Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

DOI 10.1007/s11407-006-9000-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Ekalavya and Mahābhārata 1.121–28

Simon Brodbeck

Accepted: 3 April 2006 / Published online: 31 October 2006

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Keywords Ekalavya Æ Mahābhārata Æ Subaltern Æ

Ring-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 change
depending on the text being investigated. It will be constrained by what kinds of
things the scholar has heard said of different texts or groups of texts (for this
reason alone the grouping of texts is a perilous business); and it will also be
constrained, one way or the other, by what the text is perceived to say about itself.
In this paper I analyze part of the Mahābhārata from a perspective that seeks to
privilege the text’s geometry, its structural forms. After the introduction, the next
three sections of the paper outline three different symmetrical structures or
compositional rings, each of which extends over Ādiparvan 121–28. Each of these
structures is built from a different set of compositional units: there is a ring of
promises made and kept, a ring of adhyāyas (chapters), and a ring of verses or
syllables, and each of these rings has a different center or axis of symmetry.
Adhyāyas 121–28 of the Ādiparvan seem to constitute, as it were, a jewel that has
been cut with several faces, and the interactions and implications of these various
symmetrical structures are discussed. In the final section of the paper several other
adhyāya rings in the Mahābhārata are mentioned, followed by some brief thoughts

S. Brodbeck (&)
Department of the Study of Religions
SOAS, University of London
London, UK
e-mail: S.Brodbeck@soas.ac.uk

123
2 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

(in terms of natural polarized dualities) on what the generic content of the
structural form of the bisected ring might be; and the paper ends with reference to
another of the Mahābhārata’s text-structural forms, the group of 18. I show that in
a variety of oblique ways the Mahābhārata talks about its own structures and about
the ability to discern them and to appreciate the text on the basis of them. There
has been a good deal of authorial effort in the matter of textual symmetry and
ornament, resulting in an interestingly ‘‘self-conscious’’ text.1
We begin with the brief story of Ekalavya the nis: āda, 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 Pān: d: avas and Kauravas;
Ekalavya, son of the nis: āda chief Hiran: yadhanus (golden-bow), also comes for
tuition, but Dron: a refuses him because he is a nis: āda.3 Undeterred, he lives in the
woods, makes a clay model of Dron: a, practices under its unseeing eye, and becomes
an expert archer.
(2) Verses 15–24. When the Pān: d: avas are out hunting, their dog discovers
Ekalavya in the forest. Ekalavya shoots the Pān: d: avas’ dog in the muzzle with seven
arrows, and the Pān: d: avas witness his skill. When interrogated, he says he is Dron: a’s
pupil.
(3) Verses 25–39. After Arjuna has complained to him of Ekalavya’s skill, Dron: a
comes to see Ekalavya, who receives him as his guru. Dron: a says that to gurus a fee
is due; Ekalavya says he will give whatever Dron: a wants; Dron: a chooses Ekalavya’s
right thumb; and Ekalavya severs and gives it willingly, thus sacrificing his archery
skills.
Before we move on to consider certain specific structural features of this and the
surrounding text, some introductory remarks are in order concerning Ekalavya. His
story has been particularly celebrated by dalits, members of communities formerly
known (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 a
suitable role model. Key here is his nis: āda identity. ‘‘Nis: āda’’ in the Mahābhārata is
a 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 Valmiki
Studies Workshop, held at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, on
February 21, 2004 (see Brodbeck, 2004). I am grateful to Sı̂an Hawthorne and also to Brian Black,
John Brockington, Paul Dundas, James Hegarty, Steven Lindquist, John Smith, and Simon
Weightman, among others, for their invaluable comments and suggestions at various stages of my
work; to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, under whose funding most of the research
presented here took place; and most especially to Julia Leslie, whose work on Vālmı̄ki was and
continues to be the inspiration for my thinking on Ekalavya and to whom this paper is dedicated with
love and
soka.
2
Unless otherwise stated, references are to the Poona edition of the Mahābhārata (J. Smith, 1999;
Sukthankar, Belvalkar, & Vaidya, 1933–1971). I generally use the form ‘‘parvan (book).adhyāya
(chapter):
sloka (verse).’’ Where a parvan number is omitted, the Ādiparvan is intended.
Mahābhārata 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 Śūdras, which might apply also in the case of nis: ādas, see 13.10.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 3

characters and stories.4 It seems to combine ideas of outland location,5 of hunting/

fishing lifestyle, of polity (though nis: āda must be distinguished from Nis: adha), and of
bad breeding.6
To understand Ekalavya’s interactions with Dron: a and his pupils, we must
acknowledge Sheldon Pollock’s notion of ‘‘the Sanskrit cosmopolis’’ (1996) and note
the 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 the
former into the political and economic structures of agrarian society—as
peasants, royal servants and even as recognised semi-independent rulers of
realms. Though this integration was complex and involved mutual influence
and accommodation in specific regional contexts, one element of this process
from the sources of the Gupta era would suggest that the opposition between
the wild and violent ways of the forest people and the restrained and hon-
ourable ways of the nobility formed a behavioural ‘‘continuum’’ along which
men moved to enter the pale of ‘‘good society’’ and once there exhibited the
fact 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 in
order to address Ekalavya’s and also his own position and strategy vis-à-vis the
dominant culture. The story is also a multivocal meditation on the teacher–pupil
dynamic, given added piquancy, when considered academically, by the dependence
of scholarly institutions on that very dynamic.
Ekalavya’s Mahābhārata appearances after the thumb incident are rather ghostly,
perhaps in keeping with the sometime equation of thumb and soul: Duryodhana
feverishly recollects Ekalavya having presented the sandals at Yudhis: t:hira’s rājasūya
(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 also
mentioned in the Harivam :
sa (for example at 81:44 and 84:28) and in various Purān: as.

The ring of promises

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

4
In addition to Ekalavya, one might consider the nis: ādas who are eaten by Garud: a at the seaside
(1.23–25); the nis: āda king who incarnates one of Kālakā’s asura sons (1.61:48); the nis: ādas who are
burned in the firehouse intended for the Pān: d: avas (1.129–37); the nis: ādas conquered before
Yudhis: t:hira’s rājasūya, some of whom are said to be cannibals (2.27–28); the nis: ādas that the
Sarasvatı̄ went underground to avoid (3.130:3–4); the nis: ādas who fight and are killed on Kuruks: etra
(at 6.50 for example); the primordial nis: āda, Pr: thu’s elder brother, churned by the :r:sis out of King
Vena’s corpse’s thigh (12.59); the nis: āda halfbreed Kāpavya, king of the wilds, domesticator of
dasyus (12.133); and the nis: ādas who catch the :r:si Cyavana in their fishing net by accident and go to
heaven (13.50–51), among others. Nis: āda is also one of the seven primordial sounds (see 12.177:35–
36, 14.49:51–52).
5
On the grāma/aran: ya duality (broadly, settlement/wilderness), see Malamoud (1996, pp. 74–91).
6
In the Mahābhārata, as in the Dharmasūtras and Dharma
sāstras, nis: ādas are numbered among
other human groups said to have arisen from interbreeding between the four varn: as (12.285:4–9). At
13.48:12 they are said specifically to result from the union of a Śūdra male and a Ks: atriya female (see
also Brockington, 1995; Jha, 1970, 1974, 1975; Parasher, 1991, pp. 197–202; R. Sharma, 1980).
123
4 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

intricate network of promises governing the action. Four different promises form a
concentric ring, and they suggest that our initial focus on the story of Ekalavya be
expanded to cover adhyāyas 121–28 (see Diagram 1). We will discuss these four
ringed promises in turn, from the inside out.
a

Diagram 1 The ring of promises. a: This is the much later point at which Dron: a tells Bhı̄s: ma of
Drupada’s childhood promise. The promise is not mentioned in Vai
sam : pāyana’s description of
Dron: 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.

(1) Ekalavya’s promise. When Dron: a goes with Arjuna to the forest to confront
Ekalavya, Ekalavya greets Dron: a and declares himself to be Dron: a’s pupil.
tato dron: o ’bravı̄d rājann ekalavyam idam : vacah: |
yadi
sis: yo ’si me tūrn: am
: vetanam : sam : pradı̄yatām ||
ekalavyas tu tac chrutvā prı̄yamān: o ’bravı̄d idam |
kim: prayacchāmi bhagavann ājñāpayatu mām : guruh: ||
na hi kim : cid adeyam : me gurave brahmavittama |
tam abravı̄t tvayān_gus: :tho daks: in: o dı̄yatām
: mama ||

Then Dron: a said this speech to Ekalavya: ‘‘If you are my pupil, a fee must be
given 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 I
would not give for my guru.’’ He said to him: ‘‘You must give me your right
thumb’’ (1.123:33–35).7
Ekalavya now has to comply, or else be a liar. His voluntary self-mutilation is
demanded by his promise (pratijñā; verse 36c) to give whatever was requested: he is,
as narrator Vai
sam: pāyana points out, ‘‘always devoted to the truth’’ (satye niratah:
sadā; verse 36d).
7
There is a pun here: daks: in: a means ‘‘right’’ (as in ‘‘right hand’’), daks: in: ā means ‘‘gift, reward, fee.’’
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 5

(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 begins
to practice archery at night.
tasya jyātalanirghos: am: dron: ah:
su
srāva bhārata |
upetya cainam utthāya paris: vajyedam abravı̄t ||
prayatis: ye tathā kartum: yathā nānyo dhanurdharah: |
tvatsamo bhavitā loke satyam etad bravı̄mi te ||

Dron: a heard the slapping noise of his bowstring, and he rose and came and
embraced him and said: ‘‘I will do anything to make sure that no other archer
in the world will be your equal—I say this to you truly’’ (1.123:5–6).
The Pān: d: avas subsequently witness Ekalavya’s skill, hear him claim to be Dron: a’s
pupil, and tell Dron: a; but it is Arjuna who makes Dron: a intervene:
kaunteyas tv arjuno rājann ekalavyam anusmaran |
: samāgamya pran: ayād idam abravı̄t ||
raho dron: am
nanv aham : parirabhyaikah: prı̄tipūrvam idam : vacah: |
bhavatokto na me
sis: yas tvadvi
sis: :to bhavis: yati ||

Arjuna son of Kuntı̄, remembering Ekalavya, approached Dron: a in private and

said frankly: ‘‘Wasn’t I the one you embraced and affectionately told, ‘No pupil
of mine will be better than you’?’’ (1.123:26–27).
Finally, when Ekalavya is handicapped, we are told that:
tato ’rjunah: prı̄tamanā babhūva vigatajvarah: |
dron: a
s ca satyavāg āsı̄n nānyo ’bhyabhavad arjunam ||

Arjuna, fever gone, became pleased in mind, and Dron: a was a speaker of the
truth: no other surpassed Arjuna (1.123:39).
This frame story dramatically contextualizes Dron: a’s treatment of Ekalavya. He was
bound by his promise to Arjuna. As Rick Jarow says, speaking of Arjuna: ‘‘The
promise 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 nested
within, and balanced by, a promise of Arjuna’s to Dron: a and its fulfillment; both
parties use the other’s promise to their own advantage. Dron: a’s intention all along in
his tuition is to gain forces to settle an old score by attacking Drupada, a boyhood
Ks: 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 promise
that, when trained, they will aid him in a secret military task. We are told that the
Kauravas remained silent and that Arjuna gave his promise (122:39–44).8 It is in light
of Arjuna’s promise that Dron: a makes his own promise. Dron: a’s careful nurturing of
Arjuna is now explained, and in adhyāya 128 he claims his second disciples’ fee,
demanding that his pupils raid and subjugate Drupada. Though this raid is presented

8
Dron: apasks the pupils to say truly (r: tam; verse 42d) that they will do it; Arjuna promises completely
(prati+ jñā, plus adverb sarvam; verse 43cd). The other Pān: d: avas are not mentioned.
123
6 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

as a group expedition carried out by the Bhāratas, Arjuna is the main difference
between 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 the
occasions that it occurs here. These promises operate as text-positional tags, allowing
a certain aspect of the text’s structure to be viewed clearly; but from another
perspective, they perhaps make it harder for Ekalavya and Arjuna to avoid giving
the demanded fee. We hear of a precedent for abrogating
sis: yadharma when
Bhı̄s: ma, preparing to duel with his guru Rāma Jāmadagnya about Ambā (5.178),
says: ‘‘You do not behave like a guru, so I will fight with you’’ (guruvr: ttam
: na jānı̄s: e
tasmād yotsyāmy aham : tvayā; verse 25cd), and adduces various other arguments to
justify his disobedience. The fact that Ekalavya and Arjuna have given their word to
Dron: a means that they cannot respond in this way.
(4) Drupada’s promise. Drupada, after he is made king, rejects his penniless old
friend Dron: a. But he once promised he would never do such a thing. Dron: a moans
to Bhı̄s: ma about Drupada and reports a promise that he says Drupada made to him
years ago:
aham: priyatamah: putrah: pitur dron: a mahātmanah: |
abhis: eks: yati mām
: rājye sa pāñcālyo yadā tadā ||
tvadbhojyam : sakhe satyena te
sape |
: bhavitā rājyam
mama bhogā
s ca vittam : ca tvadadhı̄nam : sukhāni ca ||

‘‘Dron: a, I am the favorite son of my distinguished father. When the Pāñcāla

anoints me to the kingdom, the kingdom will be yours to enjoy. Friend, I swear
to 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 of
the conquered kingdom to Drupada, keeping half for himself. In this way, Drupada’s
promise 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 on
Dron: a keeping his, which depends upon Ekalavya keeping his. So the conclusion of
128 is a result of all four promises:
evam
: rājann ahicchatrā purı̄ janapadāyutā |
yudhi nirjitya pārthena dron: āya pratipāditā ||

Thus was the city Ahicchatrā with its countryside conquered in battle by the
son of Pr: thā 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): here
also the giving of the fee is overlaid with a promise, and here also the guru announces that Arjuna
will not be surpassed (3.165:1–8, 3.170:67–68). Some manuscripts give an extended version of the
battle between Dron: a’s pupils and Drupada (1.app78): the Kauravas attack first, but Drupada repels
them; Bhı̄ma causes some mayhem among Drupada’s troops, but Arjuna then takes over, defeating
Drupada’s senāpati Satyajit, capturing Drupada himself, and stopping Bhı̄ma from killing everyone
else.
10
This is merely the first chapter in their conflict. Now Drupada wants revenge, and in 1.155 he
acquires a heroic son for this purpose—but both rivals are killed in the Kuruks: etra war, and then all
of their descendants are destroyed apart from A
svatthāman, who is banished for three thousand
years (10.16:9–12).
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 7

These promises clustered around the Ekalavya incident fix it within the wider text of
adhyāyas 121–28, which begins with Dron: a’s birth and childhood and ends with his
victory 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 the
words 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 Mahābhārata, working through vows, boons, curses,
satyakriyās, or simply off-the-cuff remarks. For example, when Vyāsa senses at the end
of the war that Gāndhārı̄ is minded to curse Yudhis: t:hira, he appears and reminds her
that 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 Pān: d: ava victory was dharmic, so
she should not be angry (11.13:1–11). Sometimes several utterances made by different
people converge on a single event: Alf Hiltebeitel speaks of ‘‘multiple and deepening
causalities, overdeterminations, and intriguing contradictions’’ (2001, p. 164).11
The effect of this is to destabilize the notion of individual agency while obscuring
the details of individual psychology. Ekalavya’s promise, once spoken, means that
his experience of keeping it is inaccessible: we cannot properly ask why he still kept
his word even when he knew what the price was. This point is exemplified at its
logical extreme by Drupada, who keeps his promise unwittingly, without any
awareness that this is what is happening. Drupada is not the agent of the keeping of
his promise, but if we might like to transfer agency to Dron: a instead, we must then
pass some of it on to Arjuna and then to Ekalavya also; if it is not to dissolve into
the background, the agency must come to rest within the promising utterances
themselves. We are repeatedly told in the Mahābhārata that truth is the highest
dharma,12 and perhaps this is not just to encourage truth-telling among the audience
but is also to state a primary axiom of the textual universe. This is a very difficult
aspect of the literature, and it is difficult to know how best to theorize it. One
approach, which has been articulated by M. A. Mehendale (2001, p. 204), is to see
promises and curses as intended to spare certain characters from criticism in terms of
dharma, by contextualizing their adharma within the dharma of truth.13 Since we
know 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 might
also be contextualized by his prior cruelty to the Pān: d: avas’ dog—indeed, the cruelty
inherent in the nis: āda lifestyle contextualizes their cruel treatment in general.

The adhyāya ring

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

11
See, for example, the various ‘‘explanations’’ for Draupadı̄ ’s polyandry (1.182, 187–90); see also
Kr: s: n: a’s justification to Baladeva of Bhı̄ma’s striking Duryodhana below the belt (9.59:11–22).
12
For references, see Hiltebeitel (2001, p. 207n80); see also Brown (1972); Söhnen-Thieme (1995),
and Thompson (1998).
13
Just as, by implication, Kr: s: n: a in the Bhagavad Gı̄tā contextualizes the adharma of Arjuna’s killing
relatives and gurus, first within the dharma of Ks: atriyas and then within the mysterious and
implacable dharma of the cosmos as a whole.
123
8 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

the full human life, with adulthood nested between two childhoods. Perhaps we
should not be any more surprised to see such symmetry in texts than we are to see it
in 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 particular
text segment (here 121–28). Renate Söhnen (1979) has identified ring structures in
speeches of the Rāmāyan: a. John Brockington, summarizing this work, writes that
‘‘Söhnen’s strong emphasis on the purposiveness with which the speeches are con-
structed provides a valuable corrective to the tendency implicitly to exclude creative
artistry from the production of ‘anonymous’ literature’’ (1998, p. 349). By implica-
tion, knowing Sanskrit and knowing how to read a certain Sanskrit text are two
different things. Meaning may come through the configuration of textual elements as
much as through the words and sentences themselves; but this is not congruent with
our usual reading methods (Brereton, 1997, p. 3n7). The identification of textual ring
structures stands to revolutionize the way in which one interprets the text: certain
events and characters are suddenly highlighted, and many repetitions are understood
as parallel tags flanking a central node.15 But Brockington also sounds a note of
caution: ‘‘What constitutes a ring is somewhat varied, since the similarity may rest on
theme, mode of expression, wording, or merely the attitude of the speaker, while the
balancing elements may differ considerably in length, which means that there is a
substantial subjective element to the interpretation’’ (1998, p. 349).
The Mahābhārata, with its frame stories and nested levels of narration, naturally
attracts attention in terms of structural rings. Christopher Minkowski (1989) relates
the Mahābhārata’s concentric textual structure to concentric ritual structure,16 and
Dennis Hudson (2001) has identified a ring of five adhyāyas in the Bhagavad Gı̄tā
(12–16 [Mahābhārata 6.34–38]), which, he argues, maps the ritual ring of the five-day
purus: amedha ritual.17 I submit that the Dron: a–Drupada cycle in the Poona edition
constitutes a ring of adhyāyas with 124 at the center (see Diagram 2). This adhyāya
ring is, as far as I can tell, a textual ring only.18 The symmetry only appears when
adhyāya 123 is separated into two parts, thus turning an eight-adhyāya text into a
nine-section text with the fifth section at the center. Adhyāya 123 is more than twice
the average length of the other adhyāyas 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 ten
dice 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 organized
and suggests that the storytelling embedded within the ritual mirrored that concentric structure (see
also Brereton, 1997, pp. 1–5; Hegarty, 2004; Witzel, 1987, p. 413).
17

The purus: amedha is described at Satapatha Brāhman: a 13.6.1:9 in terms of a ‘‘barleycorn’’ (yava)
arrangement. The center of the Bhagavad Gı̄tā ring, adhyāya 14, contains ‘‘the ultimate knowledge of
knowledges’’ (jñānānām
: jñānam uttamam; verse 1b) and is linked by Hudson to the day of full moon.
The thematic links between the two pairs of adhyāyas 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 Mahābhārata’s various groups of 18 onto each other and identifying day 14 of the
Kuruks: etra war as the center of a ring formed by Karn: a’s entry (day 11) and death (day 17) (see further
below).
18
Evidence of ancient Indian ritual tends to be textual in any case: the ritual we can access most
directly is that of textual composition and preservation.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 9

self-contained halves.19 Either two adhyāyas have accidentally turned into one
during textual transmission or this ring is deliberately obscured. But the ring of
promises highlights Ekalavya and his thumb within the Dron: a–Drupada cycle, and
the key to the release of the adhyāya ring is contained in the name of the central
promiser, Ekalavya, which indicates singularity and cutting (lavya is a participle of
p
necessity from the verb lū). The name can thus be read as a textual signal, high-
lighted by the ring of promises, and telling us to cut the adhyāya once. When this is
done, thematic parallels are visible between linked adhyāyas, as shown on the
Diagram: 121 parallels 128, and so on, with 124 at the center.20
This use of the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ is very interesting. The characters within the
scene do not use the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ themselves. The narrator Vai
sam : pāyana
does use it, and he thus announces the grisly dénoument to his audience in advance
and at the same time gives a dual instruction: a stage instruction to Dron: a, telling
him what to do with Arjuna’s rival, and a hermeneutic instruction to us, telling us
what to do with this adhyāya. Once we conceive the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ in these
terms, we might also view it as a summary of the general method of reading and
interpreting in terms of ring structures. To read by this method is to cut the text
once, along an axis of symmetry; to match parallel units on both halves (I have called
these tags, but they might equally be ears); and to examine the central node (the
knife point, as it were). Different cuts would point to different centers. So we could
say that the hermeneutic instruction given by the name ‘‘Ekalavya’’ refers to
adhyāya 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 adhyāyas in the
ring, grouping the central adhyāya with the outermost pair.
(1) The pair 123b/125: The parallel Arjunas. In 123b, now that Ekalavya has been
dealt with, Arjuna’s superiority is repeatedly asserted and demonstrated. Dron: a tests
his 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 only
on the target, so Dron: a does not let them shoot. Then, while bathing, Dron: a is
grabbed by a crocodile: he makes it another test, to see who can free him, and
Arjuna kills the crocodile with five arrows. Satisfied with Arjuna, Dron: a tells him the

19
Adhyāya 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 best
Arjuna as an archer, once at the beginning of the adhyāya (verse 6) and once at the end (verse 78),
and the center of the adhyāya is marked by a narratorial link to these promises (verse 39cd: ‘‘and
Dron: a was a speaker of the truth: no other surpassed Arjuna’’). In this way, the text shows the reader
exactly where to bisect the adhyāya, even without counting the verses.
20
My approach here separates off 1.120 from the Dron: a–Drupada cycle. This may raise some
eyebrows, since 120, which relates Kr: pa’s birth, seems in many ways to be a doublet with 121: both
Kr: pa and Dron: a are produced, without the aid of any human woman, from a solitary sage’s seminal
emission after his sighting of an apsaras; and both will go on to train the princes and fight against the
Pān: d: avas at Kuruks: etra. But Kr: pa hardly features in the cycle (apart from his asking for Karn: a’s
lineage), and in my opinion, which I hope to elaborate elsewhere, the juxtaposition of Kr: pa and
Dron: a here sets the stage for a contrast between the two characters, which runs right through the text
and which is reflected by their differing destinies (Dron: a is killed on Kuruks: etra, but Kr: pa survives
and continues to tutor young Bhāratas; see 1.45:11, 17.1:13). For the motif of motherless birth, see
Epstein (1994), Hara (1975), M. Smith (1991), and Thomas (1998). Many manuscripts also relate
Drupada’s motherless birth; see 1.app79:170–72 (following adhyāya 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

123
Diagram 2 The adhyāya ring (summaries adapted from van Buitenen, 1973)
121
The :rs:i Bharadvāja sees the apsaras Ghr: tācı̄ nude; he catches Equality
his seed in a trough; Dron: a is born from it. Bharadvāja teaches (between Dron: a
him the āgneya missile. Drupada, son of King Pr: s: ata, is and Drupada)
Dron: a’s schoolmate. Drupada succeeds to the throne of
Pāñcāla. Dron: a weds Kr: pı̄; A
svatthāman is born. When Rāma
Jāmadagnya retires, Dron: a obtains his miracle weapons.
122
Dron: a visits King Drupada, who disclaims his friendship. Dispute over relative status
Insulted, Dron: a goes to Hāstinapura. He lifts the princes’ toy ( ‹ Dron: a/Drupada)
from a dry well with a chain of arrows. Bhı̄s: ma receives him. (Arjuna/Karn: a fi )
Dron: a complains of Drupada’s hypocrisy. Bhı̄s: ma engages him
as a teacher. Dron: a demands of his pupils assistance in a secret
task; Arjuna gives his promise. Dron: a also teaches the Vr: s: n: is
and Karn: a.
123a
Dron: a teaches Arjuna and promises that no archer will be his Arjuna in danger
equal. The nis: āda Ekalavya comes for tuition. Dron: a refuses of being bested
him. He goes into the forest and practices before an image of ( ‹ by Ekalavya)
Dron: a. When the princes go hunting, their dog discovers (by Karn: a fi )
Ekalavya, who shoots it expertly; he is recognized. Arjuna
complains to Dron: a that he has a pupil better than Arjuna;
Dron: a goes to find Ekalavya, who honors him as his teacher.
Dron: a demands Ekalavya’s right thumb as his fee, which
Ekalavya gives.
10
128
Dron: a demands that his pupils capture King Drupada as their
disciples’ fee. They raid his city Ahicchatrā and capture him.
Dron: a returns the king’s earlier insults, but sets him free and
gives him back the southern half of the kingdom. Drupada
claims to be Dron: a’s friend once more, but broods and hopes
for a son.
127
Enter Adhiratha, Karn: a’s (foster) father. Father and son
embrace. Bhı̄ma derides Karn: a for his low birth, saying he has
_
no right either to fight Arjuna or to rule Anga. Duryodhana
defends Karn: a, saying that origins are obscure and that Karn: a
should be judged on his own merits. The sun sets before the
issue is resolved. Duryodhana no longer fears Arjuna;
Yudhis: t:hira now fears Karn: a.
126
Karn: a enters, says that he will match all of Arjuna’s feats, and
does so. Duryodhana welcomes him; Arjuna berates him as an
intruder. Karn: a challenges Arjuna to a duel. Indra rains on
Arjuna; the sun shines on Karn: a. Family and public take sides;
Kuntı̄ faints and is revived by Vidura. Kr: pa quotes Arjuna’s
lineage and asks for Karn: a’s; Karn: a hangs his head.
Duryodhana quickly installs Karn: a as king of Anga. _ Karn: a
promises Duryodhana his eternal friendship.
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34
 123b 125
Arjuna excels over all other pupils. Dron: a places an artificial Arjuna shows his When the public becomes partisan, Dron: a has A
svatthāman
bird in a treetop and tests each pupil’s concentration in aiming. superiority; stop the match. Dron: a introduces Arjuna as the best of arms-
Arjuna wins. A crocodile grabs the bathing Dron: a; Arjuna Dron: a declares it men, whom he loves more than his own son. To the acclaim of
shoots it. Dron: a gives the brahma
siras missile to Arjuna, who the spectators, Arjuna demonstrates his superior skills, both
promises not to misuse it. Dron: a states that no one will match magical and martial. At the gate the loud slapping of arms is
Arjuna at archery. heard.
Equality
(between Duryodhana and
Bhı̄ma)
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

124

æ

At the end of the princes’
training, Dron: a proposes a
weapon show to the Kaurava
elders and prepares the arena
with Vidura. The family and
the public assemble and watch
the princes perform. Duryo-
dhana and Bhı̄ma start a club
duel.

123
11
12 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

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 will
always be the greatest archer.
At the beginning of 125, at the tournament, the duel beginning between Bhı̄ma
and Duryodhana is dividing the crowd. To prevent trouble, Dron: a tells A
svatthāman
to halt proceedings and instead introduces Arjuna:
yo me putrāt priyatarah: sarvāstravidus: ām
: varah: |
aindrir indrānujasamah: sa pārtho dr:
syatām iti ||
‘‘The best of all knowers of weapons, the son of Indra, and a match for Indra’s
younger brother: may the son of Pr: thā, who is dearer to me than my son, be
seen’’ (1.125:7).
The crowd go wild, echoing Dron: a’s general assessment, and Arjuna does a solo
show:
āgneyenāsr: jad vahnim: vārun: enāsr: jat payah: |
vāyavyenāsr: jad vāyum: pārjanyenāsr: jad ghanān ||
bhaumena prāvi
sad bhūmim : pārvatenāsr: jad girı̄n |
antardhānena cāstren: a punar antarhito ’bhavat ||

With the āgneya weapon he shot fire, with the vārun: a he shot water, with the
vāyavya he shot wind, with the pārjanya he shot clouds; with the bhauma he
entered earth, with the pārvata he shot mountains, and with the disappearing
weapon it became invisible again (1.125:19–20).
Acrobatic, bow, sword, and club routines follow. The adhyāya ends with noises at the
gate, and all stand to see who is coming.
The parallels are striking: in both adhyāyas, Arjuna displays his excellence and is
hailed by Dron: a—who plays a part in not letting others get much of a chance to
prove him wrong—as the best of warriors.21 It is clear that Arjuna’s distinction is
yogic 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 birth
was attended by various indications of his superlative destiny (1.114), Bhı̄ma has been the main
Pān: d: ava hero so far and will be again (slaying rāks: asas and so on) until the Pān: d: avas hear of
Draupadı̄’s svayam : vara. By featuring Arjuna, the cycle focuses on a Ks: atriya of a very different kind
from Bhı̄ma. Allen (1999) theorizes Arjuna as representing the para-Dumézilian ‘‘fourth function
positive,’’ which encompasses and transcends the three social functions represented by the first three
varn: as.
22
For the crocodile in the ‘‘river of life’’ metaphor, see 12.227:20, 12.307:8. From the late Vedic
period onwards success in yoga is compared to good chariot driving, and in the Mahābhārata it is also
compared to accurate archery (see 12.289:31 [apramatto yathā dhanvı̄ laks: yam : hanti samāhitah: |
yuktah: samyak tathā yogı̄ moks: am : prāpnoty asam :
sayam || Just as a vigilant, concentrated archer hits
the target, in the same way an integrated yogin certainly attains moks: a], 12.289:36–37, 12.318:3,
14.30, 3.2:65). Sulabhā and Śuka 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 to
indraloka to obtain special weapons (3.37–45) and yoga as detailed in the Yogasūtra and the


Svetā
svatara Upanis: ad. Arjuna’s practising his archery at night may evoke yogic sleep-avoidance (see
6.24:69, 12.232:4–5, 12.266:14; Allen, 1998, p. 18n10). Some of the powers Arjuna demonstrates at the
tournament may be compared to the yogic siddhis as described at 12.228:15c–27b. On yoga in the
Mahābhārata in general, see Brockington (2003) and Hopkins (1901). As will become clear, I think
that 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.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 13

power to concentrate on one object alone; and many of his tricks at the tournament
are magical ones. Arjuna has supplanted A
svatthāman in Dron: a’s affections and
effectively becomes a hybrid, hyper-powerful Brāhman: a–Ks: atriya figure. This is
shown by his receipt of divyāstras (divine weapons), special mantras which allow
arrows to be charged with specific types of supernatural destructiveness and which
are normally known only by Brāhman: as.23
(2) The pair 123a/126: Ekalavya and Karn: a. Links between Ekalavya and Karn: a
have been discussed by Jarow in terms of generosity, ‘‘the issue of birth versus
power,’’ and ‘‘dissonance…between…seemingly good nature…and…cruel fate’’
(1999, pp. 66–67). In the Dron: a–Drupada cycle, Ekalavya and Karn: a both threaten
to surpass Arjuna but are disallowed from competing with him directly. In adhyāya
126 Karn: a appears at the tournament, announces that he will best Arjuna, and, with
Dron: a’s permission,24 matches all of Arjuna’s solo tricks. Duryodhana welcomes
Karn: a, who flytes briefly with Arjuna,25 and a duel is in store; but first Kr: pa asks for
Karn: a’s Ks: atriya ancestry, which he cannot give, for he thinks himself a sūta.
Duryodhana intervenes and gives Karn: a the country of Anga. _ 26 Karn: a is anointed
there and then and promises Duryodhana his eternal friendship.
Karn: a’s instant kingdom parallels Ekalavya’s clay model of Dron: a. Both are
introduced after the candidate’s eligibility has been put into doubt by an apparent
deficiency in ancestry; both attempt to mark the candidate as eligible, but neither is
able 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 divyāstras, see Debroy (1986) and Whitaker (2000, 2002). As the name suggests, particular
divyāstras are often associated with particular devas.
24
Karn: a has already been studying at Dron: a’s school (1.122:47). His sūta background may explain
why he is allowed to matriculate where Ekalavya is not: sūtas are of mixed blood, produced by
Brāhman: a–Ks: atriya interbreeding, but they may require military training since, as Śalya says, they
are the attendants of Brāhman: as and Ks: atriyas (8.22:36ab). The identification of sūtas as ‘‘bards’’ is
associated 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 tournament
scene, see Jarow (1999, pp. 64–65); Ramanujan (1991a, pp. 427–434, reproducing van Buitenen’s
translation).
26
1.126:34–35:

:
sāstravini
scaye |
ācārya trividhā yonı̄ rājñām
tatkulı̄na
s ca
sūra
s ca senām: ya
s ca prakars: ati ||
yady ayam : phalguno yuddhe nārājñā yoddhum icchati |
tasmād es: o ’n_gavis: aye mayā rājye ’bhis: icyate ||

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

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. Thy
Fates open their hands. Let thy blood and spirit embrace them’’ (Twelfth Night; or, What You
Will 2.5.155–59).
123
14 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

[van Buitenen, 1973, p. 460]),27 and the arrival of his (foster) father Adhiratha
reopens the controversy at the end of adhyāya 126.
Karn: a’s and Ekalavya’s ability to match Arjuna’s level of attainment is related to
their extraordinary dedication. We are told of Ekalavya:
tasminn ācāryavr: ttim
: ca paramām āsthitas tadā |
is: vastre yogam ātasthe param: niyamam āsthitah: ||
parayā
sraddhayā yukto yogena paramen: a ca |
vimoks: ādānasam
: dhāne laghutvam : param āpa sah: ||

There [in the forest] he diligently treated this [image of Dron: a] as his teacher
and practiced the yoga of the bow, observing strict discipline. United with great
faith and superlative discipline, he acquired a superb deftness at fixing arrow to
bowstring, aiming, and releasing (1.123:13–14).
Earlier, we are told of Karn: a:
ā pr: :s:thatāpād ādityam upatasthe sa vı̄ryavān ||
yasmin kāle japann āste sa vı̄rah: satyasam : garah: |
nādeyam : brāhman: es: v āsı̄t tasmin kāle mahātmanah: ||

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 he
would not give to the Brāhman: as (1.104:16cd, 17).28
In terms of dedication and self-discipline, these two match Arjuna.29 But they are
excluded, and their generosity and truthfulness is turned against them. Ekalavya’s
kept promise, to give Dron: a whatever he asks for, brings about his ruin and his fame
and parallels Karn: a’s promise to give Duryodhana whatever he asks for, which is
eternal friendship (1.126:38–39) and which brings about Karn: a’s ruin—fighting

27
In the Purān: as, King Vena’s father (the primordial nis: āda’s grandfather) is named Anga _ after the
region he represents, which ‘‘during Vedic times was mostly inhabited by autochthonous groups’’
(Nath, 2002, pp. 51–52). The connection between Karn: a, Duryodhana, and Anga _ is also made
elsewhere in the Mahābhārata: at 12.5 Anga _ is a gift of friendship from Jarāsam: dha to Karn: a after a
wrestling match, but Karn: a rules it with Duryodhana’s permission; Angas _ fight for Duryodhana at
Kuruks: etra alongside other hı̄na groups (see, for example, 8.49:78–79); and they feature with nis: ādas
in a list of peoples defeated earlier by Karn: a for Duryodhana (8.5:18–20). Karn: a seems to represent
the acculturation of outsiders, and the discovery of his Ks: atriya ancestry goes hand in hand with this.
According to 12.49:72 King Anga, _ a pedigree Ks: atriya, survived Rāma Jāmadagnya’s massacres and
was ‘‘watched over by a Gautama on the banks of the Gangā’’ _ (gautamenāpi gan_gākūle ’bhiraks: itah: ),
that is, in a community of non-Ks: atriyas (see Manusmr: ti 2:38–40, 10:43–44), and likewise Karn: a is
known as a sūta but is later revealed as the Ks: atriya son of Kuntı̄ and Sūrya. Harivam :
sa (24:27), Vāyu
Purān: a (2.34:187), and Brahmān: d: a Purān: a (3.71:190) also make Ekalavya a (Vārs: n: eya) Ks: atriya by
birth, fostered into a nis: āda family (see More, 1995, p. 41). This underlines the symmetry between
Ekalavya and Karn: a and may be taken as evidence of a suspicion—more forceful in the
Mahābhārata in the case of Karn: a—that anyone as powerful and as proper as Ekalavya must be
thoroughbred.
28
Ekalavya’s generosity is marked at 1.123:35 by the same formula, na+adeyam (see Ekalavya’s
promise 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 Brāhman: 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 divyāstras or burning at distance
with the eyes), or verbal (through boons, curses, satyakriyās, or other forms of miraculous elo-
quence).
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 15

against his brother Arjuna on Kuruks: etra—and his fame. As if further to connect
Karn: a with Ekalavya, at 3.294:35–38 Karn: a mutilates himself, cutting off his
inborn golden earrings and cuirass—which otherwise would have ensured his
invincibility—with his sword and giving them to Indra, because Indra is disguised as
a Brāhman: a and Karn: a has a longstanding vow never to refuse Brāhman: as (see also
1.104:17–19, 3.284–86; McGrath, 2004, pp. 133–142).
(3) The pair 122/127: The inclusion/exclusion debate. Adhyāyas 122 and 127 both
contain debates over the eligibility of non-Ks: atriyas to participate alongside Ks: atri-
yas. Adhyāya 122 treats the Dron: a/Drupada relation set up in 121 (Brāhman: a/
Ks: atriya), and adhyāya 127 treats the Karn: a/Arjuna relation set up in 126 (sūta/
Ks: atriya). The parallel between these adhyāyas is most convincing if the specific
theoretical details of Brāhman: a–Ks: atriya and Ks: atriya–sūta relations, as expounded
in the Mahābhārata’s didactic sections and in the Dharma
sāstras, are overlooked30
and the situations are instead viewed in terms of a general Ks: atriya discourse of
discriminatory exclusion. In both cases the non-Ks: atriya (Dron: a/Karn: a) is excluded
for the time being; in both cases eligibility is later effectively obtained regardless of
convention. At the end of the cycle Dron: a takes half of Drupada’s kingdom, as a
Ks: 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 sensitive
discussion 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 Bhı̄s: ma, an account
of how Dron: a sought a cow in order to reduce the economic differential between A
svatthāman and
other 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 without
service, but Drupada says:

sauhr: dam
: me tvayā hy āsı̄t pūrvam
: sāmarthyabandhanam ||
yayor eva samam : vittam: yayor eva samam : kulam |
tayoh: sakhyam
: vivāha
s ca na tu pus: :tavipus: :tayoh: ||

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

When he gives Drupada half the kingdom back after the raid, Dron: a pointedly remarks that their
parity of wealth should now allow renewed friendship. Drupada is shown that even a penniless
Brāhman: a has power enough to avenge insults, and he reflects that he cannot defeat Dron: a by ks: atra
power alone (128:16–17) and next seeks a Brāhman: a for assistance in obtaining a son heroic enough
to kill him (1.154–55, including a summary of the story so far). On Kuruks: etra, when Drupada is
repelled by Dron: a, he twice recollects Dron: a’s Arjuna stunt (6.73:45, 6.100:24).
The debate over Karn: a in adhyāya 127 consists of one speech each from Bhı̄ma and Duryodhana,
whose aborted duel thus resurfaces in a different form. Duryodhana does not mind who Karn: a’s
parents are, as long as he helps to fight against the Pān: d: avas, particularly Arjuna; and he first argues
for the openness of Ks: atriya-hood to those of diverse births (127:11–14), before implying that
Karn: a’s qualities show him to be really a pedigree Ks: atriya (verse 15). This second, biologically
determinist view is aired again when Duryodhana persuades Śalya to drive Karn: a’s chariot on
Kuruks: 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
sāstra texts and their commentaries; and in the
Mahābhārata, in addition to the many references to Śūdras who are effectively Brāhman: as from
certain points of view (and vice versa), actual change of varn: a or prakr: ti within one lifetime is said to
have occurred in certain exceptional cases (9.38–39, 12.285:14–16, including Kr: pa, Dron: a, and
Drupada as named examples). The tension between Duryodhana’s two views is also evident in Śiva’s
words to Umā at 13.131 (verse 6/verses 47–49).
123
16 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

sūta. Karn: a’s later inclusion is commensurate with his true identity (which is ‘‘a secret
of the gods’’; 12.2:3), but Dron: a has no such true identity, and thus on the battlefield
he is criticized for paradharma by the :r:sis (7.164:89–92), by Bhı̄ma (7.165:28–32), and
by 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 struggle
and the Karn: a/Arjuna struggle as replicating the structure of the Mahābhārata’s
larger struggle between Duryodhana and Yudhis: t:hira. The stages of the struggle
might be sketched in preliminary and provisional fashion as follows: there is initial
parity (Dron: a and Drupada are childhood friends; Karn: a and Arjuna have the same
mother; 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 his
pedigree; Yudhis: t:hira but not Duryodhana marries Draupadı̄ and becomes samrāj);
the excluded is scorned by the successful (Drupada rejects Dron: a; Karn: a is taunted
for his low birth; Duryodhana is humiliated at the rājasūya); the excluded gains
ascendancy once more, with assistance (Dron: a takes half of Drupada’s kingdom; at
the dice match Karn: a scoffs at the Pān: d: avas; Duryodhana wins Yudhis: t:hira’s
kingdom); the newly excluded works towards revenge (Drupada obtains Dhr: s: t:a-
dyumna and Draupadı̄; Arjuna obtains divyāstras; Yudhis: t:hira garners merit and
learning); the newly excluded takes revenge (Dhr: s: t:adyumna kills Dron: a; Arjuna
kills Karn: a; Yudhis: t:hira triumphs over Duryodhana); but revenge is by no means
sweet (A
svatthāman takes terrible counter-revenge; Karn: a turns out to have been
Arjuna’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. The
parallels between adhyāyas 121 and 128 have already been discussed insofar as they
overlap with the effect of the outer promise in the ring of promises. In both adhyāyas
there is a functional equality between Dron: a and Drupada. In 121 the equality is
that of friends and college-mates and follows on the friendship of their fathers
Bharadvāja and Pr: s: ata; but it is broken by Drupada’s accession. In 128 the equality
is re-established by Dron: a’s army but is now both volatile (because of Drupada’s
resentment) and controversial (in terms of varn: adharma).
This equality, featured in the ring of promises as well as the adhyāya ring, seems
to constitute the outer frame of the cycle, and accordingly the other themes visible in
the adhyāya ring might be viewed in light of it. It is consonant with this impulse that
the prevailing wisdom on ring composition often locates the principal theme, which
is 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 we
examine from this angle the central adhyāya 124, in which the princes’ graduation
tournament 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 Brāhman: a (often called brahmabandhus) are discussed in the text, usually with
condemnation, although some departure from Brāhman: a-dharmas is to be expected in times of āpad.
Dron: a received his divyāstras from Rāma Jāmadagnya, another Brāhman: a who trespasses on
Ks: atriya-dharma (1.121:16–23; on the chronic conflicts between Bhārgavas and kings, see Fitzgerald,
2002a; Goldman, 1972, 1977, pp. 93–112). For criticism of A
svatthāman in terms of varn: adharma, see
8.39:33, 8.42:27. When A
svatthāman is appointed leader of the Kaurava forces, Duryodhana claims
dharmic authority, as king, to make Brāhman: as fight (9.64:39; see also A
svatthāman’s self-justifi-
cation at 10.3).
32
Notable with regard to these correlations is the theory that the text’s Kaurava–Pān: d: ava conflict
revamps tales of a Kaurava–Pāñcāla conflict (see Bhattacharya, 1969; Katz, 1991; Mazumdar, 1906).
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 17

(that is, no one is yet singled out by the quality of their performance) and that a duel
between Bhı̄ma and Duryodhana, two Ks: atriyas of equal pedigree and (as will be
finally demonstrated at the end of the war) equal ability, is about to begin. So we can
identify functional equality as a theme in 121, 128, and 124. In the intervening
adhyāyas various inequalities are negotiated: Ks: atriya/Brāhman: a; rich man/poor
man; Ks: atriya/nis: āda; Arjuna/everyone else; and Ks: atriya/sūta.
Even having identified a ‘‘principal theme,’’ it is possible to make sense of this
theme in different ways. From a broadly humanist perspective,33 we might like to
interpret it in terms of an innate equality of all people. This kind of interpretation
would pick up on the yogin’s equanimous treatment of items ordinarily of polarized
value (soil and gold, for example, and Brāhman: a and cān: d: āla), and the essential
equality of ātmans:
sarvabhūtastham ātmānam : sarvabhūtāni cātmani |
ı̄ks: ate yogayuktātmā sarvatra samadar
sanah: ||

The one whose self is united with yoga, who views all places equally, sees the
ātman 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 Sulabhā to King Janaka:
yady ātmani parasmim :
s ca samatām adhyavasyasi ||
atha mām: kāsi kasyeti kimartham anupr: cchasi |
idam: me syād idam: neti dvam : dvair muktasya maithila |
kāsi kasya kuto veti vacane kim : prayojanam ||

‘‘If you apprehend the equality of self and other, then for what purpose do you
ask me,
Who and whose are you? For one freed from the pairs of opposites
(
this is mine, this is not), son of Mithilā, what is the point of the speech,
Who,
whose, and whence are you?’ ’’ (12.308:126ef, 127).35
Here Sulabhā is implying that if Janaka was really a yogin, possessed of the ātma-
vidyā, then he simply would not judge a person on the basis of their gender or
lineage or reject a Brāhman: a for being penniless, or a student for being a nis: āda, or a
dueling partner for being a sūta.36 This kind of perspective might easily be identified
as the structural ‘‘meaning’’ of the cycle.37

33
Here I am not speaking just of the European humanist tradition but of an inclusivist egalitarian
strain 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 Mahābhārata.
35
The qualitative identity of ātmans or purus: as must not be confused with numerical identity.
36
Or, we might add (for this is exactly what Sulabhā then does), reject a partner-in-moks: a-seeking
for his ruling a kingdom. Despite the fact that it is as damning of herself as it is of Janaka, this
argument of Sulabhā’s has been approved by many commentators on this scene (see Fitzgerald,
2002b; Piantelli, 2002; Sutton, 1999; Vanita, 2003). Although it seems that Sulabhā ‘‘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. On
reflection, the equality of ātmans might be seen not to entail the equal treatment of all but rather to
underpin inequality of treatment; for if the possibility of being (or having been) a different varn: a in
one’s next (or previous) life (with which the present one is karmically linked) is seen as an attempt to
rationalize inequality of treatment, then it must be pointed out that this possibility absolutely
depends on the personal interchangeability of ātmans.
123
18 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

I think here it is also tempting to interpret the central adhyāya in its own right, that is,
not necessarily through its thematic identity with the outermost frame. If we do this, we
can emphasize the tournament as a foreshadow of the Kuruks: etra war:38 both events
are spectacles of Ks: atriya prowess, attracting large and diverse audiences, and the
duels that are prevented from occurring at the tournament, that is, Karn: a’s with Arjuna
and Duryodhana’s with Bhı̄ma, resurface as two of the war’s most significant episodes.
We have now completed our sketch of the Dron: a–Drupada cycle’s adhyāya
symmetries in the Poona edition. One of the most striking conclusions to be drawn
from this is that V. S. Sukthankar’s reconstructed Ādiparvan is credible to a high but
hitherto untested degree of accuracy. It contains special features which must have
been deliberately intended by ancient authors or editors but which are invisible in
most of the manuscript traditions, as we will see.
The adhyāya ring will be preserved in the various Mahābhārata manuscript tra-
ditions as long as the adhyāya junctions remain intact, with one exception: a new
adhyāya beginning at 123:40 would not disrupt the ring but, other things being equal,
would make it more visible, since the double adhyāya 123 would not then have to be
bisected according to the ‘‘Ekalavya’’ instruction. But if we look at the critical
apparatus for 1.121–28 (Sukthankar, 1933, pp. 536–572, 919–924),39 we see that the
ring is usually lost. Although the adhyāya structure of the second half of the cycle
remains intact in all manuscripts,40 the first half tends to be disrupted, containing a
variety of extra colophons (end-of-adhyāya markers) and omitting others.41
Nineteen of the fifty-nine manuscripts surveyed by Sukthankar (Ś1, K0–3, K5–6,
V1, D5, T3, G7, M1–8) preserve the ring exactly as in the Poona edition. In addition
nine manuscripts, despite moving some colophons and/or introducing an extra one in
adhyāya 123, preserve the ring in its basic form—that is to say, the parallel themes
sketched above are still there, one per adhyāya.42 But in more than half of the
manuscripts the ring is lost. It is curious that the adhyāya structure is so variable in
the first half of the cycle but so invariable in the second. While this might be purely
accidental, 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 to
tamper 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 the
Poona edition, although created long after the various manuscripts, reconstructs an ancient text; so I
write 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, Ñ1–3, B1–6, Da1–2, T2, G2, and G4–6); after 122:20 (Ñ2); after
122:38 (K4 [Sukthankar is ambiguous here], Ñ1–3, 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 (Ñ2,
Dn1–3, and D1). Missing colophons: after 120 (Dn1–3 and G3); after 121 (T2 and G5); after 122 (Ñ1–
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 in
any particular manuscript an ‘‘extra’’ colophon and a nearby ‘‘omitted’’ one might cancel each other
out; 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 G3
preserve the ring and add a colophon between Ekalavya’s threatening to surpass Arjuna and Arjuna
demonstrating his superiority, thus cutting 123 once (Dn1–3 omit the colophon after 120, move the
122 colophon as D2 does, and add a colophon after 123:57; D1 has the D2 move and adds a colophon
after 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 does
not hide the ring but just expands its first section—and adds one after 123:39).
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 19

interpreted in terms of equality, then it is easy to see why some editors might have
objected to it. Or perhaps if the ring of themes remains, there is simply no need for
the ring of adhyāyas to survive in detail.43
The idea of hiding or discarding a ring, remarkably enough, is present in a story
that 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 his
audience with Bhı̄s: ma) by making a chain of arrows and rescuing their lost toy from
the bottom of a well, he also rescues his own ring (mudrikā), which he has just
thrown in deliberately. This makes his feat more dramatic, since he has effectively
made a bet in advance, with his ring as a stake, that his archery is up to the task. I
would suggest in addition that this is a text-hermeneutic clue, alerting the audience
to 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 at
123:39 or thereabouts, the ring is not immediately obvious and has to be brought up
from the well. Here, then, accurate archery (more specifically, the shooting of each
arrow into the center of the previous one, which thus frames it, and the manipulation
of the whole set by means of the most multiply framed arrow) seems to denote a
yoga of reading, a text-reception method that is alert to structural patterns and to
interpretations 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 is
repeatedly presented elsewhere in the Mahābhārata,47 sometimes in doublets.
_
Utanka, 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 Saudāsa’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 Ś1 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 vı̄t: ā,
which according to Monier-Williams (1990, p. 1004) is barleycorn shaped, a shape that Hudson,


following the Satapatha Brāhman: a, links with ring composition (see footnote 17).
46
Hegarty (2004) argues that the Mahābhārata contains a model of how to read (or hear) itself. He
talks of the ‘‘idealised participant’’ (that is, audience member; Hegarty, 2004, pp. 28–29), ‘‘functional
participation 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 understood
metacommunicatively to model competent reception of, and engagement with, the text. Dicing is
connected to kingship in a way that archery, yoga, and textual study are not, and this example thus
brings up some of the Mahābhārata’s central open questions (Are there perfected kings? And what is
the 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 bewitching
notion 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 Rāma Dā
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 Kālidāsa’s Abhijñāna
sākuntalam as three pairs (1 and 7; 2 and 6; 3 and
5) framing the central fourth act, but he does not call this a ring, and so when he discusses the
provenance of the motif of the ring (of recognition, p. xxviii), he does not link this with the play’s
structure. Admittedly the term ‘‘ring-composition’’ is ours, but nonetheless, I suggest, there is a link
in the tradition between this type of textual structure and that type of ornament. Compare also
Sarvadamana’s crucial wrist ornament in the final act of Abhijñāna
sākuntalam. Kat::thahāri Jātaka, in
which 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.
123
20 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

purloined by a snake, in the netherworld. The whole story is told twice, once
near 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 the
cakravyūha (circular battle-array) that Dron: a sets up on day 13 of the Kuruks: etra
war (7.33–35). Dron: a is repeatedly associated with rings: at 7.93:29 his chariot is
dragged in 1000 circles like the sun, and at 1.125:30–32, just before Karn: a enters
the tournament arena, Dron: a and Duryodhana are ringed by the Pān: d: avas and
Kauravas respectively (see also 17.1:25–26, where Yuyutsu is ringed by Kr: pa and
others and Pariks: it is ringed by women). At 1.123:60, as Arjuna stands ready for
Dron: a to give him the command to shoot, his bow is drawn into a circle. These
references resonate in a new way once the Dron: a–Drupada cycle is viewed as a
ring. The fully drawn bow is a particularly good image: the bow-and-string circle
is 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, having
made 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 of
promises and one of adhyāyas, each with a separate center (the Ekalavya incident
and the Bhı̄ma/Duryodhana duel). Now let us consider the cycle in terms of its
temporal extent in recitation. If the length of the text is x, then at x ‚ 2 we have, as it
were, its ‘‘real-time’’ center. To consider the text in these terms, imagine it as taking
one hour to recite: then if we represent the text as a circle (the full hour on a clock’s
face), we can plot various events within it at their corresponding points on the
circle’s circumference.49
The Dron: a–Drupada cycle is made up of 294 numbered verses in the Poona
edition. Since this is an even number, effectively there are two central verses, 147
and 148. These are the last two verses (77–78) of adhyāya 123 (Dron: a is giving
Arjuna the brahma
siras weapon):
bādhetāmānus: ah:
satrur yadā tvām: vı̄ra ka
s cana |
tadvadhāya prayuñjı̄thās tadāstram idam āhave ||
tatheti tat prati
srutya bı̄bhatsuh: sa kr: tāñjalih: |
jagrāha paramāstram : tad āha cainam : punar guruh: |
bhavitā tvatsamo nānyah: pumām : l loke dhanurdharah: ||

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

48
The text also uses other motifs that might allude to reading skills. For example, Duryodhana’s
distress at Yudhis: t:hira’s rājasūya (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 find
hell, and vice versa; 18.1–2) are structurally similar. In both cases things are not what they seem, but the
characters (neither of whom is famed as an archer) are unable to read the situation. Like the two
versions of the Utanka _ 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 being
sped up or slowed down such that the recitation extends over one full revolution of the minute hand.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 21

‘‘Tathā’’—and took the ultimate weapon. Again the guru told him, ‘‘There will be
no 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 the
same length. Most of them are standard 32-syllable anus: :tubhs, but 23 are long verses,
each with an extra 16 syllables.51 To correct for these irregularities, our passage may
be thought of as a sequence of 16-syllable sets. We will call these metrical sets: a long
verse may be envisioned as a triplet of these metrical sets, which normally occur in
doublets.52 There are 611 of these sets (294 · 2 ¼ 588, + 23 ¼ 611). In this case, the
center is the 306th metrical set, flanked by 305 such sets on either side. This set
constitutes the first third of the long verse 123:78: ‘‘The Terrifier, performing a
salutation, made the promise—‘Tathā.’ ’’
But we have not taken into account the suprametric ‘‘so-and-so uvāca’’ inter-
jections which sporadically punctuate the text. If these were all clustered at the
beginning 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 recited
but 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 figures
given in the Mahābhārata’s Parvasam : graha (1.2) for the length (in verses) of the
different parvans were obtained not by counting the number of verses but by
counting the total number of syllables, including ‘‘-uvāca’’ interjections, and then
dividing the total by 32, the syllable-count of the standard anus: :tubh
sloka. If the
Parvasam : graha’s editors counted every syllable, then we might also; we will thus
arrive, 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 same
length of time (in recitation).
The ‘‘so-and-so uvāca’’ interjections in the Dron: a–Drupada cycle constitute 220
syllables.54 So in sum total, all told, we have 611 metrical sets, · 16 ¼ 9776 syllables
in sets, plus 220 suprametric syllables, = 9996 syllables. I have not counted the
syllables of each and every anus: :tubh pāda in the passage, so I cannot say that there
are no extra ones lurking anywhere in it; but if we assume that there are not, then the
central syllables are the 4998th and 4999th. These syllables do not occur in the
above-quoted ‘‘central metrical set,’’ which was calculated without taking into
account the ‘‘-uvāca’’ interjections; they occur in the following such set. I reproduce

50
‘‘Tathā’’ might be translated ‘‘amen.’’
51
Verses 125:32 and 127:24 are jagatı̄s with 4 pādas 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 128:15
and 17 are mahāpan_kti anus: :tubhs with 6 pādas of 8 syllables each.
52
This is slightly awkward, because although a mahāpan_kti anus: :tubh may easily be viewed as a
triplet, a 4-pāda jagatı̄ 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
‘‘-uvāca’’ interjection and the next; but nonetheless the interjections (some of which, in any case, do not
indicate a new speaker but a continuation of the one already speaking) enhance the performative
possibilities of the metrical text. Sukthankar (1933, pp. x–xi) notes that the Śāradā manuscript and all
those of the southern recension omit the ‘‘uvāca,’’ supplying only the speaker’s name.
54
Tallies of number of ‘‘-uvāca’’ interjections per speaker: Vai
sam : pāyana, 18; Rāma, 1; Dron: a, 3;
Drupada, 2; Ekalavya, 1; Vidura, 1; Dhr: tarās: t:ra, 1; Duryodhana, 2; and Karn: a, 2.
123
22 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

the verse 123:78 once more in full, with the central syllables in bold, the central word
non-italicized, and syllable counts interspersed:
[4977] tatheti tat prati
srutya bı̄bhatsuh: sa kr: tāñjalih: | [4993]
jagrāha paramastram : tad āha cainam : punar guruh: | [5009]
55
bhavitā tvatsamo nānyah: pumām : l loke dhanurdharah: || [5025]
I am a little uncertain how precise this as-it-were ‘‘real-time’’ center is intended to be
and how it was calculated. But I think at the very least that there is such a center, in
the form of a central event, which points to and links with another event just after the
war. This central event is Arjuna’s receipt of the most powerful weapon, and his
promise 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 the
ring 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 to
neutralize another brahma
siras weapon which A
svatthāman has unlawfully
unleashed on human beings.

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

55
The lengths of the central syllables would tend to tell against a link with the mantra ‘‘Rāma’’ (on
which 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 covering
larger sections of the text, and incorporating also other varieties of truth-act, might be very
revealing). The restatement of Dron: a’s promise to Arjuna is curious. In sequential narrative terms, it
is as if the previous such statement (at 123:6) governed Ekalavya’s threatening Arjuna, and this
restatement governs Karn: a’s threatening Arjuna, which will continue until Arjuna kills Karn: a at
8.67. In text-structural terms, as was noted above (footnote 19), the restatement is approximately
parallel to the earlier statement when the adhyāya is folded at the center.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 23

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

Start →
→ Finish

,
Karna s Tatha The princes’ Tatha
promise promise

Arjuna’s Ekalavya’s
arrow trick arrow trick

Drona’s intervention Drona’s intervention

(Bh1ma/Duryodhana, (Ekalavya, = center of
≈center of adhyaya ring) ring of promises)
Arjuna’s
Tatha promise
Diagram 4 The real-time ring

(1) The ‘‘Tathā’’ promises. Karn: a promises eternal friendship to Duryodhana. The
formula is as follows. Karn: a, having received Anga, _ offers in return a boon of
Duryodhana’s choice; Duryodhana chooses eternal friendship; and Karn: a agrees
(126:38–39, = verses 251–52, = metrical sets 519–23, = syllables 8479–558):
asya rājyapradānasya sadr:
sam : kim: dadāni te |
prabrūhi rāja
sārdūla kartā hy asmi tathā nr: pa |
atyantam : sakhyam icchāmı̄ty āha tam : sa suyodhanah: ||
evam uktas tatah: karn: as tatheti pratyabhās: ata |
: mudam avāpatuh: ||
hars: āc cobhau samā
slis: ya parām

‘‘What can I give you that matches this gift of a kingdom? Speak, tiger among
kings, and I will do it.’’ Suyodhana said to him, ‘‘I want absolute friendship.’’
Then, addressed in this way, Karn: a answered, ‘‘Tathā’’; and the two of them
embraced 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, the
same formula is used between Dron: a and the young princes: the princes, having
received their rescued toy from Dron: a, offer in return a boon of his choice; Dron: a
chooses that they tell Bhı̄s: ma about him, and they agree (122:19–21, = verses 42–44,
= metrical sets 85–90, = syllables 1393–501).
abhivādayāmahe brahman naitad anyes: u vidyate |
ko ’si kam : tvābhijānı̄mo vayam : kim : karavāmahe ||
dron: a uvāca |
ācaks: adhvam: ca bhı̄s: māya rūpen: a ca gun: ai
s ca mām |
123
24 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

sa eva sumahābuddhih: sām : pratam: pratipatsyate ||

vai
sam
: pāyana uvāca |
tathety uktvā tu te sarve bhı̄s: mam ūcuh: pitāmaham |
brāhman: asya vacas tathyam : tac ca karmavi
ses: avat ||

‘‘We salute you, Brahman. This [skill] is not found in others. Who are you? As
whom should we know you? What must we do [for you]?’’ Dron: a said, ‘‘Make
me known to Bhı̄s: ma by appearance and qualities. He has very great intelli-
gence and will do what is proper.’’ They all said ‘‘Tathā’’ and related to
grandfather Bhı̄s: ma the Brāhman: 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 to
whether we envisage a ring of verses, of metrical sets, or of syllables. If we take the
above 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 first
event and 42 verses, 88 metrical sets, and 1438 syllables after the second event.
The most specific verbal parallel is the one-word agreement formula ‘‘Tathā.’’
The princes say this to Dron: a, and Karn: a says it to Duryodhana. Arjuna also says it
to Dron: a at the real-time center upon receipt of the brahma
siras; but notably
Ekalavya does not say ‘‘Tathā’’ at 123:36–37 when agreeing to Dron: a’s request for
his thumb, despite the fact that this exchange is very similarly structured to the two
presently under discussion and is the counter-tag of Karn: a’s promise in the adhyāya
ring. If we condense these mirrored events into the uttering of ‘‘Tathā,’’ we can
position them to the syllable. The princes’ ‘‘Tathā’’ constitutes syllables 1470–71, and
Karn: a’s constitutes 8535–36; there are 1469 syllables before the first of these and
1460 syllables after the second. But it seems odd to imagine the syllable-center as
the axis around which these ‘‘Tathās’’ are reflected, because ‘‘ramā’’ is the
syllable-center, and yet Arjuna’s central ‘‘Tathā’’ is in the immediately preceding
and central metrical set (123:78ab). Reverting to the count by metrical sets, then, we
find that the princes’ ‘‘Tathā’’ occurs in the 89th metrical set (122:21ab) and Karn: a’s
occurs in the 522nd (126:39ab); there are 88 complete sets before the princes’
‘‘Tathā’’ and 89 complete sets after Karn: a’s. It is difficult to know which method of
calculating to prefer, and none of them will quite give us an exactly positioned
reflection. But whichever method we use, the parallel positioning is striking.
(2) The arrow tricks. Ekalavya first revealed himself as a superb archer to the
Pān: d: avas by shooting their dog (123:19, = verse 89, = metrical sets 184–85, =
syllables 2998–3029):
tadā tasyātha bhas: atah:
sunah: sapta
sarān mukhe |
lāghavam: dar
sayann astre mumoca yugapad yathā ||

Then, displaying deftness with weapons, he released seven arrows almost

simultaneously 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 varāhasya lohasya pramukhe samam |
pañca bān: ān asam
: saktān sa mumocaikabān: avat ||

123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 25

He released five separate arrows smoothly into the snout of a moving metal
boar, 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 one
arrow behind another. Ekalavya’s and Arjuna’s imitations parallel each other and are
positioned accordingly: they reflect each other around the real-time center.57 There
are 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 the
nis: āda’s: but we now also suspect, since both are odd numbers, that a reference to
textual ring-hermeneutics may be intended. Perhaps the inexact positioning of the
reflection is congruent with Arjuna’s two-arrow deficit.
(3) Dron: a’s interventions. When Ekalavya is discovered in the woods and reveals
his skill, the limelight falls upon him. Dron: a intervenes, acts decisively by getting
Ekalavya to remove his own thumb, and restores the limelight onto Arjuna. Later, at
the tournament, when Bhı̄ma and Duryodhana are in the limelight, beginning their
duel, Dron: a intervenes, acts decisively by getting A
svatthāman to stop the duel,
and restores the limelight onto Arjuna. These are parallel interventions, right
down to Dron: a’s use of a proxy agent. They are also positionally parallel. At
1.123:36–37 (= verses 106–7, = metrical sets 218–21, = syllables 3557–620):
ekalavyas tu tac chrutvā vaco dron: asya dārun: am |
pratijñām ātmano raks: an satye ca niratah: sadā ||
tathaiva hr: :s:tavadanas tathaivādı̄namānasah: |
chittvāvicārya tam : prādād dron: āyān_gus: :tham ātmanah: ||

Ekalavya, always devoted to the truth, heard that harsh speech of Dron: a’s but
kept his promise. So, his face cheerful, his mind undistressed, he cut off his own
thumb 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: ubdhārn: avanibham : ran_gam ālokya buddhimān |
bhāradvājah: priyam : putram a
svatthāmānam abravı̄t ||
vārayaitau mahāvı̄ryau kr: tayogyāv ubhāv api |
mā bhūd ran_gaprakopo ’yam : bhı̄maduryodhanodbhavah: ||
tatas tāv udyatagadau guruputren: a vāritau |
yugāntānilasam : ks: ubdhau mahāvegāv ivārn: avau ||

Then the intelligent [Dron: a] son of Bharadvāja looked at the arena that
resembled a stormy ocean and said to his beloved son A
svatthāman, ‘‘Stop
these two of great heroism, who are joining in combat. May there not be this
tumult in the arena arising from Bhı̄ma and Duryodhana.’’ Then the pair with
clubs raised, who were like two great foaming currents tossed together by the
wind at the end of the age, were stopped by the guru’s son.
Once again we have parallel events of different lengths; notwithstanding this, there
are 105 verses, 217 sets, and 3556 syllables before the first event and 108 verses, 224
sets, 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 the
adhyāya ring and the real-time ring, for the shooting of the crocodile was also achieved with a salvo
of five arrows (123:71).
123
26 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

This particular reflection is not quite so precisely positioned; but it is to be noted

that the first of these two events is the center of the ring of promises and that the
second is more or less (since the equally matched duel does not actually take place)
the center of the adhyāya ring. So the centers of those two rings reflect each other
around the real-time center. The rings are interlocking; the second half of the
real-time ring begins at the beginning of the central adhyāya in the adhyāya 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 when
separate manuscript traditions begin to expand the text. When Dron: a gratuitously
throws his ring down a well in the interpolated story, we might now interpret this as a
reference to the loss of the real-time ring. But certainly no real-time ring could be
visible in our Poona edition unless the Poona edition is, at least here in this section of
the Ādiparvan, an accurate reconstruction of a precisely finished ancient text.59

Further reflections

There are other ring-compositional cycles elsewhere in the Mahābhārata. Here I

mention seven sections towards the end of the text, which appear at first glance to be
adhyāya rings with a central adhyāya (I have not yet analyzed any of these in detail).
All seven contain an odd number of adhyāyas and, in narrative terms, fall easily into
two halves.


(1) The story of Suka. Passage 12.310–20 tells of Vyāsa’s son Śuka, who attains
moks: a. In the first half Śuka is born (by apsaras, like Kr: pa and Dron: a) and educated by
Br: haspati, Janaka, and Vyāsa. In the central adhyāya 12.315 Vyāsa’s other pupils go to
earth, but in the Himavat, Vyāsa and Śuka meditate; Nārada comes and compares
their ā
srama to a nis: āda village, whereupon they recite the Vedas, and Vyāsa teaches
Śuka one last time, then leaves for the celestial Gangā. _ In the second half Nārada
teaches Śuka, who resolves on moks: a, attains it, and, to Vyāsa’s sorrow, is gone.60
(2) The nāga and the uñcchavrata. Passage 12.341–53, the last text in the Sānti-

parvan, tells how a Brāhman: a heard about the uñcchavrata, a herbivorous gathering
58
The Mahābhārata divides itself into 100 upaparvans as well as into 18 parvans (at 1.2:70–71 the
division 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,’’ and
Dāho Jatugr: hasya, ‘‘The Fire in the Lacquer House’’; see 1.2:35), but this seems to me to be contrary to
the manuscript evidence. The story of the plot to kill the Pān: d: avas in the firehouse at Vāran: āvata is
related as a continuous episode beginning at 1.129 as soon as the Dron: a–Drupada cycle has ended, and
most of the manuscripts that indicate, at the end of each adhyāya, which upaparvan it is in, begin the
new upaparvan at this point. Van Buitenen begins the new upaparvan with the tournament, adhyāya
124, the central adhyāya in the adhyāya ring, and with verse 124:1, the first verse in the second half of
the 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 important
deliberate 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 two
appearances of Śiva (in adhyāyas 12.310 and 320) and that Urva
sı̄ ’s speech (in 319) links back to Śuka’s
apsaras-led birth (in 311), but, in my view, he does not go far enough. If in addition 312–14 and 316–18
are seen as parallel sections of teaching flanking the pivotal 315, then Śuka’s splitting apart of the
conjoined Himavat and Meru (adhyāya 320; Hiltebeitel, 2001, pp. 304–307) will suggest that the two
mountains be reinterpreted as the halves of this 11-adhyāya text and Śuka’s moks: a as a text-interpretive
achievement. Compare Dron: a’s division of Drupada’s kingdom, which also happens at the end of a ring.
And Bhı̄ma and Duryodhana, separated by A
svatthāman at Dron: a’s command, are man-mountains.

123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 27

and gleaning lifestyle, from a nāga.61 The first half sees the Brāhman: a hear about,
travel to the town of, and wait patiently for the nāga who will teach him; in the
central adhyāya 12.347 the nāga returns home; and the second half features his
discourse to the Brāhman: 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 with
Marutta’s ancestry, his failure to persuade Br: haspati to officiate at his sacrifice, and
Nārada’s suggestion that he ask Sam : varta instead; in the central adhyāya 14.7 the
naked Śaivite oddball Sam : varta agrees to the task; and the second half describes the
progress 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 of
Arjuna’s various encounters and battles while protecting Yudhis: t:hira’s a
svamedha
horse. The first half ends with Arjuna’s being felled by his own son Babhruvāhana; in
the central adhyāya 14.79 Ulūpı̄ and Citrāngadā, _ two of Arjuna’s wives, discuss the
_
situation, Citrāngadā suggesting that Ulūpı̄ revive Arjuna; and the second half
describes this revival, Ulūpı̄’s explanation of why Arjuna was felled, and the rest of
Arjuna’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 of
Kr: s: n: a’s folk, the Vr: s: n: is, 36 years after the war. The first half relates how the Vr: s: n: i
men killed each other; in the central adhyāya Baladeva and Kr: s: n: a die; and in the
second half Arjuna takes the survivors, mostly women, to Indraprastha, many of
them being abducted by dasyus en route.
(6) The Mahāprasthānikaparvan. The Mahābhārata’s penultimate parvan has only
three adhyāyas (17.1–3). In the first, the Pān: d: avas arrange their retirement, hand
over the kingdom to Yuyutsu and Pariks: it, and begin to circumambulate the earth
with Draupadı̄. In the central adhyāya Yudhis: t:hira’s wife and brothers fall down and
die one by one. In the third, Indra comes and negotiates Yudhis: t:hira’s departure
from the earthly realm, which is complicated by his reluctance to leave his dog.
(7) The Svargārohan: aparvan. The final parvan has five adhyāyas (18.1–5). The
first two relate Yudhis: t:hira’s consternation at seeing Duryodhana in heaven and his
brothers and Draupadı̄ in hell (see footnote 48) and end with his rebuking Dharma.
In the central adhyāya the illusion is explained to Yudhis: t:hira, and he bathes in the
celestial Gangā _ and finally sheds his grief. The second half of the parvan describes
the characters’ celestial sojourn and final destiny, the end of Janamejaya’s
sarpasattra, and the merits of hearing and reciting the Mahābhārata.
What lies behind these structures or rather this repeating structure? There are
many possible answers to this question. At one level, perhaps, it no more stands in
need of explanation than does the symmetry of a natural product such as a leaf or a
face. At another level, as we have seen, symmetrical textual structure may encode
meanings that are not obvious if the text is read sequentially without recognizing its
symmetry. But at another level still, we may ask whether any particular symmetrical
structure has been brought from elsewhere and used as a model for these circular

61
For a preliminary study of nāgas, see Semeka-Pankratov (1979).
62
There are 9 adhyāyas 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 episode
of the Khān: d: ava Forest fire (1.214–25), which again are found at opposite ends of the text.
123
28 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

texts. We are immediately put in mind of the two halves of the lunar and solar cycles
as repeatedly elaborated in old Sanskrit literature:63
agnir jyotir ahah:
suklah: :san: māsā uttarāyan: am |
tatra prayātā gacchanti brahma brahmavido janāh: ||
dhūmo rātris tathā kr: :sn: ah: :san: māsā daks: in: āyanam |
tatra cāndramasam : jyotir yogı̄ prāpya nivartate ||

suklakr: :sn: e gatı̄ hy ete jagatah:
sā
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 to
Brahman. Smoke, night, the dark fortnight [of the waning moon], and the six
months of [the sun’s] southward progress: [dying] there, the yogin obtains the
lunar light and returns. These two, the bright and the dark, are considered to be
the world’s eternal paths (6.30:24–26b).64
This passage makes a series of polarized homologies; moreover, the two poles are
ranked. The postmortem concern evident here is linked to the Upanis: adic idea of the
devayāna and the pitr: yāna,65 but this kind of polar logic is visible elsewhere in other
terms. The polarity ‘‘high’’ class/‘‘low’’ class (at limit, Brāhman: a/cān: d: āla) fits the
pattern, with the latter associated with soteriological failure and dark hue; likewise
in some contexts the male/female polarity.66 There is a vertical spatial analogue: in
the macrocosm, celestial/chthonic, deva/asura, and above ground/below ground (or
underwater);67 in the microcosm, above the waist/below the waist (see Manusmr: ti
1:92).68 A corresponding horizontal spatial analogue is also found and links with our
earlier comments about nis: ādas: center/periphery, town/wilderness, and inner
chambers/outer chambers (see Aktor, 2000; Ali, 2004, pp. 67–68, 219–220). We see
also a temporal analogue: younger/older and son/father.
Many of these polarities are at play in the Dron: a–Drupada cycle: light/dark (Arjuna
is a ‘‘Pān: 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 the
crocodile under the water); and north/south. The idea of totality—both poles side by

63
On links between the Mahābhārata and the annual cycle, see van Buitenen (1978, pp. 4–5) and von
Simson (1984, 1989–1990, 1999).
64
The analogy is slightly strained: since in the case of the month and the year what is critical is not
the 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
Vyāsa’s final teaching to Śuka in the central 12.315 includes this idea (see also Chāndogya
Upanis: ad 5.10; Br: hadāran: yaka Upanis: ad 6.2:15–16; Pra
sna Upanis: ad 1:9–10; Mun: d: aka Upanis: ad
1.2:7–11; Kaus: ı̄takı̄ Upanis: ad 1; Bodewitz, 1996; Hiltebeitel, 1977; Killingley, 1997).
66
Consider Bhangā
_ svana (13.12) and Vi
svāmitra (13.3:7–8; Aitareya Brāhman: a 7.17–18): the former
has 200 sons, 100 in town as their father and then 100 in the forest as their mother; the latter has 101
sons, the eldest 50 of whom he curses to become outland
svapacas.
67
See again Ramanujan (1991b) for Rāma’s ring, lost in the depths. Consider also the Mahābhārata
characters (Vasu, Nahus: a, and others) who fall from heaven into the underworld, then out again. For
a 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 (see
Dundas, 2002, pp. 90–93).
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 29

_ 69 There is
side—is present here and is also evident in the disciple’s fee quest of Utanka.
no simple key here, since the polarized symbology is so multifaceted, but there are
many intriguing clues. Karn: a, for example, who is both ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ class, has a
name meaning ‘‘ear’’ (see McGrath, 2004, pp. 31–43),70 which may evoke the waxing
and waning crescents of the moon, or the handles of a pot, or the termite-mound, portal
to the underworld, which is known as the earth’s ear (see Taittirı̄ya Sam : hitā 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. But
here we must note the close connection between Dron: a and Karn: a, who are linked by
the parallels between adhyāyas 122 and 127 and who in many ways represent
Brāhman: a and Ks: atriya versions of a single type. They are the subject of a short article
by Georg von Simson (1968), who hypothesizes a character Dron: akarn: a,72 equivalent
to Kumbhakarn: a in the story of Rāma Dā
saratha (dron: a and kumbha both mean
‘‘pot’’). He points to the name of the territory Dron: a captures (Ahicchatrā, ‘‘serpent
canopy’’) and to Karn: a’s solar connections and elephant-girdle battle-standard, and
argues 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 entry
onto the battlefield—Karn: a sits out the first ten days of the Kuruks: etra war due to a
quarrel with Bhı̄s: ma, and Kumbhakarn: a is asleep underground until woken by his
brother Rāvan: a—which also fits with Karn: a’s late entry into the tournament. Even
before 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: a
proposes Dron: a as senāpati (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: etra
war as a center between days 11 (Karn: a’s entry to the fray) and 17 (his death)
effectively assimilates Dron: a, whose stint as senāpati lasts five of these seven days, to
Karn: a. More crucially with respect to von Simson’s thesis, in the Mahābhārata’s
Rāmopākhyāna Kumbhakarn: a’s participation in the battle for Lankā _ is limited to
the 14th of the 18 adhyāyas telling the story (3.271 of 3.258–75), and the battle itself
spans adhyāyas 11–17 (3.268–74). By now, I hope, we would half expect this kind of
correlation. A desideratum, then, is a thorough survey of other 18-unit sections in
the text:73 here a few preliminary comments will suffice.
The Sauptikaparvan has 18 adhyāyas. It has no immediately identifiable section
comprising adhyāyas 11–17; however, 10.14 is the climax of the brahma
siras fight
between A
svatthāman and Arjuna, prefigured by Arjuna’s promise at the real-time

69
_
Utanka requests a commission from his guru but is referred to the guru’s wife, who issues it; he
obtains the earrings from a female above ground, then from a male underground. By completing his
quest, 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). Gālava too goes on a quest, to supply his guru Vi
svāmitra with the gift
of 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 Bhı̄ma (7.114:3).
71
On termite-mounds, see 3.82:5–8, Irwin (1982), Leslie (2003, pp. 126–136), Shulman (1978), and
Smith and Carri (1994).
72
Von Simson gives examples of the dvam : dva ‘‘dron: akarn: a’’ in the text and suggests ‘‘the original
unity of Dron: a–Karn: a’’ (1968, p. 44).
73
On the number 18 in ancient India in general, see Stein (1936, 1937); in the Mahābhārata in
particular, van Buitenen (1978, pp. 141–142). Direct links with the lunar cycle, such as those
envisaged by Hudson (2001, pp. 189–192), are hampered by the discrepancy between 18 and 28.
123
30 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

center of the Dron: a–Drupada cycle. Arjuna launches his brahma
siras to neutralize
A
svatthāman’s, but a blazing tumult results, and Vyāsa and Nārada save the world by
standing between the two weapons. Here we see, as we saw repeatedly in the cycle, the
beginnings of a duel (Arjuna/Ekalavya, Bhı̄ma/Duryodhana, Arjuna/Karn: a, now
Arjuna/A
svatthāman) which is then aborted. This scene also looks forward to a central
event of the Ā
svamedhikaparvan (the 14th parvan of 18), where Pariks: it, born dead as
a result of A
svatthāman’s brahma
siras weapon, is revived by Kr: s: n: a (14.68).


The Nārāyan: ı̄ya section of the Sāntiparvan also has 18 adhyāyas (12.321–39).74
The 14th (12.335) contains the story of the horse-head form of Vis: n: u-Nārāyan: a, as
told by Vyāsa, as follows. Brahmā sits in the lotus that emerges from Vis: n: u-Nārā-
yan: a’s navel; two drops on the lotus become the dānavas Madhu and Kait:abha;75
they steal the Vedas from Brahmā and hide in the ocean; Brahmā rouses Vis: n: u-
Nārāyan: a, who becomes the horse-head, enters the ocean, distracts the dānavas by
producing the sound ‘‘om : ,’’ retakes the Vedas, then goes back to sleep; the dānavas
wake him up for a fight, which they lose, and in conclusion various glories of Vis: n: u-
Nārāyan: a are sung. Vis: n: u-Nārāyan: a’s feat resembles Utanka’s _ journey to the
underworld to reacquire the earrings, which was also only successful due to equine
assistance (this horse is said to be Agni; see 1.3:154–62; 14.57:38–53).76 But there is
no sign of Vis: n: u-Nārāyan: a (in his incarnation as Kr: s: n: a Vāsudeva) in the Dron: a–
Drupada cycle.
I would like to close with 12.308:91, the 14th of the 18 verses with which Sulabhā
prefixes her answer to King Janaka and which center on rhetorical method. When
applied not to speakers and hearers but to authors and eventual recipients, this verse
is particularly tantalizing, provocative, and ironic:
vaktā
srotā ca vākyam
: ca yadā tv avikalam : nr: pa |
samam eti vivaks: āyām: tadā so ’rthah: prakā
sate ||

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

References

Aktor, M. (2000). Untouchables, women, and territories: Rituals of lordship in the Parā
sara Smr: ti. In
J. Leslie & M. McGee (Eds.), Invented identities: The interplay of gender, religion, and politics in
India (pp. 133–156). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ali, D. (2004). Courtly culture and political life in early medieval India. Cambridge: Cambridge
University 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 Dumézilian crux. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (Series 3), 9(3), 403–418.

74
Brockington comments: ‘‘The Critical Edition [Nārāyan: ı̄ya] in fact has 19 adhyāyas since, against
the majority of the manuscript evidence, it divides 329 and 330 (24 manuscripts have no colophon at
this point, while 6 read one). In view of the significance of the number 18 in the tradition, this total is
almost certainly intended’’ (1998, p. 293n142). For present purposes I take adhyāyas 329 and 330 as
one adhyāya, the 9th of 18.
75
The dual is surely significant. At 6.63:12 Madhu is said to be karn: asrotodbhava, that is, to have
originated from the ear-passage or ear-wax (of Vis: n: u-Nārāyan: a).
76
On fire, water, and horses, see O’Flaherty (1971).
77
Many thanks to Vaughan Pilikian for help with this verse.
123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 31

Bhattacharya, N. N. (1969). The Kuruks: etra war and the Pān: d: avas. In D. C. Sircar (Ed.), The
Bhārata War and Purān: ic Genealogies (pp. 37–41). Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Biardeau, M. (1981). The salvation of the king in the Mahābhārata. 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 the
early Upanis: ads. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bodewitz, H. W. (1996). The pañcāgnividyā and the pitr: yāna/devayāna. 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 the
Mahābhārata. 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 an
Upanis: adic brahmodya. In M. Witzel (Ed.), Inside the texts, beyond the texts: New approaches to
the 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 the
American Oriental Society, 119(2), 248–260.
Brockington, J. L. (1995). Concepts of race in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyan: 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 Mahābhārata. In I. Whicher & D. Carpenter (Eds.), Yoga: The
Indian tradition (pp. 13–24). London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Brodbeck, S. (2004). The story of Ekalavya in the Mahābhārata. In J. Leslie & M. Clark (Eds.),
Creating a dialogue: Text, belief and personal identity (pp. 15–24). London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London.
Brown, W. N. (1972). Duty as truth in ancient India. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, 116(3), 252–268.
van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1973). The Mahābhārata, vol. 1: 1. The book of the beginning.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1978). The Mahābhārata, vol. 3: 4. The book of Virāt: a; 5. The
book of the effort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Ed. and trans.) (1981). The Bhagavadgı̄tā in the Mahābhārata: A bilingual
edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Debroy, D. (1986). Divyāstras of the Kuruks: etra War. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, 67, 1–15.
Doniger, W. (1998). Rings of rejection and recognition in ancient India. Journal of Indian
Philosophy, 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 Mahābhārata. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 54(1), 63–92.
Fitzgerald, J. L. (2002a). The Rāma Jāmadagnya ‘‘thread’’ of the Mahābhārata: A new survey of
Rāma Jāmadagnya in the Pune text. In M. Brockington (Ed.), Stages and transitions: Temporal
and historical frameworks in epic and purān: ic literature (pp. 89–132). Zagreb: Croatian Academy
of Sciences and Arts.
Fitzgerald, J. L. (2002b). Nun befuddles king, shows karmayoga does not work: Sulabhā’s refutation
of King Janaka at MBh 12.308. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(6), 641–677.
Fitzgerald, J. L. (Ed. and trans.) (2004). The Mahābhārata, vol. 7: 11. The book of the women; 12. The
book of peace, part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ganguli, K. M. (Trans. [and Pratap Chandra Roy, publisher]) (2000 [1884–1896]). The Mahabharata
of Krishna–Dwaipayana Vyasa: Translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit text. 4
vols. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Goldman, R. P. (1972). Akr: tavran: a vs. Śrı̄kr: s: n: a as narrators of the legend of the Bhārgava Rāma à
propos some observations of Dr. V. S. Sukthankar. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, 53, 161–173.
Goldman, R. P. (1977). Gods, priests, and warriors: The Bhr: gus of the Mahābhārata. New York:
Columbia University Press.

123
32 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

Hara, M. (1975). Indra and tapas. Adyar Library Bulletin, 39, 129–160.
Hegarty, J. M. (2001). An apprenticeship in attentiveness: Narrative patterning in the Dyūtaparvan
and the Nalopākhyāna of the Mahābhārata. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 54(1), 33–62.
Hegarty, J. M. (2004). A fire of tongues: Narrative patterning in the Sanskrit Mahābhārata. PhD
dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester Library.
Hiltebeitel, A. (1976). The ritual of battle: Krishna in the Mahābhārata. 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 Mahābhārata: A reader’s guide to the education of the dharma
king. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hiltebeitel, A. (2002). Allusion and explication in the Gı̄tā’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, and
gender (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 and
African Studies, 65(1), 31–51.
Hock, H. H. (2002). The Yājñavalkya cycle in the Br: had Āran: yaka Upanis: ad. Journal of the
American 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-Gı̄tā 12–16. Journal of Vais: n: ava
Studies, 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 in
the Mahābhārata. Journal of Vais: n: ava Studies, 8(1), 59–76.
Jha, V. N. (1970). Varn: asamkara_ in the dharma sūtras: theory and practice. Journal of the Economic
and Social History of the Orient, 13, 273–288.
Jha, V. N. (1974). From tribe to untouchable: The case of Nis: ādas. 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: tarās: t:ra. Indo-Iranian Journal, 9(4), 245–265.
Johnson, W. J. (Ed. and trans.) (2001). Kālidāsa: The recognition of Sakuntalā.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Katz, R. C. (1991). The Sauptika episode in the structure of the Mahābhārata. In A. Sharma (Ed.),
Essays on the Mahābhārata (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 parvasamgraha _ of the Mahābhārata. Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 66(2), 110–117.
Kosambi, D. D. (1951). Parvasamgraha _ figures for the Bhı̄s: maparvan of the Mahābhārata. Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 71(1), 21–25.
Leslie, J. (2003). Authority and meaning in Indian religions: Hinduism and the case of Vālmı̄ki.
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). Mahābhārata (Ādiparva, ch. 94). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
225–226.
McGrath, K. (2004). The Sanskrit hero: Karn: a in epic Mahābhārata. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Mehendale, M. A. (2001). Interpolations in the Mahābhārata. 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: :sn: a: The man and his mission. An enquiry into the rationale of inter-relationship
between Kr: :sn: a’s life, mission, and philosophy. Pune: Gaaj Prakashan.

123
Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34 33

Morson, G. S. (1994). Narrative and freedom: The shadows of time. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Nath, V. (2002). King Vena, Nis: āda and Pr: thu: A recurrent purān: ic myth re-examined. Indian
Historical Review, 29(1–2), 48–65.
Oertel, H. (1907). Contributions from the Jāiminı̄ya Brāhman: a to the history of the Brāhman: a
literature. Sixth series: The story of U
sanas Kāvya, 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 Śiva. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 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 Mahābhārata. 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 the
question of ideology. In J. E. M. Houben (Ed.), Ideology and status of Sanskrit: Contributions to
the history of the Sanskrit language (pp. 197–247). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Ramanujan, A. K. (1991a). Repetition in the Mahābhārata. In A. Sharma (Ed.), Essays on the
Mahābhārata (pp. 419–443). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Ramanujan, A. K. (1991b). Three hundred Rāmāyan: as: Five examples and three thoughts on
translation. In P. Richman (Ed.), Many Rāmāyan: as. The diversity of a narrative tradition in South
Asia (pp. 22–49). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Semeka-Pankratov, E. (1979). A semiotic approach to the polysemy of the symbol nāga in Indian
mythology. Semiotica, 27, 237–290.
Shakespeare, W. (1936). Twelfth night; or, What you will. In G. L. Kittredge (Ed.), The complete
works of Shakespeare (pp. 401–430). Boston: Ginn & Company.
Shankar, S. (1994). The thumb of Ekalavya: Postcolonial studies and the ‘‘Third World’’ scholar in a
neocolonial world. World Literature Today, 68(3), 479–487.


Sharma, R. S. (1980 [1958]). Sūdras in ancient India: A social history of the lower order down to circa
AD 600. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Sharma, A. (2000). Of Śūdras, Sūtas and Ślokas: Why is the Mahābhārata preeminently in the
anus: :tubh metre? Indo-Iranian Journal, 43(3), 225–278.
Shulman, D. (1978). The serpent and the sacrifice: An anthill myth from Tiruvārūr. History of
Religions, 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 Mahābhārata. Indologica Taurinensia, 12,
191–223.
von Simson, G. (1989–1990). Remarks on the Suparn: a/Garud: a myth (later Vedic period). Indologica
Taurinensia, 15–16, 353–360.
von Simson, G. (1999). Narrated time and its relation to the supposed year myth in the Mahābhārata.
In M. Brockington & P. Schreiner (Eds.), Composing a tradition: Concepts, techniques, and
relationships (pp. 49–66). Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Smith, M. C. (1991). Epic parthenogenesis. In A. Sharma (Ed.), Essays on the Mahābhārata (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 Mahābhārata (electronic text). Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute.
Smith, F. M., & Carri, S. J. (1994). The identity and significance of the valmı̄kavapā´ in the Vedic
ritual. Indo-Iranian Journal, 37(3), 201–231.
Söhnen, R. (1979). Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Reden und Gesprächen im Rāmāyan: a. 2
vols. Reinbek: Dr Inge Wezler/Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.
Söhnen-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: Princeton
University 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.

123
34 Hindu Studies (2006) 10:1–34

von Stietencron, H. (1997). The non-existence of impurity and the legitimation of kings. In
S. 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 Mahābhārata for the first time critically edited, vol. 1: The
Ādiparvan. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Sukthankar, V. S., Belvalkar, S. K., & Vaidya, P. L. (general editors), and others (Eds.) (1933–1971).
The Mahābhārata for the first time critically edited. 24 vols. (including Harivam :
sa). Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
_
Sutton, N. (1999). An exposition of early Sāmkhya, a rejection of the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā, and a critique
of the role of women in Hindu society: The Sulabhā-Janaka-Samvāda.
_ Annals of the Bhandarkar
Oriental 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 Mahābhārata after the great battle. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde
Südasiens, 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 Nārāyan: a astra episode, the death of Rāvan: 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 für Ulrich Schneider (pp. 380–414).
Freiburg: Hedwig Falk.

123