'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 66

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

Well, KMG used Nilkanthas' version ( Bombay Edition) along with Bengali Burdwain, the Bengali version however is said to have impurities, maybe KMG translated this instance from Bengali version, the Shloka might be different.

One query - In KMG it is said Karna participated ( In Draupadi's swayamvar) but was rejected after he strung the bow, the CE on the other hand has no mention of him participating but after a few paragraphs it says " When kshatriya's like Karna and Shalya failed to lift the bow", now first of all Karna was not a known Kshatriya then, he was a Suta, and the Karna can be Gandhari's son other than Surya putra. Do give me your insight on this because a person who can wield Parshurama's bow should not have failed in wielding the Swayamvara bow.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

@abhijitbasu


Sir. I agree that we shouldn't be looking at Dwapar Yug through 21st century morality. But I am uncomfortable with the assertion (not yours) that some may make about all that the protagonists did being correct.


1) One of my biggest sources of confusion about GG is that Madhav addresses Parth as Anakha or sinless. I may be wrong but that is what I have understood about the word. How is any human being sinless and how is Parth sinless given the Eklavya and Lakshagarh incidents ? 😕 Even if it was accepted practice for the society. If wouldn't be for Parmaatma


2) If all this class/caste divide was acceptable then what exactly was the adharm that was being fought against? It certainly wasn't for Panchali. Was it against a Rajahs right to consider citizens his personal property? Or against slavery and the treatment of slaves including sexual exploitation? My personal belief is that it was fought against all the adharm prevalent in society and the Pandavs happened to be the winning side because Krishna found them more educable. But the Pandavs did do plenty of adharm of their own even by the era's standards (see #3)


3)Panchalis statement is frequently used as an example of why the caste/class divide was acceptable in those days. But a girl can use any criteria to reject a suitor. It is is not the same as burning down a forest and it's inhabitants or killing a Nishada family or abandoning a Rakshas wife or instigating a Dron attack on a tribal child (pun intended). IMO, even if she had said Na Aham Varamayi Beaky Nose it would have been OK and cannot be morally equated to the other stuff


4) OTOH if the war was not fought for dharm and was primarily to get the Pandavs their land back, then wouldn't that be the greatest adharm of the epic? Mass murder for a crown? And why would Krishna be with them?


5) Also, if it was primarily for the land, then as per Kshatriya dharm didn't they have to abide by the rules of the dice game and go for a second round of exile?


This is the reason I keep thinking that Janmejaya being the main audience for the Katha had a lot to do with why these issues were glossed over, since he would have been the rishis' financial patron


I think there must have been layers of reasons from eradicating adharm to justice for the victims to getting land back. History is usually written by the winners and perhaps that is another reason why (or it is the same reason) the Ps mistakes are not stressed

I rather like the ironical humour of some of your rhetoric ('Dron' attack, 'beaky nose' etc.)! But, in more serious vein, here are some points.
Firstly, anagha in this context means 'blameless'. Krshna perhaps uses it as an endearment -- a hyperbole like say, gudaakesha [meaning 'one who has conquered sleep or sloth'], used by him elsewhere in the Gita to address Arjuna. But even otherwise, Arjuna, left to his own volition, is arguably among the noblest of the Mb heroes. Blame for the Ekalavya episode should be attached more to Drona's inveterate class orthodoxy than to the boy Arjuna's petulance at his guru's promise that Arjuna would be the greatest archer. His extremely reluctant acts in killing Bheeshma and Karna were caused by Krishna's goading. The Varanaavata episode about the Nishadas was the 'Dharmaraja's decision. He had earlier prevented Krishna's chakra onslaught against Bheeshma by grabbing the man-God's feet, and had even gone to the extent of scolding his revered elder brother Yudhishthira for the half-lie that caused Drona's death. With all his conquests in love, he had the strength of character to refuse Urvashi's amorous advances. Finally, Krshna might have called him anagha in the sense that he was the God's chosen one, blessed with a Teflon-like imperviousness to evil. Remember that talismanic assurance towards the end of the Gita: aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shucah [Grieve not, I shall release you from all sins].
As for the dharma-adharma angle, please refer my answer to 'luv-sakshi's question today.
As regards the possibility of a tactful gloss given by Vaishampaayana in presenting the account before Janamejaya, I somehow do not think any major tweaking would have been done, First because Vaishampaayana himself was a great sage (not just a puraana-kathak), and more importantly the purest of pure Veda-Vyasa was himself there. Vyasa, as you would have seen, doesn't mince words in recording (and even trying to correct in his unique participatory role as deus ex machina) any wrongs done by both sides at war.

@ abhijitbasu

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

In the southern recension of the MB, Karna is said to have failed the task at Draupadi's swayamvar.

Interesting point, about the difference in Karna's role in Draupadi-Svayamvara between Northern and Southern Recension vis--vis the CE. My Aryashastra Edition (which gives the putative 'interpolations' in bracket), clearly mentions, outside any parenthetic reservation, that Karna did lift, string and aim the bow [Seeing the failure of all the other kings, Karna the foremost among archers, approached that great bow, and having lifted and quickly stringing it, planted arrows on it]. As I've mentioned in my book, Sukthankar's methodology in compiling the CE was the 'Highest Common Factor' approach, i.e. taking verses which are common in both northern and southern recensions. May be this was one exception when a part not appearing in the otherwise bigger southern recension but figuring in the northern edition(?) was not included in the CE. But, one must also add the caveat that according to some analysts there might have been some additions to the Karna legend by way of interpolation. I'm not sure. The appended 'apparatus' of the CE could be checked.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

@abhijitbasu


2) If all this class/caste divide was acceptable then what exactly was the adharm that was being fought against? It certainly wasn't for Panchali. Was it against a Rajahs right to consider citizens his personal property? Or against slavery and the treatment of slaves including sexual exploitation? My personal belief is that it was fought against all the adharm prevalent in society and the Pandavs happened to be the winning side because Krishna found them more educable. But the Pandavs did do plenty of adharm of their own even by the era's standards (see #3)


3)Panchalis statement is frequently used as an example of why the caste/class divide was acceptable in those days. But a girl can use any criteria to reject a suitor. It is is not the same as burning down a forest and it's inhabitants or killing a Nishada family or abandoning a Rakshas wife or instigating a Dron attack on a tribal child (pun intended). IMO, even if she had said Na Aham Varamayi Beaky Nose it would have been OK and cannot be morally equated to the other stuff

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

@ abhijitbasu

The MB has an episode where Charvaka, described as a Rakshasa in the guise of a Brahmin, admonishes Yudisthir for committing fratricide and wiping out much of the Kuru race. I have read that this Rakshasa was none other than a representative of the Charvaka school of thought, an atheist philosophy which coexisted with the Vedic system of beliefs.

I found it interesting that he is killed in the very sabha where he reproaches Yudisthir with some harsh words and is described as a rakshasa. Could this be attributed as an attempt by the redactors of the epic to detract from and show this school of thought in a negative light as it conflicted with the Vedic belief system?

Are there any other instances in the MB where there is a mention of other schools of thought or philosophies (whether in a positive or negative light)?

A very interesting question! The Chaarvaak-vadh episode in Shant-Parva is an intriguing one. Actually, it's now generally recognised that much of this behemoth of a Parva is later 'Brahminical' addition. To my mind, this could have been one such addition. The Charvaks, as you know, were followers of non-Vedic 'Lokaayata' or materialist philosophy, as famously represented by the shloka: yaavad-jivet sukham jivet, hrnam krtvaa ghrtam pibet / bhashmibhootasya dehasya punar-aagamanam kutah // [So long as you live, live in comfort. Incur debt if necessary, but do drink clarified butter (ghee). For the body in any case will be reduced to ashes, and there is no come-back]. The original preceptor Charvak, however, was called by the honorific 'Hrshi', such was the time-honoured tolerance of Hinduism for the 'Argumentative Indian' (refer Amartya Sen's book) who has a new principle to teach. After all Charvak recommended taking of clarified butter, the most saatvika of food, not any intoxicant or drug! But some didactic crusaders of pure Vedic dharma would have felt threatened, and hence they would have resorted to symbolically giving that name to a supposed demoniac friend of the dead Duryodhana and burn him down by the brahma-teja of sages assembled in Yudhishthira's court.
As for other instances of such propagandist statements, there are some tactful sections/verses to subsume the Buddhist/Jain message. For example, again in the Shanti-Parva, one chapter extols ahimsaa in yajnas.

@abhijitbasu:

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

The Mb, as I see it, is a colossal work with many facets. To present it as a one-dimensional chronicle of caste oppression is to trivialise and sensationalise things beyond reason. As you yourself have observed, the stray examples of class / (not 'caste', which was a much later development and coinage) discrimination / persecution that I have highlighted are presented by the epic's narrator without much ado. That was the character of the age and perhaps its better not to sensationalise it by viewing it through the lens of today's egalitarian principles. After all, when Draupadi publicly rejects Karna with the bold assertion: naaham varayaami sootam [I shall not accept one belonging to the soota class], even today's reader would perhaps look at it as a natural reaction from a well-endowed princess in wishing to choose a social equal, given the milieu of the time.

Sir i agree that we shouldn't view Dwapar yug incidents with a Kalyug mindset but still sometimes it becomes difficult to overlook an incident just because it was acceptable in dwapar yug

In any case my question is regarding another incident which atleast as per the epic seems not wrong but personally for me its something difficult to overlook.This is Yudhishtir staking his brother's and wife and other pandavas not protesting it at all.Now in my personal view this was wrong but again here epic doesn't seem to say so

Firstly no one ever rebukes Yudhishtir or other pandavas for this especially Yudhishitr is never rebuked for his act of staking his family.Only Draupadi shows her disappointment at some occasions but revered character's like Krishna ji don't rebuke him or pandavas

Also after all this Yudhsitir's chariot never touches the ground until the his half lie to drona because he is considered to be pure

And even in the end Yudhsitir gets to go to the Heaven in his full human form which other pandvas don't

Now my questions are

1)Does this mean that Yudhishtir's act of staking his wife or the silence of other panadavs in this indent wasn't wrong as per dwapar yug standards?

2)Or perhaps it was wrong but since both Yudhishtir and other pandavas regretted their actions they were cleansed of this sin which would explain why even after staking his family Yudhishtir got to go to the heaven in his human form

3)In the end Yudhisitr gives reasons as to why other pandavas didnt get to to heaven because of their flaws like Drauapdi loved Arjuna the most,Arjuna disregarded other archrer's and Bhima due to his gluttony.Now are all these flaws bigger than Yudhistir's mistake of staking his family?How come even after Yudhishtir made such a big mistake he still gets to go to heaven but his other family members because of mere human flaws dont get to do that?Again is it because of repentance or because Yudhishtir spent many years in the service of rishi's during exile?

Originally posted by: luv_sakshi

@abhijitbasu:

Sir, could you please throw some light on your book - Marvels & Mysteries of the Mahabharata? I believe the character of Yudhishtir carries most weightage in your book..why have you chosen Yudhishtir in particular as your central character? Isn't Krishna central to the entire Epic?

Further, some comparisons have been made to Greek Mythology as well in the book..any particular reason for making the comparison specifically with Greek Mythology along with other ancient texts?

Yes, Yudhishthira to my mind is the undeclared secular-dramatic protagonist of the Mb. No doubt Krshna, as the book also discusses, is the transcendental mover and shaker of the epic, as the yugapurush -- the God who constrains himself in human form to guide the events along their ordained course.
There are valid reasons to consider Yudhishthira to be the central character of the human drama of the Mb. Without him and his claim of primogeniture there would have been no Kurukshetra war. In Drona-Parva, Krshna chides Arjuna for his impetuous action in following the letters of a certain pledge and lifting his sword against his elder brother, because with Y dead, Arjuna would have had none to fight for. And, of course, Y, and he alone, figures in the epic's sublime denouement of svargaarohana. Yudhishthira is the great epic's jnana yogi, the Philospher-King, who predated Plato by many centuries. But, he has also some striking contrarieties, as a Kshatriya prince with a Brahmana disposition, ever conflicted by his natural inclination for peace and his class duty to fight to win, not always by pure means, as the leader of his wronged royal line. He is subject to depressive indecision, but 'to be or not to be' is never a question with him. Rather, he continues 'being' from this world to the beyond. He has his limitations as a warrior, but has the ever-loyal Bheema and Arjuna to more than compensate those limitations. But he excels in acquiring knowledge, from a galaxy of sages. In that regard he is unique -- an itinerant prince-pilgrim, who shines as a knowledge-seeker even in contra-distinction to the great Rama. He saves his brothers in two crucial tests by marshalling that knowledge to answer unerringly strings of questions, first put by the accursed serpent Nahusha and more importantly, by his disguised pater, Lord Dharma. The Yakshna-prashnas indeed are the essence of the epic as a treasure of liberated wisdom.
Having scaled such heights of pure wisdom, it may seem hard to reconcile some of his war-time actions to follow. As a practical war-leader, expediency at times seems to be more important to him than ethics. But after the battle, we again find the pilgrim Yudhishthira, now overwhelmed by a burden of guilt-laden grief. Y after the war is surely the most penitent character, not only in the Mb, but in all the world's epics. This unique repentance cleanses him of all worldly impurities and finally he lifts himself to the highest peak of human greatness, succeeds in his ultimate transcendental test and earns the unparalleled distinction of entering heaven in his bodily form.
As regards the other point of trans-civilizational comparisons, I find the subject quite intriguing -- as if some telepathy was at work in making ancient civilisations react alike to circumstances. Not only Greek, I have drawn comparison with the Semitic literature, chiefly the Old Testament, but also with Islamic and Jewish thoughts. The book's last chapter, called 'Epics and Epics', highlights some strange similarities between our two epics, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, and the two Homeric epics. However, you are right in the sense that the Greek cognation seems to be the most striking. Just think of Megasthenes' description of Krshna (with Balaram) as the Indian Hercules, with the subsequent etymological derivation as Hari-kul-esh!

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

Sir, I agree with your point of not viewing the past through the lens of today's egalitarian principles. Indeed, there is a danger of falling prey to the fallacy of presentism.

My question is not about whether the Kurukshetra war was justified or necessary. I myself am quite ambivalent about it. The Mahabharata presents us both- pro and contrarian view points with respect to the war. It is one of the merits of the epic that in spite of being set in society led by monarchy, where fights for what constituted as wealth in that particular age and society as well as expansion of one's own kingdom is usually the norm (please correct me if I am wrong), the epic also paints a disturbing, moving and dark picture of the aftermath of the war. The post war parvas are imbued with a brooding melancholy and a sense of gloom from the widespread destruction. According to you, what would constitute as the overarching 'message' of the epic? Does it, after pages and chapters of build up explaining why the war was inevitable for a plethora of reasons, both political and spiritual, finally balance it out by also showing us the futility of war in general?

Ashwini, my felicitations for your beautiful question, set in very cogent style. Ugrashravas Sauti prophecies at the very beginning of narrating the Mb that while many will memorise its lines, only few will have it in them to interpret it. You and some of your other co-correspondents here seem to eminently qualify in Sauti's test of a worthy commentator / interpreter!
Now, the points made by you all centre around the basic character of the epic. It is a high tragedy, redolent with the strangely elevating pathos of a culture's helplessness before inexorable destiny. Even the causes of its pyrrhic war are open to ambivalence: could it not have been avoided? Many of those causes germinated in some of the curious period practices of the time, chiefly relating to the so-called Kshatriya Code of Ethics. That Code again was a peculiar mix of glorious chivalry and seemingly precipitous decadence. Thus the virtues of the (originally) impeccable battle ethics, or the observance of mutual non-aggression among ruling houses were almost offset by the 'vices' of indulgence, of addiction to dice, and of a reactionary patriarchy that thought little of the rights of the subjugated people or of even the women whom they otherwise protected with all their valour.
The mood of the epic changed from the heroics of the sanguinary 18 days of war to one of deepest melancholy in the Sauptika- and Stree-Parva. These dark cantos somehow remind me of Alexander Pope's line: "Thy hand, great anarch! lets the curtain fall / And universal darkness buries all." Then, especially from the awesome-yet placid passing of Balarama and Krshna in the Maushala-Parva, the epic of myriad moods enters its final phase of Shaanta Rasa, typically expressed in Vidura's stoical words to the bereaved and grieving Dhrtarashtra:
sarve kshayaantaa nicayaah patanaantaah samucchrayaah / samyogaa viprayogaantaa maranaantam ca jeevitam. [All accumulations end in decay; worldly ascendances end in decline; all unions culminate in separation; and all lives end in death.] Does such ending not bear out what you have said in the last sentence of your question? I think it does.