It is useful
to evaluate the story of Draupadi Vastraharana in multiple layers of the Mahabharata from
historical context. Since these earlier texts are non-existent, they
have to be inferred, although there is much scholarship on the Jayam, the Bharata and the Mahabharata available.
The earliest Jayam is from the late Vedic and post vedic times of maybe 800 BC to about 300 BC and should be read with the Vedic Brahmanas, Baudhayana and Gautama dharma sutra which are the most ancient of the dharma shastras. In all of these the wife is the property of the husband and he has the right to gamble her away if he so desires - and the winner has the right to the woman (disrobing being just a euphemism). The purpose of the original story is to highlight that what is right according to the dharma sutra may not really be right - it was initially a straightforward play highlighting many social rules which contradict the principles of natural justice and should be read as such. Iin this time Krishna was not yet a God either to the Vedic people nor to the story itself - Krishna is just a person of doubtful Aryan parentage and to whom all kinds of trickery is ascribed (which is why he is called Krishna - his colour emphasises his deceit, but serves to illustrate as to how ends can justify means - including trickery. The laws of the dharma shastra contradict what seems right to the people listening to the story - since the Pandavas are good and Kauravas are bad. On the face of it, what Krishna does in the Kurukshetra war is trickery - but it still correct!!! His upadesha in the Gita probably ended 2/3rd of the way into the 2nd chapter in the original version, mostly reflecting upanishadic thought about Atma and its nature. The Jayam was much shorter than the Bharata and of course dwarfed the Mahabharata.
The second layer of Mahabharata is a more complex story of the Bharata - probably between 300 BC to 300 AD - where the story starts to get a bit muddled because the people were adopting a Hinduism which was in transition, a time when Buddhists were in power and new Gods were emerging from South India, Kushans, Indo Greeks and Scythians - a time when Panini grammar and writing had come to India permitting enlargement of the Jayam to the Bharata - the dharma was still of the original sutra literature but the people were following a more modified Hinduism to which these original dharma rules were not so strictly applicable. Therefore the epic story was getting newer interpretations which were still more confusing. The Bharata was a slowly enlarging manuscript and the Gita was enlarged by the addition of the Karma marga portions which are a post upanishadic and very complex philosophy of action - this reinterprets the actions of the story which also got enlarged. Krishna was still not a God in the story although to the common people the name Krishna coincided with the most popular God after Shiva (who probably predates Krishna). In this period the Bhagavatas and their Bhagavan dominated the region around Delhi. It is because of these contradictions, that the Puranas in their earliest versions started getting written to explain away the contradictions in the epic and the Bharata enlargement coincided with the earliest of the Puranic explanations.
The final version of the Mahabharata emerged post Gupta period - the Guptas were Vaishnavites and the Hinduism we know took its final current form in this period. During this time the Mahabharata took its current form with great enlargement. Now Krishna was a God, one of the most popular Gods of the time with Royal patronage. So the story took a twist because how could Draupadi have a vastraharan when Krishna is there in the story? So he saves her supernaturally and the concept of Bhakti and prapatti enters into the story. Gita reached its current form with addition of the Bhakti portions - because of which the three parts of the Gita based on Upanishadic Gyana, Karma and Bhakti marge are intertwined and encapsulate all of Hindu philosophy in a beautiful concise form. Puranas reached their current form during this time and because of the contradictions, they explain actions in too many different ways causing more confusion - since the explanation adds to the confusion. Samkhya philosophy and rebirth is an essential part of the Vaishnavism of this period and its addition to the story causes further complication, since Dashavatara and Krishna as rebirth of Vedic God Vishnu now gets added. The bare-bones of the story remain the same, but a Bhakti Vedantic explanation of the entire story including the vastaharan, addition of Krishna birth story into the Mahabharata and modification of the story in tune with Samhkya theory i.e. karma not from action perspective but karma from rebirth perspective occur. A deep sense of trying to explain everything in a way different from what the original story teller intended mean that without proper understanding of the three layers of the Mahabharata, the story can never be properly understood or debated - since the explanations are trying to push the Bhakti philosophy and Samkhya philosophy rather than the original Upanishadic philosophy (which is very different from Samkhya)
At the end of the day, the story is just a story - things happen. We seek to understand all the reasons behind the actions - and in the process we gain wisdom. In any theatrical play, the story provokes thought - nothing provokes more thought than Mahabharata - whether it is actions of Yudhistira, Bhishma, Arjuna, Krishna - everything is complex and requires a lot of analysis.
But it is important to realise also that the Dharma of the Vedic Brahmana was extremely regressive and not at all palatable to the modern mind - we seek to find goodness in the Veda but whether it is caste system or the complex rules of the Brahmana condensed into Baudhayana - people are not equal, women have a lesser place in society and are the property of the father and husband - and the purpose of the story is in fact critical - to show how these regressive rules are meant to be broken rather than adhered to .
In that sense - Mahabharata is a very modern story indeed. Its a thought provoking play, enough to spend a lifetime analysing. To me it has always been the greatest play and greatest story ever written. It would be amazing to have it remade as a historical tele play - but with nuanced rather than crude interpretations as with the earlier versions.
The earliest Jayam is from the late Vedic and post vedic times of maybe 800 BC to about 300 BC and should be read with the Vedic Brahmanas, Baudhayana and Gautama dharma sutra which are the most ancient of the dharma shastras. In all of these the wife is the property of the husband and he has the right to gamble her away if he so desires - and the winner has the right to the woman (disrobing being just a euphemism). The purpose of the original story is to highlight that what is right according to the dharma sutra may not really be right - it was initially a straightforward play highlighting many social rules which contradict the principles of natural justice and should be read as such. Iin this time Krishna was not yet a God either to the Vedic people nor to the story itself - Krishna is just a person of doubtful Aryan parentage and to whom all kinds of trickery is ascribed (which is why he is called Krishna - his colour emphasises his deceit, but serves to illustrate as to how ends can justify means - including trickery. The laws of the dharma shastra contradict what seems right to the people listening to the story - since the Pandavas are good and Kauravas are bad. On the face of it, what Krishna does in the Kurukshetra war is trickery - but it still correct!!! His upadesha in the Gita probably ended 2/3rd of the way into the 2nd chapter in the original version, mostly reflecting upanishadic thought about Atma and its nature. The Jayam was much shorter than the Bharata and of course dwarfed the Mahabharata.
The second layer of Mahabharata is a more complex story of the Bharata - probably between 300 BC to 300 AD - where the story starts to get a bit muddled because the people were adopting a Hinduism which was in transition, a time when Buddhists were in power and new Gods were emerging from South India, Kushans, Indo Greeks and Scythians - a time when Panini grammar and writing had come to India permitting enlargement of the Jayam to the Bharata - the dharma was still of the original sutra literature but the people were following a more modified Hinduism to which these original dharma rules were not so strictly applicable. Therefore the epic story was getting newer interpretations which were still more confusing. The Bharata was a slowly enlarging manuscript and the Gita was enlarged by the addition of the Karma marga portions which are a post upanishadic and very complex philosophy of action - this reinterprets the actions of the story which also got enlarged. Krishna was still not a God in the story although to the common people the name Krishna coincided with the most popular God after Shiva (who probably predates Krishna). In this period the Bhagavatas and their Bhagavan dominated the region around Delhi. It is because of these contradictions, that the Puranas in their earliest versions started getting written to explain away the contradictions in the epic and the Bharata enlargement coincided with the earliest of the Puranic explanations.
The final version of the Mahabharata emerged post Gupta period - the Guptas were Vaishnavites and the Hinduism we know took its final current form in this period. During this time the Mahabharata took its current form with great enlargement. Now Krishna was a God, one of the most popular Gods of the time with Royal patronage. So the story took a twist because how could Draupadi have a vastraharan when Krishna is there in the story? So he saves her supernaturally and the concept of Bhakti and prapatti enters into the story. Gita reached its current form with addition of the Bhakti portions - because of which the three parts of the Gita based on Upanishadic Gyana, Karma and Bhakti marge are intertwined and encapsulate all of Hindu philosophy in a beautiful concise form. Puranas reached their current form during this time and because of the contradictions, they explain actions in too many different ways causing more confusion - since the explanation adds to the confusion. Samkhya philosophy and rebirth is an essential part of the Vaishnavism of this period and its addition to the story causes further complication, since Dashavatara and Krishna as rebirth of Vedic God Vishnu now gets added. The bare-bones of the story remain the same, but a Bhakti Vedantic explanation of the entire story including the vastaharan, addition of Krishna birth story into the Mahabharata and modification of the story in tune with Samhkya theory i.e. karma not from action perspective but karma from rebirth perspective occur. A deep sense of trying to explain everything in a way different from what the original story teller intended mean that without proper understanding of the three layers of the Mahabharata, the story can never be properly understood or debated - since the explanations are trying to push the Bhakti philosophy and Samkhya philosophy rather than the original Upanishadic philosophy (which is very different from Samkhya)
At the end of the day, the story is just a story - things happen. We seek to understand all the reasons behind the actions - and in the process we gain wisdom. In any theatrical play, the story provokes thought - nothing provokes more thought than Mahabharata - whether it is actions of Yudhistira, Bhishma, Arjuna, Krishna - everything is complex and requires a lot of analysis.
But it is important to realise also that the Dharma of the Vedic Brahmana was extremely regressive and not at all palatable to the modern mind - we seek to find goodness in the Veda but whether it is caste system or the complex rules of the Brahmana condensed into Baudhayana - people are not equal, women have a lesser place in society and are the property of the father and husband - and the purpose of the story is in fact critical - to show how these regressive rules are meant to be broken rather than adhered to .
In that sense - Mahabharata is a very modern story indeed. Its a thought provoking play, enough to spend a lifetime analysing. To me it has always been the greatest play and greatest story ever written. It would be amazing to have it remade as a historical tele play - but with nuanced rather than crude interpretations as with the earlier versions.
No comments:
Post a Comment