{"id":82,"date":"2013-07-13T01:25:45","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:25:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=82"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:25:45","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:25:45","slug":"25-the-problem-of-mahabharata-vol-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03\/25-the-problem-of-mahabharata-vol-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","title":{"rendered":"-25_The Problem of Mahabharata.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\nThe Problem of the Mahabharata<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\nTHE POLITICAL STORY<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n                        I<\/font>T WAS <\/font>
\n<\/b>
\nhinted in a recent article of the Indian
\nReview<\/i>, an unusually able and searching paper on the
\ndate of the Mahabharata war, that a society is about to be
\nformed for discovering the genuine and original portions of
\nour great epic. This is glad tidings to all admirers of Sanskrit
\nliterature and to all lovers of their country. For the solution
\nof the Mahabharata problem is essential to many things, to
\nany history worth having of Aryan civilisation and literature,
\nto a proper appreciation of Vyasa’s poetical genius and, far
\nmore important than either, to a definite understanding of
\nthe great ethical gospel which Sri Krishna came down on
\nearth to teach as a guide to mankind in the dark Kali Yuga
\nthen approaching. But I fear that if the inquiry is to be pursued
\non the lines the writer of this article seemed to hint, if the Society
\nis to rake out 8000 lines from the War Parvas and dub the result
\nthe Mahabharata of Vyasa, then the last state of the problem will be worse than
\nits first. It is only by a patient scrutiny and weighing of the whole poem, disinterestedly, candidly and without pre-conceived notions, a consideration canto by canto, paragraph by
\nparagraph, couplet by couplet, that we can arrive at anything
\nsolid or permanent. But this implies a vast and heart-breaking
\nlabour. Certainly, labour however vast ought not to have any
\nterrors for a scholar, still less for a Hindu scholar; yet, before
\none engages in it, one requires to be assured that the game is
\nworth the candle. For that assurance there are three necessary
\nrequisites, the possession of certain sound and always applicable
\ntests to detect later from earlier work, a reasonable chance that such tests if
\napplied will restore the real epic roughly if not exactly in its original form and an assurance that the epic when recovered will repay from literary, historical or other points of view
\nthe labour that has been bestowed on it. I believe that these three
\nrequisites are present in this case and shall attempt to adduce<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 179<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\na few reasons for my belief. I shall try to show that besides other
\ninternal evidence on which I do not propose just now to enter,
\nthere are certain traits of poetical style, personality and thought
\nwhich belong to the original work and are possessed by no other
\nwriter. I shall also try to show that these traits may be used as
\na safe guide through the huge morass of verse. In passing I shall
\nhave occasion to make clear certain claims the epic thus disengaged will possess to the highest literary, historical and practical value.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is certainly not creditable to European scholarship that
\nafter so many decades of Sanskrit research, the problem of the
\nMahabharata which should really be the pivot for all the rest
\nhas remained practically untouched. For it is no exaggeration
\nto say that European scholarship has shed no light whatever on
\nthe Mahabharata 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 and always theories without any honestly industrious
\nconsideration of the problem. The earliest method adopted was
\nto argue from European analogies, a method pregnant of error
\nand delusion. If we consider the hypothesis of a rude ballad-epic
\ndoctored by "those Brahmins" \u2014<\/i> anyone who is curious on the
\nmatter may study with both profit and amusement Fraser’s History of Indian Literature \u2014<\/i> we shall perceive how this method
\nhas been worked. A fancy was started in Germany…as a moral
\ncertainty.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut it is not from European scholars that we must expect a
\nsolution of the Mahabharata problem. They have no qualifications for the task except a power of indefatigable research and
\ncollocation; and in dealing with the Mahabharata even this
\npower seems to have deserted them. It is from Hindu scholarship renovated and instructed by contact with European that the
\nattempt must come. Indian scholars have shown a power of detachment and disinterestedness and a willingness to give up
\ncherished notions under pressure of evidence which are not common in Europe. They are not, as a rule, prone to the Teutonic
\nsin of forming a theory in accordance with their prejudices and
\nthen finding facts or manufacturing inferences to support it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 180<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWhen, therefore, they form a theory on their own account, it has
\nusually some clear justification and sometimes an overwhelming
\narray of facts and solid arguments behind it. The German scholarship possesses infinite capacity of acuteness, labour, marred
\nby an impossible and fantastic imagination, the French of inference marred by insufficient command of facts, while in soundness of judgment Indian sane scholarship has both. It should
\nstand first, for it must naturally move with a far greater familiarity and grasp in the sphere of Sanskrit studies than any foreign
\nmind however able and industrious. But above all it must clearly
\nhave one advantage, an intimate feeling of the language, a
\nsensitiveness to shades of style and 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;<\/font><\/p>\n

but where other things are equal, they must possess it in an immeasurably greater degree than an European of similar information and critical power. For to the European Sanskrit words are
\nno 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 and whose possibilities
\nhe can judge to a hair. That with these advantages Indian scholars have not been able to form themselves into a great and independent school of learning is due to two causes, the miserable
\nscantiness of the mastery in Sanskrit provided by our universities,
\ncrippling to all but born scholars, and their lack of a sturdy independence which makes us over-ready to defer to European authority. These, however, are difficulties easily surmountable.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn solving the Mahabharata problem this intimate feeling
\nfor language is of primary importance; for style and poetical
\npersonality must be not indeed the only but the ultimate test of
\nthe genuineness of any given passage in the poem. If we rely
\nupon any other internal evidence, we shall find ourselves irresistibly tempted to form a theory and square facts to it. The late
\nRai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterji, a genius of whom<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 181<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmodern 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<\/i>) he deals
\nincidentally 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 so
\ngreat and a mass of additions by very inferior hands. But being
\nconcerned with the Mahabharata only so far as it covered the
\nLife of Krishna, he did not follow up this line of scrutiny and
\nrelied rather on internal evidence of a quite different kind. He
\nsaw that in certain parts of the poem Krishna’s godhead is either
\nnot presupposed at all or only slightly affirmed, while in others
\nit is the main objective of the writer; certain parts again give us
\na plain, unvarnished and straightforward biography and history, others are a
\nmass of wonders and legends, often irrelevant extravagances; in some parts also the conception of the chief characters is radically departed from and defaced. He therefore took
\nthese differences as his standard and accepted only those parts
\nas genuine which gave a plain and consistent account of Krishna the man and of
\nothers in their relation to him. Though his conclusions are to a great extent justifiable, his a
\npriori<\/i> method led
\nhim to exaggerate them, to enforce them too rigidly without
\nthe proper flexibility and scrupulous hesitation and to resort
\noccasionally to special pleading. His book is illuminating and full of insight,
\nand the chief contentions will, I believe, stand permanently; but some parts of his argument are exaggerated and
\nmisleading and others, which are in the main correct, are yet
\ninsufficiently supported by reasoning. It is the failure to refer
\neverything to the ultimate test of style that is responsible for these
\nimperfections. Undoubtedly inconsistencies of detail and treatment are of immense importance. If we find gross inconsistencies
\nof character, if a man is represented in one place as stainlessly
\njust, unselfish and truthful and in another as a base and selfish
\nliar or a brave man suddenly becomes guilty of incomprehensible
\ncowardice, we are justified in supposing two hands at work;<\/font><\/p>\n

otherwise we must either adduce very strong poetic and psychological justification for the lapse or else suppose that the poet<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 182<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwas incompetent to create or portray consistent and living
\ncharacters. But if we find that one set of passages belongs to the
\ndistinct and unmistakable style of a poet who has shown himself
\ncapable of portraying great epic types, we shall be logically debarred from the saving clause. And if the other set of passages
\nshows 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
\ninstance Krishna says in one place that he can only do his best
\nas a man and can use no divine power in human affairs, and in
\nanother foolishly uses his divine power where it is quite uncalled
\nfor, or if a considerable hero is killed three or four times over,
\nyet always pops up again with really commendable vitality without warning or explanation until some considerate person gives
\nhim his coup de gr\u00e2ce<\/i>, or if totally incompatible statements are
\nmade about the same person or the same event, we may find in
\neither or all of these inconsistencies sufficient ground to assume
\ndiversity of authorship. Still even here we must ultimately refer
\nto the style as corroborative evidence; and when the inconsistencies are grave enough to raise suspicion, but not so totally
\nincompatible as to be conclusive, difference of style will at once
\nturn the suspicion into certainty, while similarity may induce us
\nto suspend judgment. And where there is no inconsistency of fact or conception
\nand yet the difference in expression and treatment is marked, the question of style and personality becomes
\nall-important. Now in the Mahabharata we are struck at first
\nby the presence of two glaringly distinct and incompatible
\nstyles. There is a mass of writing in which the verse and language is unusually
\nbare, simple and great, full of firm and knotted thinking and a high and heroic personality, the imagination strong and
\npure, never florid or richly coloured, the ideas austere, original
\nand noble. There is another body of work sometimes massed together but far
\noftener interspersed in the other, which has exactly opposite qualities, it is Ramayanistic, rushing in movement,
\nfull and even overabundant in diction, flowing but not strict in
\nthought, the imagination bold and vast, but often garish and
\nhighly-coloured, the ideas ingenious and poetical, sometimes of
\nastonishing subtlety, but at others common and trailing, the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 183<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\npersonality much more relaxed, much less heroic, noble and
\nsevere. When we look closer we find that the Ramayanistic part
\nmay possibly be separated into two parts, one of which has less inspiration and
\nis more deeply imbued with the letter of the Ramayana, but less with its spirit. The first portion again has a certain element often in close contact with it which differs from it
\nin a weaker inspiration, in being a body without the informing
\nspirit of high poetry. It attempts to follow its manner and spirit
\nbut fails and reads therefore like imitation of a great poet. We
\nhave to ask ourselves whether this is the work of an imitator
\nor of the original poet in his uninspired moments. Are there
\nbesides the mass of inferior or obviously interpolated work which
\ncan be easily swept aside, three distinct recognizable styles or
\nfour or only two ? In the ultimate decision of this question inconsistencies of detail and treatment will be of great consequence.
\nBut in the meantime I find nothing to prevent me from considering the work of the first poet, undoubtedly the greatest of the
\nfour, if four there are, as the original epic.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt may indeed be objected that style is no safe test, for it is
\none which depends upon the personal preferences and ability
\nof the critic. In an English literary periodical it was recently
\nobserved that a certain Oxford professor who had studied Stevenson like a classic attempted to apportion to Stevenson and Lloyd Osbourne their respective work in the
\nWrecker<\/i>, but his apportionment
\nturned out to be hopelessly erroneous. To this the obvious answer is that the Wrecker<\/i> is a prose work and not poetry.
\nThere was no prose style ever written that a skilful hand could
\nnot reproduce as accurately as a practised forger reproduces a
\nsignature. But poetry, at any rate original poetry of the first
\nclass, is a different matter. The personality and style of a true
\npoet are unmistakable to a competent mind, for though imitation, echo, adaptation or parody is certainly possible, it would
\nbe as easy to reproduce the personal note in the style as for the
\npainter to put into his portrait the living soul of its original. The
\nsuccessful discrimination between original and copy depends
\nthen upon the competence of the critic, his fineness of literary
\nfeeling, his sensitiveness to style. On such points the dictum of
\na foreign critic is seldom of any value. One would not ask a mere<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 184<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nlabourer to pronounce on the soundness of a great engineering
\nwork, but still less would one ask a mathematician unacquainted
\nwith mechanics. To minds well-equipped for the task there ought
\nto be no insuperable difficulty in disengaging the style of a
\nmarked poetic personality from a mass of totally different work.
\nThe verdict of great art-critics on the genuineness of a professed
\nOld Master may not be infallible, but if formed on a patient study of the
\ntechnique and spirit of the work, it has at least considerable chances of being correct. But the technique and spirit of
\npoetry are far less easy to catch by an imitator than those of great
\npainting, the charm of words being more elusive and unanalysable than that of line and colour.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn unravelling the Mahabharata especially, the peculiar
\ninimitable nature of the style of Vyasa immensely lightens the difficulties of
\ncriticism. 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 and salient style
\nlike Shakespeare’s, Kalidasa’s or Valmiki’s, certain externals of
\nit might have been reproduced by a skilled hand and the task of
\ndiscernment rendered highly delicate and perilous. Yet even in such styles to
\nthe finest minds the presence or absence of an unanalysable personality within the manner of expression would
\nbe always perceptible. The second layer of the Mahabharata
\nis distinctly Ramayanistic in style, yet it would be a gross
\ncriticism that could confuse it with Valmiki’s own work; the
\ndifference, as is always the case in imitations of great poetry, is as
\npalpable as the similarity. Some familiar examples may be
\ntaken from English literature. Crude as is the composition
\nand treatment of the three parts of King Henry VI<\/i>, its style
\nunformed and everywhere full of echoes, yet when we get such
\nlines as<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThrice is he arm’d that hath his quarrel just,<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd he but naked, though lock’d up in steel,<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhose conscience with injustice is corrupted,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nwe cannot but feel that we are listening to the same poetic voice
\nas in Richard III<\/i>.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 185<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nShadows tonight<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHave struck more terror to the soul of Richard<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThan can the substance of ten thousand soldiers.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nArm\u00e8d in proof and led by shallow Richmond,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nor in Julius Caesar<\/i>,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThe evil that men do lives after them;<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe good is oft interr\u00e8d with their bones,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nor in the much later and richer vein of Antony
\nand Cleopatra<\/i>,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nI am dying, Egypt, dying; only<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI here importune death awhile, until<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf many thousand kisses the poor last<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay upon thy lips.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nI have purposely selected passages of perfect simplicity and
\nstraightforwardness, because they appear to be the most imitable
\npart of Shakespeare’s work and 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 and unmistakable personality of Shakespeare. We
\nturn next and take two passages from Marlowe, a poet whose influence counted for much in the making
\nof Shakespeare, one from Faustus<\/i>,<\/font> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nWas this the face that launched a thousand ships<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd burnt the topless towers of Ilium ?<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nand another from Edward II<\/i>,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nI am that cedar, shake me not too much,<\/font><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 186<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThe choice of words, the texture of style has a certain similarity,
\nthe run of the sentences differs little if at all; but what fine literary
\nsense does not feel that here is another poetical atmosphere and
\nthe ring of a different voice? And yet to put a precise name
\non the difference would not be easy. The personal difference
\nbecomes still more marked if we take a passage from Milton in
\nwhich the nameable merits are precisely the same, a simplicity
\nin strength of diction, thought and the run of the verse,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nWhat though the field be lost….<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nAnd when we pass farther down in the stream of literature and
\nread<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThy thunder, conscious of the new command…<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nwe feel that the poet has nourished his genius on the greatness
\nof Milton till his own soft and luxurious style rises into epic
\nvigour; yet we feel too that the lines are only Miltonic, they are
\nnot Milton.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nNow 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
\nin 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 Valmiki than to write like these.
\nJust because the style is so bare, has no seizable mannerism, no
\nstriking and imitable peculiarities, the failure of the imitation
\nappears complete and unsoftened; for in such poets there is but
\none thing to be caught, the unanalysable note, the personal greatness like everything that comes straight from God which ‘it is
\nimpossible to locate or limit, and precisely the one that most
\neludes the grasp.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis poetry it is always possible to distinguish with some
\napproach to certainty from imitative or spurious work. Very
\nfortunately the style of Vyasa is exactly such a manner of poetry.
\nGranted therefore adhikāra<\/i> in the critic, that is to say, a natural
\ngift of fine literary sensitiveness and the careful cultivation of<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 187<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthat gift until it has become as sure a lactometer as the palate of
\nthe swan which rejects the water mingled with milk and takes the
\nmilk alone, we have in the peculiar characteristics of this poetry
\na test of unquestionable soundness and efficacy.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut there is another objection of yet more
\nweight and requiring as full an answer. This method of argument from style
\nseems after all as a priori<\/i> and Teutonic as any other; for there
\nis no logical reason why the mass of writing in this peculiar style
\nshould be judged to be the original epic and not any of the three
\nothers or even part of that inferior work which was brushed aside
\nso contemptuously. The original Mahabharata need not have
\nbeen a great poem at all; it was more probably an early, rude
\nand uncouth performance. Certain considerations however may
\nlead us to consider our choice less arbitrary than it seems. That
\nthe War Parvas contain much of the original epic may be conceded to Professor Weber; the war is the consummation of the
\nstory and without a war there could be no Mahabharata. But
\nthe war of the Mahabharata was not a petty contest between
\nobscure barons or a brief episode in a much larger struggle or a
\nromantic and chivalrous emprise for the rescue of a ravished or
\nerrant beauty. It was a great political catastrophe employing
\nthe clash of a hundred nations and far-reaching political consequences; the Hindus have always considered it as the turning-point in the history of their civilisation and the beginning of
\na new age, and it was long used as a historical standpoint and a
\ndate to reckon from in chronology. Such an event must have
\nhad the most considerable political causes and been caused by
\nthe collision of the most powerful personalities and the most important interests. If we find no record of or allusion to these in
\nthe poem, we shall be compelled to suppose that the poet, living
\nlong after the event, regarded the war as a legend or romance
\nwhich would form excellent matter for an epic and treated it
\naccordingly. But if we find a simple and unvarnished, though not
\nnecessarily connected and consecutive account of the political
\nconditions which preceded the war and of the men who made it
\nand their motives, we may safely say that this also is an essential
\npart of the epic. The Iliad deals only with an episode of the legendary siege of Troy, it covers an action of about eight days in a<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 188<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nconflict lasting ten years; and its subject is not the Trojan War
\nbut the Wrath of Achilles. Homer was under no obligation therefore to deal with the political causes that led to hostilities, even
\nsupposing he knew them. The Mahabharata stands on an entirely
\ndifferent footing. The war there is related from beginning to end
\nconsecutively and without break, yet it is nowhere regarded as
\nof importance sufficient to itself but depends for its interest on
\ncauses which led up to it and the characters and clashing interests
\nit involved. The preceding events are therefore of essential importance to the epic. Without the war, no Mahabharata, is true
\nof this epic; but without the causes of the war, no war, is equally
\ntrue. And it must be remembered that the Hindu narrative poets
\nhad no artistic predilections like that of the Greeks for beginning
\na story in the middle. On the contrary they always preferred to
\nbegin at the beginning.<\/font><\/p>\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
\nmany great and civilised nations who were united very much like
\nthe nations of modern Europe by an essential similarity of religion and culture rising above and beyond their marked racial
\npeculiarities; like the nations of Europe also they were continually going to war with each other, and yet had relations of occasional struggle, of action and reaction, with the other peoples
\nof Asia whom they regarded as barbarous races outside the pale
\nof the Aryan civilisation. Like the continent of Europe, the
\nancient continent of India was subject to two opposing forces,
\none centripetal which was continually causing attempts at universal empire, another centrifugal which was continually impelling the empires once formed to break up again into their constituent parts; but both these forces were much stronger in their
\naction than they have usually been in Europe. The Aryan nations
\nmay be divided into three distinct groups, the Eastern of whom
\nthe Koshalas, Magadhas, Chedis, Videhas and Haihayas were
\nthe chief, the central among whom the Kurus, Panchalas and
\nBhojas were the most considerable; and the Western and
\nSouthern of whom there were many, small and rude yet warlike<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 189<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand famous peoples; among those there have been none that
\never became of the first importance. Five distinct times had these
\ngreat congeries of nations been welded into Empire, twice by
\nthe Ikshwakus under Mandhata, son of Yuvanashwa and King
\nMarutta, afterwards by the Haihaya Arjuna Kartavirya, again
\nby the Ikshwaku Bhagiratha and finally by the Kuru Bharata.
\nThat the first Kuru empire was the latest is evident not only from
\nthe Kurus being the strongest nation of their time, but from the
\nsignificant fact that the Koshalas by this time had faded into utter
\nand irretrievable insignificance. The rule of the Haihayas had
\nresulted in one of the great catastrophes of early Hindu civilisation belonging to the Eastern section of the continent which was
\nalways apt to break away from the strict letter of Aryanism.
\nThey had brought themselves by their pride and violence into
\ncollision with the Brahmin with the result of a civil war in which
\ntheir empire was broken for ever by Parashurama, son of Jamadagni, and the chivalry of India massacred and for the time
\nbroken. The fall of the Haihayas left the Ikshwakus and the
\nBharata or the Ilian dynasty of the Kurus the two chief powers
\nof the continent. Then seems to have followed the golden age of
\nthe Ikshwakus under the beneficent empire of Bhagiratha and his
\ndescendants as far down at least as Rama. Afterwards the
\nKoshalas, having reached their highest point, must have fallen
\ninto that state of senile decay which, once it overtakes a nation,
\nis fatal and irremediable. They were followed by the empire of
\nthe Bharatas. By the time of Shantanu, Vichitravirya and Pandu
\nthis empire had long been dissolved by the centrifugal force of
\nAryan politics into its constituent parts, yet the Kurus were
\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
\nof Dhritarashtra the centripetal force had again asserted itself
\nand the idea of another great empire loomed before the imaginations of all men. A number of nations had risen to the greatest
\nmilitary prestige and political force, the Panchalas under Drupada and his sons, the Kurus under Bhishmuc and his brother
\nAcrity who is described as equalling Parashurama in military
\nskill and courage, the Chedis under the hero and great captain
\nShishupala, the Magadhas built into a strong nation by Brihadratha,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 190<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\neven distant Bengal under the Poundrian Vasudeva and
\ndistant Sindhu under Vriddha Kshatra and his son Jayadratha
\nbegan to mean something in the reckoning of forces. The Yadava
\nnations counted as a great military force in the balance of politics
\nowing to their abundant heroism and genius, but seemed to have
\nlacked sufficient cohesion and unity to nurse independent hopes.
\nStrong, however, as these nations were none seemed able to
\ndispute the prize of the coming empire with the Kurus, until under
\nJarasandha the Barhadratha Magadha for a moment disturbed
\nthe political balance. The history of the first great Magadhan
\nhope of empire and its extinction \u2014 not to be revived again until
\nthe final downfall of the Kurus \u2014 is told very briefly in the
\nSabhaparva of the Mahabharata. The removal of Jarasandha
\nrestored the original state of politics and it was no longer
\ndoubtful that to the Kurus alone could fall the future empire.
\nBut contest arose between the elder and the younger branches
\nof the Bharata house. The question being then narrowed to
\na personal issue, it was inevitable that it should become
\nlargely a history of personal strife and discord; other and
\nlarger issues were involved in the dispute between the Kaurava
\ncousins, but whatever interests, incompatibilities of temperament and difference of opinion may divide brothers, they do not
\nengage in fratricidal conflict until they are driven to it by
\na long record of collision and jealousy, ever deepening personal
\nhatred and the worst personal injuries. We see therefore that
\nnot only the early discords, the slaying of Jarasandha and the
\nRajasuya sacrifice are necessary to the epic but the great gambling and the mishandling of Draupadi. It cannot, however, have
\nbeen personal questions alone that affected the choice of the
\ndifferent nations between Duryodhana and Yudhishthira; personal relations like the matrimonial connections of Dhritarashtra’s family with the Sindhus and Gandharas and of the Pandavas
\nwith the Matsyas, Panchalas and Yadavas doubtless counted
\nfor much, but there must have been something more; personal
\nenmities counted for something as in the feud cherished by the
\nTrigartas against Arjuna. The Madras disregarded matrimonial
\nties when they sided with Duryodhana; the Magadhas and
\nChedis put aside the memory of personal wrong when they<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 191<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nespoused the cause of Yudhishthira. I believe the explanation
\nwe must gather from the hints of the Mahabharata is this, that
\nthe 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
\nmore than the empire of a day while that of Yudhishthira had
\nevery possibility of permanence; even Queen Gandhari, Duryodhana’s own mother, was able to hit this weak point in her son’s
\nambition. The Rajasuya sacrifice had also undoubtedly identified
\nYudhishthira in men’s minds with the imperialistic impulse of the
\ntimes. We are given some important hints in the Udyogaparva.
\nWhen Vidura remonstrates with Krishna for coming to Hastinapur, he tells him it was highly imprudent for him to venture there
\nknowing as he did that the city was full of kings all burning with
\nenmity against him for having deprived them once of their greatness, driving, by the fear of him, to take refuge with Duryodhana and eager to war against the Pandavas. This can have no
\nintelligible reference except to the Rajasuya sacrifice. Although it
\nwas the armies of Yudhishthira that had traversed India then on
\ntheir mission of conquest, Krishna was generally recognised
\nas the great moving and master mind whose hands of execution
\nthe Pandavas were and without whom they would have been
\nnothing. His personality dominated men’s imaginations for adoration or for hatred; for that many abhorred him as an astute
\nand unscrupulous revolutionist in morals, politics and religion,
\nwe very clearly perceive. We have not only the fiery invectives
\nof Shishupala but the reproach of Bhurihshravas the Valhika, a
\nman of high reputation and universally respected. Krishna
\nhimself is perfectly conscious of this; he tells Vidura that he must
\nmake efforts towards peace both to deliver his soul and to justify
\nhimself in the eyes of men. The belief that Krishna’s policy and
\nstatesmanship was the really effective force behind Yudhishthira’s greatness, pervades the epic. But who were these nations
\nthat resented so strongly the attempt of Yudhishthira and
\nKrishna to impose an empire on them? It is a significant fact
\nthat the Southern and Western peoples went almost solid for<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 192<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nDuryodhana in this quarrel \u2014 Madra, the Deccan, Avanti,
\nSindhu Sauvira, Gandhara in one long line from Southern Mysore to Northern Kandahar; the Aryan colonies in the yet half-civilised regions of the Lower valley of the Ganges espoused the
\nsame cause. The Eastern nations, heirs of the Ikshwaku imperial
\nidea, went equally solid for Yudhishthira. The Central peoples,
\nrepositories of the great Kuru Panchala tradition as well as the
\nYadavas, who were really a Central nation though they had trekked to the West,
\nwere divided. Now this distribution is exactly what we should have expected. The nations which are most
\naverse to enter into an imperial system and cherish most their
\nseparate existence are those which are outside the centre of civilisation,
\nhardy, warlike, only partially refined; and their aversion is still more emphatic when they have never or only for a
\nshort time been part of an empire. This is the real secret of the invincible
\nresistance which England has opposed to all Continental schemes of empire from Philip II to Napoleon; it is the
\nsecret of her fear of Russia; it is the reason of the singular fact
\nthat only now after many centuries of great national existence
\nhas she become imbued with the imperial idea on her own account. The savage attachment to their independence of small
\nnations like the Dutch, the Swiss, the Boers is traceable to the
\nsame cause; the fierce resistance opposed by the greater part of
\nSpain to Napoleon was that of a nation, which once imperial
\nand central, has fallen out of the main flood of civilisation and is
\ntherefore become provincial and attached to its own isolation.
\nThat the nations of the East and South and the Aryan colonies
\nin Bengal should oppose the imperialist policy of Krishna and
\nthrow in their lot with Duryodhana is therefore no more than we
\nshould expect. On the other hand, nations at the very heart of
\ncivilisation, who have formed at one time or another dominant
\nparts of an empire fall easily into imperial schemes, but personal
\nrivalry, the desire of each to be the centre of empire, divides
\nthem and brings them into conflict, not any difference of political
\ntemperament. For nations have very tenacious memories and
\nare always attempting to renew the great ages of their past. In
\nthe Eastern peoples the imperialistic idea was very strong and
\nhaving failed to assert a new empire of their own under Jarasan-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 193<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ndha, they seem to have turned with one consent to Yudhishthira
\nas the man who could alone realise their ideal. One of Shishupal’s
\nremarks in the Rajsuya sacrifice is very significant:<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWe remember that it was an Eastern poet who had sung,
\nperhaps not many centuries before, in mighty stanzas, the idealisation of Imperial Government and Aryan unity and enshrined
\nin his imperishable verse the glories of the third Koshalan
\nEmpire. The establishment of Aryan unity was in the eyes of the
\nEastern nations a holy work<\/i> and the desire of establishing universal lordship with that view a sufficient ground for putting aside
\npersonal feelings and predilections in order to farther it. Shishupala, one of the most self-willed and violent princes of his time,
\nhad been one of the most considerable and ardent supporters of
\nJarasandha in his attempt to establish a Magadhan empire.
\nThe divisions of the Central nations follow an equally intelligible
\nline. Throughout the Mahabharata we perceive that the great
\nweakness of the Kurus lay in the division of their counsels. There
\nwas a peace party among them led by Bhishma, Drona, Kripa
\nand Vidura, the wise and experienced statesmen who desired
\njustice and reconciliation with Yudhishthira and a war-party of
\nthe hot-blooded younger men led by Kama, Duhsasana and
\nDuryodhana himself who were confident of their power of
\nmeeting the world in arms; King Dhritarashtra found himself
\nhard put to it to flatter the opinions of the elders while secretly
\nfollowing his own predilections and the ambitions of the younger
\nmen. These are facts patent on the face of the epic. But it has not been sufficiently considered what a remarkable fact it is that
\nmen of such lofty character as Bhishma and Drona should have
\nacted against their sense of right and justice and fought in what
\nthey had repeatedly condemned as an unjust cause. If Bhishma,
\nDrona, Kripa, Ashwatthama and Vikarna had plainly intimated
\nto Duryodhana that they would support Yudhishthira with their<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 194<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\narms or even that they would stand aloof from the war, it is clear
\nthere would have been no war at all. And I cannot but think that
\nhad it been a question purely between Kuru and Kuru, this is the
\ncourse they would have adopted. But Bhishma and Drona must
\nhave perceived that behind the Pandavas were the Panchalas and
\nMatsyas. They must have suspected that these nations were supporting Yudhishthira not out of purely disinterested motives
\nbut with certain definite political objects. Neither Drupada nor
\nVirata would have been accepted by India as emperors in their
\nown right, any more than say Sindhia or Holkar would have been
\nin the last century. But by putting forward the just claims of a
\nprince of the imperial Bharata line, the descendant of Bharata
\nAjamida, connected with themselves by marriage, they could
\navoid this difficulty and at the same time break the power of the
\nKurus and replace them as the dominant partners in the new
\nEmpire. The presence of personal interests is evident in their hot
\neagerness for war and their unwillingness to take any sincere
\nsteps towards a just and peaceful solution of the difficulty. Their
\naction stands in striking contrast with the moderate statesmanlike yet firm policy of Krishna. It can hardly be supposed that Bhishma and the Kuru statesmen of his party were autonomists;<\/font> 
\nthey must have been as eager for a Kuru empire as Duryodhana
\nhimself.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAt any rate they eagerly welcomed the
\nstatesmanlike reasoning of Krishna when he proposed to King Dhritarashtra to unite
\nthe forces of Pandava and Kaurava and build up a Kuru empire
\nwhich should irresistibly dominate the world. "On yourself and
\nmyself," says Krishna, "rests today the choice of peace or war
\nand the destiny of the world; do your part in pacifying your sons,
\nI will see to the Pandavas" \u2014<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 195<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 
\n
\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nBut the empire of Yudhishthira enforced by the arms of
\nMatsya
\nand Panchala or even by the armed threats meant to Bhishma
\nand Kripa something very different from a Kuru empire; it must
\nhave seemed to them to imply rather the overthrow and humiliation of the Kurus and a Panchala domination under a Bharata
\nprince. This it concerned their patriotism and their sense of
\nKshatriya pride and duty to resist so long as there was blood in
\ntheir veins. The inability to associate justice with their cause
\nwas a grief to them, but it could not alter their plain duty. Such
\nas I take it is the clear political story of the Mahabharata.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\u00b9<\/font>Mahabharata<\/i>, Udyogaparva, 95.16-21, 23-27.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 196<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n2<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nT<\/font>HE <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b>problem of the Mahabharata, its origin,
\ndate and composition, is one that seems likely to elude scholarship to times indefinite if not for ever. It is true that several
\nEuropean scholars have solved all these to their own satisfaction,
\nbut their industrious and praiseworthy efforts….<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the following pages I have approached the eternal problem of the Mahabharata from the point of view mainly of style
\nand literary personality, partly of substance; but in dealing with
\nthe substance I have deferred questions of philosophy, allusion
\nand verbal evidence to which a certain school attach great importance and ignored altogether the question of minute metrical
\ndetails on which they base far-reaching conclusions. It is necessary therefore out of respect for these scholars to devote some
\nspace to an explanation of my standpoint. I contend that owing
\nto the peculiar manner in which the Mahabharata has been
\ncomposed, these minutiae of detail and word have very little
\nvalue. The labour of this minute school has proved beyond dispute one thing and one thing only, that the Mahabharata was
\nnot only immensely enlarged, crusted with interpolations and
\naccretions and in parts rewritten and modified, but even its
\noldest parts were verbally modified in the course of preservation.
\nThe extent to which this happened has, I think, been grossly
\nexaggerated, but that it did happen, one cannot but be convinced.
\nNow if this is so, it is obvious that arguments from verbal niceties must be very dangerous. It has been sought to prove from a
\nsingle word, suranga<\/i>, an underground tunnel, which European
\nscholars believe to be identical with the Greek suringks<\/i> that the
\naccount in the Adiparva of the Pandavas’ escape from the burning
\nhouse of Purochana through an underground tunnel must be later
\nthan another account in the Vanaparva which represents Bhima
\nas carrying his brothers and mother out of the flames; for the
\nformer they say must have been composed after the Indians had
\nlearned the Greek language and culture and the latter, it is
\nassumed, before that interesting period. Now whether suranga<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 197<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwas derived from the Greek suringks<\/i> or not, I cannot take upon
\nme to say, but will assume on the authority of better linguists
\nthan myself that it was so \u2014 though I think it is as well to be
\nsceptical of all such Greek derivations until the connection is 
\nproved beyond doubt, for such words even when not accounted
\nfor by Sanskrit itself may very easily be borrowed from the
\noriginal languages. Bengali, for instance, preserves the form
\n"Sudanga" where the cerebral letter is Dravidian. But if so, if
\nthis word came into fashion along with Greek culture, and
\nbecame the<\/i> word for a tunnel, what could be more natural than
\nthat the reciter should substitute for an old and disused word
\nthe one which was familiar to his audience? Again much has
\nbeen made of the frequent occurrence of Yavana, Vahlika,
\nPehlava, Saka, Huna; as to Yavana its connection with Iaon
\ndoes not seem to me beyond doubt. It was certainly at one time
\napplied to the Bactrian Greeks, but so it has been and is to the
\npresent day applied to the Persians, Afghans and other races
\nto the northwest of India. Nor is the philological connection
\nbetween Iaon and Yavana very clear to my mind. Another form
\nYauna seems to represent Iaon fairly well; but are we sure that
\nYauna and Yavana were originally identical? A mere resemblance however close is the most misleading thing in philology.
\nUpon such resemblances Pocock made out a very strong case
\nfor his theory that the Greeks were a Hindu colony. The identity
\nof the Sakas and Sakyas was for a long time a pet theory of
\nEuropean Sanskritists and on this identity was based the theory
\nthat Buddha was a Scythian reformer of Hinduism. This identity is now generally given up, yet it is quite as close as that of
\nYavana and Yauna and as closely in accordance with the laws of
\nthe Sanskrit language. If Yauna is the original form, why was it
\nchanged to Yavana? It is no more necessary than that mauna
\n<\/i>be changed to mavana<\/i>. If Yavana be earlier and Yauna a Prakrit
\ncorruption, how are we to account for the short ‘a’ and the ‘v’;<\/font> 
\nthere was no digamma in Greek in the time of Alexander. But
\nsince the Greeks are always called Yavanas in Buddhist writings,
\nwe will waive the demand for strict philological intelligibility and
\nsuppose that Yavana answers to Iaon. The question yet remains:<\/font> 
\nwhen did the Hindus become acquainted with the existence of<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 198<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe Greeks ? Now here the first consideration is: why did they
\ncall the Greeks Ionians and not Hellenes or Macedonians ? That
\nthe Persians should know the Greeks by that name is natural
\nenough, for it was with the Ionians that they first came into contact; but it was not
\nIonians who invaded India under Alexander, it was not an Ionian prince who gave
\nhis daughter to Chandragupta, it was not an Ionian conqueror who crossed the Indus
\nand besieged….<\/font>\u00b9<\/font> Did the Macedonians on their victorious march
\ngive themselves out as Ionians ? I for my part do not believe it.
\nIt is certain therefore that if the Hindus took the word Yavana
\nfrom Iaon, it must have been through the Persians and not direct
\nfrom the Greek language. But the connection of the Persians
\nwith India was as old as Darius Hystaspes who had certainly
\nreason to know the Greeks. It is therefore impossible to say
\nthat the Indians had not heard about the Greeks as long ago as
\n500 B.C. Even if they had not, the mention of Yavanas and
\nYavana kings does not carry us very far; for it is evident that
\nin the earlier parts of the Mahabharata they are known only as
\na strong barbarian power of the North West, there is no sign of
\ntheir culture being known to the Hindus. It is therefore quite
\npossible that the word Yavana now grown familiar may have
\nbeen substituted by the later reciters for an older name no longer
\nfamiliar. It is now known beyond reasonable doubt that the
\nMahabharata war was fought out in or about 1190 B.C.;<\/font>\u00b2<\/font>
\nDhritarashtra, son of Vichitravirya, Krishna, son of Devaki
\nand Janamejaya are mentioned in Vedic works of a very early
\ndate. There is therefore no reason to doubt that an actual historical event is recorded with whatever admixture of fiction in the
\nMahabharata. It is also evident that the Mahabharata, not any
\n"Bharata" or "Bharati Katha" but the Mahabharata existed
\nbefore the age of Panini, and though the radical school bring
\ndown Panini the next few centuries…<\/font><\/p>\n

\n(Incomplete<\/i>)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n\u00b9<\/font>Word missing.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n\u00b2<\/font>This date was accepted by Sri Aurobindo at the time of writing. On p. 66 of his Gitar
\nBhumika<\/i> (in Bengali\u2014written in 1909) he says: "It should be remembered that the war of
\nKurukshetra took place 5000 years ago." It may be that later he accepted still another date.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 199<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nThe Problem of the Mahabharata<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNOTES<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nNotes on the Mahabharata dealing with the authenticity of each
\nseparate canto i<\/i>.e<\/i>. whether it belongs or not to the original epic of
\n24<\/i>,000 Slokas on the great catastrophe of the Bharatas<\/i>.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nUDYOGAPARVA
\n<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

\nCANTO
\n<\/span>ONE<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n1. Kurupravīrāh<\/i>…sapaksāh \u2014<\/i> This may mean in Vyasa’s elliptic
\nmanner the Great Kurus (i.e. the Pandavas) and those of their
\nside. Otherwise "The Kuru heroes of his own side", i.e. Abhimanyu’s, which is awkward.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n3. Vrddhau \u2014<\/i> This supplies the reason of their pre-eminence.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n5. Pradyumna-sāmbau ca yudhi pravīrau<\/i>. This establishes Pradyumna and Samba as historical sons of Krishna.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nVirātaputraiśca \u2014 <\/i>Virata has therefore several sons, three at
\nleast.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 200<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n7. The simile is strictly in the style of Vyasa who cares little for
\nnewness or ingenuity, so long as the image called up effects the
\npurpose. The assonance rarāja sā rājavatī <\/i>is an epic assonance
\naltogether uncommon in Vyasa and due evidently to the influence
\nof Valmiki.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n8. Strong, brief and illumining strokes of description which add
\nto the naturalness of the scene, tatah kathāste samavāyayuktāh<\/i>: <\/i>while also adding a touch that reveals the inwardness of the
\nsituation:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nkrtvā vicitrāh purusa-pravīrāh<\/i>,
\nTasthurmuhūrtam paricintayantah krsnam nrpāste
\nsamudīksamānādh<\/i>.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n9. Samghattitāh
\n\u2014<\/i> surely means "assembled" and nothing else.
\nP. C. Roy in taking it as "drew their attention to" shows his usual
\nslovenliness. Lele also errs in his translation. He interprets it:<\/font> 
\n<\/font>"as soon as the talk was over Krishna assembled the kings for the
\naffairs of the Pandavas." But the kings were already assembled
\nand seated; not only so but they were waiting for Krishna to
\nbegin. It is absurd to suppose that as soon as Krishna began
\nspeaking they left their seats and clustered around him like a pack
\nof schoolboys. Yet this is the only sense in which we can take Lele’s rendering. I prefer to take the obvious sense of the words: "As soon as they had reached an end of talk, all those lion-kings
\nassembled by the den of Madhou in the interests of the Pandava
\nlistened in a body to his high-thoughted and fateful speech."<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSumahodayam \u2014<\/i> having mighty consequences.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n10. Ayam \u2014<\/i> here beside me. See verse 4. Yudhishthira is sitting
\njust by Krishna separated by Virata.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 201<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n11. Tarasā \u2014 taras<\/i> expresses any swift, violent and impetuous
\nact, anything that has the momentum of strength and impulse
\nor fire and energy.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSatyarathaih \u2014<\/i> This is a word of doubtful import; it may
\nmean "of unerring chariots", i.e. skilful fighters, or else "honourable fighters", rathah<\/i> being used as in mahārathah<\/i>, adhirathah
\n<\/i>fighter in a chariot. Cf. satyaparākramah<\/i>. In the first case the
\nepithet would be otiose and ornamental and an epic assonance.
\nI cannot think however that Vyasa was capable of putting a purely
\ndecorative epic epithet in so emphatic a place. It must surely
\nmean either "honourable fighters<\/i>" or "making truth their chariot"; ratha<\/i> being used as in manoratha<\/i> etc. The latter however
\nis almost too much a flight of fancy for Vyasa. [The word is satye sthitaih<\/i>, according to another version.]<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n12. Trayodaśaścaiva<\/i>, \u2014<\/i> agreeing with Samvatsara which the
\nmind supplies from varsāni<\/i> in the last line and Virvatsa has to
\nbe supplied from Chirnam. This is the true Vyasa style.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nNivista \u2014 niviś <\/i>
\n: to abide. This sense though not given in
\nApte may be deduced from niveśah <\/i>: impersonal "it has been
\ndwelt".<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n13. It will be seen from Krishna’s attitude here as elsewhere that
\nhe was very far from being the engineer and subtle contriver of
\nwar into which later ideas have deformed him. That he came
\ndown to force on war and destroy the Kshatriya caste, whether
\nto open India to the world or for other cause, is an idea that was
\nnot present to the mind of Vyasa. Later generations writing,
\nwhen the pure Kshatriya caste had almost disappeared,
\nattributed this motive for God’s descent upon earth, just<\/font><\/p>\n

\n                         <\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n Page <\/font>
\n\u2013 202<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nas a modern English Theosophist, perceiving British rule established in India, has added the corollary that he destroyed the
\nKshatriyas (five thousand years ago, according to her own
\nbelief) in order to make the line clear for the English. What
\nVyasa, on the other hand, makes us feel is that Krishna, though
\nfixed to support justice at every cost, was earnestly desirous to
\nsupport it by peaceful means if possible. His speech is an evident
\nattempt to restrain the eagerness of the Matsyas and Panchalas
\nwho were bent on war as the only means of overthrowing the
\nKuru domination.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n14-15. Krishna’s testimony to Yudhishthira’s character is here
\nof great importance.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAdharmayuktam na ca kāmayeta rājyam surānāmapi dharmarājah<\/i>.
\nDharmārthayuktam tu mahīpatitvam grāme’pi kasmimścidayam<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/font>bubhūset<\/i>.
\n<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\nThat Yudhishthira has deserved this character to the letter so
\nfar anyone who has followed the story will admit. If he acts in
\ndiametrical opposition to this character in any future passage we
\nshall have some ground to pause before we admit the genuineness of the passage.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBubhūset \u2014<\/i> desiderative of
\nbhū<\/i> in the sense of "get, obtain",
\n"would aspire after".<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n16. Mithyopacārena \u2014<\/i> by fraudulent procedure.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThat is, if Duryodhana had taken the kingdom from the
\nPandavas in fair war by his own energy and genius (svatejasā<\/i>),
\n<\/i>he would not have transgressed the ordinary Dharma of the
\nKshatriya. In that case the Pandavas might have accepted the
\nverdict of Fate and refrained from plunging the country in
\nfarther bloodshed.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n                      \n\t<\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n Page <\/font>
\n\u2013 203<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n17. Prapīdya <\/i>[nipidya \u2014 <\/i>another version] by force, pressure; as
\na result of conquest in open battle.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis seems to point to the Vijayaparva; but the reference
\nis general and may apply to the Rajasuya generally.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTu \u2014<\/i> The force is "but you know what the Dhartarashtras
\nare, their fierceness, falseness and land-hunger, \u2014 how even in
\nthe childhood of the Pandavas these, their banded foemen, sought
\nto slay them by various means". For he evidently desired to try
\nconciliation first, before resorting to threats. The choice of the Purohita was that of King Drupada, and the leaders of the
\nBrahmavarta nations who desired to break the supremacy among
\nthem of the Kurus.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n18. Bālāstvime \u2014 <\/i>An allusion to the early persecution of the
\nPandavas by Duryodhana. If we accept this Parva in its completeness, we must accept the genuineness in the main of the early
\nnarrative of the Adiparva in so far as it is covered by the Sloka.
\nNotice especially vividhairupāyaih<\/i>.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n19. This seems to point to the Digvijaya Parva; but the reference is general and may apply to the Rajasuya generally.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n22. Tathāpi \u2014<\/i> for all their good will. It is part of the inverted
\ncommas implied in iti<\/i>.<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 204<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n23. Yateyureva \u2014<\/i> would at least do their utmost.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nYathāvat \u2014 <\/i>definitely; though they may form a shrewd
\nguess.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n25. Rājyārdhadānāya \u2014 <\/i>Krishna does not, at present at any
\nrate, suggest a compromise; let them first make their full claim
\nto which they are entitled (notice genitive).<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis canto is in the very finest and most characteristic style
\nof Vyasa; precise, simple and hardy in phrasing, with a strong,
\ncurt, decisive movement and a pregnant mode of expression, in
\nwhich a kernel of thought is expressed and its corollaries suggested so as to form a thought-atmosphere around it. There is no
\nsuperfluous or lost word or sentence, but each goes straight to
\nits mark and says something which wanted to be said. The speech
\nof Krishna is admirably characteristic of the man as we have
\nseen him in the Sabhaparva; firm and precise in outlook and sure
\nof its own drift, it is yet full of an admirable and disinterested
\nstatesmanlike broadmindedness.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n\u00b9<\/font>Purohit<\/font><\/i>ā<\/i><\/font>yane \u2014<\/font><\/i> This title is evidently a misnomer; there is no mention of the Purohita,
\nfar less does he set out as yet nor need we suppose he is hinted at in the description of a suitable envoy. It is doubtful whether Krishna would have singled out a Panchala Purohita as
\nthe best intermediary between the Kurus for he evidently desired to try conciliation first,
\nbefore resorting to threats. The choice of the Purohita was that of King Drupada and the
\nleaders of the Brahmavarta nations who desired to break the supremacy among them of
\nthe Kurus.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 205<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nCANTO TWO<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nDivyamānah pratidevanena \u2014 <\/i>Can this not mean "being challenged to dice placed against Saubala or in acceptance of
\nthe challenge", or must it mean "gambled and that against
\nSaubala" ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 206<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 
\nUdyogaparva*<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nL<\/font>ET <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b>the reciter bow down to Naraian,
\nlikewise to Nara the Highest Male, also to our Lady the Muse
\n(Goddess Saraswati), and thereafter utter the word of Hail!<\/font><\/p>\n

\nVaishampayan continueth<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut the hero Kurus and who clove to them thereafter having
\nperformed joyously the marriage of Abhimanyu rested that night
\nand then at dawn went glad to the Assembly-hall of Virata.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nNow wealthy was that hall of the lord of Matsya with
\nmosaic of gems excellent and perfect jewels, with seats set out,
\ngarlanded, perfumed; thither went those great among the kings
\nof men.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThen took their seats in front the two high kings, Drupada
\nand Virata, old they and honoured of earth’s lords, and Rama
\nand Janardan with their father.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nNow by the Panchala king was the hero Shini with the son
\nof Rohinie but very near likewise to the Matsya king Janardan
\nand Yudhishthira;<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd all the sons of Drupada, Bhima, Arjuna and the sons
\nof Madravatie and Pradyumna and Samba, heroes in the strife,
\nand Abhimanyu with the children of Virata;<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd all those heroes equal to their fathers in heroism and
\nbeauty and strength sat down, the princely boys, sons of Draupadie, on noble seats curious with gold.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus as those great warriors sat with shining ornaments
\nand shining robes, rich shone that senate of kings like wide heaven
\nwith its stainless stars.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n <\/p>\n

\n"To all of you it is known how Yudhishthira
\nhere was conquered by Saubala in the hall of the dicing; by fraud was he conquered and his kingdom torn from him and contract made of<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n* Translation of Adhyaya 1.1-7, 10-26.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 207<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nexile in the forest; and though infallible in the mellay, though
\nable by force impetuous to conquer the whole earth, yet the sons
\nof Pandu stood by their honour religiously; harsh and austere
\ntheir vow but for the six years and the seven they kept it, noblest
\nof men, the sons of Pandu; and this the thirteenth year and most
\ndifficult they have passed before all your eyes unrecognised; in
\nexile they passed it, the mighty-minded ones, suffering many
\nand intolerable hardships, in the service of strangers, in menial employments
\ncherishing their desire of the kingdom that belongeth to their lineage. Since this is so, do ye think out somewhat that shall be for the good both of the King, the son of
\nRighteousness and of Duryodhana, just and glorious and worthy
\nof the great Kurus; for Yudhishthira the just would not desire
\neven the kingship of the gods unjustly, yet would he cling to the
\nlordship of some small village which he might hold with expediency and justice. For it is known to you kings that how by dishonest proceeding his father’s kingdom was torn from him by
\nthe sons of Dhritarashtra and himself cast into great and unbearable danger; for not in battle did they conquer him by
\ntheir own prowess, these sons of Dhritarashtra; even so the king
\nwith his friends desired the welfare of his wrongers. But what
\nthe sons of Pandu with their own hands amassed by conquest
\ncrushing the lords of earth, that these mighty ones demand,
\neven Kunti’s sons and Madravatie’s. But even when they were
\nchildren, they were sought by various means to be slain of their banded foemen,
\nsavage and unrighteous, for greed of their kingdom, yea all this is known to you utterly. Considering therefore their growing greed and the righteousness of Yudhishthira,
\nconsidering also their close kinship, form you a judgment each
\nman to himself and together. And since these have always clung
\nto truth and loyally observed the contract, if they know they are
\nwronged, they may well slay all the sons of Dhritarashtra. And
\nhearing of any wrong done by these in this business their friends
\nwould gather round, the Pandavas, yea and repel war with war
\nand slay them. If natheless ye deem these too weak in numbers
\nfor victory, yet would they all band together and with their
\nfriends at last to strive to destroy them. Moreover none knoweth
\nthe mind of Duryodhana rightly, what he meaneth to do, and<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 208<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwhat can you decide that shall be the best to set about when you
\nknow not the mind of your foeman ? Therefore let one go hence,
\nsome virtuous, pure-minded and careful man such as shall be an able envoy for
\ntheir appeasement and the gift of half the kingdom to Yudhishthira. This hearing, the just, expedient, sweet
\nand impartial speech of Janardan, the elder brother of him took
\nup the word, O prince, honouring the younger’s speech even
\ngreatly."<\/font><\/p>\n

\n(Incomplete<\/i>)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 209<\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Problem of the Mahabharata THE POLITICAL STORY                           IT WAS hinted in a recent article of the Indian Review, an unusually able and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","wpcat-4-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82","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=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}