED
P.K. Choudhary
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
164 I HC: Proceedings, 59th Session, 1998
60 (iii) Angirasas 3200 (iv) Pulastya 35 (v) Pulaha 20 (vi) Kratu 20
(vii) Vasistha 830 and Bhrgu 1500"8 "clearly Marici, Atri, Pulaha,
Pulastya and Kratu are not that important as the number of their
occurrences indicate".9 Moreover, "the family of Atri is connected with
that of the Angirasas by the matrimonial connection, i.e. by the
marriage of Bhadra with Utathaya Angirasa."10
Therefore it is very clear that the Angirasas are more prominent
in the Mahabharata than any other family and their echoes can be
heard more than even those of the Bhrgus, to use Sukthankar's
phraseology. Even Krsna is linked with the Angirasas through his guru
Ghora Angiras.
Secondly, it is obvious that three Angiran figures namely Drona,
Kripa and Asvatthama are more influential characters than any of the
Bhargava figures. Here one can argue that these three characters are
more humane personalities in contrast to mythical and supermanly
Bhargava figures, who may be taken as fabricated and bogus mythical
entity. Well, in that case we have to prove that the Pandavas, the
Kauravas and the Angirasas were historical characters and not creation
of the Indian myth makers.
Indeed, very soon this glaring gap became evident to the Poona
School of scholars and in 1943 itself N.J. Shende proposed a revised
theory about the Mahabharata being considered creation of a
composite group of Bhrgu-Angiran redactors. Others also supported
this thesis.11 But they did not take the entire implication of this
conclusion to the logical end regarding the authorship of the
Mahabharata , the position of Bhrgus and most importantly, treatment
given to the myth of Parasurama by Sukthankar.
On the basis of the aforesaid observation either we have to consider
that the Mahabharata is an Angiran text with the Bhrgus and Vasistas
as junior partners or if we accept that the Angirasas and the Bhrgus
are members of the unified clan then we cannot say that the Bhrgus
are entirely unconnected or external to the epic story .Rather we have
to accept that the Bhrgus are more closely associated with the
Mahabharata than what was proposed by Sukthankar.
Secondly one does need to reconsider such statements that "...the
Bhargavas spring into prominence all of a sudden in the Mahabharata.
We look in vein for any reflection of their phenomenal power and
glory in the vedic literature."12 It is a well known fact that the Bhrgus
alongwith the Atharvans were junior partner of the Angirases in not
only in the Atharva Veda but in many other vedic texts also.13 So there
is neither prominence of the Bhrgus in the Mahabharata nor complete
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ancient India 165
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166 IHC: Proceedings , 59/Zz Session, 1998
cases as declared by Sukthankar.
In the context of the avatara status of Parasurama, Sukthankar
held the view that since the Bhrgus were redactors of the Mahabharata
and Parasurama was a Bhrgu therefore he was made an avatara.17 First
of all, all avataras are made, even Rama and Krsna are no different.
Secondly, the concept of avatara has certain inherent logic and the
notion of avatara does not depend on whims and fancies of redactors
alone. To accept some avataras as real and others as fake and spurious
will not give us a correct picture of religious and cultic formations. In
this context, we should also remember that Parasurama and Jamadagni
have several temples and holy places associated with their name in
the Himalayas and the Konkan. Renuka is still worshipped by many in
Orissa, Andhra, and Konkan as Kuladevi. It is also interesting to note
that Parasurama and Renuka are more popular among lower castes
than the higher ones in certain regions .Here is the hidden clue as to
why he was raised to the status of an avatara. All avataras have certain
characteristics in common. For example, all of them are destroyers of
oppressor or a saviour from crisis . It is not simply backing of a few
brahmana redactors but popular base which earned him a place in the
rank of avatara. Although to fully understand this long forgotten cult
a lot more has to be researched and written.
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ancient India 167
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
168 IHC: Proceedings , 59th Session, 1998
far as the final redaction of the text is concerned it occurred around
the themes of dana, dharma, tirtha, varnasrama, rajadharma etc. In
this phase kula identity had given way to the common cultic and
territorial identity of the brahmanas. Myths of all brahmanic families
became a common property of all brahmanas. With the rise of cult
related identities brahmanas. of all gotras were perhaps consolidating
under new banners. Considering these dimensions we may conclude
that the Mahabharata was not the property of one clan but entire
brahmanic tradition during its expansion. Attributing it mainly to the
Bhrgus will amount to giving them more importance than the
Mahabharata actually gives them.
This content downloaded from 117.200.56.226 on Sun, 21 Apr 2019 03:13:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms