Tricked out of immortality

Garuda and Gilgamesh are two heroes as unlike one another that one could find. One is a bird and the other human; Garuda belongs to the vast pantheon of Indian theriomorphs (deities represented in animal form) while Gilgamesh is the Sumer-Babylonian hero-king. Gilgamesh grapples with a series of adventures that take him closer to the divine principles of valour, love and compassion while Garuda’s heroic journey takes him close to Vishnu, the preserver god in the Indian trinity.

However both share a divine lineage. Garuda is the son of Kasyapa (sometimes referred to as Prajapati) and Vinata (daughter of Daksha Prajapati) while Gilgamesh is said to be the son of Lugalbanda, a god. And they are both heroes, albeit from two different species.

The two also have another, more interesting, aspect in common: both play a part in denying mankind and other species of this planet the right to immortality. But for them, we could have lived forever!

Garuda's story: Garuda is tasked with fetching the nectar of immortality or Amrita from the heavens for the snakes. In return, he is promised freedom for his mother who has been enslaved by the snake clan for centuries. While there is a long tale in how Garuda manages to get the nectar out of Indra’s clutches, we shall go into that later.

As Garuda is flying away with the jar of Amrita, Indra shoots at him but the arrow barely manages to graze his plumage. When weapons fail, even the gods resort to persuasion. So Indra appeals to Garuda. He tells him that the consequences of giving immortality to the snake clan will be disastrous. Garuda, a sworn enemy of the snake clan, is easily convinced. And the two cook up a plot to trick the snakes out of their end of the deal.

As promised, Garuda flies in with the jar of nectar for the snakes. But, he tells them, he will place the jar down only after his mother has been freed. The snakes release his mother and Garuda sets the jar of Amrita down on the patch of kusa grass, as planned.

However, before the snakes can get a taste of nectar, Garuda asks them to bathe and cleanse themselves in the holy river. The snakes scurry off and Garuda flies away with his mother leaving Indra to play out his part of the plot.

Indra swoops in, takes the jar away and thereby denies the snakes their promised jar of nectar. The snakes are furious but all they can do is lick the grass for a few drops of the Amrita. But so sharp is the grass that they get a forked tongue.

Gilgamesh's story: Gilgamesh on the other hand finds his way to Utnapishtim, the man-god who is the only survivor of the great flood. He has been granted the boon of immortality by the gods.

Shattered by the death of his friend and soul mate, Enkidu, Gilgamesh wants to defeat death. He goes through a series of adventures till he finds Utnapishtim and asks for the flower of immortality.

Utnapishtim is not willing to part with the flower but Gilgamesh persists. And he is finally granted his desire but there is a condition: the flower must be carried on his person at all times. He cannot put it down at any point in time.

As is the case with such stories -- in myth and in folklore -- the condition is not met. Gilgamesh fails the test as he leaves the flower on a river bank for a quick dip. When he comes back up, he is distraught to see the flower being carried away by a snake. And thus, immortality that was within the human grasp was lost. However in this story, the snakes emerge victorious and that is why it is said, they manage to live forever by sloughing off their skins!

Two tricks, two heroes but one result. In the Garuda story, the gods trick the snakes and, in a way, all living beings. In the Gilgamesh story, the gods trick men but the snakes, unwittingly though, emerge as victors.

In both cases, those who desire immortality are denied its fruits. Garuda, incidentally is granted immortality because he did not want it for himself. But all other beings on the planet are not granted the keys to the kingdom of eternal life. In retrospect, this may well be a blessing in disguise!

Birds and heroes

In the earlier post, I had written briefly about Garuda whose heroic feat earned him his place as Vishnu's vahana. Garuda, unlike Gayatri, is a male bird and he fetches Amrita for his mother while Gayatri gets Soma for the gods. The two myths use similar motifs but may have been developed for completely different purposes.

For one the Garuda myth is much longer and far more layered than the one about meters. Garuda's unusual birth is described in detail as is his journey to get the Amrita. He has to get it to free his mother, ensnared by her sister and her snake children. Gayatri has to get Soma because the gods want it, the myth does not offer a deeper rationale for the quest.

The other difference is that Garuda has to cross several barriers and fight the guards of Amrita to be able to get a jar for his mother. The meters, on the other hand, manage the exchange more amicably. Gayatri, in fact, (the myth does not say how) gets the nectar without giving up anything at all.

The Garuda myth also reflects the traditional rivalry between the snake kingdom and the kingdom of birds. The Gayatri-Soma myth does not directly touch upon any rivalries but, it is possible that the three meters or the tribes speaking these meters were in competition with each other.

So what were the myths developed for? It would be foolish to attempt a single definitive answer but it is possible that the myths were developed around the same time but by different people. Also the original Garuda myth, in all probability, has been embellished over the ages to serve different purposes. For instance, the bit about Garuda becoming a vahana for Vishnu may well be a later addition. It is possible that there existed a tribe of Garuda worshippers who were assimilated into the Vedic fold at a later stage.

The Garuda myth also goes into great detail about the birth of the hero, the call for adventure and the difficulties and the final quest. This shows that the myth has been developed over a long period of time, giving it a linear and somewhat logical narrative structure.

The Gayatri-Soma myth is not as detailed and since it deals with an abstract concept is not as easily grasped. It also seems to be created for the express purpose of establishing the supremacy of one meter or the tribe speaking in that meter over the rest. In that sense it is not a true hero myth but, in Malinowskian terms, a charter myth which is created with the sole purpose of explaining a social event or function or human behaviour.