Mythological Tales of the Nāgas and the Asuras: Their Narration and Interpretation

The two key agents that can be considered pivotal to the element of evil in the Mahābhārataare the nāgas and the asuras--the former, mostly recipients of evil meted out bythe Āryans, and the latter, ostensible perpetrators of evil against the Āryans. Both of these arethe subject of various myths and myth cycles in the epic, which have been misinterpreted to create faulty traditions of good and evil.

The evil meted out on the nāgas is often underplayed, in not just the epic itself but also in scholarly studies on the epic; perhaps, this isbecause the majority of the nāga myths areonlyin the Ādi Parva and comprise the ‗false‘ beginning of the epic, which is seemingly unrelated, orat best, peripheral to the main frame story of the war.

These myths appear to be simply a collection of folkloric side stories about serpents that loosely link to create a minor climacticevent that results in King Janamejayaorganizing a yajña to sacrifice all serpents. Most of thesemyths, i.e. stories of Upamanu, Uttanka, Rūru, Dundhuba, Kadru and Vinata are tales in whichnāgas are either condemned or cursed for alleged infractions. Finally, a critical curse kills theking. It is uttered by the Brāhmin boy, Śṛngin, who curses Rājā Parikṣit to be bitten by theserpent king, Takśaka; consequently,Parikṣit‘s son, Janamejaya, vows to avenge his father‘sdeath by exterminating all serpents in a sarpasattra.

Innumerable serpents are sacrificed in thefire, but the yajña is eventually halted by Astika, the son of a Brāhmin father and a serpentmother, to save the serpent race.Takśaka, the chief alleged culprit, escapes, along with manyother serpents, and so ends this false beginning of the epic with a simple declaration by Sautithat he has narrated this story because its narration dispels fear of serpents(Mbh 158:162). Andthat is that. Immediately after this, Śaunaka requests Sauti to narrate the actual Bhārata, thestory of the war, which has already been introduced in the Anukramanika Parva, prior to the serpent stories, with Dhṛ tarāṣ ṭ ṛ a‘s lamentations and Sanjay‘s consolations and the synopsisof the eighteen chapters of the itihāsa.

This structure of the epic—the inclusion of a second beginning, which seems unrelatedto the main story--is a curiosity,but the question is--are these nāgastories narrated onlytoalleviate thefear of serpents of the great sages attending Kulpati Śaunaka‘s twelve-year N a y a k | 32sacrifice in Naimiṣ āraṇya, or does this introduction mean something more? It is true thataccording to geographical evidence, especially that provided by Greek writers, such as Onesikratos, the Gangetic Plain was a land of serpents, and these reptiles were a real dangerfor the Āryans (Vogel 1995, p. 1)1

hence, it is very possible that before settling down to relate the long account of the war between the scions of the Kuru dynasty, Sauti wants to create a conducive atmosphere, devoid of fear. However, this capsule narrative seems more than just an invocation to create a suitable atmosphere or to protect against the deathly venom of serpents. It is possible that the snake sacrifice is a depiction of an extreme case of animalsacrifice. It is also possible that Sauti narrates the serpent lore only to fill in the breaks betweenritual activities at the sattra at Naimiṣ a forest, as was the norm for lengthy sattras. However, theoccasion of the sarpasattra and its execution negate thesesimple assumptions.

This sarpasattrawas the occasion when Vaiśampāyana told the story of the Great War, and this sattradid not follow the normal practices of yajñas of similar nature.Śrautasarpasattra, asexplained by Baudhāyana in Sāmkhāyana Śrautasūtra ―wins worlds, sons, and cattle and whoever performs it is not harmed by serpents‖ (cited in Minkowski, 1989, p. 414)2 Janamejaya does not perform his sattra for any of these reasons. His desire isto exterminatethe serpents and bring about anapocalypse.

Moreover, referencing Baudhāyana,Minkowskifurther states that ―the first sarpasattra was performed by the serpents themselves,who gained their poison and became biters (damśuka) as a result of it;‖therefore the ―ǽtilogicalmyth of the sarpasattra is even more surprising‖ (ibid).Considering these antecedents to the sarpasattra in the Mahābhārata,its inclusion in theepic‘s introduction seems to havesignificance beyond a mere ‗filler‘ story or a story about animalabuse.In addition, the mythical elements, metaphors, and analogies of the snake sacrifice andthe individual serpent myths that lead up to the sacrifice are too vivid to be mere preventativepractices used to dispel the fear of serpents. In fact, these metaphors are so deeply reflected inthe myths of the rest of the epic, that this event can be seen as a prototype of the wholeMahābhārata.

What occurs in the rest of the epic mimics the elements of the sarpasattra, notonly in terms of actions and behaviors of the mythical characters, but also in the way that thetwo frame stories are structured and organized. In fact, Minkowski proposes that there is aninterrelationship between the Mahābhārata‘s frame story and the sattra which has a ―Vedic1Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.2Minkowski, C.Z. (1989) Janamejaya’s Sattra and Ritual Structure. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 109(3), 401-420. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/604141. Accessed: April 5, 2012.N a y a k | 33heritage‖ (ibid).3―It has been shown that the Mahābhārata‘s frame story makes use of a technique of sustained embedding. Vedic rituals, and especially sattras, are ―composed‖

following an analogous technique. That is, the recursive system of organization is to the yajñawhat embedding is to the Mahābhārata‖ (ibid).Additionally, the framework of ayajñagives thesnake sacrifice a ritualisticand pervasive significance; so much so that the epic‘sown―dominating theme [of]vengeful, apocalyptic practices‖ (Minkowski, 2007, p. 391)4is based

on the genocidal strategies described in Janamejaya‘syajña.Furthermore, the snake narrativeas a whole is like a metanarrative for the epic, because it capsules the story of the

Mahābhārata. This fake beginning is so significant, in fact, thatD. D. Kosambi (1965) says, ―it ismuch more important than has been realized… [The] Mahābhārata, as it now stands is not

primarily the account of the great war but of the great yajña [the snake sacrifice]‖ (p. 93).5To understand the role of this sarpasattrayajña and to see how thetreatment of the nāgasby the Āryans is indicative of the problems of evil in the Mahābhārata, the concept ofnāgasand the snake sacrifice is examined in this chapterfromtwo main foci: evil apparent in theholistic framework of the nāga sacrifice and specific evil evident in the interpretation of theindividual myths within this framework. Within these foci, the basis and consequence of

nāgapersecution is first traced to theṛgVedain which there are manyreferences toĀryanusurpation of the wealth of the nāgas.Then the transformation of thenāgas into the Sṃṛtiliteratures is examined, especially as it is delineated in the Mahābhārata, in whichnāgasaremoreof a metaphor for the concept of ‗the other‘; hence, the persecutionagainstthem is more symbolic, and thisdeveloped intomyths of discriminationand subjugation.

On the other hand, the asuras in the Mahābhārata are portrayed as perpetrators of evil, because they are assumed to embody the quality of evil. However, the appellative ‗asura‘ is notused in the Mahābhārata for everyone who displays these unethical qualities. The main perpetrators of evil in the Mahābhārata are postulated to be the Kauravas, specifically

Duryodhana, and the main cause for his culpability is attributed not so much to his qualities ofasura-ness but to his essential nature of being an asura; hence, his equivalency to evil is

established as an a priori. Duryodhana‘s actions are considered those of an asura, because heis born an asura (although in a non-asura family) and everything he does to oppose the

Pāṇ ḍ avas is deemed as evil; hence establishing the Pāṇ ḍ avas as the diametrically opposing a3Ibid, p. 4174 Minkowski, C. Z. (2007). Snakes, Sattras and the Mahābhārata. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.). Essays on theMahābhārata. (pp. 384-400). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.5Kosambi. D.D. (1965). Ancient India a History of Culture and Civilization. New York: Pantheon BooksN a y a k | 34priori good. Asura then is the negative pole of the polarity of good and evil, and, for this reason,for Hindus, ―demons are dangerous by definition regardless of intention‖ (O‘Flaherty, 1976, p.

98).6 However, these absolute claims of good and evil, (asura=evil and deva=good) cannot be presumptive, because in Hindu mythology evil itself is indeterminate; it is neither an absolutevalue nor is it an unethical one. Therefore, the term as an epithet or as an adjectival is amisnomer, because, in actuality, the asura is not even part of the ethical framework of the

Mahābhārata, let alone a perpetrator of evil. If, on the other hand, asura is to be seen as standalone term, denoting debased or unethical behavior, then every character in the Mahābhārata(including the Divine Kṛṣṇa) is an asura at some point or another.Thechapteron the asuraswill explain why the word asura cannot be considered as a partof the good and evil paradigm, and how its misconception creates many ambiguities in moral and ethical codes.

Hence, applying this term to people (such as Duryodhana), to describe their evil‘ actions creates an ambiguity in the moral-immoral equation of not just those characters butalso, by comparison, of the good characters. In order to explore this argument, this chapter willfirst trace the etymology and definitions of the word and explain how it suffered degradationfrom the earliest ṛg Vedic times to the Mahābhārata. Although the word is as old as (if not olderthan) the ṚgVeda, its meaning underwent many changes, and each change, while adding a new

perspective, retained an association, through myth and allusion, to the preceding meanings, many of which were non ethical. Hence, it cannot be considered simply in its stand-alone definition as indicated in the Mahābhārata. Furthermore,this chapter will examine the conceptof asura in various asura myths in the Mahābhārata and re-interpret them to show that the asuras were a part of the Āryan society and not representative of an a priori. However, becauseof the abasement of the word, asura, they ‗fell‘ from grace; this fall created a mythos of evil forwhich they were held responsible, and, consequently, victimized.

Additionally, to understand this metaphor of persecution that the nāgasand the asurascreate, it must be determined who or what were the nāgas and the asuras--were they real people or simply an Āryan concept of symbolic evil. However, to examine the problems ofevil it is not imperative to establish themas human, because even if they were a mythical construct, the very idea of their victimization becomes archetypal and speaks of a culture inhih vil w tmi