Mahabharata: Vidura - The Eldest Of The Trio

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay

26 January 2010, 05:32

The entry of Vashishtha blood in the Bharata dynasty by Krishna-Dwaipayana’s Niyoga is a crucial event in the history of that dynasty having immense impact on the history of Bharatavarsha. It brought an end to the Bharadvaja-Angira blood that has been flowing in the veins of the dynasty since Bharata adopted Bharadvaja’s son Bhumanyu.

Calling Krishna-Dvaipayana for Niyoga on Satyavati’s advice was indeed a revolutionary act on Bhisma’s part, himself a bearer of Bharadvaja-Angira blood. It ended the Bharadvaja-Angira dominance in Bharata dynasty, and had great implications on the Vedic culture and civilization, for the Bharadvaja-Angiras Rishi family had been central to them.

The most important and relevant question for us at this point is, why did not Bhisma prefer his other patrilineal relatives for Niyoga on Vichitravirya’s widows? Isn’t it likely that Bhisma would be drawing the animosity of the powerful Bharadvaja-Angiras, to whom Vashishthas would be considered ‘outsiders’?

Since Bhisma himself would not beget children in his sister-in-laws’ wombs, he should have remembered Vahlika’s sons – Somadatta et al. – for the Niyoga, as that was the usual Dharmashashtric prescription. He, however, decided to call his half-brother on the step-mother’s side, who had a very remote connection with Bharata family by blood, given Satyavati carried Uparichara Basu’s blood in her veins!

Bhisma-Satyavati would certainly have faced opposition from Bharadvaja-Angira ministers and other relatives of the Kuru branch if Krishna-Dvaipayana’ Niyoga was that transparent; which leads us to the conclusion that the Niyoga was carried out in haste and with utter secrecy – with only Bhisma, Satyavati and Dwaipayana knowing – a fact corroborated in Mahabharata.

There is, thus, much mystery surrounding the birth of the three sons, Vichitravirya’s next generation – Dhritarashtra, Vidura and Pandu. We have always been made to believe that Vidura was the youngest. No known (I mean ‘Read’ – by me of course!) Mahabharata thinker or reader has disputed that fact. ‘Is it so?’ – I asked myself, and on closer examination of the ‘Text’, an entirely different history was revealed to me.

The parallel of Dirghatama-Baliraja-Sudeshna history with the Niyoga of Dwaipayana in Vichitravirya’s Kshetra – a history narrated by Bhisma himself to Satyavati, and the details of Dwaipayana’s Niyoga and reactions of Vichitravirya’s wives, have always left me with a hunch that there might be some ‘mistake’ in the popular notion about the ‘birth-order’ of Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura.

That Dwaipayana’s Niyoga was done in haste is evident from the fact that initially Dwaipayana gave a condition that Vichitravirya’s widows should observe a Vrata for one year. However, Satyavati was reluctant to wait for one year, and requested her son to enter her daughters-in-law without delay, even if that violated Dharmashashtric prescriptions.

Dwaipayana agreed to impregnate Ambika on that very day with a warning that in that case the Princess’ Vrata would have to endure his visage, odour, dress and appearance – “yadi putraH pradAtavyo mayA kShipramakAlikam .
virUpatAM me sahatAmetadasyAH para.n vratam ..
yadi me sahate gandha.n rUpaM veSha.n tathA vapuH .
adyaiva garbha.n kausalyA vishiShTaM pratipadyatAm ..” (1.99.44-45)

It is evident that Satyavati was not even willing to let have Dwaipayana time to bathe or other ‘freshen ups’ as required in Shashtric Niyoga.

Now the story runs as we all know – yet needs mention to allow us to analyse it.

After much persuasion, Satyavati drew consent from Ambika. On the first night, Dwaipayana entered Ambika’s room. Seeing his grim visage, she closed her eyes in fear. As a result a blind son – Dhritarashtra – was born to her.

Next, Dwaipayana went to Ambalika. She turned pale at his visage. As a result, a pale son – Pandu – was born to her. Satyavati requested Dwaipayana embrace Ambika again to try for another son. This time Ambika, instead of going herself, sent a Dasi. The Dasi satisfied Dwaipayana, and Vidura was born.

If we are complacent with our ‘faith’ in the story then it is one thing, however, on close reading of the text several questions arise, which we cannot ignore anymore.

Let us outline the story once again:
1) Dwaipayana comes to Hastinapura
2) He goes to Ambika on that night
3) He goes to Ambalika the next night
4) Satyavati sends him to Ambika again, because Ambika’s son would be blind
5) Dwaipayana visits Ambika’s chamber, but this time Ambika herself does not go and sends a Dasi, with whom he copulates
6) Dwaipayana leaves Hastinapura
7) Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura are born in that order

Now, let us discuss the questions in the light of our ‘common sense’ (realizing, they would be questionable to many!!)
1) If Dwaipayana has sexual union with Ambika first, then each become acquainted with each other’s body odour, ‘style’ etc. Dwaipayana, being ‘amogha-retah’ has nothing to leave to Destiny, and Ambika becomes pregnant.

2) Ambalika becomes pregnant the next night

3) Now, the crucial point – how can Satyavati even think of sending Dwaipayana to Ambika again if she is already pregnant?
Surely, she did not give birth to Dhritarashtra like ‘instant coffee’!

For Dwaipayana to have sexual union with Ambika for the second time, he would have to wait for at least one year or until Dhritarashtra’s birth at least. In other words, he would have to return Hastinapura again after a year. Do we find anywhere in the Mahabharata such information that Dwaipayana returned after one year?

Even after one year, could Satyavati send Ambika to Dwaipayana for the second time? That Satyavati would want to send Ambika to Vyasa for a second time, and that Vyasa would agree to that is impossible, because a second time Niyoga was not permitted by the same person.

If Dwaipayana had his first sexual encounter with Ambika, he is supposed to look at Ambika as his daughter-in-law thereafter. The Manu Samhita (IX, 59-63), lays down the rules of Niyoga as follows – (The Laws Of Manu translated by G. Buhler)
59. On failure of issue (by her husband) a woman who has been authorised, may obtain, (in the) proper (manner prescribed), the desired offspring by (cohabitation with) a brother-in-law or (with some other) Sapinda (of the husband).
devarad va sapindad va striya samyakniyuktaya |
prajepsita.a.adhigantavya samtanasya parikshaye ||
60. He (who is) appointed to (cohabit with) the widow shall (approach her) at night anointed with clarified butter and silent, (and) beget one son, by no means a second.
vidhavayam niyuktastu ghritakto vagyato nishi |
ekamutpadayet putram na dvitiyam katham cana ||
61. Some (sages), versed in the law, considering the purpose of the appointment not to have been attained by those two (on the birth of the first), think that a second (son) may be lawfully procreated on (such) women.
dvitiyameke prajanam manyante strishu tadvidah |
anirvritam niyogartham pashyanto dharmatastayoh ||
62. But when the purpose of the appointment to (cohabit with) the widow bas been attained in accordance with the law, those two shall behave towards each other like a father and a daughter-in-law.
vidhavayam niyogarthe nirvritte tu yathavidhi |
guruvatca snushavatca varteyatam parasparam ||
63. If those two (being thus) appointed deviate from the rule and act from carnal desire, they will both become outcasts, (as men) who defile the bed of a daughter-in-law or of a Guru.
niyuktau yau vidhim hitva varteyatam tu kamatah |
tavubhau patitau syatam snushagagurutalpagau || (nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Dharma_Shastras/Manu-samhita)

It may be argued that Satyavati’s sending Ambika for a second time is in accordance with Manu-Samhita 9.61, but that cannot be the case here for she would have to wait one year for that till Dhritarashtra is born blind. Besides, birth of a blind son does not mean that the purpose of Niyoga has failed. We find many references of blind sages in Hindu scriptures. One example is Dirghatama, and this case was cited by Bhisma himself. And Dirghatama was certainly not a ‘failed’ offspring.

4) If Ambika had had intercourse with Dwaipayana first, how could she even think of duping Dwaipayana by sending a Dasi? Was she such a fool to think that she could deceive him? Was Dwaipayana such a dumb glum that having already ‘known’ Ambika he would be duped? Even if the Dasi was sent to him, having known Ambika, why would he have intercourse with her? Are we to suppose then that Dwaipayana knowingly had sexual union with a Dasi – just for pleasure?

Dwaipayana could not have sexual intercourse with the Shudra maiden knowingly, because such action was prohibited for a Brahmana. In Anushashana Parva Section-47 Bhisma tells Yudhishthira – ‘A Brahmana, by taking a Sudra woman to his bed, attains to a low end in the next world. He should, having done such an act, undergo expiation according to the rites laid down in the scriptures. That expiation must be twice heavier or severer if in consequence of such an act, O Yudhishthira, the Brahmana gets offspring:
zudraam.zayanam.aaropya.braahmaNah.piiDito.bhavet./
praayazcittiiyate.ca.api.vidhi.dRSTena.hetunaa.//
tatra.jaateSv.apatyeSu.dvi.guNam.syaad.yudhiSThira./
atas.te.niyamam.vitte.sampravakSyaami.bhaarata.// (CE-13.47.9-10)

5) Dwaipayana promised Satyavati to produce two offspring like Mitra-Varuna. Why would he agree to produce a third one as the second one (though Pale) would be otherwise fit in all respects to become king? Are we to suppose that Dwaipayana willingly broke his own promise because he was lusty for sexual experience?

That is impossible because despite being an ascetic, he acceded to his mother’s request to be Niyukta for motives of dharma. Dwaipayana could not have intercourse with the Dasi just for carnal pleasure, as we also have the injunction of Manu Samhita:
‘If those two (being thus) appointed deviate from the rule and act from carnal desire, they will both become outcasts, (as men) who defile the bed of a daughter-in-law or of a Guru-
niyuktau yau vidhim hitva varteyatam tu kamatah |
tavubhau patitau syatam snushagagurutalpagau || (9.63)

6) Going by the narrative and our age-old ‘incredibly hardened belief’ in it, the Dasi-matter was detected both by Dwaipayana and Satyavati soon after. When it was detected that Ambika had sent a Dasi, Satyavati could have sent Ambika again, or she could have sent Ambalika for the second time if Ambika was unwilling, but that wasn’t the case. If Satyavati could give Ambika a second chance, why would Ambalika be deprived?

The questions (which may or may not be as questionable to as many of you anymore!) leave us with the following answers – again in the light of our good old ‘common sense’ –

1) Like King Vali’s wife Sudeshna sending a Dasi to Dirghatama on the first time, Ambika sends a Dasi on the first night instead of going first. Dwaipayana has intercourse with her thinking her to be Ambika, just like Dirghatama – though he soon detected he had been duped, again like Dirghatama.

Thus Vidura is conceived first.

2) The narrative is as follows: ‘The Rishi, from desire of accomplishing his mother’s wishes, however appeared before Ambika. But the latter, struck with fear, opened not her eyes even once to look at him-
sambabhuuva.tayaa.raatrau.maatuh.priya.cikiirSayaa./
bhayaat.kaazi.sutaa.tam.tu.na.azaknod.abhiviikSitum.// (CE-1.100.6)

Ambika submits to Dwaipayana’s embrace reluctantly (And they say, a man’s looks do not matter much, and the more ‘rough-tough’ the better!). She might have closed her eyes detesting Dwaipayana’s visage (one wonders though why Dwaipayana did not find time to have a good bath even after 24 hours of his first encounter with the Dasi!), but closing eyes cannot be the cause of Dhritarashtra’s blindness – that is certain! Many a woman close their eyes during intercourse because of – what else – no mark for guessing – that O-Thing (I am sure no question would be raised here by many! And poor are those of the adult male species who dare to question!), and none of them has been heard (by me, at least) to have given birth to blind children for that reason!

Leaving aside these ‘technical matters’, there is one crucial point here – that bolsters our theory. Ambika does not open ‘her eyes even once to look at him’, which is only possible if Ambika has already seen him earlier and known him earlier. If Satyavati had kept her guessing (and they say keeping a woman guessing intensifies her sexual passion!) and she was really content guessing, how would she know that Bhisma or any other Kuru would not be entering her room (and also entering HER ROOM!) and would she really close her eyes beforehand without a single look?

Her certainty proves she knows Dwaipayana – and that is only possible if she has already ‘seen it all’ – I mean, her Dasi in a strange ascetic’s embrace!

3) It becomes possible by all ‘mortal logic’, then, that Satyavati sends Ambika again on detection of her game. The narrative reads as follows: ‘Some time after, when the oldest of Vichitravirya’s widows again had her monthly season, she was solicited by Satyavati to approach Vyasa once again. Possessed of beauty like a daughter of a celestial, the princess refused to do her mother-in-law’s bidding, remembering the grim visage and strong odour of the Rishi. Rtu.kaale.tato.jyeSThaam.vadhuum.tasmai.nyayojayat./
saa.tu.ruupam.ca.gandham.ca.maharSeh.pravicintya.tam./
na.akarod.vacanam.devyaa.bhayaat.sura.suta.upamaa.// (CE-1.100.22)

Going by our age-old belief that Ambika had the first intercourse with Dwaipayana, how is that possible? That ‘some time after’ or Ambika’s ‘Rtu.kaale’ cannot be possible while Ambika is still pregnant; in other words, Ambika can menstruate again only after Dhritarashtra’s birth – which would make that ‘some time after’ at least one year after. That prospect would mean, Dwaipayana has to return to Hastinapura after one year again for Niyoga. Did Dwaipayana really return after one year again for Niyoga?

4) My theory, therefore is that Dwaipayana goes to Ambika the second night after the Niyoga fiasco or Dwaipayana’s Dasi-ecstasy on the first night– depending on what we are inclined to believe!
Any proof we require can be found in the story; ‘Then the Rishi of truthful speech, who had given his promise in respect of Amvika (the eldest of the princesses) in the first instance, entered her chamber while the lamp was burning. The princess, seeing his dark visage, his matted locks of copper hue, blazing eyes, his grim beard, closed her eyes in fear.
tato.ambikaayaam.prathamam.niyuktah.satya.vaag.RSih./
diipyamaaneSu.diipeSu.zayanam.praviveza.ha.//
tasya.kRSNasya.kapilaa.jaTaa.diipte.ca.locane./
babhruuNi.caiva.zmazruuNi.dRSTvaa.devii.nyamiilayat.// (CE-1.100.4-5)

The obvious contradiction here is that Ambika closes her eyes only after seeing Dwaipayana! As the two narratives contradict each other they both can’t be right, so we need to examine them further to determine their merits.

Well! Why would the lamp be lit during Dwaipayana’s intercourse with Ambika? Doesn’t it imply that the burning lamp was a means of Satyavati to ensure that Ambika was Ambika, and not a dasi giving proxy? Why else would the lamp be particularly mentioned?

Earlier Dwaipayana had told Satyavati that Niyoga in haste would mean that Ambika would have to bear with his odour – ‘gandham’ – yadi.me.sahate.gandham.ruupam.veSam.tathaa.vapuh.

But Ambika is not bothered by any foul odour. The wretched lady’s only problem is with Dwaipayana’s visage. Can we really blame her for that when we know she was expecting Bhisma when Satyavati told her how urgently her womb was needed to save the dynasty?

That means this is not Dwaipayana’s first encounter; it was the Dasi who had already bore his smell without complaint, and this time Vyasa has done away with his ‘odour’- (thereby relieving us of the headache of why he would not have a bath even after 24 hours)!

Therefore, although Satyavati did not disclose to her the identity of the Niyukta and kept her guessing, Ambika got news of the Niyukta’s identity through her Dasi (they say- as say Vatsayana in Kamasutra and Kautilya in Arthashashtra – Dasis are better spies than the hairy mustached ones with no curves!) and sent the Dasi. Obviously, Ambika was not willing to bear the child of an unknown ascetic while he had already been ‘emotionally attached’ to Bhisma – courtesy that universal thing called ‘Sexual Fantasy’!

Regarding the less important question – though important to absolve Dwaipayana of a serious ‘crime’ i.e. gory visage, we may check – as a side glance – whether he was really that ugly.

On the occasion of Suka’s birth, it is said: ‘Assuming the excellent form and complexion that were his sire, Suka, O son of Kuru, of cleansed Soul, shone like a smokeless fire – bibhrat.pituz.ca.kauravya.ruupa.varnam.anuttamam./
babhau.tadaa.bhaavita.aatmaa.vidhuumo.agnir.iva.jvalan.// (CE-12.311.11)

Devi Bhagavatam also absolves Dwaipayana of that crime and declares that Vyasa was very handsome. No doubt, an Apsara got attached to him in his ripe age and produced the greatest of Dwaipayana’s sons – Suka!

Dwaipayana’s ugly visage has one possible explanation, then. He has been in an ascetic mode of life, and has traveled quite a distance to reach Hastinapura, meaning he was worn out and exhausted, in other words not looking his best.

Returning to our theory, not only was the lamp was burning during intercourse, the story tell us Satyavati was waiting outside the closed door! What a mother!: ‘And when Vyasa came out, he was met by his mother, who asked him, ‘Shall the princess have an accomplished son?’ Hearing her, he replied, ‘The son of the princess she will bring forth shall be equal in might unto ten thousand elephants. He will be an illustrious royal sage, possessed of great learning and intelligence and energy. The high souled one shall have in his time a century of sons. But from the fault of his mother he shall be blind (CE-1.100.7-10).’

The old Queen Mother seems to have lost all faith in her elder daughter-in-law and hell-bent on leaving nothing to chance. Not only does she send her grown-up baby to her daughter-in-law, she even stands as the door guard! And another important thing – all Dharmashashtic injunctions regarding Niyoga are thrown to the wind! No application of curd, salt and ghee on their bodies – Nothing!

5) So, letting our theory flow free, (not fall free, I assure!) the ‘model’ is like this:
1st Night – Dasi – Vidura
2nd Night – Ambika – Dhritarashtra
3rd Night – Ambalika – Pandu

However, if we go by our age-old belief, then the ‘model’ would be:
1st Night – Ambika – Dhritarashtra
2nd Night – Ambalika – Pandu
About one year later on another dark night – Dasi – Vidura

Now, the ‘point’ on which our theory will survive or perish is, was Vidura born after one year of Dhritarashtra-Pandu’s birth – in which case our theory goes to Hell – or, were the three brothers conceived and born together i.e. during Dwaipayana’s ‘only and single’ visit to Hastinapura for Niyoga purpose – in which case, not only our theory survives, but hopefully goes to Svarga after its successful and ‘fruitful’ Lila on Earth! Let us ‘check out’ some references from the Mahabharata in order to see which is the most probable.

First, In Adi Parva, Sauti says to Shaunaka and the Rishis in Naimisharanya: ‘I will now speak of the undying flowery and fruitful productions of this tree, possessed of pure and pleasant taste, and not to be destroyed even by the immortals. Formerly, the spirited and virtuous Krishna-Dwaipayana, by the injunctions of Bhishma, the wise son of Ganga and of his own mother, became the father of three boys who were like the three fires by the two wives of Vichitra-virya; and ‘after producing- utpaadya’ Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura, he returned to his recluse abode to prosecute his religious exercise-
kSetre.vicitra.viiryasya.kRSNa.dvaipaayanah.puraa./
triin.agniin.iva.kauravyaan.janayaam.aasa.viiryavaan.//
utpaadya.dhRtaraaSTram.ca.paaNDum.viduram.eva.ca./
jagaama.tapase.dhiimaan.punar.eva.aazramam.prati.// (CE-1.1.54-55)

It is clear, Vyasa returned to his ashrama after his visit to Hastinapura. There is no information here or anywhere else in the whole of Mahabharata that Vyasa returned again after one year. He came once (for Niyoga, not taking into account his other ‘political’ visits before or thereafter), and returned after doing his job.

Another interesting point is, Vidura is acknowledged to have been born in Vichitravirya’s ‘kshetra’, implying his mother was not a Dasi! In other words, Vidura’s mother was also a ‘married’ Shudra wife of Vichitravirya.

Is that possible? Well, it is mentioned here in the text: ‘Thus were born, in the field of Vichitravirya, even of Dwaipayana those sons of the splendour of celestial children, those propagators of the Kuru race-
evam.vicitra.viiryasya.kSetre.dvaipaayanaad.api./
jajnire.deva.garbha.aabhaah.kuru.vamza.vivardhanaah.//(CE-1.100.30)

‘vicitra.viiryasya.kSetre’ – cannot refer to a mere Dasi. All including Vidura are called ‘Deva’, and all including Vidura are called ‘propagators of the Kuru race.’

In Anushashana Parva Bhisma tells Yudhishthira –
‘For the Kshatriya, O delighter of the Kurus, two wives have been ordained. The Kshatriya may take a third wife from the Sudra order-
kSatriyasya.api.bhaarye.dve.vihite.kuru.nandana./
tRtiiyaa.ca.bhavet.zuudraa.na.tu.dRSTa.antatah.smRtaa.// (CE-13.47.47)

From the status Vidura enjoyed, it seems likely, that his mother was also Vichitravirya’s third Sudra wife as per above injunction.
This seems all the more likely because, Vyasa himself says that he gave birth to Vidura in Vichitravirya’s ‘Kshetre’, implying the Shudra was his wife.
(vaicitra.viiryake.kSetre.jaatah.sa.sumahaa.matih – 15.35.15)

One point may be raised here – The arrangement of name in CE-1.105.5 suggests Dhritarashtra was eldest and Vidura was youngest. How would our theory hold then? Well, in Mahabharata, the order in which names are presented is no guarantee of the order of birth. For example, in another mention of the three brothers, Sauti says, ‘And the Brahmana Rishi had knowledge of the supreme Brahma, knew the past by intuition, was holy, and cherished truth. Of sacred deeds and great fame, he begot Pandu and Dhritarashtra and Vidura in order to continue the line of Santanu’.
yah.paaNDum.dhRta.raaSTram.ca.viduram.ca.apy.ajiijanat./
zamtanoh.samtatim.tanvan.puNya.kiirtir.mahaa.yazaah.// (CE-1.54.6)

Here Pandu is named first, then Dhritarashtra, then Vidura. So, arrangement of names in Sloka does not denote chronology of birth.

Secondly, Dwaipayana agreed to give birth to two sons, to produce sons like Mitra-Varuna, and told Satyavati, ‘ O thou of great wisdom, thy affections also are set on virtue. Therefore, at thy command, making virtue my motive, I shall do what thou desirest. Indeed, this practice that is conformable to the true and eternal religion is known to me, I shall give unto my brother children that shall be like unto Mitra and Varuna-
tasmaad.aham.tvan.niyogaad.dharmam.uddizya.kaaraNam./
iipsitam.te.kariSyaami.dRSTam.hy.etat.puraatanam.//
bhraatuh.putraan.pradaasyaami.mitraa.varuNayoh.samaan./ (CE-1.99.37-38)

Dwaipayana uses the word ‘dharma’, a point we would return later, if he had already impregnated Ambika and Ambalika, why would he agree to break his promise at the cost of adharma and return after one year?

Thirdly, Vidura’s birth is mentioned first in Parva-counting.
‘…….his protection of his younger brother, Vichitravirya, and his placing the latter on the throne: the birth of Dharma among men in consequence of the curse of Animondavya; the births of Dhritarashtra and Pandu through the potency of Vyasa’s blessings (?) and also the birth of the Pandavas………-
vicitra.viiryasya.tathaa.raajye.sampratipaadanam./
dharmasya.nRSu.sambhuutir.aNii.maaNDavya.zaapajaa.//
kRSNa.dvaipaayanaac.caiva.prasuutir.vara.daana.jaa./
dhRtaraaSTrasya.paaNDoz.ca.paaNDavaanaam.ca.sambhavah.// (CE-1.20.81-82)

Why would the poet count the Parva like that if Vidura is not born earlier? Needless to say, the Parva counting mentions other events chronologically.

Fourthly, wherever the birth of the three brothers is mentioned, it is mentioned together as in, ‘But Vichitravirya became king, and married the two daughters of the king of Kasi, named Amvika and Amvalika. But Vichitravirya died childless. Then Satyavati began to think as to how the dynasty of Dushmanta might be perpetuated. Then she recollected the Rishi Dwaipayana. The latter coming before her, asked, ‘What are thy commands?’
‘She said, ‘Thy brother Vichitravirya hath gone to heaven childless. Beget virtuous children for him.’ Dwaipayana, consenting to this, begat three children, viz., Dhritarashtra, Pandu, and Vidura-sa.param.ity.uktvaa.triin.putraan.utpaadayaam.aasa.dhRtaraaSTram.paaNDum.viduram.ca.iti.// (CE-1.90.60)

After the birth of the three brothers, there was much celebration in Kurujangala, teSu.triSu.kumaareSu.jaateSu.kuru.jaangalam./{V}
kuravo.atha.kuru.kSetram.trayam.etad.avardhata.// (CE-1.102.1)
If Vidura was born a year later, why would Kurujangala postpone the celebration when Dhritarashtra and Pandu were already born?
This shows beyond doubt that the three brothers were born almost together. Needless to say, if they were born almost at the same time, Ambika could not have conceived first.

Fifthly, we are informed that Vidura did not get the throne because he was born of a Shudra woman –‘Pandu became king, for Dhritarashtra, owing to the blindness, and Vidura, for his birth by a Sudra woman, did not obtain the kingdom.’
dhRtaraaSTras.tv.acakSuSTvaad.raajyam.na.pratyapadyata./
karaNatvaac.ca.vidurah.paaNDur.aasiin.mahii.patih.//(CE-1.102.23)

Going by the popular belief Vidura is naturally disqualified on two counts:
a) He is the youngest
b) He is born of a Shudra

If Vidura is naturally disqualified to inherit the throne, why would the poet need to mention his name at all? And even if he does, why would he mention only his ‘karaNatvaa’? Are we supposed to believe that the Mahabharata poet had a penchant for unnecessarily increasing the bulk of slokas like any other trash poet of our time? Vidura’s special mention here shows, his name was also considered for the throne but ruled out becasue his mother was Shudra. That his name was considered proves, he was not the youngest and his mother was not a mere Dasi!

Sixthly, there is a rather strange mention in Adi Parva that ‘Vidura, who was the first of all virtuous men, who was the god of Justice himself, was the excellent and greatly fortunate son of the Rishi Atri-
atres.tu.sumahaa.bhaagam.putram.putravataam.varam./
viduram.viddhi.loke.asmin.jaatam.buddhimataam.varam.// (CE-1.61.79)

This reference is unique because it is not corroborated elsewhere in the Mahabharata or even in any folk-Mahabharata. Why Vidura is called born of Atri is a problem that cannot be easily resolved. In my opinion, this reference implies he was eldest, because Atri is the progenitor of the Puru race.

Seventhly, though Dwaipayana promised to produce sons like Mitra-Varuna, Satyavati has Indra in mind. She promised Ambika: ‘O thou of fair hips, bring thou forth a child equal in splendour unto the chief of the celestials. He shall bear the onerous burden of this our hereditary kingdom-
putram.janaya.suzroNi.deva.raaja.sama.prabham./
sa.hi.raajya.dhuram.gurviim.udvakSyati.kulasya.nah.// (CE-1.99.48)

Satyavati promised that Ambika’s son would be king. The future son is also referred to as Indra. If that was the promise, it should not have mattered whether the son was blind or not. Even if it was not possible for Satyavati to abide by her promise, Ambalika’s son fulfilled her desire for an Indra. Why would she request Ambika again to go through the ‘agony’ of submitting to Dwaipayana, when the possibility remained that she would again close her eyes (O-Thing or not!), and her second son too would be blind?

The improbability simply points out that Satyavati was not sending Ambika for the ‘second’ time, which further proves that ‘this’ was the ‘first’ time for Ambika, and that Dwaipayana’s first intercourse had been with the ‘Dasi.’

When Dwaipayana came out of the room after his intercourse with Ambika, Satyavati asked him, ‘Shall the princess have an accomplished son?’ apy.asyaam.guNavaan.putra.raaja.putro.bhaviSyati.// (CE-1.100.7)

He replied, ‘The son of the princess she will bring forth shall be equal in might unto ten thousand elephants. He will be an illustrious royal sage, possessed of great learning and intelligence and energy. The high-souled one shall have in his time a century of sons. But from the fault of his mother he shall be blind – nizamya.tad.vaco.maatur.vyaasah.parama.buddhimaan./
provaaca.atiindriya.jnaano.vidhinaa.sampracoditah.//
naaga.ayuga.sama.praaNo.vidvaan.raaja.RSi.sattamah./
mahaa.bhaago.mahaa.viiryo.mahaa.buddhir.bhaviSyati.//
tasya.ca.api.zatam.putraa.bhaviSyanti.mahaa.balaah./
kim.tu.maatuh.sa.vaiguNyaad.andha;eva.bhaviSyati.// (CE-1.100.8-10)

In other words Dwaipayana promised Ambika’s son would be king, which is further evident from the fact that when Satyavati learned Ambika’s son would be blind, she requested Dwaipayana, It behoveth thee to give another king unto the Kurus-
dvitiiyam.kuru.vamzasya.raajaanam.daatum.arhasi.// (CE-1.100.12) Dwaipayana agreed to produce ‘another king’, implying the first would be a king.

If Dwaipayana and Satyavati promised that Ambika’s son would be king, then despite getting ‘another king’ from Ambalika, why would she send Ambika again? If our theory proves right, then both mother and son had their wishes fulfilled in a peculiar unforeseen way;

Vidura – Mitra
Dhritarashtra – Varuna
Pandu – Indra

Eighthly, If Dwaipayana could break his promise, and agreed to a third intercourse, then, surely, he would have agreed to a fourth. In other words, if Ambika sent the Dasi instead of going herself the second time (i.e. for Vidura to be conceived the youngest), then on its detection, Satyavati could have sent her yet again, and if she denied, Ambalika was there! But, nothing of that sort happened!

Ninthly, after his intercourse with the Dasi, Dwaipayana admitted to Satyavati he was ‘deceived’, ‘And Krishna-Dwaipayana, when he met his mother as before, informed her as to how he had been deceived by the senior-most of the princesses and how he had begotten a son upon a Sudra woman. And having spoken thus unto his mother the Rishi disappeared from her sight.’

Given Dwaipayana’s greatness (for skeptics, ‘He was the composer of Mahabharata!’), he could have been ‘deceived’ only if he had thought the Dasi to be Ambika; in other words, only if the Dasi was the first to have intercourse with him.

Tenthly, after the Trio is born, they are brought up with equal care, ‘And Dhritarashtra and Pandu and Vidura of great intelligence were from their birth brought up by Bhishma, as if they were his own sons. And the children, having passed through the usual rites of their order, devoted themselves to vows and study. And they grew up into fine young men skilled in the Vedas and all athletic sports. And they became well-skilled in the practice of bow, in horsemanship, in encounters with mace, sword and shield, in the management of elephants in battle, and in the science of morality. Well-read in history and the Puranas and various branches of learning, and acquainted with the truths of the Vedas and their branches they acquired knowledge, which was versatile and deep. And Pandu, possessed of great prowess, excelled all men in archery while Dhritarashtra excelled all in personal strength, while in the three worlds there was no one equal to Vidura in devotion to virtue and in the knowledge of the dictates of morality. And beholding the restoration of the extinct line of Santanu, the saying became current in all countries that among mothers of heroes, the daughters of the king of Kasi were the first; that among countries Kurujangala was the first; that among virtuous men, Vidura was the first; that among cities Hastinapura was the first. Pandu became king, for Dhritarashtra, owing to the blindness, and Vidura, for his birth by a Sudra woman, did not obtain the kingdom. One day Bhishma, the foremost of those acquainted with the duties of a statesman and dictates of morality, properly addressing Vidura conversant with the truth of religion and virtue, said as follows. (CE-1.102.2-22)

It should be noted how Vidura’s accomplishment is ‘specially’ mentioned. According to Manu Samhita – ‘The son whom a Brahmana begets through lust on a Sudra female is, (though) alive (parayan), a corpse (sava), and hence called a Parasava (a living corpse)-
yam brahmanastu shudrayam kamadutpadayet sutam |
sa parayanneva shavastasmat parashavah smritah || (9.178)

Had Vidura really been the youngest result of Dwaipayana’s carnal desire, could that ‘living corpse’ be brought up at par with Dhritarashtra and Pandu?

However, despite all our above arguments, there are many references in Mahabharata that Vidura was younger to Dhritarashtra, in fact, references enough to make my theory collapse. For example, once there was misunderstanding between Dhritarashtra and Vidura, and then Dhritarashtra realized his mistake and called Vidura back. When Vidura returned, ‘the king then took Vidura on his lap and smelt his head, and said, ‘Forgive me, O sinless one, the words in which thou wert addressed by me!-
so.ankam.aadaaya.viduram.muurdhny.upaaghraaya.caiva.ha./
kSamyataam.iti.ca.uvaaca.yad.ukto.asi.mayaa.ruSaa.// (CE-3.70.20)

Certainly, Dhritarashtra would not have taken Vidura on his lap and smelt his head, ‘ankam.aadaaya.viduram.muurdhny.upaaghraaya, had he been younger to Vidura.

Then Vidura says, ‘O king, I have forgiven thee. Thou art my superior, worthy of the highest reverence! Here am I, having come back, eagerly wishing to behold thee!’
kSaantam.eva.mayaa.raajan.gurur.nah.paramo.bhavaan./
tathaa.hy.asmy.aagatah.kSipram.tvad.darzana.paraayaNah.// (CE-3.70.21) Which shows Vidura clearly admitting that Dhritarashtra is his ‘guru’.

When Shakuni and Duryodhana advises Dhritarshtra to play dice, Dhritarashtra calls for Vidura and says, ‘Vidura is my minister, I am under his rule, kSattaa.mantrii.mahaa.praajnah.sthito.yasya.asmi.zaasane./
tena.samgamya.vetsyaami.kaaryasya.asya.vinizcayam.// (CE-2.45.41)

Though Dhritarashtra says he is under Vidura’s rule that does not necessarily mean Vidura is the eldest, of course. For, the next moment, Vidura comes and touches the feet of his elder brother-
“The intelligent Vidura, however, as soon as he heard of it, knew that the arrival of Kali was at hand. And seeing that the way to destruction was about to open, he quickly came to Dhritarashtra. And Vidura approaching his illustrious eldest brother and bowing down unto his feet said these words: ‘O exalted king, I do not approve of this resolution that thou hast formed. It behave thee, O king, to act in such a way that no dispute may arise between thy children on account of this gambling match.’
tat.zrutvaa.viduro.dhiimaan.kali.dvaaram.upasthitam./
vinaaza.mukham.utpannam.dhRtara.aSTram.upaadravat.//
so.abhigamya.mahaatmaanam.bhraataa.bhraataram.agrajam./
muurdhnaa.praNamya.caraNaav.idam.vacanam.abraviit.// (CE-2.45.50)

Along with this we have two other references, where Vidura ‘seems’ to be the youngest, but the matter is very confusing, and not so conclusive. In Udyoga Parva, Drona recollects Pandu’s abdicating the throne and says: ‘(Though king by right) that perpetuator of Kuru’s race (Pandu) yet made over the sovereignty to his elder brother, Dhritarashtra, endued with great wisdom, and to his younger brother Kshattri (Vidura)-
jyeSThaaya.raajyam.adadaad.dhRtaraaSTraaya.dhiimate./
yaviiyasas.tathaa.kSattuh.kuru.vamza.vivardhanah.// (CE-5.146.4) Vidura is clearly mentioned as ‘yaviiyasas’.

But Drona also says: ‘And having made over the kingdom to Dhritarashtra and Vidura, that conqueror of hostile cities, Pandu, wandered over the whole earth-
visRjya.dhRtaraaSTraaya.raajyam.sa.viduraaya.ca./
cacaara.pRthiviim.paaNDuh.sarvaam.para.puram.jayah.// (CE-5.146.8) If Vidura was a mere shuudra-Dasi born youngest son, how could Pandu give him the kingdom at par with Dhritarashtra?

After Drona’s speech, Gandhari tells Duryodhana: ‘The kingdom of the Kurus is enjoyable in due order of succession. Even this hath always been the custom of our race. Of sinful soul and exceedingly wicked in acts, thou seekest the destruction of the Kuru kingdom by thy unrighteousness. Wise Dhritarashtra is in possession of the kingdom, having Vidura of great foresight under him (as his adviser). Passing over these two, why, O Duryodhana, dost thou, from delusion, covet the sovereignty now? Even the high-souled king and Kshattri, when Bhishma is alive, should both be subordinate to him.-
raajyam.kuruuNaam.anupuurva.bhogyam;krama.aagato.nah.kula.dharma:eSah./
tvam.paapa.buddhe.atinRzamsa.karman;raajyam.kuruuNaam.anayaad.vihamsi.//
raajye.sthito.dhRtaraaSTro.maniiSii;tasya.anugo.viduro.diirgha.darzii./
etaav.atikramya.katham.nRpatvam;duryodhana.praarthayase.adya.mohaat.// (CE-5.146.29)

But the next moment she says: ‘Let this king (Dhritarashtra) and Vidura also, at the command of Bhishma of great vows, proclaim the same thing.
anujnayaa.ca.atha.mahaa.vratasya;bruuyaan.nRpo.yad.viduras.tathaa.eva./ (CE-5.146.34)

If ‘due order of succession’ is ‘the custom of our race’, how can Gandhari contradict herself in same breath and wish that Vidura be king at par with Dhritarashtra?

Though calling the dialogues ‘interpolation’ would be an easy escape-route, I would not like to use that much detested word at this time. So, how do we reconcile Vidura’s exalted position in Hastinapura with his shuudra-Dasi born youngest status? Before deciding on that, let us go through another important episode – when Bhisma contemplates marriage of the Trio.

Iravati Kanve notices the improbability of Bhisma seeking advice of the youngest Vidura: ‘The beginning of chapter 103, where such a conversation occurs, is clearly an interpolation. Bhishma says to Vidura, “I have decided to bring Subala’s daughter Gandhari, the Madra princess Madri, and the Yadava princess Kunti as brides to our house. What do you think of this, Vidura?” Vidura answers, “You are our father and mother. Do what you think right.” Following this exchange is a long account of each girl, ending with her marriage. This means that the eight stanzas at the beginning of the chapter are meaningless. Moreover, the question was about the marriage of Vidura’s two elder brothers, and Vidura himself was unmarried. All the brothers must have been below the age of twenty, and Vidura was the youngest of the three. It is impossible that Bhishma should have asked his advice at such a time.’

Now, we agree with Karve that Bhisma’s asking Vidura’s advice is impossible if Vidura is the youngest. In that case he would have spoken (if at all) either to Dhritarashtra or Pandu. However, if Vidura is the eldest it is only natural for Bhisma to speak with him over the matter.

Another interesting thing is to be noted in Bhisma’s speech is what he actually says: zruuyate.yaadavii.kanyaa;anuruupaa.kulasya.nah./
subalasya.aatmajaa.caiva.tathaa.madra.iizvarasya.ca.// (CE-1.103.5) It is to be noted that he does not mention ‘Kunti’, though all translators, readers and researchers take ‘yaadavii.kanyaa’ as none other than Kunti.

The order of mentioning the princesses is also very significant, though the significance is lost in most translations. For example, K.M. Ganguly translates it as, ‘One is the daughter of (Surasena of) the Yadava race; the other is the daughter of Suvala; and the third is the princess of Madra’, that is certainly not in the original. It is evident that thinking Dhritarashtra to be eldest, he mentions Gandhari first. One of the problems with translations is the translator translating with a pre-conceived notion, which makes the translation an interpretative re-creation of narrative instead of a direct re-creation.

H.J.Resnick does not mention ‘Kunti’, ‘I’ve heard there is a very nice princess in the Yadu dynasty who would be quite suitable for our family. Similarly, King Subala has a nice daughter, and so too the king of Madras.’ Prof. P. Lal also transcreates her as the ‘Yadava Princess.’(1.110.5)

Since the three princes have been mentioned together all along, it is likely Bhisma would be considering three princesses for their marriage. In my opinion, the ‘yaadavii.kanyaa’ cannot be Kunti, though most readers of Mahabharata think so. This ‘yaadavii kanyaa’ is actually Yadava Devaka’s daughter by his Sudhra wife, with whom Vidura is ultimately married to,
‘Meanwhile the son of the ocean-going Ganga heard that king Devaka had a daughter endued with youth and beauty and begotten upon a Sudra wife. Bringing her from her father’s abode, Bhishma married her to Vidura of great wisdom.’(KMG-Adi.114)

Except Kunti (who garlands Pandu in swamvara) the three wives of the three brothers are actually Bhisma’s ‘arranged marriage.’ That is another reason why this ‘yaadavii kanyaa’ is not Kunti, for if Bhisma has really thought of Kunti at this time, how is it that Pandu would leave himself to chance (or better, given Bhisma’s penchant for arranging marriages, why would Bhisma allow Pandu to leave maters to chance) in Kunti swamvara?

If ‘yaadavii kanyaa’ is Kunti, and if Dhritarashtra is eldest, Bhisma’s mentioning order of the princesses creates another problem. The following absurd chart evolves going by the much believed belief regarding how Bhisma plans marriage:

Dhritarashtra – Kunti
Pandu – Gandhari
Pandu – Madri

The absurdity is on at least two counts. First, why would Bhisma think of two wives for Pandu and one wife for Dhritarashtra Secondly, if Bhisma asks Vidura’s opinion, where is Vidura in the scheme? However, going by our thesis, Bhisma’s mentioning of the princesses fit exactly, if we think it this way:

Vidura – Yadavi Kanya
Dhritarashtra – Gandhari
Pandu – Madri

One may question, where is Kunti in the scheme? To that our answer is Kunti was never in Bhisma’s scheme, and that is why Pandu has to go to Kunti’s svamvara and earn his prize for himself.

Vidura’s coy and reverential answer to Bhisma also shows how he interprets Bhisma’s question as including himself i.e. how he thinks the ‘yaadavii kanyaa’ is meant for him: ‘Thou art our father and thou art our mother, too. Thou art our respected spiritual instructor. Therefore, do thou what may be best for us in thy eyes.’
bhavaan.pitaa.bhavaan.maataa.bhavaan.nah.paramo.guruh./
tasmaat.svayam.kulasya.asya.vicaarya.kuru.yadd.hitam.// (CE-1.103.8)

Nowhere in the Mahabharata have we found mention that Pandu went to Kunti-swamvara with Bhisma’s permission and any careful reader should note how Bhisma receives the brides.

This is how Gandhari is received: ‘And Gandhari was received with great respect and the nuptials were celebrated with great pomp under Bhishma’s directions. And the heroic Sakuni, after having bestowed his sister along with many valuable robes, and having received Bhishma’s adorations, returned to his own city.’(KMG-Adi.110)-
tato.gaandhaara.raajasya.putrah.zakunir.abhyayaat./
svasaaram.parayaa.lakSmyaa.yuktaam.aadaaya.kauravaan.//
dattvaa.sa.bhaginiim.viiro.yathaa.arham.ca.paricchadam./
punar.aayaat.sva.nagaram.bhiiSmeNa.pratipuujitah.// (CE-1.103.14-15)

Contrast that with the description of when Pandu returns with Kunti: ‘Then the Kuru prince Pandu, accompanied by a large force bearing various kinds of banners and pennons, and eulogised by Brahmanas and great Rishis pronouncing benedictions, reached his capital. And after arriving at his own palace, he established his queen therein.’
maNi.muktaa.pravaalam.ca.suvarNam.rajatam.tathaa./
go.ratnaany.azva.ratnaani.ratha.ratnaani.kunjaraan.//
khara.uSTra.mahiSaamz.caiva.yac.ca.kimcid.aja.avikam./
tat.sarvam.pratijagraaha.raajaa.naaga.pura.adhipah.//
tad.aadaaya.yayau.paaNDuh.punar.mudita.vaahanah./
harSayiSyan.sva.raaSTraaNi.puram.ca.gaja.saahvayam.// (CE-1.105.17-19)

Not only is that Bhisma’s absence in Pandu-Kunti’s reception conspicuous, Pandu himself ‘established his queen therein’, whereas Bhisma should have done it. Bhisma is clearly discontent with the marriage, and now decides to go ahead with his own plan: ‘Some time after, Bhishma the intelligent son of Santanu set his heart upon getting Pandu married to a second wife. Accompanied by an army composed of four kinds of force, and also by aged councillors and Brahmanas and great Rishis, he went to the capital of the king of Madra.’(KMG-Adi.113)

It should also be noted how an exalted Bhisma returns having ‘bought’ Madri: ‘Then the wise Bhishma, the son of the oceangoing Ganga, rejoiced at the issue of his mission, took Madri with him, and returned to the Kuru capital named after the elephant. Then selecting on auspicious day and moment as indicated by the wise for the ceremony, King Pandu was duly united with Madri.’

Though the Bhisma-Pandu conflict is not a relevant matter for discussion here, we may yet cite one reason why ‘yaadavi kanya’ could not have been Kunti. In Shanti-Parva Bhisma says, ‘The king should always devote himself to the study of the three Vedas. He should respect the Brahmanas and do good offices unto them. He should be devoted to righteousness. He should make alliance (of marriage) with high families. (KMG-Shanti.123)

Kunti-bhoja’s family was not considered ‘high family’ not only by the Kurus but even by Madras as evident in Karna-Shalya dialogue. That is why we find Madri telling Pandu later in the forest that she is of higher birth than Kunti. So, Pandu clearly went against Bhisma’s wishes to Kunti’s svamvara and married her. As per the narrative, Vidura’s marriage is described after Pandu returns from the Digvijaya and before he even leaves for the forest with his wives. As we have already seen, this is improbable.

In my opinion, Dhritarashtra was married first, and then Pandu married Kunti in swamvara. Since Pandu despite being younger to Vidura married before him, he remained silent when Bhisma brought (and bought) Madri for him. That was the Dharmashashtric rule of the day. We get this rule in Shanti Parva in Bhisma’s voice: ‘The younger brother who has married before the marriage of the elder brother, as also the elder brother whose Younger brother has married before him, becomes cleansed by observing a rigid vow, with collected soul, for twelve nights. The younger brother, however, should wed again for rescuing his deceased ancestors. Upon such second wedding, the first wife becomes cleansed and her husband himself would not incur sin by taking her. ‘(KMG-Shanti.36)

So, where does this all leave us? Being deceived by the Dasi, Dwaipayana blessed her: ‘Thy child also shall be greatly fortunate and virtuous, and the foremost of all intelligent men on earth!-
ayam.ca.te.zubhe.garbhah.zriimaan.udaram.aagatah./
dharma.aatmaa.bhavitaa.loke.sarva.buddhimataam.varah.// (CE-1.100.26)

It is because Dwapayana was deceived, that he realized he was actually deceived by Destiny for purpose beyond his comprehension. That is why he does not bless the Dasi with a son like Mitra, Varuna or Indra, but with a son like Dharma. Dwaipayana’s blessing marks a transition from the Vedic Age to Upanishadic Age as indicated by the shift of his preference from Mitra to Dharma. Dwaipayana clearly had some purpose when he agreed to be Niyukta.

In Section 28 of Ashramavasika Parva, following Vidura’s death, Dwaipayana narrates to Dhritarashtra, Gandhari, Kunti and the Pandavas: ‘At the command of the Grandsire, and through my own energy, Vidura of great intelligence was procreated by me upon a soil owned by Vichitraviryya.’
niyogaad.brahmaNah.puurvam.mayaa.svena.balena.ca./
vaicitra.viiryake.kSetre.jaatah.sa.sumahaa.matih.// (CE-15.35.15)

Here, Vyasa says that he agreed to be the Niyukta at the command of Brahma. In other words, it was the decision of his intelligent conscience. Vyasa’s confession means that it was by his desire that he entered the Kuru family. But soon he realized that his purpose must be subservient to God’s purpose.

If Vidura is the eldest, as we theorize, then, (blessed by Dwaipayana) we may say that their character and natural inclination follows Tri-Varga, Dharma-Artha-Kama,

Vidura – Dharma
Dhritarashtra – Artha
Pandu – Kama
And taking Suka into account –
Suka – Moksha

Well, that might satisfy our aesthetic sense of making Dwaipayana the father of four Purusharthas, but is God and Destiny so humanely poetic as to cater to human poetic needs?
Then again, why would we consider Dhritarashtra = Artha, and Pandu=Kama, when the Mahabharata itself says that Dhritarashtra was the root of Duryodhana Manyu-Tree or adharma tree; and when Krishna says in Gita – ‘kaamaat krodhabhijaayate’ meaning, ‘the root of krodha is kaama’, therefore implying Dhritarashtra=kaama? So, we need to re-adjust the model a bit:

Vidura – Dharma
Dhritarashtra – Kama
Pandu – Artha

Undoubtedly, the Tri-Varga model, Dharma-Artha-Kama, is severely disturbed. How would we reconcile with that? How would we also reconcile with the references that Vidura was youngest?

Before arriving at a conclusion, let us remember that Dwaipayana had high respect for Vidura. In Section 28 of Ashramavasika Parva he tells all including Dhritarashtra, ‘Even Vrihaspati among the celestials, and Sukra among the Asuras, was not possessed of such intelligence as that foremost of persons.
bRhaspatir.vaa.deveSu.zukro.vaa.apy.asureSu.yah./
na.tathaa.buddhi.sampanno.yathaa.sa.puruSa.RSabhah.// (CE-15.35.13) And he calls him Dharma personified – tapo.bala.vyayam.kRtvaa.sumahac.cira.sambhRtam./
maaNDavyena.RSiNaa.dharmo.hy.abhibhuutah.sanaatanah.// (CE-15.35.14)

The Mahabharata poet also makes it clear that Vidura alone was Dwaipayana’s true ‘aatmajah’: ‘And, O king, the son thus begotten upon her by Krishna-Dwaipayana was afterwards known by the name of Vidura. He was thus the brother of Dhritarashtra and the illustrious Pandu-
sa.jajne.viduro.naama.kRSNa.dvaipaayana.aatmajah./
dhRtaraaSTrasya.ca.bhraataa.paaNDoz.ca.amita.buddhimaan.// (CE-1.100.27)

Our final conclusion would in fact be two conclusions in adherence to the glorious ambiguity of Mahabharata and also in respectful subservience to its glorious tradition of multiple narratives within a single frame in Mahabharata in true ‘mimesis’ of history and historicity.

Conclusion One: Vidura was the eldest. Later Brahmana poets thought it ‘improper’ that a shuudra-Dasi born should be so, and interpolated dialogues of some important characters to establish that he was the youngest.

Conclusion Two: Vidura was the first to be conceived. Dhritarashtra and Pandu were conceived in the next two successive nights. Since, conception of a day earlier does not biologically determine earlier birth; Vidura was born after Dhritarashtra and Pandu as the youngest, or younger to Dhritarashtra and elder to Pandu.

Since, Vidura was conceived first, therefore born in the womb first, he always received high honour at par with Dhritarashtra and Pandu, who could never question his seniority. Vidura’s seniority in the womb, yet his being junior in earthly birth, makes the Tri-Varga model topsy-turvy:

Dhritarashtra – Kama
Pandu – Artha
Vidura – Dharma

In other words, it becomes Kama-Artha-Dharma instead of Dharma-Artha-Kama, and that is one reason, metaphysically speaking, why the failed Mitra-Varuna-Indra, and more importantly, the precedence of Kama over Artha and Dharma, became the root of Kali Age, that would manifest as a full-grown tree in the next generation through Duryodhana considered to be incarnate of Kali.

Now, it is up to readers to choose their own conclusion. Given my humane weakness of double standard – cherishing multiple conclusions theoretically, yet practically yearning for a single one – my personal preference goes to Conclusion No.1.

Comment

  1. Fascinating! Very interesting. Congratulations on a fascinating essay and some excellent conclusions. Please write more like this! :~)

    — Ashok Banker · Jan 26, 16:38 · #

  2. conclusion 2- i feel he was younger to Dhritarashtra and elder to Pandu. Although i must admit, the first one sounds much less dramatic.

    — Anukriti Dixit · Jan 27, 13:01 · #

  3. amazing arguments .. i had never thot of this issue in the way u have presented. i had always gone by the “conventional” story of vidur being the youngest .. though the probable fallacy of this is now apparent to me. thanks so much for this train of thought. i must say, i’m amazed and awestruck at the depth of your knowledge n research .. hats off !!

    — Monisha Krishna · Feb 1, 13:47 · #

Textile Help