Gitas in Mahabharata - Introduction - 3

- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya

And yet the Mahabharata itself argues that no one can fully
decode it.
Why so? It has been said that Vedavyasa the composer, at the
instance of Brahma the creator invoked Lord Ganesha to take down
the narrative. Lord Ganesha agreed to act as a stenographer of
Vedavyasa. But if Vedavyasa faltered to dictate continuously Lord
Ganesha would give up the assignment. Well, Vedayasa agreed to the
terms of Lord Ganesha on condition that the latter must not write a
single verse without understanding its import. Consequently, whenever
Vedavyasa had to stop a while in course of his dictation, he would
introduce a riddle known as Vyasa-Kuta in the course of his narration.
And the Lord had to pause a while to decode the same. In this way it
is said that there are some 8200 verses scattered through-out the
narrative, that baffle the readers. If 8200 verses scattered all about
the narrative are ambiguous, the whole of the narrative becomes
ambiguous. It is claimed that Vyasa, Ganesha and Sukdeva only three
persons know the real import of those verses. Consequently by
admission of the Mahabharata itself the whole narrative is ambiguous.
Since, the Mahabharata could be read beginning from anywhere with
Anukramunika or Astiks Parva as the opening, the structure of the
Mahabharata and the meaning of the same is open-ended. If what
seems to be the third chapter of a novel is read as the first chapter the
import of the story changes.
In other words, ambiguity is inherent in the very structure and
language of the Mahabharata. The gitas under survey, as they stand
are extracts from the self-same text and hence they are ambiguous
also.
Krishna himself acknowledges the ambiguity in his speech when
he says, that people look upon the soul as marvellous, some others
speak of it as marvellous ; some others hear of it as marvellous. No
wonder that they donot understand it even after hearing about it.
Ascaryavad pasyati Kascidetam
Ascaryavad vadati tathaiva canyah
Ascarya vaccainamanyah srnoti
Srutvapyenam veda na caiva. kascit (B.G- II, 29)
The same could apply to describe the whole of the Mahabharata
as well as to all the gitas.
And of course, Empson observes that ambiguity is sine qua non
with all true poetry. Indian aesthetics also values laksmana as one of
the characteristic features of poetry. Kuntaka in his Vakrokti Jivita
observes that elliptical speech is the life of poetry. This clearly suggests
that a speech may have more than one level of meaning in vacyartha
or literal meaning and laksmanartha or suggested meaning.
But one wonders, if a sentence has meanings on more than one
level, has it any meaning at all?
There is no point in judging a work of art from some a priori notions
of what a work of art should be like. Aristotlean poetics with which
we could judge Sophocles fail to grasp the excellence of
Shakespearean drama. The aesthetic standard which we apply to judge
Shakespeare is of no avail when we appreciate the dramas of Kalidasa.
Indian poetics banishes every kind of tragedy from the realm of drama.
But Shakespeare has written tragedies that are time and again.
Hence, there are no universal rules to judge a work of art. In fact
every work of art is unique and it is a manifesto of what a work of art
should be. Every work of art has in it the hidden rules of aesthetics
with which we could judge it.
Any work of art known as literature is language at bottom. Curiously
enough the Brahmana gita, a subset of the Anu gita puts forward a
theory of language which sees eye to eye with the views of modern
linguisties.
Since we can not think without language modern linguisties points
out that language comes first & ideas next. Language, as such, however
has no meaning. Language is a collection of some shared signs. We
who speak English know what we mean by the word ‘chair’. We
agree among ourselves to call a kind of seat as chair. The word chair
is therefore a sign which has two sides in a set of phonemes or signifier
and a referent or a signified. A word is therefore Signified
Signifier
But the
signifier and signified are not organically connected. Another language
or another culture might call kedara what we mean by chair. Once
again, a signifier or a set of phonemes which was once employed to
mean one thing earlier might mean something else at a later point of
time. The Sanskrit word duhita.. used to mean the daughter of a
household who milks the cow. Right now duhita. means simply a
daughter of a household. She may shudder at the sight of a cow.
Since language comes first & ideas next, the Post—moderns posit
that this is a world made up of language. Since language as such has
no inherent meaning in it, the world that is built with language is also
without meaning. It is a virtual world—an illusion and everyone is at
liberty to make sense of it in his or her own way.
The Brahmana gita also observes that language is prior to mind &
ideas. This is evident from the query of the Brahmani—
Kasmad vagabhavat purvam
Kasmad pascanmanobhavat
Manasa cintitam vakyam
Yada Samabhipadyate. ( Br. G.- II, 10 )
How is it that speech came fist & mind later? We know that we
think out our speech with the help of our mind.
Lacan, the modern psychologist par excellence posits that our
minds are forged with our speech only.
The Brahmana gita however goes further in its philosophy of
language. It observes that there are two types of speech. One is
apparently determined by the mind. But this can only describe the
contingent and the sense perceptions. The supra-real or the suprasensual
is only grasped by language, of which mind does not know
anything.
Sthavaram jangamam caiva vindhyuthe manasi mama
Sthavaram matsakase vai jangamam visaye tava
Yastum tam visayam gachhenmantro varnah svaropi va
tanmano jangamo nama tasmadapi gariasi ( Br. G.-II, 16,17 )
The cosmic mind or Brahma avows that both the static and the
dynamic are its mind. But whatever is static or perceivable through
senses is within the grasp of human mind. Whatever is dynamic as
suprasensual is grasped by language alone.
In other words language creates the suprasensual world. And the
gitas are a language where the sensual & the supra sensual mingle. It is
not a language that describes the contingent and the fragmentary only.
It creates a world where senses falter.
Any presence always reminds of its absence. And abhava is one
of the substances according to Nyaya-vaisesika. Speech accordingly
reminds of silence. The Brahmana gita however speaks of speech as
of two types in speech & silence.
Ghosini jatanirghosa nityameva pravartate
Tayorapi ghosinya nirghosameva gariyasi (Br. G- II, 21)
And one wonders whether these gitas lead one from speech to
that indeterminate realm of silence where silence is eloquent?
In the face of these facts about language how could we decode the
text of the gitas? How could we get at their meaning?
Since, meaning is not inherent in a language, it is a culture that
makes sense of it. Putting vermillion on the parting of the hair is a
language with women of Bengal. Other Bengali women might infer
from it that a woman is married. But a Latin American woman, finding
a Bengalee woman putting on vermilion on the parting of the hair might
deem it to be a nice decoration. Thus a language becomes meaningful
through one’s culture.
(From A Study of the Gitas in Mahabharata - by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya)