Gitas in Mahabharata - Introduction - 4

- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya
The present reader has a culture of his own time. No doubt it has
the traces of the past when the hymns of the Vedas & the songs of the
Mahabharata burst forth. But at the same time it is mingled with the
culture that is capitalism & computer. Of course one must read the
gitas, from the cultural stand-point of one’s own time. At the same
time one must try to read them in the context of the culture & shared
language of the time of the Mahabharata.
Since no absolute meaning of any text is possible we propose
hereby to read each one of the gitas as unique and complete in itself,
from close reading stand-point. Close-reading & explicatio de texte
are very much akin to each other. Mallinatha or Sayana revelled in
their respective exigesis of Kalidasa or the Vedas almost in a likely
manner. Since poetry or any narrative moves in time as opposed to
painting that manifests in space we will proceed reading the text bit by
bit and explicate the same in its literal sense as well as in its suggestions
or laksmana. To explore the laksmana we could employ different
devices such as grammatical & linguistic, psychological & sociological.
The grammatical device of interpreting language is perfectly in harmony
with the ancient Sanskrit tradition. For example. The Devi gita of the
Devi Bhagavata posits :
Svaprakasanca caitanyam na parena prakasitam
Anavastha dosasattvaya svenapi prakasitam
Karmakartrivirodhah syat tasmattaddipavat svayam (II, 12, 13)
Consciousness is self-effulgent. It is not manifest by any one else.
Or else there would be the fallacy of anavastha. Again, one cannot
say that consciousness expresses itself. Because in that case there
would be the conflict between subject & object.
Again, the same Devi Bhagavata employs linguistic device and goes
beyond the literal meaning.
Padarthavagatih purvam vakyarthavagatihstatah
Tatpadasya ca vacyartha gireham parikirtitah
Tvam padasya ca vacyartho jeeva eva na samsayah
Ubhayorai –kyamasina padena procyate vudhaih (IV,20,21)
The word tat signifies the consciousness. The speaker here identifies
herself with the consciousness pure & boundless. The work ‘tvam’ on
the other hand signifies a limited being. The two cannot be the same.
And yet the verb meaning the be verb in the form of “are” identifies
the two. The identification as the speaker of the Devigita herself says
is never possible on the plane of literal meaning. One must take to
laksana to decode the same.
Truth as Srimad Bhagavad Gita itself observes could be at least on
three planes. adhibhautivika, adhidaivika and adhyatmika. The
adhibhautika meaning could be the literal meaning itself. The
adhidaivika and adhyatmika sense of the speech must be inferred.
Well inference must have two criteria in perception as well as regular
concommitance or pervasion, Gautama points out that while the
concomitance is natural and lawful in verbal authority, judgements or
the concommitance is based on man-made conventions. Yes, literature
creates a world of its own, and it must be judged by the criteria set by
itself. Vatsyayana argues that in inference the concomittance in question
is between two things both of which can be observed. But verbal
authority may well relate a word with a type of object never perceived
or even perceptible. Jayanta further posits that authority operates
through single world alone while inference requires well made
propositions for its operation.
Sabda or verbal authority has been largely neglected in western
philosophy. But the close reading school especially and the schools
based on linguistics generally look upon language as its own referent.
Poetry in general & the gitas under study fall within the scope of Sabda
pramana. Nyaya admits of upamana or comparison as a source of
knowledge. Often in poetry we compare the perceptible with that the
perception of which is not verifiable—in other words not perceptible.
Although in the 1930s the Vienna circle posited verifiability as the sole
criteria for truth, can we verify everything one perceives? Dona saw a
dream. Can we verify its truth? Yet did not Dona dream?
When the Brahmana Gita said that language can comprehend or
create the suprasensual, we must take such language as sabda
pramana. By way of studying the upamana and by way of inference
we will seek hereby to explore the meaning of each gita. on as many
levels as possible.
Finally we will take into account the recurrent imagery, or phrases
or single words even, that are significant in all the gitas including the
Srimad Bhagavad Gita. They will include such motifs like, Prakriti,
Purusa, Jivatman, paramatman, manas, ahamkara, buddhi,
pancabhuta, five senses, human body, knowledge, transmigration of
soul, karmaphala & so on.
We will try to understand these notions in the context of the gitas
as well as in the context of modern science & philosophy, sociology
etc. as well.
Much of the language of the gitas speaks of the imperceptible or
the unverifiable. It is not ordinary language. It goes beyond the grasp
of our mind & catches the glimpse of the suprasensual. This is perhaps
the province of poetry as distinguished from that of prose. Prose dwells
on what we can perceive with senses. Poetry looks beyond. Hence it
lies in the logic of affairs to read the gitas as poetry. The recurrent
imagery that do not belong to any truth discourse need be also decoded
in the aesthetic light. It logically follows thereby that we can reach our
conclusions as to philosophy & poetry, & religion & poetry, which
will form separate chapters.
Looking into the gitas from all these diverse angles, cannot however
distract us from our premise which was to check the pratijna of this
treatise. On the other hand, constant reference to the Srimad Bhagavad
Gita and searching for variations & identities among the gitas will
indicate how far the message of the Bhagavad Gita is reflected on the
other gitas.
( From A Study of Gitas in Mahabharata by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya)