- 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)
Showing posts with label Indology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indology. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Gitas in Mahabharata - Introduction - 4
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)
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)
Monday, 26 January 2009
Bannupath Jataka
- Nandita
In the ancient days when Bramhadatta was the king of Varanasi Bodhisattva was a merchant there in Varanasi . Naturally he had to go out of Varanasi frequently for business purpose.
Once Bodhisattva set out for a business trip. On his way, he had to pass through a vast desert. It was 2400 KM long. The sand of the desert was so fine that one could hardly hold it in one's fist. The fine sand slipped through the narrow space in between the fingers. The fine sand got awfully hot during the day time. None could dare to walk through the desert during the day time. They travelled during the night only. So did Bodhisattva. He along with his horde travelled through this horrible desert during the night. They took rest in the day time. They carried food, fire woods water and all the necessary items of daily use with them as nothing was available there in that fierce desert.
During day time they used to let loose their oxen. And they kept their carts in a circle so that they could fix up their tent at the middle of the circle. Having their lunch they took rest through out the day. With the setting sun when the surroundings got cool they resumed their journey once again.
The way a navigator navigates the ship with the help of the pole star to the right direction, the merchants in order to make their journey safe and secure in that fierce desert took the support of the navigators to navigate them to their destination with the help of the stars. So Bodhisattva also had appointed a pilot in his group and the pilot could guide the horde quite efficiently through that fierce desert. And thus Bodhisattva and his horde was about to cross the desert quite safely. It was only one day left to cross the desert for them. And Bodhisattva asked his people to throw the excess fire woods, water and other useless materials just to reduce the weight of the carts. And thus they set out in the evening towards their destination. As usual the pilot was there in the front cart as he was supposed to monitor the hordes. But as ill luck would have it the pilot himself who had been very tired for his continuous journey fell asleep so sound that the carts started running at the opposite direction. The carts ran at a wrong direction through out the night. And when the pilot woke up he shrieked "stop, stop you have to go in the opposite direction" but it was all in vain because the sun was about to rise. And to their utter dismay they saw that they had come back to the same place from where they had started in the previous night. And now they neither had water nor the fire woods. They lost their hearts. They got upset. Being terribly depressed they all lay under the carts. They all thought that there was no other way out but to starve and die. How could the hungry oxen pull the carts? So this desert would be their graveyard.
When all the people in the horde got depressed Bodhisattva alone thought that he must took the initiative to save his people. It was early in the morning. So it was not very hot. Bodhisattva started surveying the area, around to find out the water. And in one place he saw a bunch of grass. He immediately deciphered that there must be water underneath those grass. He asked his people to dig at the place. His people got back their spirit and started digging. But sorry not a single drop of water was found even after they had finished digging almost 60ft. Rather they found that there was a big stone under it. With them it was next to impossible to break that big stone So they all threw their spades and shovels and they became doubly depressed. They were quite sure of their death now. But Bodhisattva did not lose heart for a single time. He got down in the ditch and kept his ears on the stone and he heard the sound of waters. Immediately he came up and told his servant who was a mere young boy, "if you lose your confidence we all will die, you are the only hope left for me." Saying these words he handed over a big hammer to the boy and asked him to hit the stone bravely. The boy servant obeyed his master and hit the stone hard with that hammer and hurrah! the stone got broken at once and water sprang out. Everybody was happy. They took bath. They drank. The oxen were given water. They all were saved from the sure death.
Now let us record some of the situations of this story which are, in fact, the turning points of the story.
S1: The pilot slept.
S2: The people were hopeless.
S3: Bodhisattva found the bunch of grass in the desert.
S4: The young boy hit the stone hard.
At one level, a leader is one who initiates.
Bodhisattva was the leader of the team. Because it was he who initiated the team for the purpose of business.
A leader is always committed to his group.
Bodhisattva alone tried to find out the way without expecting any kind of help or so from anyone from the group only because he was committed to the horde
But there was one more leader in the group. He is none other than the pilot. He was supposed to lead the team in the fierce desert. But he could not live up to his commitment. He proved himself very irresponsible.
Handling the situations prove the ability of a leader.
The handling of the situations of Bodhisattva shows that he is a leader per excellence. A leader never loses heart. Bodhisattva was all along cool—tranquil. Even when he found himself in sheer danger with his horde for no fault of his, he maintained his cool. It was because of that pilot that they were put into the crisis but Bodhisattva neither shouted at the pilot nor he blamed him. He rather read the situation with all his cool. And to be cool is one of the very important characteristics of a leader. And that is why he could over come his crisis and his horde was saved.
A leader understands whom to assign what. Bodhisattva handed over the hammer to the boy servant and he proved that Bodhisattva was right.
A leader never loses heart. He can see the silver lines always behind darkness.
When everybody lost his confidence, When all of them lay under the cart hopelessly, Bodhisattva alone was not depressed. Even in the last moment he faced the most difficult situation of breaking a big stone with a minor boy. Because a good leader is he who can explore the hidden potentials of his cadre. He motivates as well as inspires.
In the ancient days when Bramhadatta was the king of Varanasi Bodhisattva was a merchant there in Varanasi . Naturally he had to go out of Varanasi frequently for business purpose.
Once Bodhisattva set out for a business trip. On his way, he had to pass through a vast desert. It was 2400 KM long. The sand of the desert was so fine that one could hardly hold it in one's fist. The fine sand slipped through the narrow space in between the fingers. The fine sand got awfully hot during the day time. None could dare to walk through the desert during the day time. They travelled during the night only. So did Bodhisattva. He along with his horde travelled through this horrible desert during the night. They took rest in the day time. They carried food, fire woods water and all the necessary items of daily use with them as nothing was available there in that fierce desert.
During day time they used to let loose their oxen. And they kept their carts in a circle so that they could fix up their tent at the middle of the circle. Having their lunch they took rest through out the day. With the setting sun when the surroundings got cool they resumed their journey once again.
The way a navigator navigates the ship with the help of the pole star to the right direction, the merchants in order to make their journey safe and secure in that fierce desert took the support of the navigators to navigate them to their destination with the help of the stars. So Bodhisattva also had appointed a pilot in his group and the pilot could guide the horde quite efficiently through that fierce desert. And thus Bodhisattva and his horde was about to cross the desert quite safely. It was only one day left to cross the desert for them. And Bodhisattva asked his people to throw the excess fire woods, water and other useless materials just to reduce the weight of the carts. And thus they set out in the evening towards their destination. As usual the pilot was there in the front cart as he was supposed to monitor the hordes. But as ill luck would have it the pilot himself who had been very tired for his continuous journey fell asleep so sound that the carts started running at the opposite direction. The carts ran at a wrong direction through out the night. And when the pilot woke up he shrieked "stop, stop you have to go in the opposite direction" but it was all in vain because the sun was about to rise. And to their utter dismay they saw that they had come back to the same place from where they had started in the previous night. And now they neither had water nor the fire woods. They lost their hearts. They got upset. Being terribly depressed they all lay under the carts. They all thought that there was no other way out but to starve and die. How could the hungry oxen pull the carts? So this desert would be their graveyard.
When all the people in the horde got depressed Bodhisattva alone thought that he must took the initiative to save his people. It was early in the morning. So it was not very hot. Bodhisattva started surveying the area, around to find out the water. And in one place he saw a bunch of grass. He immediately deciphered that there must be water underneath those grass. He asked his people to dig at the place. His people got back their spirit and started digging. But sorry not a single drop of water was found even after they had finished digging almost 60ft. Rather they found that there was a big stone under it. With them it was next to impossible to break that big stone So they all threw their spades and shovels and they became doubly depressed. They were quite sure of their death now. But Bodhisattva did not lose heart for a single time. He got down in the ditch and kept his ears on the stone and he heard the sound of waters. Immediately he came up and told his servant who was a mere young boy, "if you lose your confidence we all will die, you are the only hope left for me." Saying these words he handed over a big hammer to the boy and asked him to hit the stone bravely. The boy servant obeyed his master and hit the stone hard with that hammer and hurrah! the stone got broken at once and water sprang out. Everybody was happy. They took bath. They drank. The oxen were given water. They all were saved from the sure death.
Now let us record some of the situations of this story which are, in fact, the turning points of the story.
S1: The pilot slept.
S2: The people were hopeless.
S3: Bodhisattva found the bunch of grass in the desert.
S4: The young boy hit the stone hard.
At one level, a leader is one who initiates.
Bodhisattva was the leader of the team. Because it was he who initiated the team for the purpose of business.
A leader is always committed to his group.
Bodhisattva alone tried to find out the way without expecting any kind of help or so from anyone from the group only because he was committed to the horde
But there was one more leader in the group. He is none other than the pilot. He was supposed to lead the team in the fierce desert. But he could not live up to his commitment. He proved himself very irresponsible.
Handling the situations prove the ability of a leader.
The handling of the situations of Bodhisattva shows that he is a leader per excellence. A leader never loses heart. Bodhisattva was all along cool—tranquil. Even when he found himself in sheer danger with his horde for no fault of his, he maintained his cool. It was because of that pilot that they were put into the crisis but Bodhisattva neither shouted at the pilot nor he blamed him. He rather read the situation with all his cool. And to be cool is one of the very important characteristics of a leader. And that is why he could over come his crisis and his horde was saved.
A leader understands whom to assign what. Bodhisattva handed over the hammer to the boy servant and he proved that Bodhisattva was right.
A leader never loses heart. He can see the silver lines always behind darkness.
When everybody lost his confidence, When all of them lay under the cart hopelessly, Bodhisattva alone was not depressed. Even in the last moment he faced the most difficult situation of breaking a big stone with a minor boy. Because a good leader is he who can explore the hidden potentials of his cadre. He motivates as well as inspires.
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)
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)
Monday, 19 January 2009
Gitas in Mahabharata - Introduction - 2
- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya
Each gita is a kind of samvada, Samvada is often a conversation
between two or more participants. But it might be a pure narrative as
well. For example the tenth chapter of the Anu gita is entitled Parasuram
Arjuna Samvad. It dewlls on how the legendary hero Kartaviryarjuna
tormented the ocean only to learn who could be a match for him in
prowess. Once again there is the Alarka Sambad in the same Anu gita
which dramatises a conversation between Alarka and his senses.
The gitas are also, a kind of sambad. Every Chapter of the Srimad
Bhagavad Gita ends with Iti Srikrisnarjuna sambade...etc. Srimad
Bhagavad Gita has set a convention and the Gita is a unique genre in
its own right. Genre implies a convention that communicates to the
reader what is expected from it. We never go to a post office for
prayer. We never go to a church to post a letter. This is because
genres in architecture are well defined. Similarly genres in literature
are often well defined. The reader can go to a novel or a lyric, according
to what he seeks. Let us now see into the genre called gita & learn
what we could expect from it.
As we have already pointed out, the gita is often a conversation
between two persons, sometimes it is a conversation among six persons
as in Sadja Gita. There Vidura and the five brothers—the Pandavas
participate in a discourse. In other instances it is commonly, a discourse
between two persons. The Vritra gita is a discourse between the demon
Vritra and Sanat Kumar—the child of Brahma, the Creator. The
Parasara Gita has been addressed by Parasara, the saint par-excellence
who happens to be the father of the very narrator of the Mahabharata.
The addressee here is the sage king Janaka. The Hamsa Gita is a
conversation between the Creator in the shape of a Swan and a host
of gods known as Sadhyas.
Thus the two persons participating in the gita need not be men
always. There might be a demon participating in it. There might be a
swan as well. The latter adds to the gita a flavour of the fable.
The two persons could be the personas of someone’s mind &
intellect as well. The Brahman gita a sub-set of the Anu gita is a
conversation between a Brahmin & his wife. The Brahman is the
persona of one’s intellect and the wife is the persona of one’s mind.
Thus even abstract ideas participate in the conversation of the gita
reminding us of the Morality Dramas in vogue during the Middle Age
Europe.
But the gita is not always a conversation between two persons. It
could be a dramatic monologue as in the case of Manky gita. Manky
a poor man fails in his economic pursuits and takes to renunciation.
He speaks to himself about his philosophy of life. A listener could be
present there; or may be there is none.
A gita could be a decree or a sermon as in the case of Vichakhnyu
gita where the king Vichakhnyu at the sight of cows slaughtered decrees
that no animal be slaughtered at the altar of sacrifice.
Most of these gitas have been quoted by the protagonists of the
Mahabharata in response to the queries of another. Thus Bhisma quotes
the Vritra gita in response to the queries of Yudhisthira, when the great
battle at Kurukshetra was over. The same Bhisma quotes the Bodhya
gita, and Vichakhnyu gita or the Hamsa gita on different occasions.
The listener is Yudhisthira. But the Sadja gita dwells on the deliberations
among the Pandavas and Vidura, their uncle, regarding the importance
of the different necessities of life in dharma artha kama & moksha.
Srimad Bhagavad Gita is however, directly addressed to Arjuna.
Krishna is the speaker. The same gita has been however quoted by
Sanjaya to keep Dhritarastra informed of the developments at
Kurukshetra where the belligerent Kauravas & Pandavas assembled
for a fight to the finish. Thus the gita is either a conversation among
people or else it is a speech quoted by one person in course of
conversation with another. Any conversation implies two persons. One
of them is eager to know something on an issue of crucial importance
to him. He puts forward his query before the other, whom he takes in
high esteem. The other, fully satisfied with the former’s devotion to
him and eagerness to know, either answers to the query on his own or
quotes someone’s speech on likely issue, spoken earlier.
For example Arjuna bewildered and at his wits’ end knowing not
what to do at the battleground submits himself at the feet of Krishna &
says—
I am your disciple. Teach me.
Siddha, the teacher, in the Anu gita tells Kasyapa that he is
satisfied with the devotion of his disciple.
The teacher must be satisfied with the disciple.
I am happy with thee, oh you learned
Tell me what I can do for you.
You are quite deserving for what you want.
And the right time is come. (A.G.-I, 42)
Yes, utterance at the right time is one of the important features of
the gita.
Srikrishna had earlier told the gita to Arjuna at the battle ground of
Kurukshetra. The Kurukshetra battle over, Arjuna once again asked
Krishna to repeat the contents of the gita once again.
But Krishna says that he is now helpless. Because, the situation
that impelled Krishna to utter the gita at the battle-field is no longer
present. When he told the gita to Arjuna, he points out that he was
yogayukta or under the spell of ecstasy. He chides Arjuna for not
remembering what Krishna told him earlier at the battle field.
Thus, the gita has always been uttered in a fit of ecstasy. When the
speaker is beyond himself. The utterance takes place as it were for
the first time and it is unique. Since one cannot say the gita. Whenever
one wills, could we argue that speech reveals itself through its speakers
whenever it wills.
The gita like all speech has three components in the encoder/speaker,
the decoder/listener and the speech or the gita itself.
It has been already pointed out, the speakers and the listeners of
the gita are no ordinary men and women. Yudhisthira, in quest of
knowledge tells Bhisma at the outset of the Vritra Gita.
Oh Grandfather ! Though we belong to men we are born of gods, still we
suffer from worldly sorrows. (VG -1, 2)
Yudhisthira is a man born of the seed of Yama, the deity that
controls the world. The addressee, Grandfather Bhisma is also born
of a mortal father & the goddess of the river Ganges. It is the grandfather
who quotes the Vritra Gita where Vritra, a demon puts forward his
queries and Sanat Kumar, the direct descendant of the Creator Brahma,
is the teacher. The frame of these gitas are chiefly conversation between
Yudhisthira and Bhisma or between Arjuna & Krishna. In Srimad
Bhagavad Gita Krishna himself speaks the gita. In the Sadja gita
Yudhisthira and his four brothers and Bidura who is also born of Yama
participate in a discourse. In other gitas, there are more than one
order of addressor & addressee. For example in the Vritra gita, the
first order of addressor and addressee are Yudhisthira and Bhisma. At
the instance of Yudhisthira Bhisma quotes the conversation between
the fallen demon and Sanat Kumar and Sukracharya the teacher of
the demons. That is the second order of addressor & addressee. As
in Anugita, there could be a third order of addressor & addressee &
so on.
As we have already referred to the Siddha’s spech in the Anu gita,
it is evident that any Tom Dick & Harry cannot be the listener of such
gitas. In the Srimad Bhagavad Gita also Krishna observes
I tell you the most secret thing.
You are dear to me.
Hence I tell you for your well-being
Sarvaguhyatamam bhuyah srinu me paramam vacah
Istosi me dridamiti tato vakshyami te hitam. (B.G- XVIII, 64)
Krishna warns Arjuna
Never impart it to a man sans penance
or sans devotion
Don’t tell it to one who does not want to hear
Or to one who despises me. (BH.G-XVIII, 67)
This puts in one’s minds the reader’s aesthetics. To decode the
text, it needs a competent reader. While the modern critics like Riffaterre
demand of the reader certain critical faculties and certain faculties of
imagination necessary to decode a text, the Bhagavad Gita, asks
something more from the reader. (i) He should be adept in penance.
(ii) He should have reverence. (iii) He must not despise the speaker or
author. (iv) He must be willing to read or hear. But, be that as it may,
Krishna spoke to Arjuna at the battleground of Kurukshetra in the
open space so that quite a few of the warriors could hear him besides
Arjuna. Hence the gitas are not necessarily the secret lore to be
imparted to a select few. By Vedavyasa’s own admission it must be
accepted that the Mahabharata & the Puranas, have been composed
only to be imparted among the masses, irrespective of caste or creed
or sex. And yet the Mahabharata itself argues that no one can fully
decode it.
(From A Study of the Gitas in Mahabharata by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya )
Each gita is a kind of samvada, Samvada is often a conversation
between two or more participants. But it might be a pure narrative as
well. For example the tenth chapter of the Anu gita is entitled Parasuram
Arjuna Samvad. It dewlls on how the legendary hero Kartaviryarjuna
tormented the ocean only to learn who could be a match for him in
prowess. Once again there is the Alarka Sambad in the same Anu gita
which dramatises a conversation between Alarka and his senses.
The gitas are also, a kind of sambad. Every Chapter of the Srimad
Bhagavad Gita ends with Iti Srikrisnarjuna sambade...etc. Srimad
Bhagavad Gita has set a convention and the Gita is a unique genre in
its own right. Genre implies a convention that communicates to the
reader what is expected from it. We never go to a post office for
prayer. We never go to a church to post a letter. This is because
genres in architecture are well defined. Similarly genres in literature
are often well defined. The reader can go to a novel or a lyric, according
to what he seeks. Let us now see into the genre called gita & learn
what we could expect from it.
As we have already pointed out, the gita is often a conversation
between two persons, sometimes it is a conversation among six persons
as in Sadja Gita. There Vidura and the five brothers—the Pandavas
participate in a discourse. In other instances it is commonly, a discourse
between two persons. The Vritra gita is a discourse between the demon
Vritra and Sanat Kumar—the child of Brahma, the Creator. The
Parasara Gita has been addressed by Parasara, the saint par-excellence
who happens to be the father of the very narrator of the Mahabharata.
The addressee here is the sage king Janaka. The Hamsa Gita is a
conversation between the Creator in the shape of a Swan and a host
of gods known as Sadhyas.
Thus the two persons participating in the gita need not be men
always. There might be a demon participating in it. There might be a
swan as well. The latter adds to the gita a flavour of the fable.
The two persons could be the personas of someone’s mind &
intellect as well. The Brahman gita a sub-set of the Anu gita is a
conversation between a Brahmin & his wife. The Brahman is the
persona of one’s intellect and the wife is the persona of one’s mind.
Thus even abstract ideas participate in the conversation of the gita
reminding us of the Morality Dramas in vogue during the Middle Age
Europe.
But the gita is not always a conversation between two persons. It
could be a dramatic monologue as in the case of Manky gita. Manky
a poor man fails in his economic pursuits and takes to renunciation.
He speaks to himself about his philosophy of life. A listener could be
present there; or may be there is none.
A gita could be a decree or a sermon as in the case of Vichakhnyu
gita where the king Vichakhnyu at the sight of cows slaughtered decrees
that no animal be slaughtered at the altar of sacrifice.
Most of these gitas have been quoted by the protagonists of the
Mahabharata in response to the queries of another. Thus Bhisma quotes
the Vritra gita in response to the queries of Yudhisthira, when the great
battle at Kurukshetra was over. The same Bhisma quotes the Bodhya
gita, and Vichakhnyu gita or the Hamsa gita on different occasions.
The listener is Yudhisthira. But the Sadja gita dwells on the deliberations
among the Pandavas and Vidura, their uncle, regarding the importance
of the different necessities of life in dharma artha kama & moksha.
Srimad Bhagavad Gita is however, directly addressed to Arjuna.
Krishna is the speaker. The same gita has been however quoted by
Sanjaya to keep Dhritarastra informed of the developments at
Kurukshetra where the belligerent Kauravas & Pandavas assembled
for a fight to the finish. Thus the gita is either a conversation among
people or else it is a speech quoted by one person in course of
conversation with another. Any conversation implies two persons. One
of them is eager to know something on an issue of crucial importance
to him. He puts forward his query before the other, whom he takes in
high esteem. The other, fully satisfied with the former’s devotion to
him and eagerness to know, either answers to the query on his own or
quotes someone’s speech on likely issue, spoken earlier.
For example Arjuna bewildered and at his wits’ end knowing not
what to do at the battleground submits himself at the feet of Krishna &
says—
I am your disciple. Teach me.
Siddha, the teacher, in the Anu gita tells Kasyapa that he is
satisfied with the devotion of his disciple.
The teacher must be satisfied with the disciple.
I am happy with thee, oh you learned
Tell me what I can do for you.
You are quite deserving for what you want.
And the right time is come. (A.G.-I, 42)
Yes, utterance at the right time is one of the important features of
the gita.
Srikrishna had earlier told the gita to Arjuna at the battle ground of
Kurukshetra. The Kurukshetra battle over, Arjuna once again asked
Krishna to repeat the contents of the gita once again.
But Krishna says that he is now helpless. Because, the situation
that impelled Krishna to utter the gita at the battle-field is no longer
present. When he told the gita to Arjuna, he points out that he was
yogayukta or under the spell of ecstasy. He chides Arjuna for not
remembering what Krishna told him earlier at the battle field.
Thus, the gita has always been uttered in a fit of ecstasy. When the
speaker is beyond himself. The utterance takes place as it were for
the first time and it is unique. Since one cannot say the gita. Whenever
one wills, could we argue that speech reveals itself through its speakers
whenever it wills.
The gita like all speech has three components in the encoder/speaker,
the decoder/listener and the speech or the gita itself.
It has been already pointed out, the speakers and the listeners of
the gita are no ordinary men and women. Yudhisthira, in quest of
knowledge tells Bhisma at the outset of the Vritra Gita.
Oh Grandfather ! Though we belong to men we are born of gods, still we
suffer from worldly sorrows. (VG -1, 2)
Yudhisthira is a man born of the seed of Yama, the deity that
controls the world. The addressee, Grandfather Bhisma is also born
of a mortal father & the goddess of the river Ganges. It is the grandfather
who quotes the Vritra Gita where Vritra, a demon puts forward his
queries and Sanat Kumar, the direct descendant of the Creator Brahma,
is the teacher. The frame of these gitas are chiefly conversation between
Yudhisthira and Bhisma or between Arjuna & Krishna. In Srimad
Bhagavad Gita Krishna himself speaks the gita. In the Sadja gita
Yudhisthira and his four brothers and Bidura who is also born of Yama
participate in a discourse. In other gitas, there are more than one
order of addressor & addressee. For example in the Vritra gita, the
first order of addressor and addressee are Yudhisthira and Bhisma. At
the instance of Yudhisthira Bhisma quotes the conversation between
the fallen demon and Sanat Kumar and Sukracharya the teacher of
the demons. That is the second order of addressor & addressee. As
in Anugita, there could be a third order of addressor & addressee &
so on.
As we have already referred to the Siddha’s spech in the Anu gita,
it is evident that any Tom Dick & Harry cannot be the listener of such
gitas. In the Srimad Bhagavad Gita also Krishna observes
I tell you the most secret thing.
You are dear to me.
Hence I tell you for your well-being
Sarvaguhyatamam bhuyah srinu me paramam vacah
Istosi me dridamiti tato vakshyami te hitam. (B.G- XVIII, 64)
Krishna warns Arjuna
Never impart it to a man sans penance
or sans devotion
Don’t tell it to one who does not want to hear
Or to one who despises me. (BH.G-XVIII, 67)
This puts in one’s minds the reader’s aesthetics. To decode the
text, it needs a competent reader. While the modern critics like Riffaterre
demand of the reader certain critical faculties and certain faculties of
imagination necessary to decode a text, the Bhagavad Gita, asks
something more from the reader. (i) He should be adept in penance.
(ii) He should have reverence. (iii) He must not despise the speaker or
author. (iv) He must be willing to read or hear. But, be that as it may,
Krishna spoke to Arjuna at the battleground of Kurukshetra in the
open space so that quite a few of the warriors could hear him besides
Arjuna. Hence the gitas are not necessarily the secret lore to be
imparted to a select few. By Vedavyasa’s own admission it must be
accepted that the Mahabharata & the Puranas, have been composed
only to be imparted among the masses, irrespective of caste or creed
or sex. And yet the Mahabharata itself argues that no one can fully
decode it.
(From A Study of the Gitas in Mahabharata by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya )
Monday, 12 January 2009
Gitas in Mahabharata - Introduction - 1
- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya
Mm. Ananta Thakur argues in one of his treatises that even if we
delete the Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the extant text of the
Mahabharata the message of the Bhagavad Gita will be easily
discernible from any and every part of what is left of the vast narrative.
He further observes that there are a number of gitas besides the
Bhagavad Gita scattered in the vast epic. Together they echo the
message of the Bhagavad Gita only. Mm. Thakur is a Naiyayika or a
logician Indian style par excellence. He employs his logic to the end of
his conclusion. On one side, he proves his point with the aid of negation.
Delete the Bhagavad Gita from the text and yet one can reconstruct
the message of the Bhagavad Gita from what remains (Vipaksa). On
the other side, he argues with the affirmative statements that there are
many Gitas strewn in the vast epic (Sapaksa). They are perfectly in
unison with the Bhagavad Gita. They together echo the message of
the Bhagavad Gita only.
One does not speak in vacuum. There must be purbapaksha or
an earlier speech to any speech whatever. And surely Mm. Thakur’s
observation is a response to the opinions of those critics who posit
that the Bhagavad Gita is not an organic part of the Mahabharata. The
latter feel that the Bhagavad Gita is but an instance of interpolation in
the vast epic.
Mm. Thakur however disagrees with such a view and feels that the
Bhagavad Gita is part & parcel of the vast epic Mahabharata. This is
not all. The whole of the Mahabharata as Mm. Thakur opines is instinct
with the message of the Bhagavad Gita.
This is the pratijna or the premise for our present study. We propose
hereby to check the truth of ths same.
When Mm. Thakur asserts that the Srimad Bhagavad Gita is the
part & parcel of the Mahabharata, he does not mean thereby that the
Mahabharata has had no interpolation. Because the extant version of
the Mahabharata is told by Sauti. Sauti, heard it from Vaisampayana.
Vaisampayana learnt it from Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa composed the
Mahabharata itself. May be Vedavyasa had composed only 24000
verses which expanded into the Mahabharata as it is. Thus the
Mahabharata is an instance of the epic of growth. Those who would
not see eye to eye with this interpretation of the story of the growth of
the Mahabharata as a narrative will agree that the same Mahabharata,
was composed of 60 lakh verses to be read in heaven. It consisted of
30 lakh verses to be read in the Gandharvaloka. And it was made of
1 lakh verses to be read on the earth. Besides Vedavyasa wrote the
Mahabharata consisting of 24000 slokas as well. The Mahabharata
itself says that it could be read in abridged form as well as in enlarged
editions.
This is not all. As the Mahabharata itself testifies, one could start to
read the same, beginning with the Anukramanika or the preface, or
else with the Astika Parva and so on.
That shows that the Mahabharata itself does not approve of any
rigid text where no word or sloka or syllable could be displaced.
Everybody will agree that the preface of a work is always written
after the work is composed & still it precedes the text. And the
Mahabharata also observes that its anukramanika has been written
after the text was composed & yet the text could begin with the
anukramanika itself.
Thus it is evident from the admission of the text itself that the text is
not an organic whole. One could read the text beginning from anywhere.
Besides, any part of the text could be abridged or omitted.
Consequently any extract from the text could be read independent
of the text as well. and the people read the Srimad Bhagavad Gita an
extract from the Mahabharata as a complete work in itself and a unique
work of art.
The Pratijna, however, seeks to posit that despite allowing the text
every kind of flexibility as to its structure & meaning, one must admit
that any part & every part of the text has a homogeneity as to its
meaning and that is easily perceptible once we compare the gitas strewn
in the text.
Here we must pause a while to describe what a gita is. The Srimad
Bhagavad Gita is popularly known as the gita. But besides the Srimad
Bhagavad Gita, there are many other Gitas, widely known & read in
India. They do not always belong to the Mahabharata alone. The
Gorakhpur press has published the Gajendra Gita which is an excerpt
from the Bhagavata Purana. Besides there is Uddhava Gita. It is also
an extract from the Bhagavata. Then there is the Devi Gita, an extract
from the Devi Bhagavata. Upendranath Mukhopadhyaya of Basumati
Sahitaymandir published an anthology of twenty-five such gitas, as
early as during the first half of the 20th Century. But that collection is
no longer extant in the market. Of late, Chittaranjan Ghosal has edited
a volume consisting of thirty five gitas in all culled from different Puranas
and the Mahabharata as well.
The gitas belonging to the Mahabharata that Mm. Thakur has
referred to besides the Srimad Bhagavad Gita are
1. Vritra Gita (12/279-80) V.G
2. Harita Gita (12/278) H.G
3. Bodhya Gita (12/178) BO.G
4. Manky Gita (12/177) M.G
5. Sadja Gita (12/167) S.G
6. Vichakhnyu Gita (12/265) VI.G
7. Sampaka Gita (12/176) S.G
8. Parasara Gita (12/290-8) P.G
9. Anu Gita (14/16-9) A. G
10. Brahmana Gita (14/29-34) Br.G
11. Rishabha Gita (12/125-8) R.G
12. Hamsa Gita (13/299) H.G
13. Utathya Gita (12/90-1) U.G
14. Vamadeva Gita (12/92-4) VA.G
( Excerpted from A Study of the GITAS in the Mahabharata by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya )
Mm. Ananta Thakur argues in one of his treatises that even if we
delete the Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the extant text of the
Mahabharata the message of the Bhagavad Gita will be easily
discernible from any and every part of what is left of the vast narrative.
He further observes that there are a number of gitas besides the
Bhagavad Gita scattered in the vast epic. Together they echo the
message of the Bhagavad Gita only. Mm. Thakur is a Naiyayika or a
logician Indian style par excellence. He employs his logic to the end of
his conclusion. On one side, he proves his point with the aid of negation.
Delete the Bhagavad Gita from the text and yet one can reconstruct
the message of the Bhagavad Gita from what remains (Vipaksa). On
the other side, he argues with the affirmative statements that there are
many Gitas strewn in the vast epic (Sapaksa). They are perfectly in
unison with the Bhagavad Gita. They together echo the message of
the Bhagavad Gita only.
One does not speak in vacuum. There must be purbapaksha or
an earlier speech to any speech whatever. And surely Mm. Thakur’s
observation is a response to the opinions of those critics who posit
that the Bhagavad Gita is not an organic part of the Mahabharata. The
latter feel that the Bhagavad Gita is but an instance of interpolation in
the vast epic.
Mm. Thakur however disagrees with such a view and feels that the
Bhagavad Gita is part & parcel of the vast epic Mahabharata. This is
not all. The whole of the Mahabharata as Mm. Thakur opines is instinct
with the message of the Bhagavad Gita.
This is the pratijna or the premise for our present study. We propose
hereby to check the truth of ths same.
When Mm. Thakur asserts that the Srimad Bhagavad Gita is the
part & parcel of the Mahabharata, he does not mean thereby that the
Mahabharata has had no interpolation. Because the extant version of
the Mahabharata is told by Sauti. Sauti, heard it from Vaisampayana.
Vaisampayana learnt it from Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa composed the
Mahabharata itself. May be Vedavyasa had composed only 24000
verses which expanded into the Mahabharata as it is. Thus the
Mahabharata is an instance of the epic of growth. Those who would
not see eye to eye with this interpretation of the story of the growth of
the Mahabharata as a narrative will agree that the same Mahabharata,
was composed of 60 lakh verses to be read in heaven. It consisted of
30 lakh verses to be read in the Gandharvaloka. And it was made of
1 lakh verses to be read on the earth. Besides Vedavyasa wrote the
Mahabharata consisting of 24000 slokas as well. The Mahabharata
itself says that it could be read in abridged form as well as in enlarged
editions.
This is not all. As the Mahabharata itself testifies, one could start to
read the same, beginning with the Anukramanika or the preface, or
else with the Astika Parva and so on.
That shows that the Mahabharata itself does not approve of any
rigid text where no word or sloka or syllable could be displaced.
Everybody will agree that the preface of a work is always written
after the work is composed & still it precedes the text. And the
Mahabharata also observes that its anukramanika has been written
after the text was composed & yet the text could begin with the
anukramanika itself.
Thus it is evident from the admission of the text itself that the text is
not an organic whole. One could read the text beginning from anywhere.
Besides, any part of the text could be abridged or omitted.
Consequently any extract from the text could be read independent
of the text as well. and the people read the Srimad Bhagavad Gita an
extract from the Mahabharata as a complete work in itself and a unique
work of art.
The Pratijna, however, seeks to posit that despite allowing the text
every kind of flexibility as to its structure & meaning, one must admit
that any part & every part of the text has a homogeneity as to its
meaning and that is easily perceptible once we compare the gitas strewn
in the text.
Here we must pause a while to describe what a gita is. The Srimad
Bhagavad Gita is popularly known as the gita. But besides the Srimad
Bhagavad Gita, there are many other Gitas, widely known & read in
India. They do not always belong to the Mahabharata alone. The
Gorakhpur press has published the Gajendra Gita which is an excerpt
from the Bhagavata Purana. Besides there is Uddhava Gita. It is also
an extract from the Bhagavata. Then there is the Devi Gita, an extract
from the Devi Bhagavata. Upendranath Mukhopadhyaya of Basumati
Sahitaymandir published an anthology of twenty-five such gitas, as
early as during the first half of the 20th Century. But that collection is
no longer extant in the market. Of late, Chittaranjan Ghosal has edited
a volume consisting of thirty five gitas in all culled from different Puranas
and the Mahabharata as well.
The gitas belonging to the Mahabharata that Mm. Thakur has
referred to besides the Srimad Bhagavad Gita are
1. Vritra Gita (12/279-80) V.G
2. Harita Gita (12/278) H.G
3. Bodhya Gita (12/178) BO.G
4. Manky Gita (12/177) M.G
5. Sadja Gita (12/167) S.G
6. Vichakhnyu Gita (12/265) VI.G
7. Sampaka Gita (12/176) S.G
8. Parasara Gita (12/290-8) P.G
9. Anu Gita (14/16-9) A. G
10. Brahmana Gita (14/29-34) Br.G
11. Rishabha Gita (12/125-8) R.G
12. Hamsa Gita (13/299) H.G
13. Utathya Gita (12/90-1) U.G
14. Vamadeva Gita (12/92-4) VA.G
( Excerpted from A Study of the GITAS in the Mahabharata by Ramesh Chandra Mukhopadhyaya )
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Hindu Gods and Goddesses in Japan
- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya
Taishuku Ten-----Indra .
Bon Ten -----Brahmaa.
Ka Ten-----Agni.
Emma Ten-----Yama.
Sul Ten-----Varuna.
Hu Ten -----Vaayu.
Bishamon Ten ----Vaisravana or Kubera.
Makeishura Ten-----Maheshwara.
Ishana Ten----Ishana.
Shokyo-Ten-----Neelkantha.
Daikoku-----Mahakala .
Ji Ten----Prithvi.
Nit Ten------Surya.
Gat Ten-----Chandra.
Sho Ten----Ganesha.
Kumaara Ten----Kart
Keya Benzai Ten -----Saraswati.
Kichijo Ten----Lakshmi.
Raasetsu Ten-----Raksasas.
Ashura----Asura.
Karura----Garuda
Taizanfukun-----Chitragupta.
Juntel Kannon----Durga
(Source----D N Bakshi-----Hindu Divinities in-- Japanese Buddhist Pantheon ----Benten ) Publication---Calcutta
Taishuku Ten-----Indra .
Bon Ten -----Brahmaa.
Ka Ten-----Agni.
Emma Ten-----Yama.
Sul Ten-----Varuna.
Hu Ten -----Vaayu.
Bishamon Ten ----Vaisravana or Kubera.
Makeishura Ten-----Maheshwara.
Ishana Ten----Ishana.
Shokyo-Ten-----Neelkantha.
Daikoku-----Mahakala .
Ji Ten----Prithvi.
Nit Ten------Surya.
Gat Ten-----Chandra.
Sho Ten----Ganesha.
Kumaara Ten----Kart
Keya Benzai Ten -----Saraswati.
Kichijo Ten----Lakshmi.
Raasetsu Ten-----Raksasas.
Ashura----Asura.
Karura----Garuda
Taizanfukun-----Chitragupta.
Juntel Kannon----Durga
(Source----D N Bakshi-----Hindu Divinities in-- Japanese Buddhist Pantheon ----Benten ) Publication---Calcutta
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Riddles in Mahabharata
- Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya
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 panse 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.
(This is an excerpt from the book on Gitas by Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya)
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 panse 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.
(This is an excerpt from the book on Gitas by Ramesh Mukhopadhyaya)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)