The Mahabharata-A Criticism

THE MAHABHARATA A CRITICISM. BY C. V. VAIDYA, M.A., LL.B., Honorary Fellow of the University of Bombay. A. J. COMBRJDGE & CO. BOMBAY. CONTENTS. BOOK I—THE MAHABHARATA AS A POEM. PAGE Chapter I—The Three Editions of the Book . i II Vyasa, Vaishampayana and Sauti ,, — . 9 ,, III—When and Why the Bharata was Recast 13 ,, IV—How the Mahabharata Attained to its Present Bulk .... 22 ,, V—The Vaishnavite Element in the Mahabharata 37 VI—Mahabharata as an Epic Poem . ,, . 47 BOOK II —THE MAHABHARATA AS A HISTORY. Chapter I —The Date of the Mahabharata War 65 II—Were the Pandavas Real Beings? ,, . 93 ,, III —The Ancestors of the Pandavas . 105 „ IV—Their Birth, Early Life and Marriage Draupadi. With . m ,, V—The Founding of Indraprastha or Dehli and Its First Imperial Assem- blage . .124 ,, VI—The Disgraceful Game at Dice and ITS CONSEQUENCES . .133 ,, VII—The Twelve Years of Exile and One Year of Disappearance . -139 1- „ VI 1 -Preparations for War . .147 „ IX- -The Fight 155 into a Disaster. „ , X—The Triumph turned 169 „ XI- -The Sequel . , , . 177 IV CONTENTS . APPENDIX. PAGE Note No. I —The Extent of the Mahabharata. 185 II Sub-parvas . „ ,, —The .186 III Shlokas „ ,, —Kuta .... 190 IV—Additions subsequently made to ,, ,, the Biiarata . ! *193 Explanation of the Double Posi- M ,, V— tions of the Planets mentioned in the Mahabharata . .210 Brahma-hatya . 221 „ ,, VI -Janmejaya’s PREFACE. A critical stu«fi#l^|li^bharata and the Ramayana, in conjunction with other works bearing on the subject, has suggested to me several new ideas about them which I propose to place before the public in three instalments. The present volume contains my views on the Maha- bharata, considered from the literary and historical stand-points. If the views published in this volume impress the public favourably, I may be encouraged to publish a second volume giving my views on the Ramayana from the same stand- points. In a third volume I intend to take a survey of the social, religious and intellectual con- ditions of the Aryans of India between 3000 and 300 B.C. as evidenced by these venerable epics. “Sankshipta Mahabharata” or “ Mahabharata abridged,” a book recently published by me, if read along with this book, will be found to contain most of the original Shlokas of the Mahabharata on which this criticism is based. Owing to the haste with which this book was carried through the press, some errors of VI PREFACE, spelling have crept in, especially with regard to Sanskrit words, the spelling of which does not often conform to the now generally adopted rules of Writing Sanskrit words in English characters. I hope the indulgent reader will overlook such inaccuracies. It is just possible that some of my readers may have facts or arguments to advance against the views propounded in this book—views which at present seem to be unshakeable. If therefore any of my readers wish to communicate with me in addition to, or instead of, criticising the work in the press, such communications should be addressed to me, to the care of Mr. Yande, Manager of the Induprakash Press, to whom my thanks are due for the interest he took in the publication of this volume. C. V. VAIDYA. Bombay, December 1904. THE MAHABHARATA AS A POEM. CHAPTER I. The Three Editions of the Work. That the Mahabharata in its present form is the second amplification of an orginally much smaller work, nobody .can consistently deny. We have the authority of the Mahabharata itself for the statement that Vyasa, the author of the original work, taught it to five pupils, one of whom was Vaishampayana. Vaishampayana recited the poem before king janmejaya at the time of the Sarpa- satra (serpent sacrifice), performed by him. Now in the Mahabharata, as we have it, there are several questions asked by Janmejaya, and Vaishampayana gives suitable answers. How can these questions and answers have formed part of the original epic composed by Vyasa ? We must hold that Vaishampayana, or some one who heard the- recitation and the dialogue, amplified the original work. Then, again, this amplified Bharata was recited by Sauti before Shaunaka at his twelve years’ sacrifice, and certain questions are asked by Shaunaka and answered by Sauti. These cannot have formed part either of the original work or the amplified edition of Vaishampayana. We are, therefore, compelled to admit that Sauti, or some one else who heard his recitation, amplified the original work a second time. 2 The Mahabharata: A Criticism . These three editions, if we may so call them, can further be proved by various other statements still preserved in the Mahabharata itself, either by oversight or owing to absence of motive to expunge them. We have thus the statement that the work is supposed to have three beginnings. Some believe, it is said, that the Mahabharata begins with Uparichara, others with 1 Astika, and others still with the word Manu. Different lengths are also assigned to the work, and different divisions are also mentioned, and even different names can be easily discovered. We shall see how these different names, divisions and lengths can well be ex- plained on the theory that there were two amplifications of the original work. 7he Original Work . —The original epic was probably in its nature a history and not a didactic work. It is specially called an Itihasa or history, and the name which Vyasa gave to this history was Jaya or “Tri- , umph \ 2 The very first invocation verse contains a mention of this name “Tato jayamudirayet.” We have the same name again given to the work in the last Parva also. The length of this historical poem of Vyasa cannot be ascertained with any exactness, though it is probable that it must have been a long one even then, considering the ambitious scheme of the author, the importance and the grandeur of the events described, and the facility with which Anushtub shlokas can be composed by a girted author. MacDonell remarks 1 Manvadi Bharatam kechidastikadi tathapare. Tathoparicharadyanyo viprali samyagadhiyate—Adi. 1^52. *Jayo oametitiasoyam.— Swargarohana Parva. The Three Editions of the Work . 3 that the length of the original poem of Vyasa is mentioned as 8,800 shlokas. This is in our opinion not true, and for this remark, perhaps, a foot-note in Weber1 is responsible. This figure 2 is given in the Mahabharata, as the number of Kuta shlokas or riddles, of which we ishall have to speak hereafter, and not as the number of Shlokas in the original Mahabharata itself. It is mentioned in the Mahabharata tha t the indus trious Krish na- dwaipayana or Vyasa composed his poem in th ree years, working day and night. It would be natural to expect that Vyasa would begin his work with an account of •himself, and the idea that Bharata really begins with LJparichara seems very justifiable indeed. In the :hapter preceding the 63rd Chapter which begins with ‘ Rajoparicharo nama,” a praise of the Mahabharata tnd some facts about its composition are given by Vai- jhampayana which clearly shows that these 62 chapters in he Adi Parva are later additions made by either Vai- hampayana or Sauti. This does not mean that the work ubsequent to Chapter 62 is in the words of Vyasa iimself. For, it seems probable that the whole has •een so overhauled that it is impossible now to point oany portion of the succeeding work as the composition if the original author himself. The Second Edition . —We now come to the second dition, viz*> the edition of Vaishampayana, who, as has een stated before, was Vyasa’s own pupil and was 1 statement is 1 Foot-note 206, Weber, page 187* The same riven by Mr. Dutt. 2 Ashtau shldka sahasrani ashtau shloka shatanicha Adi. 81-3. Aham vedrai shuko vetti Sanjayo vetti va na va.— ; 4 The Mahabharata: A Criticism, taught the Bharata along with four others, viz., Sumantu, Jaimini, Pailaand Shuka, the son of Vyasa. There is a statement in th e Bharata its elf that each on e of these five pupils published a different edition of the Bharata. This is an express authority for Usto hold that Vai- shampayana al most recast the who le, and brought out his own version. That version is thronlv one now preserved to us, though we have one doubtful Ashwamedha Parva under the name of Jaimini. It seems, however, probable that five different versions were really extant in the days of Ashwalayana who has enumerated all these five Rishis as Bharatacharyas or the editors of Bharata. This also shows that Vaishampayana and his co-pupils’ works first came to be called Bharata. The extent of Vaishampayana’s Bharata appears to have been 24,000 verses; for, there is a shloka in the Mahabharata that X^yasa composed Bharata Samhita (this word is im- portant) of that extent, and that work without its Upa- khyanas is called Bharata. In this Bharata there was a summary chapter at the beginning, ^overing 150 shlokas, in which the number of chapters and the Parvas were also mentioned. Vaishampayana would naturally begin his version with an account of Janmejaya, and his Sarpasatra, where he recited his poem, and thus we have the second beginning assigned to the Mahabharata, viz., with th eAstikopakhyana. The Third Edition . —We lastly come to the third edition of Sauti. That Sauti did recast or elaborate the work of Vaishampayana can be proved* from his 41 own lip§. Know ye, Rishis,” says he, “.I have recited the Bharata in one hundred thousand shlokas The Three Editions of the Work .

Load more