SRI AUROBINDO
THE HARMONY OF VIRTUE
Early Cultural Writings — 1890-1910
Notes on the Mahabharata dealing with the authenticity of each separate canto i.e. whether it belongs or not to the original epic of 24,000 Slokas on the great catastrophe of the Bharatas.
1. Kurupravīrāḥ... sapakṣāḥ — This may mean in Vyasa's elliptic manner the Great Kurus (i.e. the Pandavas) and those of their side. Otherwise “The Kuru heroes of his own side”, i.e. Abhimanyu's, which is awkward.
3. Vṛddhau — This supplies the reason of their pre-eminence.
5. Pradyumna-sāmbau ca yudhi pravīrau. This establishes Pradyumna and Samba as historical sons of Krishna.
Virāṭaputraiśca — Virata has therefore several sons, three at least.
kṛtvā vivāhaṁ tu kurupravīrāstadā'bhimanyormuditāḥ sapakṣāḥ
viśramya rātrāvuṣasi pratītāḥ sabhāṁ virāṭasya tato'bhijagmuḥ
sabhā tu sā matsyapateḥ samṛddhā maṇipravekottamaratnacitrā
nyastāsanā mālyavatī sugandhā tāmabhyayuste nararājavaryāḥ
athāsanānyāviśatāṁ purastādubhau virāṭadrupadau narendrau
vṛddhau ca mānyau pṛthivīpatīnāṁ pitrā samaṁ rāmajanārdanau ca
pāñcālarājasya samīpatastu śinipravīraḥ saharauhiṇeyaḥ
matsyasya rājñastu susannikṛṣṭau janārdanaścaiva yudhiṣṭhiraśca
sutāśca sarve drupadasya rājño bhīmārjunau mādravatīsutau ca
pradyumnasāmbau ca yudhi pravīrau virāṭaputraiśca sahābhimanyuḥ
sarve ca śūrāḥ pitṛbhiḥ samānā vīryeṇa rūpeṇa balena caiva
upāviśandraupadeyāḥ kumārāḥ suvarṇacitreṣu varāsaneṣu
tathopaviṣṭeṣu mahāratheṣu virājamānābharaṇāmbareṣu
rarāja sā rājavatī samṛddhā grahairiva dyaurvimalairupetā
7. The simile is strictly in the style of Vyasa who cares little for newness or ingenuity, so long as the image called up effects the purpose. The assonance rarāja sā rājavatī is an epic assonance altogether uncommon in Vyasa and due evidently to the influence of Valmiki.
8. Strong, brief and illumining strokes of description which add to the naturalness of the scene, tataḥ kathāste samavāyayuktāḥ: while also adding a touch that reveals the inwardness of the situation:
kṛtvā vicitrāḥ puruṣa-pravīrāḥ,
Tasthurmuhūrtaṁ paricintayantaḥ kṛṣṇaṁ nṛpāste samudīkṣamāṇāḥ.
9. Saṁghaṭṭitāḥ — surely means “assembled” and nothing else.
P. C. Roy in taking it as “drew their attention to” shows his usual slovenliness.
Lele also errs in his translation.
He interprets it: “as soon as the talk was over Krishna assembled the kings for the affairs of the Pandavas.”
But the kings were already assembled and seated; not only so but they were waiting for Krishna to begin.
It is absurd to suppose that as soon as Krishna began speaking they left their seats and clustered around him like a pack of schoolboys.
Yet this is the only sense in which we can take Lele's rendering.
I prefer to take the obvious sense of the words: “As soon as they had reached an end of talk, all those lion-kings assembled by the den of Madhou in the interests of the Pandava listened in a body to his high-thoughted and fateful speech.”
Sumahodayam — having mighty consequences.
10. Ayam — here beside me. See verse 4. Yudhishthira is sitting just by Krishna separated by Virata.
tataḥ kathāste samavāyayuktāḥ kṛtvā vicitrāḥ puruṣapravīrāḥ
tasthurmuhūrttaṁ paricintayantaḥ kṛṣṇaṁ nṛpāste samudīkṣamāṇāḥ
kathāntamāsādya ca mādhavena saṁghaṭṭitāḥ pāṇḍavakāryahetoḥ
te rājasiṁhāḥ sahitā hyaśṛṇvanvākyaṁ mahārthaṁ sumahodayaṁ ca
sarvair bhavadbhirviditaṁ yathā'yaṁ yudhiṣṭhiraḥ saubalenākṣavatyām
jito nikṛtyā'pahṛtaṁ ca rājyaṁ vanapravāse samayaḥ kṛtaśca
11. Tarasā — taras expresses any swift, violent and impetuous act, anything that has the momentum of strength and impulse or fire and energy.
Satyarathaiḥ — This is a word of doubtful import; it may mean “of unerring chariots”, i.e. skilful fighters, or else “honourable fighters”, rathaḥ being used as in mahārathaḥ, adhirathaḥ fighter in a chariot. Cf. satyaparākramaḥ. In the first case the epithet would be otiose and ornamental and an epic assonance. I cannot think however that Vyasa was capable of putting a purely decorative epic epithet in so emphatic a place. It must surely mean either “honourable fighters” or “making truth their chariot”; ratha being used as in manoratha etc. The latter however is almost too much a flight of fancy for Vyasa. [The word is satye sthitaiḥ, according to another version.]
12. Trayodaśaścaiva, — agreeing with Samvatsara which the mind supplies from varṣāṇi in the last line and Virvatsa has to be supplied from Chirnam. This is the true Vyasa style.
Niviṣṭa — niviś: to abide. This sense though not given in Apte may be deduced from niveśaḥ: impersonal “it has been dwelt”.
13. It will be seen from Krishna's attitude here as elsewhere that he was very far from being the engineer and subtle contriver of war into which later ideas have deformed him. That he came down to force on war and destroy the Kshatriya caste, whether to open India to the world or for other cause, is an idea that was not present to the mind of Vyasa. Later generations writing, when the pure Kshatriya caste had almost disappeared, attributed this motive for God's descent upon earth, just
śaktairvijetuṁ tarasā mahīṁ ca satye sthitaiḥ satyarathairyayathāvat
pāṇḍoḥ sutaistad vratamugrarūpaṁ varṣāṇi ṣaṭ sapta ca cīrṇamagryaiḥ
trayodaśaścaiva sudustaro'yamajñāyamānairbhavatāṁ samīpe
kleśānasahyānvividhānsahadbhirmahātmabhiścāpi vane niviṣṭam
etaiḥ parapreṣyaniyogayuktairicchadbhirāptaṁ svakulena rājyam
evaṁ gate dharmasutasya rājño duryodhanasyāpi ca yaddhitaṁ syāt
as a modern English Theosophist, perceiving British rule established in India, has added the corollary that he destroyed the Kshatriyas (five thousand years ago, according to her own belief) in order to make the line clear for the English. What Vyasa, on the other hand, makes us feel is that Krishna, though fixed to support justice at every cost, was earnestly desirous to support it by peaceful means if possible. His speech is an evident attempt to restrain the eagerness of the Matsyas and Panchalas who were bent on war as the only means of overthrowing the Kuru domination.
14-15. Krishna's testimony to Yudhishthira's character is here of great importance.
Adharmayuktaṁ na ca kāmayeta rājyaṁ surāṇāmapi dharmarājaḥ.
Dharmārthayuktaṁ tu mahīpatitvaṁ grāme'pi kasmimścidayaṁ bubhūṣet.
That Yudhishthira has deserved this character to the letter so far anyone who has followed the story will admit. If he acts in diametrical opposition to this character in any future passage we shall have some ground to pause before we admit the genuineness of the passage.
Bubhūṣet — desiderative of bhū in the sense of “get, obtain”, “would aspire after”.
16. Mithyopacāreṇa — by fraudulent procedure.
That is, if Duryodhana had taken the kingdom from the Pandavas in fair war by his own energy and genius (svatejasā), he would not have transgressed the ordinary Dharma of the Kshatriya. In that case the Pandavas might have accepted the verdict of Fate and refrained from plunging the country in farther bloodshed.
taccintayadhvaṁ kurupāṇḍavānāṁ dharmyaṁ ca yuktaṁ ca yaśaskaraṁ ca
adharmayuktaṁ na ca kāmayeta rājyaṁ surāṇāmapi dharmarājaḥ
dharmārthayuktaṁ tu mahīpatitvaṁ grāme'pi kasmiṁścidayaṁ bubhūṣet
pitryaṁ hi rājyaṁ viditaṁ nṛpāṇāṁ yathā'pakṛṣṭaṁ dhṛtarāṣṭraputraiḥ
mithyopacāreṇa yathā hyanena kṛcchraṁ mahatprāptamasahyarūpam
na cāpi pārtho vijito raṇe taiḥ svatejasā dhṛtarāṣṭrasya putraiḥ
17. Prapīḍya [nipiḍya — another version] by force, pressure; as a result of conquest in open battle.
This seems to point to the Vijayaparva; but the reference is general and may apply to the Rajasuya generally.
Tu — The force is “but you know what the Dhartarashtras are, their fierceness, falseness and land-hunger, — how even in the childhood of the Pandavas these, their banded foemen, sought to slay them by various means”. For he evidently desired to try conciliation first, before resorting to threats. The choice of the Purohita was that of King Drupada, and the leaders of the Brahmavarta nations who desired to break the supremacy among them of the Kurus.
18. Bālāstvime — An allusion to the early persecution of the Pandavas by Duryodhana. If we accept this Parva in its completeness, we must accept the genuineness in the main of the early narrative of the Adiparva in so far as it is covered by the Sloka. Notice especially vividhairupāyaiḥ.
19. This seems to point to the Digvijaya Parva; but the reference is general and may apply to the Rajasuya generally.
22. Tathāpi — for all their good will. It is part of the inverted commas implied in iti.
tathā'pi rājā sahitaḥ suhṛdbhirabhīpsate'nāmayameva teṣām
yattu svayaṁ pāṇḍusutairvijitya samāhṛtaṁ bhūmipatīnprapīḍya
tatprārthayante puruṣapravīrāḥ kuntīsutā mādravatīsutau ca
bālāstvime tairvividhairupāyaiḥ samprārthitā hantumamitrasaňghaiḥ
rājyaṁ jihīrṣadbhirasadbhirugraiḥ sarvaṁ ca tadvo viditaṁ yathāvat
teṣāṁ ca lobhaṁ prasamīkṣya vṛddhaṁ dharmjñatāṁ cāpi yudhiṣṭhirasya
saṁbandhitāṁ cāpi samīkṣya teṣāṁ matiṁ kurudhvaṁ sahitāḥ pṛthakca
ime ca satye'bhiratāḥ sadaiva taṁ pālayitvā samayaṁ yathāvat
ato'nyathā tairupacaryamāṇā hanyuḥ sametāndhṛtarāṣṭraputrān
tairviprakāraṁ ca niśamya kāryaṁ suhṛjjanāstānparivārayeyuḥ
yuddhena bādheyurimāṁstathaivaṁ tairbādhyamānā yudhitāṁśca hanyuḥ
tathā'pi neme'lpatayā'samarthāsteṣāṁ jayāyeti bhavenmatirvaḥ
23. Yateyureva — would at least do their utmost.
Yathāvat — definitely; though they may form a shrewd guess.
25. Rājyārdhadānāya — Krishna does not, at present at any rate, suggest a compromise; let them first make their full claim to which they are entitled (notice genitive).
This canto is in the very finest and most characteristic style of Vyasa; precise, simple and hardy in phrasing, with a strong, curt, decisive movement and a pregnant mode of expression, in which a kernel of thought is expressed and its corollaries suggested so as to form a thought-atmosphere around it. There is no superfluous or lost word or sentence, but each goes straight to its mark and says something which wanted to be said. The speech of Krishna is admirably characteristic of the man as we have seen him in the Sabhaparva; firm and precise in outlook and sure of its own drift, it is yet full of an admirable and disinterested statesmanlike broadmindedness.
sametya sarve sahitāḥ suhṛdbhisteṣāṁ vināśāya yateyureva
duryodhanasyāpi mataṁ yathāvanna jñāyate kiṁ nu kariṣyatīti
ajñāyamāne ca mate parasya mantrasya pāraṁ kathamabhyupemaḥ
tasmādito gacchatu dharmaśīlaḥ śuciḥ kulīnaḥ puruṣo'pramattaḥ
dūtaḥ samarthaḥ praśamāya teṣāṁ rājyārdhadānāya yudhiṣṭhirasya
niśamya vākyaṁ tu janārdanasya dharmārthayuktaṁ madhuraṁ samaṁ ca
samādade vākyamathāgrajo'sya saṁpūjya vākyaṁ tadatīva rājan
mahābhārate, udyogaparvaṇi, senodyogaparvaṇi, purohitayāne1 prathamo'dhyāyaḥ
Divyamānaḥ pratidevanena — Can this not mean “being challenged to dice placed against Saubala or in acceptance of the challenge”, or must it mean “gambled and that against Saubala”?
utsṛjya tān saubalameva cāyaṁ samāhvayat tena jito'kṣavatyām
sa dīvyamānaḥ pratidevanena akṣeṣu nityaṁ tu parāňmukheṣu
1 Purohitāyane — This title is evidently a misnomer; there is no mention of the Purohita, far less does he set out as yet nor need we suppose he is hinted at in the description of a suitable envoy. It is doubtful whether Krishna would have singled out a Panchala Purohita as the best intermediary between the Kurus for he evidently desired to try conciliation first, before resorting to threats. The choice of the Purohita was that of King Drupada and the leaders of the Brahmavarta nations who desired to break the supremacy among them of the Kurus
{DocumentDescription}
{EndingDate}
{Year}
1902
{/Year}{Exactness}
Circa
{/Exactness}{/EndingDate}{DateType}
Writting
{/DateType}{WorkKind}
Notes
{/WorkKind}{/DocumentDescription}