{"id":2397,"date":"2013-07-13T01:41:21","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=2397"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:41:21","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:41:21","slug":"29-notes-on-the-mahabharata-vol-01-early-cultural-writings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-cwsa\/01-early-cultural-writings\/29-notes-on-the-mahabharata-vol-01-early-cultural-writings","title":{"rendered":"-29_Notes On the Mahabharata.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tOn the Mahabharata  
\n  
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tNotes on the
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tMahabharata
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tof Krishna Dwypaiana Vyasa. <\/font> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tprepared with a view to disengage the original epic of
\nKrishna of the island from the enlargements, accretions
\nand additions made by Vyshampaian, Ugrosravas & innumerable other writers. <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tby
\n\t\t\tAurobindo Ghose <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tProposita. <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tAn epic of the Bharatas was written by Krishna of the Island
\ncalled Vyasa, in 24,000 couplets or something more, less at any
\nrate than 27,000, on the subject of the great civil war of the
\nBharatas and the establishment of the Dhurmarajya or universal sovereignty in that house.
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThis epic can be disengaged almost in its entirety from the
\npresent poem of nearly 100,000 slokas.
\n  
\n  
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 277<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tIt was hinted in a recent article of the Indian Review, an unusually able and searching paper on the date of the Mahabharata
\nwar that a society is about to be formed for discovering the
\ngenuine and original portions of our great epic. This is glad
\ntidings to all admirers of Sanscrit literature and to all lovers of
\ntheir country. For the solution of the Mahabharata problem is
\nessential to many things, to any history worth having of Aryan
\ncivilisation & literature, to a proper appreciation of Vyasa’s
\npoetical genius and, far more important than either, to a definite
\nunderstanding of the great ethical gospel which Srikrishna came
\ndown on earth to teach as a guide to mankind in the dark Kali yuga then approaching. But I fear that if the inquiry is to be
\npursued on the lines the writer of this article seemed to hint, if
\nthe Society is to rake out 8000 lines from the War Purvas & dub the result the Mahabharata of Vyasa, then the last state of
\nthe problem will be worse than its first. It is only by a patient
\nscrutiny & weighing of the whole poem, disinterestedly, candidly & without preconceived notions, a consideration Canto
\nby Canto, paragraph by paragraph, couplet by couplet that we can arrive at anything solid or permanent. But this implies a
\nvast and heartbreaking labour. Certainly, labour however vast ought not to have any terrors for a scholar, still less for a Hindu
\nscholar; yet before one engages in it, one requires to be assured
\nthat the game is worth the candle. For that assurance there
\nare three necessary requisites, the possession of certain, sound
\nand always applicable tests to detect later from earlier work, a
\nreasonable chance that such tests if applied will restore the real
\nepic roughly if not exactly in its original form and an assurance
\nthat the epic when recovered will repay from literary, historical or other points of view, the labour that has been bestowed on it.
\nI believe that these three requisites are present in this case and shall attempt to adduce a few reasons for my judgment. I shall
\ntry to show that besides other internal evidence on which I do
\nnot propose just now to enter, there are certain traits of poetical
\n   <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 279<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\nstyle, personality and thought which belong to the original work
\nand are possessed by no other writer. I shall also try to show that
\nthese traits may be used and by whom they may be used as a safe
\nguide through this huge morass of verse. In passing I shall have
\noccasion to make clear certain claims the epic thus disengaged
\nwill possess to the highest literary, historical and practical value.
\n\t\t\t<\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tIt is certainly not creditable to European scholarship that
\nafter so many decades of Sanscrit research, the problem of the
\nMahabharata which should really be the pivot for all the rest, has remained practically untouched. For it is not exaggeration to
\nsay that European scholarship has shed no light whatever on the
\nMahabharata beyond the bare fact that it is the work of more
\nthan one hand. All else it has advanced, and fortunately it has
\nadvanced little, has been rash, arbitrary or prejudiced; theories,
\ntheories, always theories without any honestly industrious consideration of the problem. The earliest method adopted was to
\nargue from European analogies, a method pregnant of error &
\ndelusion. If we consider the hypothesis of a rude ballad-epic doctored by “those Brahmins” -anyone who is curious on the matter may study with both profit & amusement Frazer’s History
\nof Indian Literature -we shall perceive how this method has
\nbeen worked. A fancy was started in Germany that the Iliad of
\nHomer is really a pastiche or clever rifacimento of old ballads put together in the time of Pisistratus. This truly barbarous imagination with its rude ignorance of the psychological bases of all great
\npoetry has now fallen into some discredit; it has been replaced by
\na more plausible attempt to discover a nucleus in the poem, an
\nAchilleid, out of which the larger Iliad has grown. Very possibly
\nthe whole discussion will finally end in the restoration of a single
\nHomer with a single poem, subjected indeed to some inevitable
\ninterpolation and corruption, but mainly the work of one mind, a theory still held by more than one considerable scholar. In the
\nmeanwhile, however, haste has been made to apply the analogy to the Mahabharata; lynx-eyed theorists have discovered in the
\npoem -apparently without taking the trouble to study it -an
\nearly and rude ballad epic worked up, doctored and defaced by
\nthose wicked Brahmins, who are made responsible for all the   <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 280<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\nliterary and other enormities which have been discovered by the
\nbushelful, and not by European lynxes alone -in our literature
\nand civilisation. Now whether the theory is true or not, and one sees nothing in its favour, it has at present no value at all; for it
\nis a pure theory without any justifying facts. It is not difficult to build these intellectual
\n\t\t\tcard-houses; anyone may raise them by the dozen who can find no better manner of wasting valuable
\ntime. A similar method of “arguing from Homer” is probably at
\nthe bottom of Professor Weber’s assertion that the War Purvas contain the original epic. An observant eye at once perceives
\nthat the War Purvas are far more hopelessly tangled than any that precede them except the first. It is here & here only that the
\nkeenest eye becomes confused & the most confident explorer
\nbegins to lose heart & self-reliance. But the Iliad is all battles
\nand it therefore follows in the European mind that the original
\nMahabharata must have been all battles. Another method is
\nthat of ingenious, if forced argument from stray slokas of the poem or equally stray & obscure remarks in Buddhist compilations. The curious theory of some scholars that the Pandavas
\nwere a later invention and that the original war was between
\nthe Kurus and Panchalas only and Professor Weber’s singularly positive inference from a sloka which does not at first sight
\nbear the meaning he puts on it, that the original epic contained
\nonly 8800 lines, are ingenuities of this type. They are based on
\nthe Teutonic art of building a whole mammoth out of a single
\nand often problematical bone, and remind one strongly of Mr.. Pickwick and the historic inscription which was so rudely, if in a
\nPickwickian sense, challenged by the refractory [Mr.. Blotton.] All
\nthese theorisings are idle enough; they are made of too airy a stuff to last. `Only a serious scrutiny of the Mahabharata made with a deep sense of critical responsibility and according to the methods of patient scientific inference, can justify one in advancing any
\nconsiderable theory on this wonderful poetic structure.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\nYet to extricate the original epic from the mass of accretions
\nis not, I believe, so difficult a task as it may at first appear. One is struck in perusing the Mahabharata by the presence of a
\nmass of poetry which bears the style and impress of a single,   <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 281<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\nstrong and original, even unusual mind, differing in his manner of expression, tone of thought & stamp of personality not only
\nfrom every other Sanscrit poet we know but from every other
\ngreat poet known to literature. When we look more closely into
\nthe distribution of this peculiar style of writing, we come to
\nperceive certain very suggestive & helpful facts. We realise that this impress is only found in those parts of the poem which are
\nnecessary to the due conduct of the story, seldom to be detected
\nin the more miraculous, Puranistic or trivial episodes, but usually broken up by passages and sometimes shot through with lines
\nof a discernibly different inspiration. Equally noteworthy is it
\nthat nowhere does this poet admit any trait, incident or speech
\nwhich deviates from the strict propriety of dramatic characterisation & psychological probability. Finally Krishna’s divinity is
\nrecognized, but more often hinted at than aggressively stated.
\nThe tendency is to keep it in the background as a fact to which,
\nwhile himself crediting it, the writer does not hope for universal
\nconsent, still less is able to speak of it as of a general tenet &
\nmatter of dogmatic belief; he prefers to show Krishna rather in his human character, acting always by wise, discerning and
\ninspired methods, but still not transgressing the limit of human
\npossibility. All this leads one to the conclusion that in the body of
\npoetry I have described, we have the real Bharata, an epic which
\ntells plainly and straightforwardly of the events which led to the
\ngreat war and the empire of the Bharata princes. Certainly if
\nProf. Weber’s venturesome assertion as to the length of the original Mahabharata be correct, this conclusion falls to the ground; for the mass of this poetry amounts to considerably over 20,000
\nslokas. Professor Weber’s inference, however, is worth some discussion; for the length of the original epic is a very important
\nelement in the problem. If we accept it, we must say farewell to
\nall hopes of unravelling the tangle. His assertion is founded on
\na single & obscure verse in the huge prolegomena to the poem which take up the greater part of the Adi Purva, no very strong basis for so far-reaching an assumption. The sloka itself says no
\nmore than this that much of the Mahabharata was written in so
\ndifficult a style that Vyasa himself could remember only 8800 of   <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 282<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tthe slokas, Suka an equal amount and Sanjaya perhaps as much, perhaps something less. There is certainly here no assertion such as Prof. Weber would have us find in it that the Mahabharata
\nat any time amounted to no more than 8800 slokas. Even if we assume what the text does not say that Vyasa, Suka & Sanjaya knew the same 8800 slokas, we do not get to that conclusion. The point simply is that the style of the Mahabharat was too
\ndifficult for a single man to keep in memory more than a certain
\nportion of it. This does not carry us very far. If however we are
\nto assume that there is more in this verse than meets the eye,
\nthat it is a cryptic way of stating the length of the original poem;
\nand I do not deny that this is possible, perhaps even probable \u2014 we should note the repetition <\/span> <\/font>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tवेत्ति<\/font>  <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tof <\/span> <\/span><\/font>अहं
\n\t\t\tवेद्मि<\/font><\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/span>शुको<\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/span>वेत्ति<\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/span>सञ्जयो<\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/font>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tवेत्ति वा न  वा<\/font>.<\/font><\/span>\u2014. Following the genius of the Sanscrit language we
\nare led to suppose the repetition was intended to recall
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/font>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tअष्टौ श्लोकसहश्राणि<\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tetc. with each name; otherwise the repetition has
\n\t\t\tno <\/span> <\/font>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\traison d’\u00eatre; it is otiose & inept. But if we understand it thus, the conclusion is irresistible that each knew a different
\n8800, or the writer would have no object in wishing us to repeat
\nthe number three times in our mind. The length of the epic as
\nderived from this single sloka should then be 26,400 slokas or something less, for the writer hesitates about the exact number to be attributed to Sanjaya. Another passage further on in the prolegomena agrees remarkably with this conclusion and is in
\nitself much more explicit. It is there stated plainly enough that
\nVyasa first wrote the Mahabharata in 24,000 slokas and afterwards enlarged it to 100,000 for the world of men as well as a
\nstill more unconscionable number of verses for the Gandhurva and other worlds. In spite of the embroidery of fancy, of a type
\nfamiliar enough to all who are acquainted with the Puranic method of recording facts, the meaning of this is unmistakeable. The original Mahabharata consisted of 24,000 slokas, but in its final form it runs to 100,000. The figures are probably loose
\n& slovenly, for at any rate the final form of the Mahabharata is considerably under 100,000 slokas. It is possible therefore that the original epic was something over 24,000 and under
\n26,400 slokas, in which case the two passages would agree well
\n  
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 283<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tenough. But it would be unsafe to found any dogmatic assertion on isolated couplets; at the most we can say that we are justified
\nin taking the estimate as a probable and workable hypothesis
\nand if it is found to be corroborated by other facts, we may
\nventure to suggest its correctness as a moral certainty.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tBut it is not from European scholars that we must expect
\na solution of the Mahabharata problem. They have no qualifications for the task except a power of indefatigable research
\nand collocation; and in dealing with the Mahabharata even
\nthis power seems to have deserted them. It is from Hindu
\nscholarship renovated & instructed by contact with European
\nthat the attempt must come. Indian scholars have shown a
\npower of detachment and disinterestedness and a willingness to give up cherished notions under pressure of evidence, which
\nare not common in Europe. They are not, as a rule, prone to
\nthe Teutonic sin of forming a theory in accordance with their
\nprejudices and then finding facts or manufacturing inferences to support it. When therefore they form a theory on their own
\naccount, it has usually some clear justification and sometimes an overwhelming array of facts and solid arguments behind it.
\nGerman scholarship possesses infinite capacity of labour marred by an irresponsible & fantastic imagination, the French a sane acuteness of inference marred by insufficient command of facts,
\nwhile in soundness of judgment Indian scholarship has both; it
\nshould stand first, for it must naturally move with a far greater
\nfamiliarity and grasp in the sphere of Sanscrit studies than any
\nforeign mind however able & industrious. But above all it must
\nclearly have one advantage, an intimate feeling of the language,
\na sensitiveness to shades of style & expression and an instinctive
\nfeeling of what is or is not possible, which the European cannot
\nhope to possess unless he sacrifices his sense of racial superiority
\nand lives in some great centre like Benares as a Pundit among
\nPundits. I admit that even among Indians this advantage must
\nvary with the amount of education and natural fineness of taste;
\nbut where other things are equal, they must possess it in an
\nimmeasurably greater degree than an European of similar information & critical power. For to the European Sanscrit words are
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPage \u2013 284<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tno more than dead counters which he can play with and throw as
\nhe likes into places the most unnatural or combinations the most
\nmonstrous; to the Hindu they are living things the very soul of
\nwhose temperament he understands & whose possibilities he can
\njudge to a hair. That with these advantages Indian scholars have
\nnot been able to form themselves into a great & independent
\nschool of learning, is due to two causes, the miserable scantiness
\nof the mastery in Sanscrit provided by our Universities, crippling to all but born scholars, and our lack of a sturdy independence
\nwhich makes us overready to defer to European authority. These however are difficulties easily surmountable.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tIn solving the Mahabharat problem this intimate feeling for the language is of primary importance; for style & poetical
\npersonality must be not indeed the only but the ultimate test of the genuineness of any given passage in the poem. If we
\nrely upon any other internal evidence, we shall find ourselves
\nirresistibly tempted to form a theory and square facts to it. The
\nlate Rai Bahadur Bunkim Chundra Chatterji, a genius of whom modern India has not produced the parallel, was a man of ripe
\nscholarship, literary powers of the very first order and a strong
\ncritical sagacity. In his Life of Krishna (Krishnacharitra), he deals incidentally with the Mahabharata problem; he perceived clearly
\nenough that there were different recognizable styles in the poem,
\nand he divided it into three layers, the original epic by a very
\ngreat poet, a redaction of the original epic by a poet not quite
\nso great and a mass of additions by very inferior hands. But
\nbeing concerned with the Mahabharata only so far as it covered
\nthe Life of Krishna, he did not follow up this line of scrutiny
\nand relied rather on internal evidence of a quite different kind.
\nHe saw that in certain parts of the poem Krishna’s godhead is
\neither not presupposed at all or only slightly affirmed, while
\nin others it is the main objective of the writer; certain parts
\nagain give us a plain, unvarnished & straightforward biography
\n& history, others are a mass of wonders and legends, often
\nirrelevant extravagances; in some parts also the conception of
\nthe chief characters is radically departed from and defaced. He
\ntherefore took these differences as his standard and accepted
\n  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 285<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tonly those parts as genuine which gave a plain & consistent
\naccount of Krishna the man and of others in their relation to
\nhim. Though his conclusions are to a great extent justifiable, his a priori method led him to exaggerate them, to enforce them
\ntoo rigidly without the proper flexibility & scrupulous hesitation and to resort occasionally to special pleading. His book is
\nilluminating and full of insight, and the chief contentions will, I
\nbelieve, stand permanently; but some parts of his argument are
\nexaggerated & misleading and others, which are in the main correct, are yet insufficiently supported by reasons. It is the failure
\nto refer everything to the ultimate test of style that is responsible for these imperfections. Undoubtedly inconsistencies of detail &
\ntreatment are of immense importance. If we find grave inconsistencies of character, if a man is represented in one place as
\nstainlessly just, unselfish & truthful and in another as a base & selfish liar or a brave man suddenly becomes guilty of incomprehensible cowardice, we are justified in supposing two hands at
\nwork; otherwise we must either adduce very strong poetic and
\npsychological justification for the lapse or else suppose that the
\npoet was incompetent to create or portray consistent and living
\ncharacters. But if we find that one set of passages belongs to the
\ndistinct and unmistakeable style of a poet who has shown himself capable of portraying great epic types, we shall be logically
\ndebarred from this saving clause. And if the other set of passages
\nshow not only a separate style, but quite another spirit and the
\nstamp of another personality, our assurance will be made doubly
\nsure. Further if there are serious inconsistencies of fact, if for instance Krishna says in one place that he can only do his best as a
\nman & can use no divine power in human affairs and in another
\nfoolishly uses his divine power where it is quite uncalled for, or if
\na considerable hero is killed three or four times over, yet always
\npops up again with really commendable vitality but without
\nwarning or explanation until some considerate person gives him
\nhis coup de grace, or if totally incompatible statements are made
\nabout the same person or the same event, we may find in either or
\nall of these inconsistencies sufficient ground to assume diversity of authorship. Still even here we must ultimately refer to the
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 286<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tstyle as corroborative evidence; and when the inconsistencies are
\ngrave enough to raise suspicion, but not so totally incompatible
\nas to be conclusive, difference of style will at once turn the suspicion into certainty, while similarity may induce us to suspend
\njudgment. And where there is no inconsistency of fact or conception and yet the difference in expression & treatment is marked,
\nthe question of style & personality becomes all-important. Now in the Mahabharata we are struck at first by the presence of
\ntwo glaringly distinct & incompatible styles. There is a mass of writing in which the verse & language is unusually bare,
\nsimple and great, full of firm and knotted thinking & a high &
\nheroic personality, the imagination strong and pure, never florid
\nor richly-coloured, the ideas austere, original & noble. There is another body of work sometimes massed together but far oftener
\ninterspersed in the other, which has exactly opposite qualities; it is Ramayanistic, rushing in movement, full & even overabundant in diction, flowing but not strict in thought, the imagination
\nbold & vast, but often garish & highly-coloured, the ideas ingenious & poetical, sometimes of astonishing subtlety, but at
\nothers common & trailing, the personality much more relaxed,
\nmuch less heroic, noble & severe. When we look closer we find
\nthat the Ramayanistic part may possibly be separated into two parts, one of which has less inspiration and is more deeply imbued with the letter of the Ramayan, but less with its spirit. The
\nfirst portion again has a certain element often in close contact
\nwith it which differs from it in a weaker inspiration, in being
\na body without the informing spirit of high poetry. It attempts to follow its manner & spirit but fails and reads therefore like
\nimitation of the great poet. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the work of an imitator or of the original poet in his uninspired
\nmoments. Are there besides the mass of inferior or obviously interpolated work which can be easily swept aside, three distinct &
\nrecognisable styles or four or only two? In the ultimate decision of this question inconsistencies of detail & treatment will be of
\ngreat consequence. But in the meantime I find nothing to prevent me from considering the work of the first poet, undoubtedly the
\ngreatest of the four, if four there are, as the original epic.   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 287<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tIt may, indeed, be objected that style is no safe test, for it is one which depends upon the personal preferences & ability
\nof the critic. In an English literary periodical it was recently
\nobserved that a certain Oxford professor who had studied
\nStevenson like a classic, attempted to apportion to Stevenson & Lloyd Osbourne their respective work in the Wrecker, but his apportionment turned out [to] be hopelessly erroneous. To
\nthis the obvious answer is that the Wrecker is a prose work and
\nnot poetry. There was no prose style ever written that a skilful
\nhand could not reproduce as accurately as a practised forger reproduces a signature. But poetry, at any rate original poetry of
\nthe first class is a different matter. The personality and style of
\na true poet are unmistakeable to a competent mind, for though imitation, echo & parody are certainly possible, it would be as
\neasy to reproduce the personal note in the style as for the painter to put into his portrait the living soul of its original. The successful discrimination between original and copy depends then
\nupon the competence of the critic, his fineness of literary feeling,
\nhis sensitiveness to style. On such points the dictum of a foreign
\ncritic is seldom of any value; one would not ask a mere labourer
\nto pronounce on the soundness of a great engineering work, but still less would one ask a mathematician unacquainted with
\nmechanics. To a Hindu mind well equipped for the task there
\nought to be no insuperable difficulty in disengaging the style
\nof a marked poetic personality from a mass of totally different
\nwork. The verdict of great artistic critics on the genuineness of
\na professed Old Master may not be infallible, but if formed on a patient study of the technique & spirit of the work, it has at
\nleast considerable chances of being correct. But the technique & spirit of poetry are far less easy to catch by an imitator than
\nthose of great painting, the charm [of] words being more elusive & unanalysable than that of line & colour.
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tIn unravelling the Mahabharata especially the peculiar & inimitable nature of the style of Vyasa immensely lightens the
\ndifficulties of criticism. Had his been poetry of which the predominant grace was mannerism, it would have been imitable
\nwith some closeness; or even had it been a rich & salient style   <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 288<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tlike Shakespeare’s, Kalidasa’s or Valmekie’s, certain externals of it might be reproduced by a skilled hand and the task of
\ndiscernment rendered highly delicate and perilous. Yet even in such styles to the finest minds the presence or absence of an
\nunanalysable personality within the manner of expression would be always perceptible. The second layer of the Mahabharata is
\ndistinctly Ramayanistic in style, yet it would be a gross criticism that could confuse it with Valmekie’s own work; the difference
\nas is always the case in imitations of great poetry, is as palpable as the similarity.<\/font>1<\/sup><\/font> Some familiar examples may be taken from
\nEnglish literature. Crude as is the composition & treatment of the three parts [of] King Henry VI, its style unformed &
\neverywhere full of echoes, yet when we get such lines as
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tAnd he but naked though locked up in steel <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tWhose conscience with injustice is corrupted, <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\twe cannot but feel that we are listening to the same poetic voice as in Richard III
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tshadows tonight
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tHave struck more terror to the soul of Richard
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThan can the substance of ten thousand soldiers
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tArmed in proof and led by shallow Richmond. <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tor in Julius Caesar <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThe evil that men do lives after them;
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThe good is oft interred with their bones. <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tor in the much later & richer vein of Antony & Cleopatra <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tI am dying, Egypt, dying; only
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tI here importune death awhile, until <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tOf many thousand kisses the poor last
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tI lay upon thy lips. <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t1 Here an incomplete sentence is written between the lines in the manuscript:<\/i>
\nThis unanalysable quantity is as sure  
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 289<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tI have purposely selected passages of perfect simplicity and
\nstraightforwardness, because they appear to be the most imitable part of Shakespeare’s work & are really the least imitable.
\nAlways one hears the same voice, the same personal note of style
\nsounding through these very various passages, and one feels that
\nthere is in all the intimate & unmistakeable personality of Shakespeare. We turn next & take two passages from Marlowe, a poet
\nwhose influence counted for much in the making of Shakespeare,
\none from Faustus <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tWas this the face that launched a thousand ships
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tAnd burnt the topless towers of Ilium? <\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tand another from Edward II
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tI am that cedar, shake me not too much;
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAnd you the eagles; soar ye ne’er so high,
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nI have the jesses that will pull you down;
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAnd Aeque tandem shall that canker cry
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nUnto the proudest peer in Brittany.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe choice of
\n\t\t\twords, the texture of style has a certain similarity, the run of the
\n\t\t\tsentences differs little if at all; but what fine literary sense
\n\t\t\tdoes not feel that here is another poetical atmosphere and the ring
\n\t\t\tof a different voice? And yet to put a precise name on the
\n\t\t\tdifference would not be easy. The personal difference becomes still
\n\t\t\tmore marked if we take a passage from Milton in which the nameable
\n\t\t\tmerits are precisely the same, a simplicity in strength of diction,
\n\t\t\tthought & the run of the verse "What though the field be lost".<\/font>2<\/font><\/sup>
\n\t\t\tAnd when we pass farther down in the stream of literature & read
\n\t\t\t"Thy thunder, conscious of the new command"<\/font>3<\/font><\/sup> we feel that the poet has nourished his genius
\non the greatness of Milton till his own soft & luxurious style
\nrises into epic vigour; yet we feel too that the lines are only Miltonic, they are not Milton. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t2
\nParadise Lost 1.105. This sentence and the next were written in the margins of the<\/i>
\nmanuscript. Sri Aurobindo apparently intended to cite longer passages. -Ed.<\/i>
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t3
\nKeats<\/i>, Hyperion 1.60. -Ed.<\/i>
\n  
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 290<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tNow there are certain great poetical styles which are of a
\nkind apart; they are so extraordinarily bare and restrained that
\nthe untutored mind often wonders what difficulty there can be in writing poetry like that; yet when the attempt is made, it is
\nfound that so far as manner goes it is easier to write somewhat
\nlike Shakespeare or Homer or Valmekie than to write like these.
\nJust because the style is so bare, has no seizable mannerism, no striking & imitable peculiarities, the failure of the imitation appears complete & unsoftened; for in such poets there is but one thing to be caught, the unanalysable note, the personal greatness
\nwhich like everything that comes straight from God it is impossible to locate or limit and precisely the one that most eludes
\nthe grasp. This poetry it is always possible to distinguish with some approach to certainty from imitative or spurious work.
\nVery fortunately the style of Vyasa is exactly such a manner of
\npoetry. Granted therefore adhikara in the critic, that is to say a natural gift of fine literary sensitiveness & the careful cultivation of that gift until it has become as sure a lactometer as the palate
\nof the swan which rejects the water mingled with milk & takes
\nthe milk alone, we have in the peculiar characteristics of this
\npoetry a test of unquestionable soundness & efficacy.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBut there is another objection of yet more weight & requiring as full an answer. This method of argument from style seems
\nafter all as a priori & Teutonic as any other; for there is no logical
\nreason why the mass of writing in this peculiar style should be
\njudged to be the original epic and not any of the three others
\nor even part of that inferior work which was brushed aside so contemptuously. The original Mahabharata need not have
\nbeen a great poem at all; it was more probably an early, rude &
\nuncouth performance. Certain considerations however may lead
\nus to consider our choice less arbitrary than it seems. That the War Purvas contain much of the original epic may be conceded
\nto Professor Weber; the war is the consummation of the story & without a war there could be no Mahabharata. But the war
\nof the Mahabharata was not a petty contest between obscure barons or a brief episode in a much larger struggle or a romantic & chivalrous emprise for the rescue of a ravished or errant   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 291<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nbeauty. It was a great political catastrophe implying the clash of a hundred nations and far-reaching political consequences;
\nthe Hindus have always considered it as the turning-point in the history of their civilisation and the beginning of a new age, and
\nit was long used as a historical standpoint and a date to reckon from in
\n\t\t\tchronology. Such an event must have had the most considerable political causes and been caused by the collision of the
\nmost powerful personalities and the most important interests. If
\nwe find no record of or allusion to these in the poem, we shall be
\ncompelled to suppose that the poet living long after the event,
\nregarded the war as a legend or romance which would form excellent matter for an epic and treated it accordingly. But if we find
\na simple and unvarnished though not necessarily connected &
\nconsecutive account of the political conditions which preceded
\nthe war and of the men who made it and their motives, we may
\nsafely say that this also is an essential part of the epic. The Iliad
\ndeals only with an episode of the legendary siege of Troy, it covers an action of [
\n] days in a conflict lasting ten years, & its subject is not the Trojan War but the Wrath of Achilles. Homer
\nwas under no obligation therefore to deal with the political causes that led to hostilities, even supposing he knew them. The
\nMahabharata stands on an entirely different footing. The war
\nthere is related from beginning to end consecutively & without
\nbreak, yet it is nowhere regarded as of importance sufficient to
\nitself but depends for its interest on causes which led up to it
\n& the characters & clashing interests it involved. The preceding
\nevents are therefore of essential importance to the epic. Without
\nthe war, no Mahabharata, is true of this epic; but without the causes of the war, no war, is equally true. And it must be remembered that the Hindu narrative poets had no artistic predilections
\nlike that of the Greeks for beginning a story in the middle. On
\nthe contrary they always preferred to begin at the beginning. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWe therefore naturally expect to find the preceding political
\nconditions and the immediate causes of the war related in the
\nearlier part of the epic and this is precisely what we do find.
\nAncient India as we know, was a sort of continent, made up of many great & civilised nations who were united very much
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 292<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nlike the nations of modern Europe by an essential similarity of religion and culture rising above & beyond their marked
\nracial peculiarities; like the nations of Europe also they were
\ncontinually going to war with each other; & yet had relations of
\noccasional struggle, of action & reaction, with the other peoples of Asia whom they regarded as barbarous races outside the pale
\nof the Aryan civilisation. Like the continent of Europe, the ancient continent of India was subject to two opposing forces, one
\ncentripetal which was continually causing attempts at universal
\nempire, another centrifugal which was continually impelling the
\nempires once formed to break up again into their constituent
\nparts: but both these forces were much stronger in their action
\nthan they have usually been in Europe.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Aryan nations may be divided into three distinct groups,
\nthe Eastern of whom the Coshalas, Magadhas, Chedies, Videhas & Haihayas were the chief; the Central among whom the Kurus, Panchalas & Bhojas were the most considerable; and the Western & Southern of whom there were many, small, & rude
\nbut yet warlike & famous peoples; among these there seem to
\nhave been none that ever became of the first importance. Five
\ndistinct times had these great congeries of nations been welded
\ninto Empire, twice by the Ixvaacous under Mandhata son of Yuvanuswa and King Marutta, afterwards by the Haihaya Arjouna Cartoverya, again by the Ixvaacou Bhogiratha and finally
\nby the Kuru Bharata. That the first Kuru empire was the latest is evident not only from the Kurus being the strongest nation of their time but from the significant fact that the Coshalas by this
\ntime had faded into utter & irretrievable insignificance. The rule
\nof the Haihayas had resulted in one of the great catastrophes of
\nearly Hindu civilization; belonging to the eastern section of the
\nContinent which was always apt to break away from the strict
\nletter of Aryanism, they had brought themselves by their pride &
\nviolence into collision with the Brahmins with the result of a civil
\nwar in which their Empire was broken for ever by Parshurama,
\nson of Jamadagni, and the chivalry of India massacred and for the time broken. The fall of the Haihayas left the Ixvaacous & the Bharata or Ilian dynasty of the Kurus the two chief powers   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 293<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nof the continent. Then seems to have followed the golden age of the Ixvaacous under the beneficent empire of Bhogiratha & his descendants as far down at least as Rama. Afterwards the
\nCoshalans, having reached their highest point, must have fallen
\ninto that state of senile decay, which once it overtakes a nation, is fatal & irremediable. They were followed by the empire of the
\nBharatas. By the times of Santanou, Vichitravirya and Pandou this empire had long been dissolved by the centrifugal force of
\nAryan politics into its constituent parts, yet the Kurus were yet
\namong the first of the nations and the Bharata Kings of the Kurus
\nwere still looked up to as the head of civilisation. But by the time of Dhritarashtra the centripetal force had again asserted itself & the idea of another great empire loomed before the imaginations of all men; a number of nations had risen to the greatest military
\nprestige & political force, the Panchalas under Drupada & his sons, the Bhojas under Bhishmuc & his brother Acrity who is described as equalling Parshurama in military skill & courage, the Chedies under the hero & great captain Shishupala,
\n\t\t\tthe Magadhas, built into a strong nation by Brihodruth; even distant Bengal under the Poundrian Vasudave and distant Sindhu under [Vriddhakshatra] and his son Jayadrath began to mean something in the reckoning of forces. The Yadava nations counted as
\na great military force in the balance of politics owing to their abundant heroism and genius, but seem to have lacked sufficient cohesion and unity to nurse independent hopes. Strong,
\nhowever, as these nations were none seemed able to dispute the
\nprize of the coming empire with the Kurus, until under King
\nJarasundha the Barhodruth Magadha for a moment disturbed the political balance. The history of the first great Magadhan hope of empire and its extinction -not to be revived again until the final downfall of the Kurus -is told very briefly in the Sabhapurva of the Mahabharata. The removal of Jarasundha restored the original state of politics and it was no longer doubtful
\nthat to the Kurus alone could fall the future empire. But here
\na contest arose between the elder & younger branches of the
\nBharata house. The question being then narrowed to a personal
\nissue, it was inevitable that it should become largely a history of   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 294<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\npersonal strife & discord; other & larger issues were involved in
\nthe dispute between the Kaurava cousins; but whatever interests, incompatibilities of temperament & differences of opinion may
\ndivide brothers, they do not engage in fratricidal conflict until
\nthey are driven to it by a long record of collision & jealousy,
\never deepening personal hatreds & the worst personal injuries.
\nWe see therefore that not only the early discords, the slaying of
\nJarasundha & the Rajasuya sacrifice are necessary to the epic but the great gambling & the mishandling of Draupadie. It cannot,
\nhowever, have been personal questions alone that affected the
\nchoice of the different nations between Duryodhana and Yudhisthere. Personal relations like the matrimonial connections of
\nDhritarashtra’s family with the Sindhus and Gandharas and of the Pandavas with the Matsyas, Panchalas & Yadavas doubtless counted for much, but there must have been something more;
\npersonal enmities [counted] for something as in the feud cherished by the Trigartas against Arjouna. The Madras disregarded matrimonial ties when they sided with Duryodhan; the Magadhas & Chedies put aside the memory of personal wrongs when they espoused the cause of Yudhisthere. I believe the explanation
\nwe must gather from the hints of the Mahabharata is this, that the nations were divided into three classes, those who desired
\nautonomy, those who desired to break the power of the Kurus
\nand assert their own supremacy and those who imbued with old
\nimperialistic notions desired an united India. The first followed
\nDuryodhana because the empire of Duryodhana could not be more than the empire of a day while that of Yudhisthere had every possibility of permanence; even Queen Gandhari, Duryodhan’s own mother, was able to hit this weak point in her son’s
\nambition. The Rajasuya Sacrifice had also undoubtedly identified Yudhisthere in men’s minds with the imperialistic impulse of the times. We are given some important hints in the Udyogapurva. When Vidura remonstrates with Krishna for coming to Hastinapura, he tells him it was highly imprudent for him to venture there knowing as he did that the city was full of kings
\nall burning with enmity against him for having deprived them
\nonce of their greatness, driven by the fear of him to take refuge    <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 295<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nwith Duryodhan and all eager to war against the Pandavas.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n4 <\/font>
\n<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nThis can have no intelligible reference except to the Rajasuya sacrifice. Although it was the armies of Yudhisthere that had traversed India then on their mission of conquest, Krishna was
\ngenerally recognised as the great moving & master mind whose hands of execution the Pandavas were and without whom they
\nwould have been nothing. His personality dominated men’s
\nimaginations for adoration or for hatred; for that many abhorred him as an astute & unscrupulous revolutionist in morals,
\npolitics & religion, we very clearly perceive. We have not only
\nthe fiery invectives of Shishupala but the reproach of Bhurisravas, the Vahlika, a man of high reputation & universally respected. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n4 These lines (Udyoga Parva 92.23 \u00ad 26) are found at the top of the page in the<\/i>
\nmanuscript. The next two Sanskrit quotations (Drona Parva 143.11 \u00ad 15 and Udyoga<\/i>
\nParva 93.16) were written at the tops of the following two pages. Their place of insertion<\/i>
\nin the text was not indicated. -Ed.<\/i>    <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 296<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nवृष्ण्यन्धकाः कथं पार्थ प्रमाणं
\nभवता कृताः ||<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nKrishna himself is perfectly conscious of this; he tells Vidura that
\nhe must make efforts towards peace both to deliver his soul & to justify himself in the eyes of men. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nन मां ब्रूयुरधर्मिष्ठा मूढा
\nह्यसुह्रदस्तथा |<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nशक्तो नावारयत्कृष्णः
\nसंरब्धन्कुरुपान्डवान् ||<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nThe belief that Krishna’s policy & statesmanship was the really
\neffective force behind Yudhisthere’s greatness, pervades the epic. But who were these nations that resented so strongly the attempt of Yudhisthere & Krishna to impose an empire on them? It is
\na significant fact that the Southern and Western peoples went almost solid for Duryodhana
\n\t\t\tin this quarrel -Madra, the Deccan, Avanti, Sindhu Sauvira, Gandhara, in one long line from southern Mysore to northern Candahar; the Aryan colonies in the yet half civilised regions of the Lower valley of the Ganges espoused
\n\t\t\tthe same cause. The Eastern nations, heirs of the Ixvaacou imperial idea, went equally solid for Yudhisthere. The Central peoples, repositories of the great Kuru Panchala tradition as well as the Yadavas, who were really a Central nation though they had trekked to the West, were divided. Now this
\ndistribution is exactly what we should have expected. The nations which are most averse to enter into an imperial system
\n& cherish most their separate existence are those which are
\noutside the centre of civilisation, hardy, warlike, only partially refined; and their aversion is still more emphatic when they have
\nnever or only for a short time been part of an empire. This is
\nthe real secret of the invincible resistance which England has
\nopposed to all Continental schemes of empire from Philip II to
\nNapoleon; it is the secret of her fear of Russia; it is the reason of the singular fact that only now after many centuries of great
\nnational existence has she become imbued with the imperial idea on her own account. The savage attachment to their independence of small nations like the Dutch, the Swiss, the Boers is
\ntraceable to the same cause; the fierce resistance opposed by the
\n  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 297<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\ngreater part of Spain to Napoleon was that of a nation which
\nonce imperial & central has fallen out of the main flood of
\ncivilisation & is therefore becoming provincial & attached to
\nits own isolation. That the nations of the East & South and the
\nAryan colonies in Bengal should oppose the imperialist policy
\nof Krishna & throw in their lot with Duryodhana is therefore no more than we should expect. On the other hand nations at the very heart of civilisation, who have formed at one time or another dominant parts of an empire fall easily into imperial
\nschemes, but personal rivalry, the desire of each to be the centre of empire, divides them and brings them into conflict not any
\ndifference of political temperament. For nations have very tenacious memories and are always attempting to renew the great
\nages of their past. In the Eastern peoples the imperialistic idea was very strong and having failed to assert a new empire of
\ntheir own under Jarasundha, they seem to have turned with one consent to Yudhisthere as the man who could alone realise their ideal. One of Shishupal’s remarks in the Rajasuya sacrifice is very significant
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nWe remember that it was an Eastern poet who had sung perhaps
\nnot many centuries before in mighty stanzas the idealisation
\nof Imperial Government & Aryan unity and enshrined in his imperishable verse the glories of the third Coshalan Empire. The establishment of Aryan unity was in the eyes of the Eastern
\nnations a holy work and the desire of establishing universal
\nlordship with that view a sufficient ground for one of the most
\nself-willed & violent princes of his time [to] put aside his personal feelings & predilections in order to farther it. Shishupal
\nhad been one of the most considerable & ardent supporters of
\nJarasundha in his attempt to establish a Magadhan empire; that attempt having failed he like Jarasundha’s own son turned in
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 298<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nspite of his enmity with Krishna to Yudhisthere as the coming Emperor. Even the great quarrel and the summary slaughter
\nof Shishupal by Krishna could not divert his nation from its
\nadhesion to the new Empire. The divisions of the Central nations
\nfollow an equally intelligible line. Throughout the Mahabharata we perceive that the great weakness of the Kurus lay in the
\ndivision of their counsels. There was a peace party among them
\nled by Bhishma, Drona, Kripa & Vidura, the wise & experienced statesmen who desired justice and reconciliation with
\nYudhisthere and a war-party of the hot-blooded younger men led by Karna, Duhsasana & Duryodhana himself who were confident of their power of meeting the world in arms; King
\nDhritarashtra found himself hard put to it to flatter the opinions of the elders while secretly following his own predilections &
\nthe ambitions of the younger men. These are facts patent on the
\nface of the epic. But it has not been sufficiently considered what a
\nremarkable fact it is that men of such lofty character as Bhishma
\nand Drona should have acted against their sense of right and
\njustice and fought in what they had repeatedly condemned as an unjust cause. If Bhishma, Drona, Kripa, Aswatthaman & Vikarna had plainly intimated to Duryodhan that they would support Yudhisthere with their arms or even that they would stand aloof from the war, it is clear there would have been no
\nwar at all. And I cannot but think that had it been a question
\npurely between Kuru & Kuru, this is the course they would have adopted. But Bhishma & Drona must have perceived that
\nbehind the Pandavas were the Panchalas & Matsyas. They must have suspected that these nations were supporting Yudhisthere not out of purely disinterested motives but with certain definite political objects. Neither Drupada nor Virata would have been accepted by India as emperors in their own right, any
\nmore than say Sindhia or Holkar would have been in the last century. But by putting forward the just claims of a prince of
\nthe imperial Bharata line, the descendant of Bharata Ajamede connected with themselves by marriage, they could avoid this
\ndifficulty and at the same time break the power of the Kurus and
\nreplace them as the dominant partners in the new Empire. The  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 299<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\npresence of personal interests is evident in their hot eagerness
\nfor war and their unwillingness to take any sincere steps towards a just and peaceful solution of the difficulty. Their action
\nstands in striking contrast with the moderate, statesmanlike yet firm policy of Krishna. It can hardly be supposed that Bhishma
\nand the Kuru statesmen of his party were autonomists; they must have been as eager for a Kuru empire as Duryodhana himself. At any rate they eagerly welcomed the statesmanlike reasonings of Krishna when he proposed to King Dhritarashtra to unite the force of Pandava & Kaurava & build up a Kuru empire which should irresistibly dominate the world. “On yourself &
\nmyself” says Krishna “rests today the choice of peace or war &
\nthe destiny of the world; do your part in pacifying your sons, I
\nwill see to the Pandavas.”
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 300<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nतैरेवोपार्जितां
\n<\/font><\/span>
\nभूमिं
\nभोक्ष्यसे च परन्तप |<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\nयदि <\/font><\/span>
\n
\nसंपत्स्यसे पुत्रैः
\nसहामात्यैर्नराधिप   ||<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nBut the empire of Yudhisthere enforced by the arms of Mutsya
\n& Panchala or even by the armed threats meant to Bhishma & Kripa something very different from a Kuru Empire; it must have
\nseemed to them to imply rather the overthrow & humiliation of the Kurus and a Panchala domination under a Bharata prince. This it concerned their patriotism and their sense of Kshatriya
\npride & duty to resist so long as there was blood in their veins.
\nThe inability to associate justice with their cause was a grief to
\nthem, but it could not alter their plain duty. Such as I take it is
\nthe clear political story of the Mahabharata. I have very scantily
\nindicated some of its larger aspects only; but if my interpretation
\nbe correct, it is evident that we shall have in the disengaged
\nMahabharata not only a mighty epic, but a historical document
\nof unique value. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWhat I wish, however, to emphasize at present is that the
\nportions of the Mahabharata which bear the high, severe and
\nheroic style and personality I have described, are also the portions which unfold consecutively, powerfully and without any
\nincredible embroidery of legend this story of clashing political
\n& personal passions & ambitions. It is therefore not a mere
\nassumption, but a perfectly reasonable inference that these portions form the original epic. If we assume that the Ramayanistic portions of the epic or the rougher & more uncouth work precede these in antiquity, we assume that the legend was written first and history added to it afterwards; this is a sequence so contrary to all experience and to all accepted canons of criticism that it would need the most indisputable proof before it could command any credence. Where there is a plain history
\nmixed up with legendary matter written by palpably different
\nhands, criticism judges from all precedents that the latter must be later work embodying the additions human fancy always
\nand most in countries where a scrupulous historic sense has not
\nbeen developed weaves round a great event which has powerfully occupied the national imagination. Moreover in judging   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 301<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe relative genuineness of different styles in the same work, we
\nare bound to see the hand of the original writer in the essential
\nparts of the story as we have it. It makes no difference to this
\nquestion whether there was an original ballad epic or not, or
\nwhether it was used in the composition of the Mahabharata or
\nnot. We have a certain poem in a certain form and in resolving
\nit to its original parts we must take it as we have it and not
\nallow our judgment to be disturbed by visions of a poem which
\nwe have not. If the alleged ballad epic was included bodily or in
\npart in the Mahabharata, our analysis will find it there without
\nfail. If it was merely used as material just as Shakespeare used
\nPlutarch or Hall & Holinshed, it is no longer germane to the matter. Now the most essential part of a story is the point from
\nwhich the catastrophe started; in the Mahabharata this is the
\nmishandling of Draupadie & the exile of the Pandavas; but this
\nagain leads us back to the Rajasuya sacrifice & the imperial Hall
\nof the Pandavas from which the destroying envy of Duryodhan took its rise. In the Sabhapurva therefore we must seek omissis omittendis for the hand of the original poet; & the whole of the
\nSabhapurva with certain unimportant omissions is in that great
\n& severe style which is the stamp of the personality of Vyasa.
\nThis once established we argue farther from the identity of style,
\ntreatment & personality between the Viratapurva & the Sabhapurva, certain passages being omitted, that this book is also the
\nwork of Vyasa. From these two large & mainly homogeneous
\nbodies of poetical work we shall be able to form a sufficient
\npicture of the great original poet, the drift of his thought and
\nthe methods of his building. This we shall then confirm, correct & supplement by a study of the Udyogapurva which up to the marching of the armies presents, though with more but still separable alloy breaking in, the same clear, continuous &
\ndiscernible vein of pure gold running through it. Thus armed we
\nmay even rely on resolving roughly the tangle of the Adi & Vana Purvas and it is only when the war begins, that we shall have
\nto admit doubt, faltering and guesswork; even here however we
\nshall not be without some light even in its thickest darkness.
\nThat the poem can be disentangled, I hold then to be beyond   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 302<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\ndispute, but it can only be done by a long and voluminous critical
\nanalysis, and even this must be supported by a detailed edition
\nof the whole Mahabharat in which each canto & chapter shall be discussed on its own merits. At present therefore I propose
\nto pass over the method after once indicating its general nature
\nand present certain definite results only. I propose solely to draw a picture,
\n\t\t\tin outline merely, of the sublime poetical personality which an analysis of the work reveals as the original poet,
\nthe Krishna Dwaipayana who wrote the Bharata of the 24,000 [slokas] and not the other Vyasa, if Vyasa he was, who enlarged
\nit to something approaching its present dimensions. And let me
\nexpress at once my deep admiration of the poetical powers &
\nvast philosophic mind of this second writer; no mean poet was he who gave us the poem we know, in many respects the greatest
\nand most interesting & formative work in the world’s literature. If I seem to speak mainly in dispraise of him, it is because I
\nam concerned here with his defects and not with his qualities; for the subject I wish to treat is Krishna of the Island, his most
\nimportant characteristics and their artistic contrast with those of our other greater, but less perfect epic poet, Valmekie.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nI have said that no foreigner can for a moment be trusted to
\napply the literary test to a poem in our language; the extraordinary blunders of the most eminent German critics in dealing with
\nElizabethan plays have settled that question once for all. Educated Indians on the other hand have their own deficiencies in
\ndealing with Vyasa; for they have [been] nourished partly on the
\ncurious and elaborate art of Kalidasa and his gorgeous pomps of vision and colour, partly on the somewhat gaudy, expensive & meretricious spirit of English poetry. Like Englishmen they are
\ntaught to profess a sort of official admiration for Shakespeare
\n& Milton but with them as with the majority of Englishmen the
\npoets they really steep themselves in are Shelley, Tennyson &
\nByron and to a less degree Keats & perhaps Spenser. Now the
\nmanner of these poets, lax, voluptuous, artificial, all outward
\nglitter and colour, but inwardly poor of spirit and wanting in genuine mastery and the true poetical excellence is a bad school
\nfor the appreciation of such severe & perfect work as Vyasa’s.   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 303<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nFor Vyasa is the most masculine of writers.<\/font>5<\/font><\/sup>
\nWhen Coleridge
\nspoke of the femineity of genius he had in mind certain features
\nof temperament which whether justly or not are usually thought to count for more in the feminine mould than in the masculine,
\nthe love of ornament, emotionalism, mobile impressionability,
\nthe tyranny of imagination over the reason, excessive sensitiveness to form and outward beauty; a tendency to be dominated imaginatively by violence & the show of strength, to be prodigal
\nof oneself, not to husband the powers, to be for showing them
\noff, to fail in self-restraint is also feminine. All these are natural
\nproperties of the quick artistic temperament prone by throwing
\nall itself outward to lose balance and therefore seldom perfectly
\nsane and strong in all its parts. So much did these elements
\nform the basis of Coleridge’s own temperament that he could
\nnot perhaps imagine a genius in which they were wanting. Yet
\nGoethe, Dante & Sophocles show that the very highest genius
\ncan exist without them. But none of the great poets I have
\nnamed is so singularly masculine, so deficient in femineity as
\nVyasa, none dominates so much by intellect and personality,
\nyet satisfies so little the romantic imagination. Indeed no poet
\nat all near the first rank has the same granite mind in which
\nimpressions are received with difficulty but once received are
\nineffaceable. In his austere self-restraint and economy of power he is indifferent to ornament for its own sake, to the pleasures
\nof poetry as distinguished from its ardours, to little graces & self-indulgences of style; the substance counts for everything &
\nthe form has to limit itself to its proper work of expressing with
\nprecision & power the substance. Even his most romantic pieces
\nhave a virgin coldness & loftiness in their beauty. To intellects fed on the elaborate pomp and imagery of Kalidasa’s numbers and
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n5 The passage below, uncancelled in the manuscript, was abandoned by Sri Aurobindo<\/i>
\nin favour of the corresponding passage in the printed text:<\/i>
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nVyasa is the most masculine of writers. He has that is to say the masculine qualities, restraint, dignity, indifference to ornament, strength without ostentation, energy
\neconomised, a strong, pure and simple taste, a high & great spirit, more than any poet I
\nknow. The usual artifices of poetry, simile, metaphor, allusion, ornamental description,
\nthe decorative element of the art, he resorts to with unequalled infrequency and to a
\nsuperficial or an untrained taste he appears to be even unimaginative and uninspiring.
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 304<\/span><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe somewhat gaudy, expensive & meretricious spirit of English
\npoetry, Vyasa may seem bald and unattractive. To be fed on the
\nverse of Spenser, Shelley, Keats, Byron & Tennyson is no good
\npreparation for the severest of classics. It is indeed, I believe,
\nthe general impression of many “educated” young Indians that
\nthe Mahabharata is a mass of old wives’ stories without a spark of poetry or imagination. But to those who have bathed even a
\nlittle in the fountain-heads of poetry & can bear the keenness & purity of those mountain sources, the naked & unadorned
\npoetry of Vyasa [is a perpetual refreshment.]<\/font>6<\/font><\/sup> To read him is to
\nbathe in a chill fountain in the heats of summer; they find that
\none has [available an unfailing source] of tonic & [refreshment] to the soul; one [comes into relation] with a [mind] whose [bare
\nstrong contact] has the [power] of infusing strength, courage
\nand endurance.<\/font>7<\/font><\/sup>
\nThere are certain things which have this power
\ninborn & are accordingly valued by those who have felt deeply
\nits properties, such are the air of the mountains or the struggle
\nto a capable mind with hardship and difficulty; the Vedanta
\nphilosophy, the ideal of the
\n<\/font><\/span>
\n
\nनिष्काम धर्म<\/font><\/span>, the poetry of Vyasa, three closely related entities, are intellectual forces that exercise
\na similar effect & attraction. <\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe style of this powerful writer is perhaps the one example
\nin literature of strength in its purity; a strength undefaced by violence & excess yet not weakened by flagging and negligence.
\nIt is even less propped or helped out by artifices and aids than
\nany other poetical style. Vyasa takes little trouble with similes,
\nmetaphors, rhetorical turns, the usual paraphernalia of poetry;
\nnor when he uses them, is he at pains to select such as shall be
\nnew & curiously beautiful; they are there to define more clearly
\nwhat he has in mind, and he makes just enough of them for that
\npurpose, never striving to convert them into a separate grace or <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n6
\nCancelled in manuscript. Several other words, also cancelled, were written above this<\/i>
\nphrase. The last complete version may have been “is a companion that never palls.”<\/i>
\n-Ed.<\/i>
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n7 The words between brackets are cancelled in the manuscript. There are a number of<\/i>
\nuncancelled words between the lines whose connection with the text is not evident.<\/i>
\n-Ed.<\/i>  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 305<\/span><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\na decorative element. They have force & beauty in their context
\nbut cannot be turned into elegant excerpts; in themselves they are in fact little or nothing. When Bhema is spoken of as breathing
\nhard like a weakling borne down by a load too heavy for him,
\nthere is nothing in the simile itself. It derives its force from its
\naptness to the heavy burden of unaccomplished revenge which
\nthe fierce spirit of the strong man was condemned to bear. We
\nmay say the same of his epithets, that great preoccupation of
\nromantic artists; they are such as are most natural, crisp & firm,
\nbest suited to the plain idea & only unusual when the business
\nin hand requires an unusual thought, but never recherch\u00e9 or
\nexisting for their own beauty. Thus when he is describing the
\ngreatness of Krishna and hinting his claims to be considered as
\nidentical with the Godhead, he gives him the one epithet
\n<\/font><\/span>
\nअप्रमेयः<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n
\n immeasurable, which is strong and unusual enough to rise to
\nthe thought, but not to be a piece of literary decoration or a
\nviolence of expression. In brief, he religiously avoids overstress;
\nhis audacities of phrase are few, and they have a grace of restraint
\nin their boldness. There is indeed a rushing vast Valmekeian style
\nwhich intervenes often in the Mahabharata; but it is evidently
\nthe work of a different hand; for it belongs to a less powerful
\nintellect, duller poetical insight and coarser taste, which has yet
\ncaught something of the surge and cry of Valmekie’s Oceanic
\npoetry. Vyasa in fact stands at the opposite pole from Valmekie.
\nThe poet of the Ramayan has a flexible & universal genius
\nembracing the Titanic and the divine, the human and the gigantic at once or with an inspired ease of transition. But Vyasa is
\nunmixed Olympian; he lives in a world of pure verse and diction,
\nenjoying his own heaven of golden clearness. We have seen what
\nare the main negative qualities of the style; pureness, strength,
\ngrandeur of intellect & personality are its positive virtues. It is the expression of a pregnant and forceful mind, in which the
\nidea is sufficient to itself, conscious of its own intrinsic greatness;
\nwhen this mind runs in the groove of narrative or emotion, the
\nstyle wears an air of high and pellucid ease in the midst of which
\nits strenuous compactness and brevity moves & lives as a saving
\nand strengthening spirit; but when it begins to think rapidly   <\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 306<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n& profoundly as often happens in the great speeches, it is apt to leave the hearer behind; sufficient to itself, thinking quickly,
\nbriefly & greatly it does not care to pause on its own ideas or
\nexplain them at length, but speaks as it thinks, in a condensed
\noften elliptical style, preferring to indicate rather than expatiate,
\noften passing over the steps by which it should arrive at the
\nidea and hastening to the idea itself; often also it is subtle &
\nmultiplies many shades & ramifications of thought in a short
\ncompass. From this arises that frequent knottiness & excessive
\ncompression of logical sequence, that appearance of elliptical
\n& sometimes obscure expression, which so struck the ancient
\ncritics in Vyasa and which they expressed in the legend that
\nwhen dictating the Mahabharata to Ganesha, the poet in order
\nnot to be outstripped by his divine scribe -for it was Ganesha’s stipulation that not for one moment should he be left without
\nmatter to write -threw in frequently knotty and close-knit passages which forced the lightning-swift hand to pause & labour slowly over its work. To a strenuous mind these passages, from
\nthe exercise they give to the intellect, are an added charm just as a
\nmountain-climber takes an especial delight in steep ascents
\nwhich let him feel his ability. Of one thing, however, we may be confident in reading Vyasa, that the expression will always
\nbe just to the thought; he never palters with or labours to dress up the reality within him. For the rest we must evidently trace
\nthis peculiarity to the compact, steep & sometimes elliptical,
\nbut always strenuous diction of the Upanishads in which the
\nmind of the poet was trained & his personality tempered. At the same time like the Upanishads themselves or like the enigmatic
\nAeschylus, he can be perfectly clear, precise & full whenever he
\nchooses; and he more often chooses than not. His expression of
\nthought is usually strong and abrupt; his expression of fact and of emotion strong and precise. His verse has similar peculiarities.
\nIt is a golden and equable stream that sometimes whirls itself
\ninto eddies or dashes upon rocks; but it always runs in harmony
\nwith the thought. Vyasa has not Valmekie’s movement as of the sea, that wide and unbroken surge with its infinite variety of
\nwaves, which enables him not only to find in the facile anustubh   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 307<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nmetre a sufficient vehicle for his vast & ambitious work but
\nto maintain it through [ ] couplets without its palling or
\nlosing its capacity of adjustment to ever varying moods & turns of narrative. But in his narrower limits & on the level of his
\nlower flight Vyasa has great subtlety & finesse. Especially admirable is his use, in speeches, of broken effects such as would in
\nless skilful hands have become veritable discords; and again in
\nnarrative of the simplest & barest metrical movements, as in the
\nopening Surga of the Sabhapurva to create certain calculated
\neffects. But it would be idle to pretend for him any equality
\nas a master of verse with Valmekie. When he has to rise from
\nhis levels to express powerful emotions, grandiose eloquence or
\nswift & sweeping narrative, he cannot always effect it in the
\nanustubh metre; he falls back more often than not on the rolling
\nmagnificence of the [tristubh] which best sets & ennobles his
\nstrong-winged austerity.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBe its limits what one will, this is certain that there was
\nnever a style & verse of such bare, direct & resistless strength
\nas this of Vyasa’s or one that went so straight to the heart of all
\nthat is heroic in a man. Listen to the cry of insulted Draupadie
\nto her husband <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nउतिष्ठोतिष्ठ किं शेषे भीमसेन यथा मृतः |<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nनामृतस्य हि पापियान्भार्यामालभ्य जीवति ||<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n“Arise, arise, O Bhemasena, wherefore sleepest thou like one
\nthat is dead? For nought but dead is he whose wife a sinful hand has touched and lives.”, or the reproach of Krishna to Arjoun
\nfor his weak pity which opens the second surga of the Bhagavadgita. Or again hear Krishna’s description of Bhema’s rage
\nand solitary brooding over revenge and his taunting accusations of cowardice: “At other times, O Bhemasena, thou praisest war,
\nthou art all for crushing Dhritarashtra’s heartless sons who take
\ndelight in death; thou sleepest not at night, O conquering soldier,
\nbut wakest lying face downwards, and ever thou utterest dread speech of storm and wrath, breathing fire in the torment of thine
\nown rage; and thy mind is without rest like a smoking fire; yea,   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 308<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthou liest all apart breathing heavily like a weakling distressed by his load; so that some who know not even think thee mad. For
\nas an elephant tramples on uprooted trees and breaks them to
\nfragments, so thou stormest along with labouring breath hurting
\nearth with thy feet. Thou takest no delight in all the people but
\ncursest them in thy heart, O Bhema, son of Pandou, nor in aught
\nelse hast thou any pleasure night or day; but thou sittest in secret
\nlike one weeping and sometimes of a sudden laughest aloud, yea,
\nthou sittest for long with thy head between thy knees & thy eyes
\nclosed; and then again thou starest before thee frowning and
\nclenching thy teeth; thy every action is one of wrath. Surely as
\nour father Sun is seen in the East when luminously he ascendeth,
\n& surely as wide with rays he wheeleth down to his release in
\nthe West, so sure is this oath I utter and never shall be broken.
\nWith this club I will meet & slay the haughty Duryodhan’, thus
\ntouching thy club thou swearest among thy brothers. And today
\nthou, thou!, thinkest of peace, O warrior! Ah yes, I know the
\nhearts of those that clamour for war, alter very strangely when
\nwar showeth its face, since fear findeth out even thee, O Bhema! Ah yes, son of Pritha, thou seest adverse omens both when thou
\nsleepest & when thou wakest, therefore thou desirest peace. Ah yes, thou feelest no more the man in thyself, but an eunuch &
\nthy heart sinketh with alarm, therefore art thou thus overcome.
\nThy heart quakes, thy mind fainteth, thou art seized with a
\ntrembling in thy thighs, therefore thou desirest peace. Verily, O son of Pritha, wavering & inconstant is the heart of a mortal
\nman, like the pods of the silk cotton driven by the swiftness of every wind. This shameful thought of thine, monstrous as a
\nhuman voice in a dumb beast, makes the hearts of Pandou’s sons to sink like (shipwrecked) men that have no raft. Look on thine
\nown deeds, O seed of Bharat, remember thy lofty birth! arise,
\nput off thy weakness; be firm, O heart of a hero; unworthy of
\nthee is this languor; what he cannot win by the mightiness of
\nhim, that a Kshatriya will not touch.”
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nThis passage I have quoted at some length because it is eminently
\ncharacteristic of Vyasa’s poetical method. Another poet would
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 309<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nhave felt himself justified by the nature of the speech in using some wild and whirling words, in seeking vividness by exaggeration, at the very least in raising his voice a little. Contrast
\nwith this the perfect temperance of this passage, the confident
\n& unemotional reliance on the weight of what is said, not on
\nthe manner of saying it. The vividness of the portraiture arises
\nfrom the quiet accuracy of vision and the care in the choice of simple but effective words; not from any seeking after the
\nsalient and graphic such as gives Kalidasa his wonderful power of description; and the bitterness of the taunts arises from the
\nquiet & searching irony with which [each] shaft is tipped and not
\nfrom any force used in driving them home. Yet every line goes
\nstraight as an arrow to its mark; every word is the utterance of a
\nstrong man speaking to a strong man and gives iron to the mind.
\nStrength is one constant term of the Vyasic style; temperance,
\njustness of taste is the other.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nStrength and a fine austerity are then the two tests which
\ngive us safe guidance through the morass of the Mahabharata;
\nwhere these two exist together, we may reasonably presume some touch of Vyasa; where they do not exist or do not conjoin,
\nwe feel at once the redactor or the interpolator. I have spoken of another poet whose more turbid & vehement style breaks
\ncontinually into the pure gold of Vyasa’s work. The whole temperament of this redacting poet, for he is something more than
\nan interpolator, has its roots in Valmekie; but like most poets of a
\nsecondary and fallible genius, he exaggerates while adopting the
\nmore audacious and therefore the more perilous tendencies of his
\nmaster. The love of the wonderful touched with the grotesque,
\nthe taste for the amorphous, a marked element in Valmekie’s
\ncomplex temperament, is with his follower something like a
\nmalady. He grows impatient with the apparent tameness of
\nVyasa’s inexorable self-restraint, and restlessly throws in here
\ncouplets, there whole paragraphs of a more flamboyant vigour.
\nOccasionally this is done with real ability & success, but as a
\nrule they are true purple patches, daubs of paint on the stainless
\ndignity of marble. For his rage for the wonderful is not always
\naccompanied by the prodigious sweep of imagination which in   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 310<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nValmekie successfully grasps and compels the most reluctant
\nmaterials. The result is that puerilities and gross breaches of
\ntaste fall easily & hardily from his pen. Not one of these could we possibly imagine as consistent with the severe, self-possessed
\nintellect of Vyasa. Fineness, justness, discrimination & propriety of taste are the very soul of the man.
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nNowhere is his restrained & quiet art more visible than
\nwhen he handles the miraculous. But since the Mahabharata
\nis so honeycombed with the work of inept wonder-mongers, we are driven for an undisturbed appreciation of it to works
\nwhich are no parts of the original Mahabharata and are yet by
\nthe same hand, the Nala & the Savitrie. These poems have all
\nthe peculiar qualities which we have decided to be very Vyasa,
\nthe style, the diction, the personality are identical and refer us
\nback to him as clearly as the sunlight refers us back to the
\nsun; and yet they have something which the Mahabharata has
\nnot. Here we have the very morning of Vyasa’s genius, when he was young and ardent; perhaps still under the immediate
\ninfluence of Valmekie (one of the most pathetic touches in the
\nNala is borrowed straight out of the Ramayana); at any rate able
\nwithout ceasing to be finely restrained to give some rein to his
\nfancy. The Nala therefore has the delicate & unusual romantic
\ngrace of a young & severe classic who has permitted himself to
\ngo-a-maying in the fields of romance. There is a remote charm
\nof restraint in the midst of abandon, of vigilance in the play of fancy which is passing sweet & strange. The Savitrie is a
\nmaturer & nobler work, perfect & restrained in detail, but it has still some glow of the same youth and grace over it. This
\nthen is the rare charm of these two poems that we find there
\nthe soul of the pale & marble Rishi, the austere philosopher,
\nthe great statesman, the strong and stern poet of war & empire,
\nwhen it was yet in its radiant morning, far from the turmoil
\nof courts & cities & the roar of the battlefield and had not
\nyet scaled the mountaintops of thoughts. Young, a Brahmachari
\n& a student, Vyasa dwelt with the green silences of earth, felt
\nthe fascination & loneliness of the forests of which his earlier
\npoetry is full, walked by many a clear & lucid river white with   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 311<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe thronging waterfowl, perhaps Payoshni, that ocean-seeking
\nstream, or heard the thunder of multitudinous crickets in some
\nlone tremendous forest; with Valmekie’s mighty stanzas in his
\nmind, saw giant-haunted glooms, dells where faeries gathered,
\nbrakes where some Python from the underworld came out to
\nbask or listened to the voices of Kinnaries on the mountaintops.
\nIn such surroundings wonders might seem natural and deities as in Arcadia might peep from under every tree. Nala’s messengers
\nto Damayanti are a troop of golden-winged swans that speak
\nwith a human voice; he is intercepted on his way by gods who
\nmake him their envoy to a mortal maiden; he receives from
\nthem gifts more than human; fire and water come to him at
\nhis bidding and flowers bloom in his hands; in his downfall the
\ndice become birds which fly away with his remaining garment;
\nwhen he wishes to cut in half the robe of Damayanti, a sword comes ready to his hand in the desolate cabin; he meets the
\nSerpent-King in the ring of fire and is turned by him into the
\ndeformed charioteer, Vahuka; the tiger in the forest turns away
\nfrom Damayanti without injuring her and the lustful hunter falls
\nconsumed by the power of offended chastity. The destruction of
\nthe caravan by wild elephants, the mighty driving of Nala, the
\ncounting of the leaves of the [
\n], the cleaving of the Vibhitaka tree; every incident almost is full of that sense of beauty & wonder which were awakened in Vyasa by his early surroundings. We ask whether this beautiful fairy-tale is the work of that stern
\nand high poet with whom the actualities of life were everything
\nand the flights of fancy counted for so little. Yet if we look
\ncarefully, we shall see in the Nala abundant proof of the severe
\ntouch of Vyasa, just as in his share of the Mahabharata fleeting
\ntouches of wonder & strangeness, gone as soon as glimpsed,
\nevidence a love of the ultranatural, severely bitted and reined
\nin. Especially do we see the poet of the Mahabharata in the
\nartistic vigilance which limits each supernatural incident to a
\nfew light strokes, to the exact place and no other where it is
\nwanted & the exact amount and no more that is necessary. (It is
\nthis sparing economy of touch almost unequalled in its beauty of
\njust rejection, which makes the poem an epic instead of a fairy
\n   <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 312<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\ntale in verse.) There is for instance the incident of the swans; we all know to what prolixities of pathos & bathos vernacular
\npoets like the Gujarati Premanund have enlarged this feature of the story. But Vyasa introduced it to give a certain touch of
\nbeauty & strangeness and that touch once imparted the swans
\ndisappear from the scene; for his fine taste felt that to prolong
\nthe incident by one touch more would have been to lower the
\npoem and run the risk of raising a smile. Similarly in the Savitrie
\nwhat a tremendous figure a romantic poet would have made of
\nDeath, what a passionate struggle between the human being and
\nthe master of tears and partings! But Vyasa would have none of this; he had one object, to paint the power of a woman’s
\nsilent love and he rejected everything which went beyond this or
\nwhich would have been merely decorative. We cannot regret his
\nchoice. There have been plenty of poets who could have given us imaginative and passionate pictures of Love struggling with
\nDeath, but there has been only one who could give us a Savitrie. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nIn another respect also the Nala helps us materially to appreciate Vyasa’s genius. His dealings with nature are a strong
\ntest of a poet’s quality; but in the Mahabharata proper, of
\nall epics the most pitilessly denuded of unnecessary ornament,
\nnatural description is rare. We must therefore again turn for
\naid to the poems which preceded his hard and lofty maturity.
\nVyasa’s natural description as we find it there, corresponds to
\nthe nervous, masculine and hard-strung make of his intellect.
\nHis treatment is always puissant and direct without any single
\npervasive atmosphere except in sunlit landscapes, but always
\neffectual, realizing the scene strongly or boldly by a few simple
\nbut sufficient words. There are some poets who are the children of Nature, whose imagination is made of her dews, whose
\nblood thrills to her with the perfect impulse of spiritual kinship;
\nWordsworth is of these and Valmekie. Their voices in speaking
\nof her unconsciously become rich and liquid and their words
\nare touched with a subtle significance of thought or emotion.
\nThere are others who hold her with a strong sensuous grasp by
\nvirtue of a ripe, sometimes an overripe delight in beauty; such
\nare Shakespeare, Keats, Kalidasa. Others again approach her   <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 313<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nwith a fine or clear intellectual sense of her charm as do some of the old classical poets. Hardly in the rank of poets are those
\nwho like Dryden & Pope use her, if at all, only to provide them
\nwith a smooth or well-turned literary expression. Vyasa belongs
\nto none of these, and yet often touches the first three at particular points without definitely coinciding with any. He takes the
\nkingdom of Nature by violence. Approaching her from outside
\nhis masculine genius forces its way to her secret, insists and will
\ntake no denial. Accordingly he is impressed at first contact by
\nthe harmony in the midst of variety of her external features,
\nabsorbs these into a strong and retentive imagination, meditates on them and so reads his way to the closer impression, the inner
\nsense behind that which is external, the personal temperament of a landscape. In his record of what he has seen, this impression
\nmore often than not comes first as that which abides & prevails;
\nsometimes it is all he cares to record; but his tendency towards
\nperfect faithfulness to the vision within leads him, when the scene is still fresh to his eye, to record the data through which
\nthe impression was reached. We have all experienced the way in which our observation of a scene, conscious or unconscious,
\nforms itself out of various separate & often uncoordinated impressions, which if we write a description at the time or soon
\nafter and are faithful to ourselves, find their way into the picture
\neven at the expense of symmetry; but if we allow a long time to
\nelapse before we recall the scene, there returns to us only a single
\nself-consistent impression which without accurately rendering
\nit, retains its essence and its atmosphere. Something of this sort
\noccurs in our poet; for Vyasa is always faithful to himself. When
\nhe records the data of his impression, he does it with force and
\nclearness, frequently with a luminous atmosphere around the
\nobject, especially with a delight in the naked beauty of the single
\nclear word which at once communicates itself to the hearer. First
\ncome the strong and magical epithets or the brief and puissant
\ntouches by which the soul of the landscape is made visible and
\npalpable, then the enumeration sometimes only stately, at others
\nbathed in a clear loveliness. The fine opening of the twelfth
\nsurga of the Nala is a signal example of this method. At the <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 314<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nthreshold we
\nhave the great &
\nsombre line<\/font> <\/font>
\n\t वनं प्रतिभयं शून्यं झिल्लिकागणनादितं
\n\t|<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n A
\nvoid tremendous forest thundering <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n With crickets <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t
\nstriking the keynote of
\ngloom &
\nloneliness, then the cold stately enumeration of
\nthe forest’s animal &
\nvegetable peoples, then<\/font> <\/font>
\nagain the strong and revealing epithet in
\nhis “echoing woodlands sound-pervaded”; then follows “river &
\nlake and pool and many<\/font> <\/font>
\nbeasts and many birds” and once more the touch of
\nwonder & weirdness<\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t She
\nmany alarming shapes<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t of fiend
\nand snake and giant. . . . . .<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t . . . . .
\nbeheld;  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n making magical the bare following lines
\n\tand especially the nearest, <\/font>
\n\t<\/span>
\n\t
\n\tपल्वलानि तडागानि गिरिकूटानि सर्वशः <\/span><\/font>
\n\t
\n “and pools &
\ntarns &<\/font>
\nsummits everywhere”, with its poetical delight in
\nthe bare beauty <\/font>of
\nwords. It is
\ninstructive to
\ncompare with this passage
\nthe
\nwonderful silhouette of
\nnight in
\nValmekie’s Book of
\nthe Child <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t“Motionless are all trees and shrouded the beasts &
\nbirds and<\/font>
\nthe quarters filled, O
\njoy of
\nRaghu, with the glooms of
\nnight; slowly the sky
\nparts with evening and grows full of eyes; dense<\/font>
\nwith stars &
\nconstellations it
\nglitters with points of
\nlight; and now yonder with cold beams
\nrising up
\nthe moon thrusts away<\/font>
\nthe shadows from the world gladdening the hearts of
\nliving<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 315<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nthings on
\nearth with its luminousness. All creatures of
\nthe night are walking to
\nand fro
\nand spirit bands and troops of
\ngiants and<\/font>
\nthe carrion-feeding jackals begin to
\nroam.” <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\tHere every detail is
\ncarefully selected to
\nproduce a
\ncertain effect,<\/font>
\nthe charm and weirdness of
\nfalling night in
\nthe forest; not a
\nword <\/font>is
\nwasted, every epithet, every verb, every image is
\nsought out
\nand chosen so as to
\naid this effect, while the vowellation is
\nsubtly managed and assonance and the composition of
\nsounds skilfully<\/font> & unobtrusively
\n\twoven so as to create a delicate, wary & listening movement as of
\none walking in
\nthe forests by
\nmoonlight and
\nafraid that the leaves may
\nspeak under his footing or
\nhis breath grow loud enough to be
\nheard by
\nhimself or by
\nbeings whose<\/font>
\npresence he does
\nnot see
\nbut fears. Of such
\ndelicately imaginative art as
\nthis Vyasa was
\nnot capable; he
\ncould not sufficiently turn<\/font>
\nhis strength into sweetness. Neither had he
\nthat rare, salient and effective architecture of
\nstyle which makes
\nKalidasa’s “night on<\/font>
\nthe verge of
\ndawn with her faint gleaming moon and a
\nfew just-decipherable stars”<\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n तनुप्रकाशेन विचेयतारका
\n\tप्रभातक्ल्पा शशिनेव शर्वरी |<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t
\nVyasa’s art, as I
\nhave said, is
\nsingularly disinterested<\/font>; he does
\nnot write with a
\nview to
\nsublimity or
\nwith a
\nview to beauty, but because he has
\ncertain ideas to
\nimpart, certain events to
\ndescribe, certain characters to
\nportray. He has an
\nimage of these in
\nhis mind and his business is to find an
\nexpression for it
\nwhich will be
\nscrupulously just to
\nhis conception. This is by no means so
\nfacile a
\ntask as
\nthe uninitiated might imagine; it is in
\nfact considerably more difficult than to
\nbathe the style in colour and grace and literary elegance, for it
\ndemands vigilant
\nconcentration, firm
\nintellectual truthfulness and unsparing rejection, the three virtues most difficult to
\nthe gadding, inventive<\/font>
\nand self-indulgent spirit of
\nman. The art of Vyasa is
\ntherefore a great, strenuous and difficult art; but it
\nunfitted him, as a
\nsimilar<\/font>
\nspirit, unfitted the Greeks, to
\nvoice fully the outward beauty of Nature. For to
\ndelight infinitely in
\nNature one must be
\nstrongly<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 316<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n possessed
\nwith the sense of
\ncolour and romantic beauty, and allow the fancy equal rights with the intellect.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nFor all his occasional strokes of fine
\nNature description he <\/font>was
\nnot therefore quite at
\nhome with her. Conscious of
\nhis weakness Vyasa as he
\nemancipated himself from Valmekie’s influence, ceased to
\nattempt a
\nkind for
\nwhich his genius was
\nnot the best
\nfitted. He is
\nfar more in
\nhis element in
\nthe expression of
\nthe feelings, of
\nthe joy and sorrow that makes
\nthis life of
\nmen; his<\/font>
\ndescription of
\nemotion far excels his description of
\nthings. When <\/font>he says of
\nDamayanti  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n विललाप सुदुःस्विता |<\/span><\/p>\n

\n भर्त्रुशोकपरीताङ्गी शिलातलमथाश्रिता  ||<\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n In
\ngrief she
\nwailed, <\/span><\/p>\n

\n Erect upon a
\ncliff, her body aching <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nWith sorrow for
\nher husband, <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\tthe clear figure of
\nthe abandoned woman lamenting on
\nthe cliff<\/font> seizes
\nindeed the imagination, but has a
\nlesser inspiration than the single puissant &
\nconvincing epithet ,
\nher whole body affected with grief for
\nher husband. Damayanti’s
\nlonger laments are also of
\nthe finest
\nsweetness &
\nstrength; there <\/font>is a
\nrushing flow of
\nstately and sorrowful verse, the wailing of a
\nregal grief; then as some
\nmore exquisite pain, some
\nmore piercing gust of
\npassion traverses the heart of
\nthe mourner, golden<\/font>
\nfelicities of
\nsorrow leap out on
\nthe imagination like lightning in their swift clear greatness.<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n हा वीर ननु नामाहमिष्टा किल तवानघ |<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n अस्यामटव्यां घोरायां किं मां न प्रतिभाषसे ||<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nStill more strong, simple and perfect is
\nthe grief of
\nDamayanti when she
\nwakes to find
\nherself alone in
\nthat desolate cabin.<\/font>
\nThe restraint of
\nphrase is
\nperfect, the verse is
\nclear, equable and unadorned, yet hardly has
\nValmekie himself written a
\ntruer<\/font>
\nutterance of
\nemotion than this<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 317<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t“Ah my
\nlord! Ah my
\nking! Ah my
\nhusband! why hast thou<\/font>
\nforsaken me?
\nAlas, I am
\nslain, I am
\nundone; I am
\nafraid in
\nthe lonely forest. Surely, O
\nKing, thou wert good &
\ntruthful; how<\/font>
\nthen having sworn to me so,
\nhast thou abandoned me in my sleep & fled?
\nLong enough hast thou carried this jest of
\nthine,<\/font> O
\nlion of
\nmen; I am
\nfrightened, O
\nunconquerable; show thyself, my
\nlord &
\nprince. I see
\nthee! I see
\nthee! Thou art seen,
\nlord of
\nthe Nishadhas, covering thyself there with the bushes; why dost thou not speak to me?
\nCruel king! that thou dost not come to<\/font> me
\nthus terrified here &
\nwailing and comfort me! It is
\nnot for myself I
\ngrieve nor for
\naught else; it is for
\nthee I
\nweep thinking
\nwhat will become of
\nthee left all alone. How wilt thou fare under <\/font>
\n\tsome
\ntree at
\nevening hungry &
\nthirsty &
\nweary not beholding me, O my
\nKing?” <\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n The whole of
\nthis passage
\nwith its first
\npang of
\nterror &
\nthe <\/span>
\n\texquisite anticlimax “I am
\nslain, I am
\nundone, I am
\nafraid
\n in
\nthe desert wood” passing quickly into sorrowful reproach, <\/font> the despairing &
\npathetic attempt to
\ndelude herself by
\nthinking the whole a
\npractical jest, and the final
\noutburst of
\nthat deep <\/font> maternal love which is a
\npart of
\nevery true woman’s passion, is<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 318<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\ngreat in
\nits truth &
\nsimplicity. Steep
\nand unadorned is
\nVyasa’s style, but at
\ntimes it has
\nfar more power to
\nmove & to
\nreach the <\/font> heart than more elaborate &
\nambitious poetry. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAs Vyasa
\nprogressed in
\nyears, his personality developed <\/font> towards intellectualism and his manner of
\nexpressing emotion became
\nsensibly modified. In
\nthe Savitrie he first
\nreveals his <\/font> power of
\nimparting to
\nthe reader a sense of
\npoignant but silent feeling, feeling in
\nthe air, unexpressed or
\nrather expressed in <\/font> action, sometimes even in
\nvery silence; this power is a
\nnotable element in some of
\nthe great scenes of
\nthe Mahabharata; the <\/font> silence of
\nthe Pandavas during the mishandling of
\nDraupadie, the mighty silence of
\nKrishna while the assembly of
\nkings rage and <\/font> roar around him and Shishupal again &
\nagain hurls forth on
\nhim his fury &
\ncontempt and the hearts of
\nall men
\nare troubled, the <\/font> stern self-restraint of
\nhis brothers when Yudhisthere is
\nsmitten by Virata; are instances of
\nthe power I
\nmean. In
\nthe Mahabharata <\/font> proper we find
\nfew expressions of
\npure feeling, none at
\nleast which have the triumphant power of
\nDamayanti’s laments in <\/font> the Nala. Vyasa
\nhad by
\nthis time taken his bent; his heart and imagination had become filled with the pomp of
\nthought and <\/font> genius and the greatness of
\nall things mighty and bold and regal; when therefore his characters feel powerful emotion, they are
\n<\/font> impelled to
\nexpress it in
\nthe dialect of
\nthought. We see
\nthe heart in
\ntheir utterances but it is
\nnot the heart in
\nits nakedness, it is
\nnot <\/font> the heart of
\nthe common man; or
\nrather it is
\nthe universal heart of man
\nbut robed in
\nthe intellectual purple. The note of
\nSanscrit <\/font> poetry is
\nalways aristocratic; it has no
\nanswer to
\nthe democratic feeling or to
\nthe modern sentimental cult of
\nthe average man, but <\/font> deals with exalted, large and aspiring natures, whose pride it is that they do
\nnot act like common men (<\/span><\/font><\/font>प्राकृतो
\nजनः<\/font><\/span> ).
\nThey are the great spirits, the , in
\nwhose footsteps the world follows. Whatever sentimental objections may be
\nurged against this high <\/font> and arrogating spirit, it
\ncannot be
\ndoubted that a
\nliterature pervaded with the soul of
\nhero worship and noblesse oblige and full of
\ngreat examples is
\neminently fitted to
\nelevate and strengthen a
\nnation and prepare it for a
\ngreat part in
\nhistory. It was as
\nSanscrit literature ceased to be
\nuniversally read and understood,<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 319<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n as it became
\nmore &
\nmore confined to
\nthe Brahmins that the spirit of
\nour nation began to
\ndecline. And it is
\nbecause the echoes of
\nthat literature still lasted that the nation even in
\nits downfall has
\nplayed not altogether an
\nignoble part, that it has
\nnever quite
\nconsented as so
\nmany formerly great nations have done to
\nthe degradation Fate seemed
\ndetermined to
\nimpose on
\nit, that it has<\/font>
\nalways struggled to
\nassert itself, to
\nlive, to be
\nsomething in
\nthe world of
\nthought and action. And with this high tendency of<\/font>
\nthe literature there is no
\npoet who is so
\ndeeply imbued as
\nVyasa. Even the least of
\nhis characters is an
\nintellect and a
\npersonality<\/font>
\nand of
\nintellect and personality their every utterance reeks, as it
\nwere, and is
\nfull. I
\nhave already quoted the cry of
\nDraupadie to
\nBhema; it is a
\nsupreme utterance of
\ninsulted feeling, and yet note how it
\nexpresses itself, in
\nthe language of
\nintellect; in a <\/font> thought. <\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nउत्तिष्ठोत्तिष्ठ कि शेषे भीमसेन यथा मृतः |<\/span><\/p>\n

\nनामृतस्य हि पापीयान्भार्यामालभ्य जीवति ||<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe whole personality of
\nDraupadie breaks out in
\nthat cry, her <\/font> chastity, her pride, her passionate &
\nunforgiving temper, but it flashes
\nout not in an
\nexpression of
\npure feeling, but in a fiery <\/font> and pregnant apophthegm. It is
\nthis temperament, this dynamic force of
\nintellectualism blended with heroic fire
\nand a
\nstrong <\/font> personality that gives its peculiar stamp to
\nVyasa’s writing and distinguishes it
\nfrom that of
\nall other epic poets. The heroic &
\n<\/font> profoundly intellectual national type of
\nthe great Bharata races, the Kurus, Bhojas and Panchalas who created the Veda &
\nthe <\/font> Vedanta, find in Vyasa
\ntheir fitting poetical type and exponent, just as
\nthe mild and delicately moral temper of
\nthe more eastern <\/font> Coshalas has
\nrealised itself in
\nValmekie and through the Ramayana so
\nlargely dominated Hindu character. Steeped in
\nthe <\/font> heroic ideals of
\nthe Bharata, attuned to
\ntheir profound and daring thought &
\ntemperament, Vyasa has made
\nhimself the poet of
\nthe high-minded Kshatriya caste, voices their resonant speech, breathes their aspiring and unconquerable spirit, mirrors their <\/font> rich and varied life with a
\nloving detail and moves through his<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 320<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nsubject with a
\nswift yet measured movement like the march of an
\narmy towards battle. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n A
\ncomparison with Valmekie is
\ninstructive of
\nthe varying
\ngenius of
\nthese great masters. Both excel in
\nepical rhetoric -if such a
\nterm as
\nrhetoric can be
\napplied to
\nVyasa’s direct &
\nsevere <\/font> style, but Vyasa’s has
\nthe air of a
\nmore intellectual, reflective & experienced stage of
\npoetical advance. The longer speeches in
\n<\/font> the Ramayan, those even which have most the appearance of set, argumentative oration, proceed straight from the heart; the
\n<\/font> thoughts, words, reasonings come
\nwelling up
\nfrom the dominant emotion or
\nconflicting feelings of
\nthe speaker; they palpitate <\/font> and are alive with the vital force from which they have sprung. Though belonging to a
\nmore thoughtful, gentle and cultured
\n<\/font> civilisation than Homer’s they have, like his, the large utterance which is
\nnot of
\nprimitive times, but of
\nthe primal emotions. <\/font> Vyasa’s have
\na powerful but austere force of intellectuality. In expressing character they
\nfirmly expose it rather than spring half-unconsciously from it; their bold and finely-planned consistency with the original conception reveals rather the conscientious
\n<\/font> painstaking of an
\ninspired but reflective artist than the more primary and impetuous creative impulse. In
\ntheir management of <\/font> emotion itself a
\nsimilar difference becomes
\nprominent. Valmekie when giving utterance to a
\nmood or
\npassion simple or
\ncomplex, <\/font> surcharges every line, every phrase, turn of
\nwords or
\nmovement of
\nverse with it; there are no
\nlightning flashes
\nbut a
\ngreat depth of
\nemotion swelling steadily, inexhaustibly and increasingly in a
\nwonder of
\nsustained feeling, like a
\ncontinually rising wave
\nwith low crests of
\nfoam. Vyasa has a
\nhigh level of
\nstyle with a subdued emotion behind it
\noccasionally breaking into poignant<\/font>
\noutbursts. It is by
\nsudden beauties that he
\nrises above himself and not only exalts, stirs and delights as at
\nhis ordinary level, but<\/font>
\nmemorably seizes
\nthe heart and imagination. This is
\nthe natural result of
\nhis peculiarly disinterested art which never seeks
\nout<\/font>
\nanything striking for
\nits own sake, but admits it
\nonly when it arises uncalled from the occasion.<\/font> <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nFrom this difference in
\ntemper and mode of
\nexpression arises a
\ndifference in
\nthe mode also of
\nportraying character.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 321<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\n
\nVyasa’s knowledge of
\ncharacter is
\nnot so
\nintimate, emotional and<\/font>
\nsympathetic as
\nValmekie’s; it has
\nmore of a
\nheroic inspiration, less of a
\ndivine sympathy. He has
\nreached it
\nnot like Valmekie <\/font> immediately through the heart and imagination, but deliberately through intellect and experience, a
\ndeep criticism and reading of
\nmen; the spirit of
\nshaping imagination has come
\nafterwards like a
\nsculptor using the materials labour has
\nprovided for
\nhim. It has
\nnot been a
\nlight leading him into the secret places of the heart. Nevertheless the characterisation, however reached, is
\nadmirable and firm. It is
\nthe fruit of a
\nlifelong experience, the knowledge of a
\nstatesman who has
\nhad much to do
\nwith the <\/font> ruling of men
\nand has
\nbeen himself a
\nconsiderable part in some great revolution full of
\nastonishing incidents and extraordinary
\n<\/font> characters. With that high experience his brain and his soul are full. It has cast
\nhis imagination into colossal proportions &
\nprovided him with majestic conceptions which can
\ndispense with all but the simplest language for
\nexpression; for
\nthey are so <\/font> great that the bare precise statement of
\nwhat is
\nsaid and done seems
\nenough to make
\nlanguage epical. His character-drawing <\/font> indeed is
\nmore epic, less
\npsychological than Valmekie’s. Truth of speech
\nand action give us
\nthe truth of
\nnature and it is
\ndone <\/font> with strong purposeful strokes that have the power to
\nmove the heart &
\nenlarge and ennoble the imagination which is
\nwhat we mean by
\nthe epic in
\npoetry. In
\nValmekie there are marvellous &
\nrevealing touches which show us
\nthe secret something in
\ncharacter usually beyond the expressive power either of speech or
\naction; they are touches oftener found in
\nthe dramatic artist <\/font> than the epic, and seldom fall within Vyasa’s method. It is
\nthe difference between strong and purposeful artistic synthesis and
\n<\/font> the beautiful subtle &
\ninvolute symmetry of an
\norganic existence evolved and inevitable rather than shaped or
\npurposed. <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n Vyasa is
\ntherefore less
\nbroadly human than Valmekie, he is at
\nthe same
\ntime a
\nwider &
\nmore original thinker. His supreme
\nintellect rises everywhere out of
\nthe mass of
\ninsipid or
\nturbulent redaction and interpolation with bare and grandiose outlines. A<\/font>
\nwide searching mind, historian, statesman, orator, a
\ndeep and keen looker into ethics and conduct, a
\nsubtle and high aiming<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 322<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\n
\npolitician, a
\ntheologian &
\nphilosopher, -it is
\nnot for
\nnothing<\/font>
\nthat Hindu imagination makes
\nthe name of Vyasa
\nloom so
\nlarge in
\nthe history of
\nAryan thought and attributes to
\nhim work so <\/font> important and manifold. The wideness of
\nthe man’s intellectual empire is
\nevident throughout his work; we
\nfeel the presence of <\/font> the Rishi, the original thinker who has
\nenlarged the boundaries of
\nethical &
\nreligious outlook. <\/font> <\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nModern India, since the Musulman advent, has
\naccepted the politics of
\nChanakya in
\npreference to
\nVyasa’s. Certainly there was
\nlittle in
\npolitics concealed from that great and sinister spirit. Yet Vyasa
\nperhaps knew its subtleties quite as
\nwell, but he
\nhad to
\nennoble and guide him a
\nhigh ethical aim and an
\naugust imperial idea. He
\ndid not, like European imperialism, unable to <\/font> rise above the idea of
\npower, accept the Jesuitic doctrine of
\nany means to a
\ngood end, still less
\njustify the goodness of
\nthe end by <\/font> that profession of an
\nutterly false disinterestedness which ends in
\nthe soothing belief that plunder, arson, outrage &
\nmassacre <\/font> are committed for
\nthe good of
\nthe slaughtered nation. Vyasa’s imperialism frankly accepts war &
\nempire as
\nthe result of
\nman’s <\/font> natural lust for
\ndominion, but demands that empire should be won by
\nnoble and civilized methods, not in
\nthe spirit of
\nthe <\/font> savage, and insists once it is
\nwon not on
\nits powers, but on
\nits duties. Valmekie too has
\nincluded politics in
\nhis wide sweep; his <\/font> picture of an
\nideal imperialism is
\nsound and noble and the spirit of
\nthe Coshalan Ixvaacous that monarchy must be
\nbroad-based on
\nthe people’s will and yet broader-based on
\njustice, truth and good government, is
\nadmirably developed as an
\nundertone of
\nthe <\/font> poem. But it is an
\nundertone only, not as in
\nthe Mahabharata its uppermost and weightiest drift. Valmekie’s approach to
\npolitics is
\nimaginative, poetic, made
\nfrom outside. He is
\nattracted to it by
\nthe unlimited curiosity of an
\nuniversal mind and still more by
\nthe appreciation of a
\ngreat creative artist; only therefore when it
\ngives opportunities for a
\ngrandiose imagination or is
\nmingled with the motives of
\nconduct and acts on
\ncharacter. He is a
\npoet who makes
\noccasional use of
\npublic affairs as
\npart of <\/font> his wide human subject. The reverse may
\nwith some
\nappearance of
\ntruth be
\nsaid of Vyasa
\nthat he is
\ninterested in
\nhuman action<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 323<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nand character mainly as
\nthey move and work in
\nrelation to a large political background. <\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nHis deep preoccupation with the ethical issues of speech
\nand action is
\nvery notable. His very subject is
\none of
\npractical ethics, <\/font> the establishment of a
\nDharmyarajya, an
\nempire of
\nthe just, by which is
\nmeant no
\nmillennium of
\nthe saints but the practical <\/font> ideal of a
\ngovernment with righteousness, purity and unselfish toil for
\nthe common good as
\nits saving principles.<\/span><\/font>8<\/sup><\/font>
\nIt is
\ntrue <\/font> that Valmekie has a
\nmore humanely moral spirit than Vyasa, in as
\nmuch as
\nordinary morality is
\nmost effective when steeped in <\/font> emotion, proceeding from the heart &
\nacting through the heart. Vyasa’s ethics like everything else in
\nhim takes a
\ndouble stand on
\nintellectual scrutiny and acceptance and on
\npersonal strength of
\ncharacter; his characters having once adopted by
\nintellectual
\nchoice & in
\nharmony with their temperaments a
\ngiven line of conduct, throw the whole heroic force of
\ntheir nature into its<\/font>
\npursuit. He is
\ntherefore pre-eminently a
\npoet of
\naction. Krishna is his authority in all matters
\n\treligious and ethical and it is no<\/font>ticeable that Krishna lays far more stress on
\naction and far less on
\nquiescence than any other Hindu philosopher. Quiescence in <\/font> God is
\nwith him as
\nwith others the ultimate goal of
\nexistence; but he
\ninsists that this quiescence must be
\nreached through action <\/font> and so
\nfar as
\nthis life is
\nconcerned, must exist in
\naction; quiescence of
\nthe soul from desires there must be
\nbut there should not be
\nand there cannot be
\nquiescence of
\nthe Prakriti from action. …. <\/font><\/font><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n“Not by
\nrefraining from actions can a man
\nenjoy actionlessness <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n8
\n<\/font><\/span><\/font>
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nThis sentence was
\nwritten at the
\ntop of the
\nmanuscript page. It seems to have been<\/font><\/i>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nmeant for insertion here. -Ed.<\/font><\/i><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 324<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nnor by
\nmere renunciation does he
\nreach his soul’s perfection; for no man in
\nthe world can
\neven for
\none moment remain without <\/font> doing works; everyone is
\nforced to do
\nworks, whether he
\nwill or
\nnot, by
\nthe primal qualities born of
\nPrakriti. . . .
\nThou do <\/font> action self-controlled (or else
\n“thou do
\naction ever”), for
\naction is
\nbetter than inaction; if
\nthou actest not, even the maintenance of
\nthy body cannot be
\neffected.” <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nHence it
\nfollows that merely to
\nrenounce action and flee
\nfrom <\/font> the world to a
\nhermitage is
\nbut vanity, and that those who rely on such a
\ndesertion of
\nduty for
\nattaining God lean on a
\nbroken <\/font> reed. The professed renunciation of
\naction is
\nonly a
\nnominal renunciation, for
\nthey merely give up
\none set of
\nactions to
\nwhich <\/font> they are called for
\nanother to
\nwhich in a
\ngreat number of cases they have no
\ncall or fitness. If
\nthey have that fitness,
\nthey may <\/font> certainly attain God, but even then action is
\nbetter than Sannyasa. Hence the great &
\npregnant paradox that in
\naction is <\/font> real actionlessness, while inaction is
\nmerely another form of action itself. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n“He who quells his sense-organs of
\naction but sits remembering in
\nhis heart the objects of sense,
\nthat man of
\nbewildered soul is
\ntermed a
\nhypocrite.” “Sannyasa (renunciation of
\nworks) and
\nYoga through action both lead to
\nthe highest good but of
\nthe two Yoga through action is
\nbetter than renunciation of
\naction.<\/font>
\nKnow him to be
\nthe perpetual Sannyasi who neither loathes nor longs; for
\nhe, O
\ngreat-armed, being free from the dualities is<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 325<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\n
\neasily released from the chain.” “He who can see
\ninaction in<\/font>
\naction and action in
\ninaction, he is
\nthe wise among men, he does all actions with a
\nsoul in
\nunion with God.”<\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\nFrom this lofty platform the great creed rises to
\nits crowning ideas, for
\nsince we
\nmust act but neither for
\nany human or
\nfuture<\/font>
\nresults of
\naction nor for
\nthe sake of
\nthe action itself, and yet action must have some
\ngoal to
\nwhich it is
\ndevoted, there is no<\/font>
\ngoal left but God. We
\nmust devote then our actions to
\nGod & through that rise to
\ncomplete surrender of
\nthe personality to<\/font>
\nhim, whether in
\nthe idea of
\nhim manifest through Yoga or
\nthe idea of
\nhim Unmanifest through God-knowledge. “They who<\/font>
\nworship me as
\nthe imperishable, illimitable, unmanifest, controlling all the organs,
\none-minded to
\nall things, they doing good<\/font> to
\nall creatures attain to me.
\nBut far greater is
\ntheir pain of endeavour whose hearts cleave to
\nthe Unmanifest; for
\nhardly can
\nsalvation in
\nthe unmanifest be
\nattained by men
\nthat have a body. But they who reposing all actions in
\nMe, to Me
\ndevoted
\ncontemplate and worship me in
\nsingle-minded Yoga, speedily do I
\nbecome their saviour from the gulfs of
\ndeath &
\nthe world, for <\/font> their hearts, O
\nPartha, have entered into me. On Me
\nrepose thy mind, pour into Me
\nthy reason, in Me
\nwilt thou have then thy <\/font> dwelling, doubt it
\nnot. Yet if
\nthou canst not steadfastly repose thy mind in
\nMe, desire, O
\nDhananjaya, to
\nreach me by
\nYoga <\/font> through askesis. If
\nthat too thou canst not, devote thyself to action for
\nMe; since also by
\ndoing actions for My sake
\nthou wilt <\/font> attain thy soul’s perfection. If
\neven for
\nthis thou art too feeble then abiding in
\nYoga with me
\nwith a
\nsoul subdued abandon <\/font> utterly desire for
\nthe fruits of
\naction. For better than askesis is
\nknowledge, and better than knowledge is
\nconcentration and <\/font> better than concentration is
\nrenunciation of
\nthe fruit of
\ndeeds, for
\nupon such
\nrenunciation followeth the soul’s peace”. Such is <\/font> the ladder which Vyasa has
\nrepresented Krishna as
\nbuilding up to
\nGod with action for
\nits firm &
\nsole basis. If it is
\nquestioned <\/font> whether the Bhagavadgita is
\nthe work of Vyasa
\n(whether he be
\nKrishna of
\nthe Island is
\nanother question to be
\nsettled on <\/font> its own merits), I
\nanswer that there is
\nnothing to
\ndisprove his<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 326<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nauthorship, while on
\nthe other hand allowing for
\nthe exigencies of
\nphilosophical exposition the style is
\nundoubtedly either his or so
\nclosely modelled on
\nhis as to
\ndefy differentiation. Moreover the whole piece is
\nbut the philosophical justification and logical <\/font> enlargement of
\nthe gospel of
\naction, preached by
\nKrishna in the Mahabharat proper, the undoubted work of
\nthis poet. I <\/font> have here no space for
\nanything more than a
\nquotation. Sanjaya has come to
\nthe Pandavas from Dhritarashtra and dissuaded <\/font> them from battle in a speech
\ntaught him by
\nthat wily &
\nunwise monarch; it is
\nskilfully aimed at
\nthe most subtle weakness of <\/font> the human heart, representing the abandonment of
\njustice & their duty as a
\nholy act of
\nself-abnegation and its pursuit as no
\nbetter than wholesale murder and parricide. It is
\nbetter for the sons of
\nPandou to be
\ndependents, beggars &
\nexiles all their <\/font> lives than to
\nenjoy the earth by
\nthe slaughter of
\ntheir brothers, kinsmen and spiritual guides: contemplation is
\npurer &
\nnobler <\/font> than action &
\nworldly desires. Although answering firmly to
\nthe envoy, the children of
\nPandou are in
\ntheir hearts shaken; for as <\/font> Krishna afterward tells Karna, when the destruction of a
\nnation is at
\nhand wrong comes to
\nmen’s eyes
\nclothed in
\nthe garb of <\/font> right. Sanjaya’s argument is
\none Christ &
\nBuddha would have endorsed; Christ &
\nBuddha would have laboured to
\nconfirm the <\/font> Pandavas in
\ntheir scruples. On
\nKrishna rests the final
\nword & his answer is such as to
\nshock seriously the conventional ideas of a
\nreligious teacher to
\nwhich Christianity &
\nBuddhism have accustomed us. In a
\nlong &
\npowerful speech he
\ndeals at
\ngreat <\/font> length with Sanjaya’s arguments. We
\nmust remember therefore that he is
\ndebating a
\ngiven point and speaking to men
\nwho have <\/font> not like Arjouna the adhikar to
\nenter into the “highest of
\nall mysteries”. We
\nshall then realise the close identity between his
\n<\/font> teaching here and that of
\nthe Gita.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 327<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe drift of
\nVyasa’s ethical speculation has
\nalways a
\ndefinite and recognizable tendency; there is a
\nbasis of
\ncustomary morality <\/font> and there is a
\nhigher ethic of
\nthe soul which abolishes in
\nits crowning phase the terms virtue and sin, because to
\nthe pure all <\/font> things are pure through an
\naugust and selfless
\ndisinterestedness. This ethic takes its rise naturally from the crowning height of
\n<\/font> the Vedantic philosophy, where the soul becomes
\nconscious of
\nits identity with God who whether acting or
\nactionless is
\nuntouched by
\neither sin or
\nvirtue. But the crown of
\nthe Vedanta is
\nonly for the highest; the moral calamities that arise from the attempt of an
\nunprepared soul to
\nidentify Self with God is
\nsufficiently indicated in
\nthe legend of
\nIndra and Virochana. Similarly this higher <\/font> ethic is for
\nthe prepared, the initiated only, because the raw and unprepared soul will seize on
\nthe non-distinction between sin and
\n<\/font> virtue without first
\ncompassing the godlike purity without which such
\nnon-distinction is
\nneither morally admissible nor actually <\/font> conceivable. From this arises the unwillingness of
\nHinduism, so
\nignorantly attributed by
\nEuropeans to
\npriest-craft and the <\/font> Brahmin, to
\nshout out its message to
\nthe man in
\nthe street or declare its esoteric thought to
\nthe shoeblack &
\nthe kitchen-maid. <\/font> The sword of
\nknowledge is a
\ndouble-edged weapon; in
\nthe hands of
\nthe hero it can
\nsave the world, but it
\nmust not be made a <\/font> plaything for
\nchildren. Krishna himself ordinarily insists on
\nall<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 328<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n men
\nfollowing the duties &
\nrules of
\nconduct to
\nwhich they are born and to
\nwhich the cast of
\ntheir temperaments predestined <\/font> them. Arjouna he
\nadvises, if
\nincapable of
\nrising to
\nthe higher moral altitudes, to fight in a
\njust cause
\nbecause that is
\nthe duty of
\nthe caste, the class of
\nsouls to
\nwhich he
\nbelongs. Throughout the Mahabharata he
\ninsists on
\nthis standpoint that every man <\/font> must meet
\nthe duties to
\nwhich his life calls him in a
\nspirit of disinterestedness, -not, be it
\nnoticed, of
\nself-abnegation, which may be as
\nmuch a
\nfanaticism and even a selfishness as
\nthe grossest egoism itself. It is
\nbecause Arjouna has
\nbest fulfilled this ideal, has
\nalways lived up to
\nthe practice of
\nhis class in a
\nspirit of disinterestedness and self-mastery that Krishna loves him above <\/font> all human beings and considers him and him alone fit to
\nreceive the higher initiation. <\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nस एवायं मया तेऽद्य योगः प्रोक्तः सनातनः |<\/span><\/p>\n

\nभक्तोऽसि मे सखा चेति रहस्यं ह्येतदुत्तमम् ||<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n“This is
\nthat ancient Yoga which I
\ntell thee today; because thou art My
\nadorer and My
\nheart’s comrade; for
\nthis is
\nthe highest <\/font> mystery of
\nall.” <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nAnd even the man
\nwho has
\nrisen to
\nthe heights of
\nthe initiation <\/font> must cleave for
\nthe good of
\nsociety to
\nthe pursuits and duties of
\nhis order; for if he does
\nnot, the world which instinctively is <\/font> swayed by
\nthe examples of
\nits greatest, will follow in
\nhis footsteps; the bonds of
\nsociety will then crumble asunder and chaos come
\nagain; mankind will be
\nbaulked of
\nits destiny. Srikrishna illustrates this by
\nhis own example, the example of
\nGod in
\nhis <\/font> manifest form.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 329<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n“Looking also to
\nthe maintenance of
\norder in
\nthe world thou shouldest act; for
\nwhatever the best practises, that other men
\n<\/font> practise; for
\nthe standard set by
\nhim is
\nfollowed by
\nthe whole world. In
\nall the Universe there is for Me no
\nnecessary action, for I
\nhave nothing I do
\nnot possess or
\nwish to possess,
\nand lo I
\nabide always doing. For if I
\nabide not at
\nall doing action vigilantly, men
\nwould altogether follow in my
\npath, O son of
\nPritha; these worlds would sink if I
\ndid not actions, and I
\nshould be
\nthe <\/font> author of
\nconfusion (literally illegitimacy, the worst &
\nprimal confusion, for it
\ndisorders the family which is
\nthe fundamental <\/font> unit of
\nsociety) and the destroyer of
\nthe peoples. What the ignorant do, O
\nBharata, with their minds enslaved to
\nthe work, that <\/font> the wise man
\nshould do
\nwith a
\nfree mind to
\nmaintain the order of
\nthe world; the wise man
\nshould not upset the mind of
\nthe <\/font> ignorant who are slaves of
\ntheir deeds, but should apply himself to
\nall works doing customary things with a
\nmind in
\nYoga.” <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nIt is
\naccordingly not by
\nairy didactic teaching so
\nmuch as in the example of
\nKrishna -&
\nthis is
\nthe true epic method -that Vyasa
\ndevelops his higher ethic which is
\nthe morality of
\nthe liberated mind. But this is
\ntoo wide a
\nsubject to be
\ndealt with in <\/font> the limits I
\nhave at my
\ncommand. I
\nhave dwelt on
\nVyasa’s ethical standpoint because it is of
\nthe utmost importance in
\nthe present <\/font> day. Before the Bhagavadgita with its great epic commentary, the Mahabharata of
\nVyasa, had time deeply to
\ninfluence the national <\/font> mind, the heresy of
\nBuddhism seized hold of us.
\nBuddhism with its exaggerated emphasis on
\nquiescence &
\nthe quiescent virtue of
\nself-abnegation, its unwise creation of a
\nseparate class of<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 330<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nquiescents & illuminati, its sharp distinction between monks & laymen implying the infinite inferiority of
\nthe latter, its all too <\/font> facile admission of men to
\nthe higher life and its relegation of worldly action to
\nthe lowest importance possible stands at
\nthe <\/font> opposite pole from the gospel of
\nSrikrishna and has
\nhad the very effect he
\ndeprecates; it has
\nbeen the author of
\nconfusion <\/font> and the destroyer of
\nthe peoples. Under its influence half the nation moved in
\nthe direction of
\nspiritual passivity &
\nnegation, <\/font> the other by a
\nnatural reaction plunged deep into a
\nsplendid but enervating materialism. As a
\nresult our race lost three parts of
\nits <\/font> ancient heroic manhood, its grasp on
\nthe world, its magnificently ordered polity and its noble social fabric. It is by
\nclinging to a <\/font> few spars from the wreck that we
\nhave managed to
\nperpetuate our existence, and this we
\nowe to
\nthe overthrow of
\nBuddhism by
\nShankaracharya. But Hinduism has
\nnever been able to
\nshake off the deep impress of
\nthe religion it
\nvanquished; and therefore <\/font> though it has
\nmanaged to
\nsurvive, it has
\nnot succeeded in
\nrecovering its old vitalising force. The practical disappearance of
\n<\/font> the Kshatriya caste
\n(for those who now claim that origin seem to be
\nwith a
\nfew exceptions Vratya Kshatriyas, Kshatriyas who <\/font> have fallen from the pure practice and complete temperament of their caste) has
\noperated in
\nthe same
\ndirection. The Kshatriyas <\/font> were the proper depositaries of
\nthe gospel of
\naction; Srikrishna himself declares <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n“This imperishable Yoga I
\nrevealed to
\nVivaswan, Vivaswan declared it to
\nManou, Manou to
\nIxvaacou told it; thus did the
\n<\/font> royal sages
\nlearn this as a
\nhereditary knowledge”, <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nand when in
\nthe immense lapse of
\ntime it was
\nlost, Srikrishna <\/font> again declared it to a
\nKshatriya. But when the Kshatriyas disappeared or became
\ndegraded, the Brahmins remained the sole
\n<\/font> interpreters of
\nthe Bhagavadgita, and they, being the highest<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 331<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\ncaste or
\ntemperament and their thoughts therefore naturally <\/font> turned to
\nknowledge and the final
\nend of
\nbeing, bearing moreover still the stamp of
\nBuddhism in
\ntheir minds, have dwelt <\/font> mainly on
\nthat in
\nthe Gita which deals with the element of quiescence. They have laid stress on
\nthe goal but they have not <\/font> echoed Srikrishna’s emphasis on
\nthe necessity of
\naction as
\nthe one sure road to
\nthe goal. Time, however, in
\nits revolution is <\/font> turning back on
\nitself and there are signs that if
\nHinduism is to last and we
\nare not to
\nplunge into the vortex of
\nscientific atheism <\/font> and the breakdown of
\nmoral ideals which is
\nengulfing Europe, it must survive as
\nthe religion for
\nwhich Vedanta, Sankhya &
\nYoga <\/font> combined to
\nlay the foundations, which Srikrishna announced &
\nwhich Vyasa
\nformulated. No
\napeings or
\ndistorted editions of
\nWestern religious modes, no
\nIndianised Christianity, no
\nfair rehash of
\nthat pale &
\nconsumptive shadow English Theism, will suffice to
\nsave us. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBut Vyasa has
\nnot only a
\nhigh political &
\nreligious thought <\/font> and deep-seeing ethical judgments; he
\ndeals not only with the massive aspects &
\nworldwide issues of
\nhuman conduct, but has a
\nkeen eye for
\nthe details of
\ngovernment and society, the ceremonies, forms &
\nusages, the religious &
\nsocial order on <\/font> the due stability of
\nwhich the public welfare is
\ngrounded. The principles of
\ngood government &
\nthe motives &
\nimpulses that <\/font> move men to
\npublic action no less
\nthan the rise and fall of States &
\nthe clash of
\nmighty personalities and great powers form, <\/font> incidentally &
\nepically treated, the staple of
\nVyasa’s epic. The poem was
\ntherefore, first &
\nforemost, like the Iliad and Aeneid
\n<\/font> and even more than the Iliad and Aeneid, national -a
\npoem in which the religious, social and personal temperament and ideals of
\nthe Aryan nation have found a
\nhigh expression and its institutions, actions, heroes in
\nthe most critical period of
\nits history <\/font> received the judgments and criticisms of
\none of
\nits greatest and soundest minds. If
\nthis had not been so we
\nshould not have had <\/font> the Mahabharata in
\nits present form. Valmekie had also dealt with a
\ngreat historical period in a
\nyet more universal spirit and
\n<\/font> with finer
\nrichness of
\ndetail but he
\napproached it in a
\npoetic and dramatic manner; he
\ncreated rather than criticised; while Vyasa<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 332<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n in
\nhis manner was
\nthe critic far more than the creator. Hence later poets found it
\neasier and more congenial to
\nintroduce their <\/font> criticisms of
\nlife and thought into the Mahabharata than into the Ramayana. Vyasa’s poem has
\nbeen increased to
\nthreefold its <\/font> original size; the additions to
\nValmekie’s, few in
\nthemselves if we set
\napart the Uttarakanda, have been immaterial & for
\nthe <\/font> most part of an
\naccidental nature. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nGifted with such
\npoetical powers, limited by such
\nintellectual and emotional characteristics, endowed with such
\ngrandeur of
\nsoul and severe purity of
\ntaste, what was
\nthe special work <\/font> which Vyasa
\ndid for
\nhis country and in
\nwhat beyond the ordinary elements of
\npoetical greatness lies his claim to
\nworld-wide <\/font> acceptance? It has
\nbeen suggested already that the Mahabharata is
\nthe great national poem of
\nIndia. It is
\ntrue the Ramayan also <\/font> represents an
\nAryan civilisation idealised: Rama &
\nSita are more intimately characteristic types of
\nthe Hindu temperament as it <\/font> finally shaped itself than are Arjouna &
\nDraupadie; Srikrishna though his character is
\nfounded in
\nthe national type, yet rises far
\n<\/font> above it. But although Valmekie writing the poem of
\nmankind drew his chief figures in
\nthe Hindu model and Vyasa, writing a
\ngreat national epic, lifted his divine hero above the basis of national character into an
\nuniversal humanity, yet the original <\/font> purpose of
\neither poem remains intact. In
\nthe Ramayan under the disguise of an
\nAryan golden age
\nthe wide world with all <\/font> its elemental impulses and affections finds
\nitself mirrored. The Mahabharata reflects
\nrather a
\ngreat Aryan civilization with the
\n<\/font> types, ideas, aims and passions of a
\nheroic and pregnant period in the history of a
\nhigh-hearted and deep-thoughted nation. It
\nhas, <\/font> moreover, as I
\nhave attempted to
\nindicate, a
\nformative ethical and religious spirit which is
\nabsolutely corrective to
\nthe faults <\/font> that have most marred in
\nthe past and mar to
\nthe present day the Hindu character and type of
\nthought. And it
\nprovides us
\nwith <\/font> this corrective not in
\nthe form of an
\nalien civilisation difficult to assimilate and associated with other elements as
\ndangerous to us as
\nthis is
\nsalutary, but in a
\ngreat creative work of
\nour own literature written by
\nthe mightiest of
\nour sages ( <\/font> Krishna has
\nsaid), one therefore who speaks
\nour own language,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 333<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nthinks our own thoughts and has
\nthe same
\nnational cast of
\nmind, <\/font> nature &
\nconscience. His ideals will therefore be a
\ncorrective not only to
\nour own faults but to
\nthe dangers of
\nthat attractive but <\/font> unwholesome Asura civilisation which has
\ninvaded us,
\nespecially its morbid animalism and its neurotic tendency to
\nabandon itself to its own desires.
\n\t<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n But this does not say all. Vyasa too beyond the essential uni<\/font>versality of
\nall great poets, has
\nhis peculiar appeal to
\nhumanity in
\ngeneral making his poem of
\nworldwide as
\nwell as
\nnational <\/font> importance. By
\ncomparing him once again with Valmekie we shall realize more precisely in
\nwhat this appeal consists. The
\n<\/font> Titanic impulse was
\nstrong in
\nValmekie. The very dimensions of
\nhis poetical canvas, the audacity and occasional recklessness of
\nhis conceptions, the gust with which he fills in
\nthe gigantic outlines of
\nhis Ravana are the essence of
\nTitanism; his genius was so
\nuniversal &
\nProtean that no
\nsingle element of it can be
\nsaid to
\npredominate, yet this tendency towards the enormous enters
\nperhaps as
\nlargely into it as
\nany other. But to
\nthe temperament of Vyasa
\nthe Titanic was
\nalien. It is
\ntrue he
\ncarves his figures so <\/font> largely (for he was a
\nsculptor in
\ncreation rather than a
\npainter like Valmekie) that looked at
\nseparately they seem to
\nhave colossal
\nstature but he is
\nalways at
\npains so to
\nharmonise them that they shall appear measurable to us
\nand strongly human. They <\/font> are largely &
\nboldly human, impressive &
\nsublime, but never Titanic. He
\nloves the earth and the heavens but he
\nvisits not Pataala <\/font> nor the stupendous regions of
\nVrishopurvan. His Rakshasas, supposing them to be
\nhis at
\nall, are epic giants or
\nmatter-of-fact <\/font> ogres, but they do
\nnot exhale the breath of
\nmidnight and terror like Valmekie’s demons nor the spirit of
\nworld-shaking anarchy <\/font> like Valmekie’s giants. This poet could never have conceived Ravana. He
\nhad neither unconscious sympathy nor a
\nsufficient <\/font> force of
\nabhorrence to
\ninspire him. The passions of
\nDuryodhana though presented with great force of
\nantipathetic insight, are <\/font> human and limited. The Titanic was so
\nforeign to
\nVyasa’s habit of
\nmind that he
\ncould not grasp it
\nsufficiently either to
\nlove or <\/font> hate. His humanism shuts to
\nhim the outermost gates of
\nthat sublime and menacing region; he has
\nnot the secret of
\nthe storm<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 334<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nnor has
\nhis soul ridden upon the whirlwind. For his particular
\n<\/font> work this was a
\nreal advantage. Valmekie has
\ndrawn for us both the divine and anarchic in
\nextraordinary proportions; an
\n<\/font> Akbar or a
\nNapoleon might find
\nhis spiritual kindred in
\nRama or
\nRavana; but with more ordinary beings such figures
\nimpress <\/font> the sense of
\nthe sublime principally and do
\nnot dwell with them as
\ndaily acquaintances. It was
\nleft for Vyasa to
\ncreate epically the <\/font> human divine and the human anarchic so as to
\nbring idealisms of
\nthe conflicting moral types into line with the daily emotions <\/font> and imaginations of
\nmen. The sharp distinction between Deva &
\nAsura is
\none of
\nthe three distinct &
\npeculiar contributions to
\nethical thought which India has to
\noffer. The legend of
\nIndra &
\nVirochana is
\none of
\nits fundamental legends. Both of
\nthem came to
\nVrihaspati to
\nknow from him of
\nGod; he
\ntold them to go
\nhome &
\nlook in
\nthe mirror. Virochana saw
\nhimself there &
\nconcluding that he was
\nGod, asked no
\nfarther; he
\ngave full rein to
\nthe sense of
\nindividuality in
\nhimself which he
\nmistook for
\nthe deity. But Indra was
\nnot satisfied: feeling that there must be some
\nmistake he
\nreturned to
\nVrihaspati and received from
\nhim the true God-knowledge which taught him that he was God only because all things were God, since nothing existed<\/font>
\nbut the One. If he was
\nthe one God, so was
\nhis enemy; the very feelings of
\nseparateness and enmity were no
\npermanent<\/font>
\nreality but transient phenomena. The Asura therefore is he
\nwho is
\nprofoundly conscious of
\nhis own separate individuality &
\nyet <\/font> would impose it on
\nthe world as
\nthe sole individuality; he is
\nthus blown along on
\nthe hurricane of
\nhis desires &
\nambitions until he <\/font> stumbles & is
\nbroken, in
\nthe great phrase of
\nAeschylus, against the throne of
\nEternal Law. The Deva on
\nthe contrary stands firm in
\nthe luminous heaven of
\nself-knowledge; his actions flow not inward towards himself but outwards toward the world. <\/font> The distinction that India draws is
\nnot between altruism and egoism but between disinterestedness and desire. The altruist is
\n<\/font> profoundly conscious of
\nhimself and he is
\nreally ministering to himself even in
\nhis altruism; hence the hot &
\nsickly odour of <\/font> sentimentalism and the taint of
\nthe Pharisee which clings about European altruism. With the perfect Hindu the feeling of
\nself<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 335<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n has
\nbeen merged in
\nthe sense of
\nthe universe; he does
\nhis duty equally whether it
\nhappens to
\npromote the interests of
\nothers or <\/font> his own; if
\nhis action seems
\noftener altruistic than egoistic it is because our duty oftener coincides with the interests of
\nothers <\/font> than with our own. Rama’s duty as a son
\ncalls him to sacrifice himself, to
\nleave the empire of
\nthe world and become a
\nbeggar & a
\nhermit; he does it
\ncheerfully and unflinchingly: but when Sita is
\ntaken from him, it is
\nhis duty as a
\nhusband to
\nrescue her from
\nher ravisher and as a
\nKshatriya to
\nput Ravana to
\ndeath if he persists in
\nwrongdoing. This duty also he
\npursues with the same<\/font>
\nunflinching energy as
\nthe first. He does
\nnot shrink from the path of
\nthe right because it
\ncoincides with the path of
\nself-interest. <\/font> The Pandavas also go
\nwithout a
\nword into exile &
\npoverty, because honour demands it of
\nthem; but their ordeal over, they
\n<\/font> will not, though ready to
\ndrive compromise to
\nits utmost verge, consent to
\nsuccumb utterly to
\nDuryodhana, for it is
\ntheir duty as <\/font> Kshatriyas to
\nprotect the world from the reign of
\ninjustice, even though it is at
\ntheir own expense that injustice seeks to
\nreign. <\/font> The Christian &
\nBuddhistic doctrine of
\nturning the other cheek to
\nthe smiter, is as
\ndangerous as it is
\nimpracticable. The continual <\/font> European see-saw between Christ on
\nthe one side and the flesh &
\nthe devil on
\nthe other with the longer trend towards the latter comes
\nstraight from a
\nradically false moral distinction &
\nthe lip profession of an
\nideal which mankind has
\nnever been either able or
\nwilling to
\ncarry into practice. The disinterested &
\ndesireless pursuit of
\nduty is a
\ngospel worthy of
\nthe strongest manhood; <\/font> that of
\nthe cheek turned to
\nthe smiter is a
\ngospel for
\ncowards & weaklings. Babes &
\nsucklings may
\npractise it
\nbecause they must, <\/font> but with others it is a
\nhypocrisy. <\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe gospel of
\nthe <\/font> <\/span> <\/font>
\n
\nनिष्काम धर्म <\/span><\/font>
\n
\n  <\/font>and the great poetical creations which exemplify & set it
\noff by
\ncontrast, this is
\nthe second <\/font> aspect of
\nVyasa’s genius which will yet make
\nhim interesting and important to
\nthe whole world.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 336<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nVyasa; some Characteristics.<\/font>1<\/font><\/sup>
\n<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nThe Mahabharata, although neither the greatest nor the richest
\n<\/font> masterpiece of
\nthe secular literature of
\nIndia, is at
\nthe same time its most considerable and important body of
\npoetry. Being so it is
\nthe pivot on
\nwhich the history of
\nSanscrit literature, and incidentally the history of
\nAryan civilisation in
\nIndia, must <\/font>perforce turn. To
\nthe great discredit of
\nEuropean scholarship the problem of
\nthis all-important work is
\none that remains <\/font> not only unsolved, but untouched. Yet until it is
\nsolved, until the confusion of
\nits heterogeneous materials is
\nreduced to some <\/font> sort of
\norder, the different layers of
\nwhich it
\nconsists separated, classed and attributed to
\ntheir relative dates, and its relations
\n<\/font> with the Ramayan on
\nthe one hand and the Puranic and classic literature on
\nthe other fully &
\npatiently examined, the history of
\nour civilisation must remain in
\nthe air, a field for
\npedantic wranglings and worthless conjectures. The world knows some<\/font>thing of
\nour origins because much labour has
\nbeen bestowed on
\nthe Vedas, something of
\nour decline because post-Buddhistic <\/font> literature has
\nbeen much read, annotated and discussed, but of our great medial and flourishing period it
\nknows little, and that <\/font> little is
\nneither coherent nor reliable. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAll that we
\nknow of
\nthe Mahabharata at
\npresent is
\nthat it is
\nthe work of
\nseveral hands and of
\ndifferent periods -this is literally the limit of the reliable knowledge
\n\tEuropean scholarship has so far been able to extract from it. For the rest
\n\twe have to be content with arbitrary conjectures based either upon an unwar<\/font>rantable application of
\nEuropean analogies to
\nIndian things or random assumptions snatched from a
\nword here or a
\nline there, <\/font> but never proceeding
\nfrom that weighty, careful & unbiased <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n1 <\/font>
\n
\n
\nThis original opening of
\n“Notes on the
\nMahabharata” was
\nleft uncancelled in the<\/font><\/i> <\/font>
\n
\nmanuscript. See the
\nNote on the
\nTexts for an
\nexplanation of how the essay was
\nrevised. <\/font>-Ed.<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 337<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nstudy of
\nthe work canto by
\ncanto, passage by
\npassage, line by <\/font> line, which can
\nalone bring us to
\nany valuable conclusions. A fancy was
\nstarted in
\nGermany that the Iliad of
\nHomer is
\nreally a
\npastiche or
\nclever rifacimento of
\nold ballads put together in the time of
\nPisistratus.<\/font><\/span><\/font>2<\/sup><\/font>
\nThis<\/span>
\ntruly barbarous imagination with <\/font> its rude ignorance of
\nthe psychological bases of
\nall great poetry has
\nnow fallen into some
\ndiscredit; it has
\nbeen replaced by a <\/font> more plausible attempt to
\ndiscover a
\nnucleus in
\nthe poem, an Achilleid, out of
\nwhich the larger Iliad has
\ngrown. Very possibly <\/font> the whole discussion will finally end in
\nthe restoration of a
\nsingle Homer with a
\nsingle poem subjected indeed to some
\ninevitable <\/font> interpolation and corruption, but mainly the work of
\none mind, a
\ntheory still held by
\nmore than one considerable scholar. In
\nthe <\/font> meanwhile, however, haste has
\nbeen made to
\napply the analogy to
\nthe Mahabharata; lynx-eyed theorists have discovered in
\nthe <\/font> poem -apparently without taking the trouble to
\nstudy it -an early and rude ballad epic worked up, doctored and defaced by
\n<\/font> those wicked Brahmins, who are made
\nresponsible for
\nall the literary and other enormities which have been discovered by
\nthe <\/font> bushelful, and not by
\nEuropean lynxes alone -in
\nour literature and civilisation. Now whether the theory is
\ntrue or
\nnot, and one sees
\nnothing in
\nits favour, it has at
\npresent no
\nvalue at
\nall; for it is a
\npure theory without any justifying facts. It is
\nnot difficult to
\nbuild these intellectual card-houses; anyone may
\nraise them by the dozen who can find no
\nbetter manner of
\nwasting valuable<\/font>
\ntime. A
\nsimilar method of
\n“arguing from Homer” is
\nprobably at the bottom of
\nProfessor Weber’s assertion that the War
\nPurvas<\/font>
\ncontain the original epic. An
\nobservant eye at
\nonce perceives that the War
\nPurvas are far more hopelessly tangled than any<\/font>
\nthat precede them except the first. It is
\nhere &
\nhere only that the keenest eye becomes
\nconfused &
\nthe most confident explorer<\/font>
\nbegins to
\nlose heart &
\nself-reliance. But the Iliad is
\nall battles and it
\ntherefore follows in
\nthe European mind that the original<\/font>
\nMahabharata must have been all battles. Another method is <\/font><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n2 <\/font>
\nThe
\nfour-page passage
\nbeginning with this sentence and
\nending with “moral cer<\/font><\/i><\/font>tainty” on page 341 was
\nincorporated by
\nSri Aurobindo in the
\nrewritten version of
\nthis <\/font>piece
\n(pages 280 \u00ad
\n84). -Ed.<\/font><\/i><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 338<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nthat of
\ningenious, if
\nforced argument from stray slokas of
\nthe <\/font> poem or
\nequally stray &
\nobscure remarks in
\nBuddhist compilations. The curious theory of some
\nscholars that the Pandavas <\/font> were a
\nlater invention and that the original war was
\nbetween the Kurus and Panchalas only and Professor Weber’s singularly
\n<\/font> positive inference from a
\nsloka which does
\nnot at first
\nsight bear the meaning he
\nputs on
\nit, that the original epic contained
\n<\/font> only 8800 lines, are ingenuities of
\nthis type. They are based on the Teutonic art of
\nbuilding a
\nwhole mammoth out of a
\nsingle <\/font> and often problematical bone, and remind one strongly of
\nMr.. Pickwick and the historic inscription which was so
\nrudely, if in a <\/font> Pickwickian sense,
\nchallenged by
\nthe refractory [Mr..
\nBlotton.]<\/span>
\nAll these theorisings are idle enough; they are made of
\ntoo airy a
\nstuff to
\nlast. (Only a
\nserious scrutiny of
\nthe Mahabharat made
\nwith a deep sense of
\ncritical responsibility and according to
\nthe methods of
\npatient scientific inference, can
\njustify on in
\nadvancing any considerable theory on
\nthis wonderful poetic structure.) <\/font> Yet to
\nextricate the original epic from the mass of
\naccretions <\/span>
\nis
\nnot, I
\nbelieve, so
\ndifficult a
\ntask as it may at first
\nappear. One is
\nstruck in
\nperusing the Mahabharata by
\nthe presence of a mass of
\npoetry which bears the style and impress of a
\nsingle, <\/span>
\nstrong and original, even unusual mind, differing in
\nhis manner of
\nexpression, tone of
\nthought &
\nstamp of
\npersonality not only <\/font> from every other Sanscrit poet we
\nknow but from every other great poet known to
\nliterature. When we
\nlook more closely into <\/font> the distribution of
\nthis peculiar style of
\nwriting, we come to perceive certain very suggestive &
\nhelpful facts. We
\nrealise that <\/font> this impress is
\nonly found in
\nthose parts of
\nthe poem which are necessary to
\nthe due conduct of
\nthe story, seldom to be
\ndetected in
\nthe more miraculous, Puranistic or
\ntrivial episodes, but usually broken up by passages
\nand sometimes shot through with lines of a
\ndiscernibly different inspiration. Equally noteworthy is it that nowhere does
\nthis poet admit any trait, incident or speech <\/font> which deviates from the strict propriety of
\ndramatic characterisation &
\npsychological probability. Finally Krishna’s divinity is
\n<\/font> recognized, but more often hinted at
\nthan aggressively stated. The tendency is to
\nkeep it in
\nthe background as a
\nfact to
\nwhich,<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 339<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nwhile himself crediting it, the writer does
\nnot hope for
\nuniversal consent, still less is
\nable to
\nspeak of it as of a
\ngeneral tenet & <\/font> matter of
\ndogmatic belief; he
\nprefers to
\nshow Krishna rather in
\nhis human character, acting always by
\nwise, discerning and <\/font> inspired methods, but still not transgressing the limit of
\nhuman possibility. All this leads one to
\nthe conclusion that in
\nthe body of <\/font> poetry I
\nhave described, we
\nhave the real Bharata, an
\nepic which tells plainly and straightforwardly of
\nthe events which led to
\nthe <\/font> great war and the empire of
\nthe Bharata princes. Certainly if Prof. Weber’s venturesome assertion as to
\nthe length of
\nthe original Mahabharata be
\ncorrect, this conclusion falls to
\nthe ground; for
\nthe mass of
\nthis poetry amounts to
\nconsiderably over 20,000 <\/font> slokas. Professor Weber’s inference, however, is
\nworth some
\ndiscussion; for
\nthe length of
\nthe original epic is a
\nvery important <\/font> element in
\nthe problem. If we
\naccept it, we
\nmust say
\nfarewell to all hopes of
\nunravelling the tangle. His assertion is
\nfounded on a
\nsingle &
\nobscure verse in
\nthe huge prolegomena to
\nthe poem which take up
\nthe greater part of
\nthe Adi Purva, no
\nvery strong <\/font> basis for so
\nfar-reaching an
\nassumption. The sloka itself says no more than this that much of
\nthe Mahabharata was
\nwritten in so <\/font> difficult a
\nstyle that Vyasa
\nhimself could remember only 8800 of the slokas, Suka an
\nequal amount and Sanjaya perhaps as
\nmuch, <\/font> perhaps something less.
\nThere is
\ncertainly here no
\nassertion such as
\nProf. Weber would have us find in it
\nthat the Mahabharata at
\nany time amounted to no
\nmore than 8800 slokas. Even if we assume
\nwhat the text does
\nnot say
\nthat Vyasa, Suka &
\nSanjaya
\nknew the same
\n8800 slokas, we do
\nnot get to
\nthat conclusion. The point simply is
\nthat the style of
\nthe Mahabharat was
\ntoo<\/font>
\ndifficult for a
\nsingle man to
\nkeep in
\nmemory more than a
\ncertain portion of
\nit. This does
\nnot carry us
\nvery far. If
\nhowever we
\nare<\/font> to assume
\nthat there is
\nmore in
\nthis verse than meets
\nthe eye, that it is a
\ncryptic way of
\nstating the length of
\nthe original poem;
\n\tand I do not deny that this is possible, perhaps even probable \u2014
\nwe
\n\tshould note the repetition of <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\n\tवेत्ति<\/font> <\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n
\n\u2014 <\/span><\/font>
\n
\n
\n\tअहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति वा न वा<\/font>.
\nFollowing the genius of
\nthe Sanscrit language we
\nare led to
\nsuppose the repetition was
\nintended to
\nrecall <\/font>
\nअष्टौ स्लोकसहस्राणि<\/font> 
\n<\/font><\/span>
\n
\netc. with each
\nname; otherwise the repetition has<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 340<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nno
\n<\/span>raison d’\u00eatre<\/span>; it is
\notiose &
\ninept. But if we
\nunderstand it thus, the conclusion is
\nirresistible that each
\nknew a
\ndifferent
\n8800, or
\nthe writer would have no
\nobject in
\nwishing us to
\nrepeat the number three times in
\nour mind. The length of
\nthe epic as<\/font>
\nderived from this single sloka should then be
\n26,400 slokas or something less, for
\nthe writer hesitates about the exact number<\/font> to be
\nattributed to
\nSanjaya. Another passage
\nfurther on in
\nthe prolegomena agrees remarkably with this conclusion and is in
\nitself much more explicit. It is
\nthere stated plainly enough that Vyasa first wrote the Mahabharata in
\n\t24,000 slokas and after<\/font>wards enlarged it to
\n100,000 for
\nthe world of men as
\nwell as a still more unconscionable number of
\nverses for
\nthe Gandhurva <\/font> and other worlds. In
\nspite of
\nthe embroidery of
\nfancy, of a
\ntype familiar enough to
\nall who are acquainted with the Puranic
\n<\/font> method of
\nrecording facts, the meaning of
\nthis is
\nunmistakeable. The original Mahabharata consisted of
\n24,000 slokas, but in
\nits final
\nform it
\nruns to
\n100,000. The figures
\nare probably loose &
\nslovenly, for at
\nany rate the final
\nform of
\nthe Mahabharata is
\nconsiderably under 100,000 slokas. It is
\npossible therefore that the original epic was
\nsomething over 24,000 and under
\n26,400 slokas, in
\nwhich case
\nthe two passages
\nwould agree well enough. But it
\nwould be
\nunsafe to
\nfound any dogmatic assertion<\/font> on
\nisolated couplets; at
\nthe most we can say
\nthat we
\nare justified in
\ntaking the estimate as a
\nprobable and workable hypothesis
\nand if it is
\nfound to be
\ncorroborated by
\nother facts, we may venture to
\nsuggest its correctness as a
\nmoral certainty.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\nThis body of
\npoetry then, let us
\nsuppose, is
\nthe original Mahabharata. Tradition attributes it to
\nKrishna of
\nthe Island<\/font>
\ncalled Vyasa
\nwho certainly lived about this time and was an editor of
\nthe Vedas; and since there is
\nnothing in
\nthis part of
\nthe<\/font>
\npoem which makes
\nthe tradition impossible and much which favours it, we
\nmay, as a
\nmatter both of
\nconvenience and of<\/font>
\nprobability, accept it at
\nleast provisionally. Whether these hypotheses can be
\nupheld is a
\nquestion for
\nlong and scrupulous<\/font>
\nconsideration and analysis. In
\nthis article I
\nwish to
\nformulate, assuming their validity, the larger features of
\npoetical style, the<\/font>
\nmanner of
\nthought &
\ncreation &
\nthe personal note of
\nVyasa.<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 341<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\nMahabharata<\/b><\/span><\/font>.
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\nThe problem of
\nthe Mahabharata, its origin, date and composition, is
\none that seems
\nlikely to
\nelude scholarship to
\ntimes indefinite if
\nnot for
\never. It is
\ntrue that several European scholars have solved all these to
\ntheir own satisfaction, but their industrious &
\npraiseworthy efforts [<\/font>incomplete<\/i>]
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nIn
\nthe following pages I
\nhave approached the eternal problem of
\nthe Mahabharata from the point of
\nview mainly of
\nstyle &
\nliterary personality, partly of
\nsubstance; but in
\ndealing with the substance I
\nhave deferred questions of
\nphilosophy, allusion &<\/font>
\nverbal evidence to
\nwhich a
\ncertain school attach great importance and ignored altogether the question of
\nminute metrical<\/font>
\ndetails on
\nwhich they base
\nfar-reaching conclusions. It is
\nnecessary therefore out of
\nrespect for
\nthese scholars to
\ndevote some<\/font>
\nlittle space to an
\nexplanation of my
\nstandpoint. I
\ncontend that owing to
\nthe peculiar manner in
\nwhich the Mahabharat has<\/font>
\nbeen composed, these minutiae of
\ndetail &
\nword have very little value. The labour of
\nthis minute school has
\nproved beyond dispute one thing and one only, that the Mahabharat was
\nnot only immensely enlarged, crusted with interpolations &
\naccretions<\/font>
\nand in
\nparts rewritten and modified, but even its oldest parts were verbally modified in
\nthe course of
\npreservation. The extent<\/font> to
\nwhich this happened, has I
\nthink been grossly exaggerated, but that it
\ndid happen, one cannot but be
\nconvinced. Now if
\nthis is so, it is
\nobvious that arguments from verbal niceties must be
\nvery dangerous. It has
\nbeen sought to
\nprove from a
\nsingle <\/font> word suranga, <\/i>
\nan
\nunderground tunnel, which European scholars believe to be
\nidentical with the Greek <\/font> that the account in the Adi Purva of
\nthe Pandavas’ escape
\nfrom the burning house of <\/font> Purochana through an
\nunderground tunnel must be
\nlater than another account in
\nthe Vana Purva which represents Bhema as
\ncarrying his brothers &
\nmother out of
\nthe flames; for
\nthe<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 342<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nformer they say,
\nmust have been composed after the Indians had learned the Greek language &
\nculture and the latter, it is to be
\n<\/font> assumed, before that interesting period. Now whether
\n
\nsuranga<\/i> was derived from the Greek
\nσῦριγξ <\/font>or not, I
\ncannot take upon  me to say,
\nbut will assume on
\nthe authority of
\nbetter linguists
\nthan myself that it was so
\nthough I
\nthink it is as
\nwell to be sceptical of
\nall such
\nGreek derivations until the connection is<\/font>
\nproved beyond doubt, for such
\nwords even when not accounted for by
\nSanscrit itself, may
\nvery easily be
\nborrowed from the <\/font> aboriginal languages. Bengali for
\ninstance preserves the form suḍanga where the cerebral letter is
\nDravidian. But if so, if
\nthis . word came
\ninto fashion along with Greek culture, and became <\/font>
\n
\nthe <\/i>word for a
\ntunnel, what could be
\nmore natural than that the reciter should substitute for an
\nold and now disused word the <\/font> one which was
\nfamiliar to
\nhis audience? Again much has
\nbeen made of
\nthe frequent occurrence of
\nYavana, Vahlika, Pehlava, Saka,
\nHuna. As to
\nYavana its connection with
\ndoes
\nnot seem to me
\nbeyond doubt. It
\nhad certainly been at
\none time applied to
\nthe Bactrian Greeks, but so it has
\nbeen and is to
\nthe <\/font> present day applied to
\nthe Persians, Afghans &
\nother races to
\nthe northwest of
\nIndia. Nor is
\nthe philological connection between <\/font><\/font>
\nand
\n\tYavana very clear to my
\nmind. Another form Yauna seems to
\nrepresent
\n<\/font>
\nfairly well; but are we
\nsure that Yauna and Yavana were originally identical? A
\nmere resemblance however close is
\nthe most misleading thing in
\nphilology. Upon such resemblances Pocock made
\nout a
\nvery strong case for
\nhis theory <\/font> that the Greeks were a
\nHindu colony. The identity of
\nthe Sakas & Sakyas was for a
\nlong time a
\npet theory of
\nEuropean Sanscritists <\/font> and on
\nthis identity was
\nbased the theory that Buddha was a Scythian reformer of
\nHinduism. This identity is
\nnow generally <\/font> given up, yet it is
\nquite as
\nclose as
\nthat of
\nYavana &
\nYauna and as
\nclosely in
\naccordance with the laws of
\nthe Sanscrit language. If
\nYauna is
\nthe original form, why was it
\nchanged to
\nYavana; it is no
\nmore necessary than that mauna be
\nchanged to
\nmavana; if
\nYavana be
\nearlier &
\nYauna a
\nPracrit corruption, how are we to account for
\nthe short a &
\nthe v;
\nthere was no
\ndigamma in
\nGreek<\/font> in
\nthe time of
\nAlexander. But since the Greeks are always called<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 343<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\n
\nYavanas in
\nBuddhist writings we
\nwill waive the demand for
\nstrict philological intelligibility and suppose that Yavana answers to<\/font>
\n.
\nThe question yet remains when did the Hindus become acquainted with the existence of
\nthe Greeks. Now here the first
\nconsideration is
\nwhy did they call the Greeks Ionians, and not Hellenes or
\nMacedonians? That the Persians should know the<\/font>
\nGreeks by
\nthat name is
\nnatural enough, for it was
\nwith the Ionians that they first came in
\ncontact; but it was
\nnot Ionians<\/font>
\nwho invaded India under Alexander, it was
\nnot an
\nIonian prince who gave his daughter to
\nChundragupta, it was
\nnot an
\nIonian<\/font> <\/span>
\nconqueror who crossed the Indus &
\nbesieged [ ].
\nDid the <\/font> Macedonians on
\ntheir victorious march give themselves out as Ionians? I for my
\npart do
\nnot believe it. It is
\ncertain therefore <\/font> that if
\nthe Hindus took the word Yavana from
\n, it
\nmust <\/font> have been through the Persians and not direct from the Greek language. But the connection of
\nthe Persians with India was as
\n<\/font> old as
\nDarius Hystaspes who had certainly reason to
\nknow the Greeks. It is
\ntherefore impossible to say
\nthat the Indians had <\/font> not heard about the Greeks as
\nlong ago as
\n500 B.C.
\nEven if they had not, the mention of
\nYavanas &
\nYavan kings does
\nnot <\/font> carry us
\nvery far; for it is
\nevident that in
\nthe earlier parts of the Mahabharata they are known only as a
\nstrong barbarian <\/font> power of
\nthe Northwest; there is no
\nsign of
\ntheir culture being known to
\nthe Hindus. It is
\ntherefore quite possible that the
\n<\/font> word Yavana now grown familiar may
\nhave been substituted by the later reciters for an
\nolder name no
\nlonger familiar. It is
\nnow <\/font> known beyond reasonable doubt that the Mahabharata war was fought out in or
\nabout 1190 B.C.;
\nDhritarashtra, son of
\nVichitravirya, Krishna, son of
\nDevaki &
\nJanamejaya are mentioned in Vedic works of a
\nvery early date. There is
\ntherefore no
\nreason to <\/font> doubt that an
\nactual historical event is
\nrecorded with whatever admixture of
\nfiction in
\nthe Mahabharata. It is
\nalso evident that <\/font> the Mahabharata, not any “Bharata” or
\n“Bharati Katha” but the Mahabharata existed before the age of
\nPanini, and tho’ the <\/font> radical school bring down Panini [incomplete<\/i>]<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 344<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/font><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n 
\n  <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On the Mahabharata       Notes on the Mahabharata   of Krishna Dwypaiana Vyasa.   prepared with a view to disengage the original epic…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-01-early-cultural-writings","wpcat-49-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}