Flood Legends (7 page)

The Crew According to the Mahābhārata

In the Fish Myth of the
Mahābhārata
, Manu is instructed to take seven very specific people on board. While in many versions the hero boards with his friends and family, Manu boards the vessel with seven relatively obscure people — the seven Ŗsis.
¹

The Ŗsis stem from the early period of Hinduism known as the
Vedic
period (it is believed that the Vedas were developing during this time, hence the name). In Hindu mythology, the Ŗsis are the seven "enlightened beings" who have been granted knowledge of the Universal Truth. The
Rig Veda
says they are "versed in ritual and meter, in hymns and rules."
²
They are considered wise, pious, and holy. Because of this, the Ŗsis, throughout the literature, exercise a wide influence on other people, and often appear in stories as some sort of "mystic sages," usually as stock characters. In fact, you might say that they are a form of
Deus Ex Machina
, showing up whenever a "wise, just sage" is needed. In some of the legends, the Ŗsis are more supernatural than natural. In other legends, they are simply wise humans. The literature fails to explain how they came to posses their enlightenment, only that they have always had this ancient knowledge. This particular story, unfortunately, does not really help to illuminate any of the mystery surrounding the Ŗsis. It does not even bother to explain their purpose on board. However, in spite of all of the unanswered questions we may have in regards to the Ŗsis, we
do
know that they are highly regarded as leaders.

Brahma instructs Manu to "sit …[in the vessel] with the seven Ŗsis." It is not Manu's family or friends, but these seven companions who accompany Manu during his voyage. What is so important about these seven passengers? For the purposes of this book, our interest lies in the fact that Manu sets off with
seven
companions. Remember that number …it will show up later.

The Crew According to Genesis

In the case of the
Torah
, Noah's companions are almost, but not quite, as obscure. While the text does not tell us much in regard to their characters, they are at least
identified
for us: his wife, three sons — Shem, Ham, and Japheth — and his three daughters-in-law. Besides this identification, though, we know very little of these passengers. What we do know is mostly inferred: they were probably found equally as "favorable before God," because they, too, were spared from the Deluge.

The
Torah
tells us nothing whatsoever of the character of Noah's wife. In a similar vein, what we know of the sons comes only from the list of genealogy given in chapter 10 of Genesis.
³
The importance here, however, lies in their number: three men and four women. Noah's wife and his six children total seven persons on board with the hero. Could the seven crew members of Noah's Ark and the seven "enlightened ones" of Manu's ship represent the same people? Add in the heroes of both versions and the total crew of both vessels numbers eight …the only eight people in the world "holy" enough to escape the Flood. Is this a
probable
interpretation? Maybe. Is it a
possible
interpretation? Definitely.

The Crew According to the Kariña

The Kariña version of the Flood does not identify the travelers specifically, but only tells us that they are "four couples" who are afraid of the coming judgment. While I am certainly no mathematician, I can see that "four couples" is, of course, eight people. I can also tell that this matches the number of people in both the Sanskrit and Hebrew texts. While it is, of course,
possible
that three separately developing cultures can fabricate the exact same detail, is it likely? Is it likely that three distinctly different people groups develop a story — whether by invention or misunderstanding — and put the
exact same number of people on the vessel
? It seems to ask for a greater stretch of the imagination to believe
that
hypothesis than it does to believe in an actual Deluge.

What if, however, the crew members differ in number from each other? What does that mean for the story? Would we be forced to throw out the legend as nothing more than a fable? Are there even differences? For those of us who believe the Flood was a historical event, we must admit that it would be extremely convenient if every version of the Flood from around the world had eight people on board each vessel. Unfortunately, as it turns out, there is a wide range of passengers. Thankfully, however, telephone mythology may come to the rescue.

Other Versions

In Upper Burma, the Chingpaws tell that the survivors of the Flood are only two people, a brother and a sister. From this brother and sister spring all the races of mankind after the Flood. In New Guinea, it is also said that only two survive the Deluge, though these two are not brother and sister. The Greek version of Deucalion and Pyrrah also has the crew consisting of two people (though some versions of the Greek story place their unnumbered "children" on board, as well). In Brazil, however, it is
four
people who survive by building a canoe.
⁴

So which is it? Does the crew consist of
two
people,
four
people, or
eight
people? Can we determine the correct number, or should we give up? Obviously, we can turn to telephone mythology to explain the
difference
between the numbers. As we have seen before, the stories would change as they were passed down from generation to generation. This much is understandable. But the question now becomes: why would
this particular detail
change? Why would the different versions not retain the same number of passengers? Can we use telephone mythology to explain the
origins
of the different numbers?

From a strictly logical sense, if we are to expect the world to be repopulated by a small group of people, then the largest group possible makes sense. On the other hand, logically, the smallest group of survivors makes little to no sense at all. So, were we to order the number of survivors from "most likely true" to "least likely true," it would look like this:

1. Eight survivors, being most likely
   
2. Four survivors, being possible, but unlikely
   
3. Two survivors, being not likely at all
   

We would not reasonably expect a repopulation of the earth from simply one couple (though many of the creation myths have only one couple populating the earth to begin with, but that is an entirely different study). Likewise, it calls for a stretch of the imagination to expect only two couples to repopulate the earth. Four couples, however, seems like a somewhat feasible number. If we were to pick one of the groups, the best choice would seem to be the largest group possible. Therefore, for the time being, let us fully acknowledge that four couples were on board the actual, historical vessel. While it should be obvious that telephone mythology can account for the
decrease in numbers
, it does leave us with at least one major question: why would a culture feel it
justifiable
to decrease the number of survivors, particularly when that decrease makes little sense?

I feel it likely that
aspects
of the story changed simultaneously. Perhaps — and this is merely a guess — the number of crew members
decreases
as the supernatural influence in the story
increases
. In other words, with the reduction in numbers, we find the divine re-creation aspect creeping up more and more often. In the Chingpaw version mentioned above, the brother and sister have a child together. The child is then torn to pieces by an evil elf-witch, and it is from the scattered blood droplets of the child that the "rest of mankind springs." In the Greek version, it is stones that turn to other men and women. In the first, the human race must spring
from
the surviving couple (albeit in a gruesome and horrifying way). In the second version, inanimate objects are given life
by
the surviving couple. So, you see, we find supernatural involvement in the repopulating aspect
increasing
. The first version requires something
natural
to occur before the
super
natural can occur. The second version skips straight to the "magic," so to speak.

This is all interesting, but it becomes more interesting, because the progression of supernatural re-creation does not just happen in the secondary sources; it happens in our primary sources, as well. In the Hebrew version, the post-diluvian life survives the Flood without any supernatural re-creation. In the Kariña myth, eight people (four couples) survive the Flood. Though we are not told whether or not Kaputano re-creates humans, he
does
re-create the natural world, a detail not appearing in the
Torah
. In the Hindu version, despite the fact that there are eight people on board, we are told that Manu re-creates
everything
…including people.

There is a progression here. We move from
no
supernatural re-creation, to
some
supernatural re-creation, to
more powerful
supernatural re-creation. I wonder if, at the same time, we also move to fewer survivors on the vessels. As the number of survivors in the telling decrease, the need for "magic" would increase. On the flip side, if the original, historical vessel had only two people on board, and the retellings increased that number, then we can plausibly expect the retellings to decrease the amount of "divine intervention."

This is not, admittedly, a rock-solid theory. In order for that to be the case, we would have to
prove
that the changes occur simultaneously; we would have to prove that the earliest versions of the Flood story told contained no divine re-creation, that later versions all developed some form of divine re-creation, and that still later versions finally submitted the re-population of the earth
wholly
to divine recreation. Moreover, we would have to demonstrate a true progression from eight survivors to two survivors in these versions. Because of this, please understand that I am not attempting to tell you how the changes in the story
definitely
developed, but I am merely attempting to tell you how the changes in the story
possibly
developed. Further research on this particular topic may lend credibility to the theory. Until that time, please remember that it is
only a theory
, and further work can confirm or refute this.

Having looked at the crew, now let us turn to the cargo. In the Sanskrit version, Manu brings only seeds, whereas Noah and the Kariña bring both seeds and animals. Which version is correct? Were there animals, or were there
not
animals? This is an awfully large detail to omit (or add). At first glance, it seems almost irreconcilable, but is it really?

Endnotes

Chapter 7

The Flood: The Cargo

When they were done, they went about gathering two of each animal to put on board. They also brought seeds from every plant on earth.

— The Flood according to the Kariña

For many, the varying details of the cargo in the different versions of the myth are difficult to reconcile. Indeed, the vast differences found among the versions are, perhaps, the greatest cause for skepticism. These differences, though, may only be surface-deep and not nearly as great as we first believe. Like the variance in the crew of the vessels, the variance in the cargo
may
be easily explained.

The Cargo According to the Mahābhārata

Manu is instructed to stock the vessel with a collection of all of the seeds from around the world. The seeds are strictly brought as food for both him and the Ŗsis, as Manu takes neither beast nor plant aboard. Why did Manu not bring anything else on board? As we discussed earlier, Manu's
tapas
is sufficient for the re-creation of both plant and wildlife; his piety acts as a supernatural agent of creation. This does two things: first, it minimizes the cargo needs of the ship. Second, it renders the seeds unnecessary for replanting, as Manu would — at least presumably — have re-created plant life as well. Thus it is a fairly safe assumption that Manu and his seven companions sustained themselves on only a diet of seeds during the years on the ship.

Could there have been another use for the seeds? Not that we can tell, unless some of the seeds were planted on board the ship, and the plants were also used for food. This actually seems quite possible; the idea of Manu and the Ŗsis spending several years on the ocean with nothing to eat but seeds sounds a bit on the bleak side. On the other hand, this was not a luxury cruise but a survival scenario, so planting may not have been an option. In either case, Manu and the Ŗsis stock the ship with only seeds, and nothing else.

The Cargo According to Genesis

Noah's cargo, on the other hand, fits with his character: although he is righteous at heart, he is not bestowed with any "divine" powers and abilities. Like his character flaw, this detail was not likely to have been added for any realism, as the Hebrew author could have easily portrayed God as working
through
Noah to re-create life. An example of that in other Hebrew scriptures would be Moses. Moses is portrayed in the Book of Exodus as turning a staff into a serpent and the Nile into blood, because God is working
through
him. Samson destroys the Philistine temple because of physical strength bestowed upon him by
God's
presence. We do not see this with Noah. Rather, from a very practical standpoint, Noah has to do all the work himself without any special divine powers.