In this series, we will look closely at some fairly brief extracts from the Mahabharata, taken from an obscure and slightly summative translation.
I.
"OM! Before Nara and Narayana, the highest of the males present, bowing, and also in front of Sarasvati the goddess of learning: the word Jaya [victory] may resound."
Only given certain scenarios may the word 'victory' be uttered, outside of these it is merely transient or hollow. The victory proclaimed is only proclaimed after this, and it is subject to it. The account is hence qualified: the details may diverge from accuracy, and are not absolute, but subject to further powers, nonetheless it does claim some form of inspiration from these. After this has been acknowledged, they may begin to talk.
However, the other function of this is to as it were create an audience where this word may resound, or that in the context of this devotion it take on more sense. Proclaiming victory in a story without specifying a side or view of this you adhere to would be idle. Hence, it is specified as a religious battle, and a religious victory, although of course even according to the text there was a clear material conflict and opposition, and the religious coating is in a sense extraneous to the presentation.
Nonetheless, in specifying a divine immediate audience, they are freed from concern about a temporal audience, or the word 'Jaya' may resound without controversy - at least, there. Although this sets a steep path, or demanding audience, it also gives reassurance.
The word 'Jaya' may resound freely, then, and in a sense with divine sanction, so long as all of these things are done as the text requires of itself.
There is a certain sense in which, given the religious theme, and the religious adversity in the very utterance of 'Jaya,' the battle itself is reduced to a verbal form. In the battle, this religious intervention and worship plays a direct and determining role, it is as much a battle of spiritual phases as anything else, where one man may slay thousands given the power of deities behind them. As such, the battle in a sense parallels the conditions of this utterance - so long as this bowing be sincere - or collapses into the utterance of a word, which is nifty.
"After King Dhritarashtra had performed the libations for the victims of Bhishma..."
Bhishma is something that lets down this story significantly, a warrior who the Pandavas are unable to defeat until he simply tells them a means of doing this, which is in part to take advantage of his lack of resentment towards females. However, this is iffy, because it is more a cue than a method - special methods of defeating an enemy are present even in the Ramayana, but in most of these cases involve a weapon or form of battle -, and hence it may be referred to as more a betrayal or result of favour towards the Pandavas than anything. Bhishma was already known to allow the Pandavas to freely attack 'his' forces, and hence was only a leader in a nominal sense.
Their character is, in this context, a mesh between a trivial obstacle archetype and a deadly warrior archetype, which so to speak means that this story gets hung up upon even something that in most other stories would be trivial, due to the character of Bhishma being brought into this role, or the composite that must result complicating matters. It hence is less fluent and clearly symbolic a tale than others of this mythology, like the Ramayana.
However, notably, they are represented as a 'son' of the Ganga, in some sense or other, and even after their death are recognised by this as alive. This might imply that their existence after this in spirit is not strictly determined, and here again the libations may include the use of water, which links back to this characterisation. In a sense, they seem to reach beyond the bit-part role they are given in this story, although in its length they are restricted to it.
"Yudhishthira let him go ahead and followed him with excited senses to the banks of the Ganga."
This denotes their both being in a situation where some want would be satisfied. It sets the tone for what is to come, a perhaps engaging discussion about religious matters and duty. This is hence in a sense the limit for the ensuing discussion, or it does not strictly speaking go beyond what is established here in terms of tone or focus. This text hence has a religious theme, but nonetheless a highly secularised one, in a sense, or one pertaining primarily to the religious in the context of Yudhistira's kingdom.
Yudhistira is a title denoting steadiness in the war, which is in a sense a label of less esteem in the reception of the Mahabharata, where the vacillations of Arjuna are of high interest and form the popular Bhagavad Gita. In that sense, they fade out of a major or significantly involved role in the overall religious and historical drama, after gambling away their kingdom in a slightly over-played premise, as it were.
In a sense, the drama of the war was often involved and in Arjuna's case left them a slightly mixed character, hence a leader who was mildly involved in the war would seem the only way of portraying one on the Pandava side in this context. It was a war where, in a sense, neither side wanted to kill those on the other, or disapproved of them notably, or was in brief a waste waged without much of a cause behind it. There was a sense in which the divine powers wanted a war waged, though they were not ultimately partisan to either side as it occurred, nonetheless this tendency was only realised in a highly limited conflict due to lacking a material basis for the enmity.
That it is a bit of a nothing war is well attested to by the severing of and urging of some indifference to naturalised 'familial' ties, which had negligible cultural effect, despite its place, implying that the action of the Mahabharata was muted and it was mostly treated as a set of 'grand' actions of no direct relevance, actions merely 'over there,' and only called upon when highly useful and to give the culture a mythological sense of depth and security.
"There he fell with tear-stained eyes in the sand..."
An immediate inversion of their initial action. Hence, though religious, this will likely take the form of 'angst,' or concern over a troubling circumstance, rather than otherwise
In Yudhistira's case, and partially due to the lacking 'divinity' of the Indian polytheistic deities, who are essentially hallowed aliens, there is a 'kshatriya' disregard for divine command, which the Indian religion of this age permits. This is manifested both in the gambling, and then in their preferring their own preferences to those of the divine beings, as claimed, as concerns 'heaven and hell,' which while seemingly laudable is nonetheless done while worshipping them, and hence implies that religion does not bind them per se or that they cannot escape the kshatriya chains they have artificially manufactured for themselves.
There is a certain sense in which an exalted sense of purpose or of one's aim can lead to both suffering and victory in exaggerated or 'epic' forms, which albeit with some overexaggeration of the phenomenal form is portrayed in the 'Mahabharata,' but nonetheless again if the purpose is interesting the actors make a mockery of it.
As such, what has occurred so far is that two people have gone on a path, and one has fallen. Tellingly, like Arjuna, it is the fallen one who becomes the focus, as they determine the specific tilt of the religious angle. Water again recurs, however, as a sort of alternative protagonist or pathway through this passage, which is hence also associated tangentially with Bhishma. Hence, part of the ensuing conversation is an attempt to negotiate the portrayal of Bhishma and so on within this religious context and aim, which hence leads to conflict. This conflict would be unlikely without an additional element. The still-on-earth elements of the prior battle, especially the acts concerning Bhishma, furnish this.
Yudhistira, who feels ecstatic at the Ganga, falls down. There is hence an element of chastisement to this. It hence provides an immediate segue into any immediate conversation, provided it be of such a tone towards them. The other has been carrying out other duties, and hence their part in this tale does not begin here..
"Krishna immediately sent Bhima to support the one who fell, and said, 'This should not happen.'"
Krishna seems to have misgivings here, interestingly. They send Bhima, who shall later bring up the earlier battles while they climb, to support him, as if to note that Yudhistira needs constantly to be put into this context of battle in order to remain steady. The whole event is slightly humorous in the light of Yudhistira's name, which may be touched upon.
"The Pandavas looked at Yudhishthira, the son of Dharma, sobbing, weak and despondent, constantly on the ground, and, also sad, they sat down around him."
Hence, the 'son of Dharma,' one with a clear purpose, is fell by a fairly trivial incident. These others are sad for a quite different reason, however, without the same 'weakness' to accompany them. The Pandavas here have a common property with Yudhistira, sadness, but the specific causes, as also their intensity, are quite different. Hence, Yudhistira is able to maintain a sense of detachment from these despite their gathering, and remains the focus.
Despite Yudhistira's unflattering position, the other Pandavas sympathise with him. Hence, they support him when needed, although of course he is secure in a sense, and does not need it. Here is a suggestion that he is perhaps considering abandoning his security, or venturing out, where falling in such a manner would be problematic. This would hence be characterised as a period of toil.
"Yet [Dhritarashtra, mourning,] said to Yudhishthira, 'Arise, O thou tiger among the Kurus. Now Mind your duties.'"
This is a slightly unflattering juxtaposition, as it turns out. The rushing together of arising from a fall and then asserting their dharma is here quite awkward.
There is the vague suggestion that in carrying out their 'duties' they will be powerful. However, they may be reluctant, and so the need to reprimand them, or call on them to do so in a sweeping manner. They also draw on the historical associations of the war.
Hence, the general sense is of a historically developed and specified force, which however has to be brought to focus on their specific role and hence act accordingly. They are hence to harness this to follow certain duties or divisions, which they may be reluctant to do.
"Well rejoice at it with all your brothers and friends as Lord over people."
This historical force has become a power, and indeed one which may be regarded religiously. It has the Pandavas, who as is said support it and rejoice alongside it, at its successes. It is analogous to a divine being in some ways, though not more than one.
"O thou most righteous, I see no reason for your grief. There are Gandhari and I who should complain, because we have lost a hundred sons, just disappear without a trace like treasures in a dream."
While Yudhistira has suffered slightly, they have no reason for complaint at this smiting. Others have lost many more things, that just disappear as if they were never taken into account.
While Krishna is concerned, and takes steps to remedy this, Dhritarashtra is not concerned, and instead stresses the suffering of others.
The analogy is slightly misleading, and seems not wholly in fidelity to Dhritarashtra's character. From it, we may derive a lack of sexual fantasies on their part, which would leave them with no motivation to perform the act. It is a serious and in some ways effective analogy, that seems to take for granted that such unwanted sources of irony or base associations, in Dhritarashtra's speaking, are not of note.
Nonetheless, they have few problems with Yudhistira, despite their effect and fall on the ground. In the context, the action is quite funereal. In that sense, there might be an aspect of disregarded context here, where Yudhistira and their specific position is not the focus. This is somewhat qualified by Dhritarashtra noting that such people do in truth have to pass away in a specific manner.
"And I regret deeply that I was stubborn and not rather the notable words of Vidura followed, who sought our benefit. With divine insight the virtuous Vidura said: 'Your line will be wiped out by the sins of Duryodhana.'"
Hence, due to the sins of Duryodhana they would be wiped out. Due to this they are in sorrow, yet in a way it was a sorrow which is of their own making. This hence in a way undermines their previous statement, clearly not something they lack a precedence for.
Due to the sins of one aspect of this line, which they were not to foster, they would be increasingly punished. As such, in a sense their line is undermining itself, and they are to attempt to paper over the cracks. This did not occur, however.
"'Strictly forbid them gambling with dice, and put the just king Yudhishthira on the throne.'"
In the context, this was problematic, as it was perhaps making too far a leap in a Pandava direction, or trying to do too much by proxy than could be supported.
Strangely, gambling in a sense characterises the whole situation - they keep going, but due to a certain circumstance, such as the sins of Duryodhana, things tilt as they go on in an unfavourable direction. They are hence here encouraged to take a fairly high-stakes choice, possibly drawing ire. This might not abate the overall direction. It might worsen it.
If the aim was to avoid war, such movements against one group might be of limited efficacy, in a sense they function here as a sort of post-event catharsis or an ideological function, as trying to put the Pandava elements into the 'appropriate' light so far as they are concerned, in the form of casting fog around the concrete circumstances of the war.
"'With subdued senses he will rule his land truly.'"
This is misleading - Yudhistira, as the name suggests, had senses, as for instance in gambling, which were hardly 'subdued.' As such, it seems out-of-place.
Nonetheless, the alternative clearly posited to this chance circumstance and conflict is that Yudhistira take charge, which would lead to harmony.
"'[L]ook at all creatures with the same eyes, O lord of men.'"
From there, even if Yudhistira is not to rule, they should keep a gaze which is even across all creatures. This could mean many things. Nonetheless, they are exhorted to avoid baseless favouritism,
Hence, despite this accumulation of things they are to do, they are exhorted also to follow such a general modus operandi, which is so to speak to posit this in abstraction as stable. Of course, this is problematic - as is noted, they are a 'lord of men,' and hence showing favour to those of their own class might be expected. This would usually only be the case if they approved of them generally, hence giving the validity of the previous advice - they would perhaps if with 'subdued senses' favour the Pandavas, but do not -, but in the cirrcumstances of familial ties and so on, they form preferences based on spurious reasons before this is relevant. Hence, this becomes a 'class,' or self-perpetuating classification, or classification of the 'self-perpetuating' in an abstract sense, rather than something that can be governed clearly.
"'May your family [...] live by your generosity.'"
Finally, they are to have these people continue by generosity, without clear constraints on this. This is slightly double-edged, due to the implicit threat of death, but nonetheless he is told to attempt to give himself up to this task, so far as possible.
"I followed my foolish son Duryodhana. Only deaf ears heard the speech of the good man, and now I'm in considerably deep anguish."
Despite the goodness of the man, that they now recognise, they failed to recognise this earlier on, and so were threatened with the danger which came to pass. They instead followed Duryodhana, and took upon his faults.
This led to notable suffering on their part, due to others dying.
"But for your sadness, oh master of all people, I see no reason."
They do not see reason for the suffering of Yudhistira, despite their suffering through the same deaths. Of course, after these sufferings, such a fall might have more impact. Nonetheless, in brief they take issue with Yudhistira's suffering in the circumstances of their fall, when they have not suffered as much. At some point along this, their 'duty' was no longer mentioned. Nonetheless, it is likely to be the focus, as past suffering falls on either side and can so to speak be left out of the account.
They are told that their suffering here, and its alleviation consequently, is of little account, and to look instead to the sufferings caused elsewhere. The sense of duty is hence somehow to relate to their sufferings and their possible alleviation, but the precise manner this is to be done may be unclear.
To summarise this segment, then, Yudhistira goes with another to the Ganga, but falls down on the way. He is comforted by the other Pandavas, who also feel sorrow for this. Krishna says that it should happen no more. However, he is told by Dhritarashtra to get up, and then confronted with the war in a somewhat mutedly accusing fashion, although they are offered praise which off-sets this. He is exhorted to follow his duty, as a powerful entity, and to rejoice in his fate. However, his sufferings are brought into question despite this, compared to the slightly different suffering of Dhritarashtra, who suffered many deaths, although he in some way brought them upon himself by 'gambling' with the situation in a way that punished him. In this way the spirit of the failed gambling also lives on in some form, in a slightly less pronounced way than Bhishma in this passage, but still notably. They are hence exhorted to carry on, and resume their duties, which they may be uncertain about.
Hence, the general contrast here is between Yudhistira, on the one hand, who feels sorrowed by the fall after it occurs, albeit in part due to the sense that they might have to leave their present security, and on the other hand Dhritarashtra, who wishes to exhort them towards duty and the usual way of things, and towards using their power. This will hence be developed going further. This is in a sense a struggle over on which side Yudhistira's future lies. The overall format is one of chastisement, but Dhritarashtra is also chastised, albeit only functionally, on the side, which implies the likelihood of continuation or an underpronounced ending to this episode of falling in mud. Rather than wishing Yudhistira to take further precautions, Dhritarashtra wish them neither to take these, nor give up their high status, which would usually bring with it more concern. As such, their overall direction might be uncertain, although there is a tone of regret over the whole event. Their clear relation to the religious context is not yet drawn out, and hence the clear direction and denouement of these events is not yet, necessarily clear. While Dhritarashtra raises roles to be above persons, Yudhistira while partially in agreement also hopes for some place for the person's overall concerns. These social roles and duties are hence implicitly in possible conflict with the human being. This grounds the general discussion going forwards, which shall be quite chastising in some sense because they are basically in agreement, although they aren't fully in harmony, and hence there is the opening for acting like Yudhistira is merely straying and would rather return to the status quo view in the book.
I.
"OM! Before Nara and Narayana, the highest of the males present, bowing, and also in front of Sarasvati the goddess of learning: the word Jaya [victory] may resound."
Only given certain scenarios may the word 'victory' be uttered, outside of these it is merely transient or hollow. The victory proclaimed is only proclaimed after this, and it is subject to it. The account is hence qualified: the details may diverge from accuracy, and are not absolute, but subject to further powers, nonetheless it does claim some form of inspiration from these. After this has been acknowledged, they may begin to talk.
However, the other function of this is to as it were create an audience where this word may resound, or that in the context of this devotion it take on more sense. Proclaiming victory in a story without specifying a side or view of this you adhere to would be idle. Hence, it is specified as a religious battle, and a religious victory, although of course even according to the text there was a clear material conflict and opposition, and the religious coating is in a sense extraneous to the presentation.
Nonetheless, in specifying a divine immediate audience, they are freed from concern about a temporal audience, or the word 'Jaya' may resound without controversy - at least, there. Although this sets a steep path, or demanding audience, it also gives reassurance.
The word 'Jaya' may resound freely, then, and in a sense with divine sanction, so long as all of these things are done as the text requires of itself.
There is a certain sense in which, given the religious theme, and the religious adversity in the very utterance of 'Jaya,' the battle itself is reduced to a verbal form. In the battle, this religious intervention and worship plays a direct and determining role, it is as much a battle of spiritual phases as anything else, where one man may slay thousands given the power of deities behind them. As such, the battle in a sense parallels the conditions of this utterance - so long as this bowing be sincere - or collapses into the utterance of a word, which is nifty.
"After King Dhritarashtra had performed the libations for the victims of Bhishma..."
Bhishma is something that lets down this story significantly, a warrior who the Pandavas are unable to defeat until he simply tells them a means of doing this, which is in part to take advantage of his lack of resentment towards females. However, this is iffy, because it is more a cue than a method - special methods of defeating an enemy are present even in the Ramayana, but in most of these cases involve a weapon or form of battle -, and hence it may be referred to as more a betrayal or result of favour towards the Pandavas than anything. Bhishma was already known to allow the Pandavas to freely attack 'his' forces, and hence was only a leader in a nominal sense.
Their character is, in this context, a mesh between a trivial obstacle archetype and a deadly warrior archetype, which so to speak means that this story gets hung up upon even something that in most other stories would be trivial, due to the character of Bhishma being brought into this role, or the composite that must result complicating matters. It hence is less fluent and clearly symbolic a tale than others of this mythology, like the Ramayana.
However, notably, they are represented as a 'son' of the Ganga, in some sense or other, and even after their death are recognised by this as alive. This might imply that their existence after this in spirit is not strictly determined, and here again the libations may include the use of water, which links back to this characterisation. In a sense, they seem to reach beyond the bit-part role they are given in this story, although in its length they are restricted to it.
"Yudhishthira let him go ahead and followed him with excited senses to the banks of the Ganga."
This denotes their both being in a situation where some want would be satisfied. It sets the tone for what is to come, a perhaps engaging discussion about religious matters and duty. This is hence in a sense the limit for the ensuing discussion, or it does not strictly speaking go beyond what is established here in terms of tone or focus. This text hence has a religious theme, but nonetheless a highly secularised one, in a sense, or one pertaining primarily to the religious in the context of Yudhistira's kingdom.
Yudhistira is a title denoting steadiness in the war, which is in a sense a label of less esteem in the reception of the Mahabharata, where the vacillations of Arjuna are of high interest and form the popular Bhagavad Gita. In that sense, they fade out of a major or significantly involved role in the overall religious and historical drama, after gambling away their kingdom in a slightly over-played premise, as it were.
In a sense, the drama of the war was often involved and in Arjuna's case left them a slightly mixed character, hence a leader who was mildly involved in the war would seem the only way of portraying one on the Pandava side in this context. It was a war where, in a sense, neither side wanted to kill those on the other, or disapproved of them notably, or was in brief a waste waged without much of a cause behind it. There was a sense in which the divine powers wanted a war waged, though they were not ultimately partisan to either side as it occurred, nonetheless this tendency was only realised in a highly limited conflict due to lacking a material basis for the enmity.
That it is a bit of a nothing war is well attested to by the severing of and urging of some indifference to naturalised 'familial' ties, which had negligible cultural effect, despite its place, implying that the action of the Mahabharata was muted and it was mostly treated as a set of 'grand' actions of no direct relevance, actions merely 'over there,' and only called upon when highly useful and to give the culture a mythological sense of depth and security.
"There he fell with tear-stained eyes in the sand..."
An immediate inversion of their initial action. Hence, though religious, this will likely take the form of 'angst,' or concern over a troubling circumstance, rather than otherwise
In Yudhistira's case, and partially due to the lacking 'divinity' of the Indian polytheistic deities, who are essentially hallowed aliens, there is a 'kshatriya' disregard for divine command, which the Indian religion of this age permits. This is manifested both in the gambling, and then in their preferring their own preferences to those of the divine beings, as claimed, as concerns 'heaven and hell,' which while seemingly laudable is nonetheless done while worshipping them, and hence implies that religion does not bind them per se or that they cannot escape the kshatriya chains they have artificially manufactured for themselves.
There is a certain sense in which an exalted sense of purpose or of one's aim can lead to both suffering and victory in exaggerated or 'epic' forms, which albeit with some overexaggeration of the phenomenal form is portrayed in the 'Mahabharata,' but nonetheless again if the purpose is interesting the actors make a mockery of it.
As such, what has occurred so far is that two people have gone on a path, and one has fallen. Tellingly, like Arjuna, it is the fallen one who becomes the focus, as they determine the specific tilt of the religious angle. Water again recurs, however, as a sort of alternative protagonist or pathway through this passage, which is hence also associated tangentially with Bhishma. Hence, part of the ensuing conversation is an attempt to negotiate the portrayal of Bhishma and so on within this religious context and aim, which hence leads to conflict. This conflict would be unlikely without an additional element. The still-on-earth elements of the prior battle, especially the acts concerning Bhishma, furnish this.
Yudhistira, who feels ecstatic at the Ganga, falls down. There is hence an element of chastisement to this. It hence provides an immediate segue into any immediate conversation, provided it be of such a tone towards them. The other has been carrying out other duties, and hence their part in this tale does not begin here..
"Krishna immediately sent Bhima to support the one who fell, and said, 'This should not happen.'"
Krishna seems to have misgivings here, interestingly. They send Bhima, who shall later bring up the earlier battles while they climb, to support him, as if to note that Yudhistira needs constantly to be put into this context of battle in order to remain steady. The whole event is slightly humorous in the light of Yudhistira's name, which may be touched upon.
"The Pandavas looked at Yudhishthira, the son of Dharma, sobbing, weak and despondent, constantly on the ground, and, also sad, they sat down around him."
Hence, the 'son of Dharma,' one with a clear purpose, is fell by a fairly trivial incident. These others are sad for a quite different reason, however, without the same 'weakness' to accompany them. The Pandavas here have a common property with Yudhistira, sadness, but the specific causes, as also their intensity, are quite different. Hence, Yudhistira is able to maintain a sense of detachment from these despite their gathering, and remains the focus.
Despite Yudhistira's unflattering position, the other Pandavas sympathise with him. Hence, they support him when needed, although of course he is secure in a sense, and does not need it. Here is a suggestion that he is perhaps considering abandoning his security, or venturing out, where falling in such a manner would be problematic. This would hence be characterised as a period of toil.
"Yet [Dhritarashtra, mourning,] said to Yudhishthira, 'Arise, O thou tiger among the Kurus. Now Mind your duties.'"
This is a slightly unflattering juxtaposition, as it turns out. The rushing together of arising from a fall and then asserting their dharma is here quite awkward.
There is the vague suggestion that in carrying out their 'duties' they will be powerful. However, they may be reluctant, and so the need to reprimand them, or call on them to do so in a sweeping manner. They also draw on the historical associations of the war.
Hence, the general sense is of a historically developed and specified force, which however has to be brought to focus on their specific role and hence act accordingly. They are hence to harness this to follow certain duties or divisions, which they may be reluctant to do.
"Well rejoice at it with all your brothers and friends as Lord over people."
This historical force has become a power, and indeed one which may be regarded religiously. It has the Pandavas, who as is said support it and rejoice alongside it, at its successes. It is analogous to a divine being in some ways, though not more than one.
"O thou most righteous, I see no reason for your grief. There are Gandhari and I who should complain, because we have lost a hundred sons, just disappear without a trace like treasures in a dream."
While Yudhistira has suffered slightly, they have no reason for complaint at this smiting. Others have lost many more things, that just disappear as if they were never taken into account.
While Krishna is concerned, and takes steps to remedy this, Dhritarashtra is not concerned, and instead stresses the suffering of others.
The analogy is slightly misleading, and seems not wholly in fidelity to Dhritarashtra's character. From it, we may derive a lack of sexual fantasies on their part, which would leave them with no motivation to perform the act. It is a serious and in some ways effective analogy, that seems to take for granted that such unwanted sources of irony or base associations, in Dhritarashtra's speaking, are not of note.
Nonetheless, they have few problems with Yudhistira, despite their effect and fall on the ground. In the context, the action is quite funereal. In that sense, there might be an aspect of disregarded context here, where Yudhistira and their specific position is not the focus. This is somewhat qualified by Dhritarashtra noting that such people do in truth have to pass away in a specific manner.
"And I regret deeply that I was stubborn and not rather the notable words of Vidura followed, who sought our benefit. With divine insight the virtuous Vidura said: 'Your line will be wiped out by the sins of Duryodhana.'"
Hence, due to the sins of Duryodhana they would be wiped out. Due to this they are in sorrow, yet in a way it was a sorrow which is of their own making. This hence in a way undermines their previous statement, clearly not something they lack a precedence for.
Due to the sins of one aspect of this line, which they were not to foster, they would be increasingly punished. As such, in a sense their line is undermining itself, and they are to attempt to paper over the cracks. This did not occur, however.
"'Strictly forbid them gambling with dice, and put the just king Yudhishthira on the throne.'"
In the context, this was problematic, as it was perhaps making too far a leap in a Pandava direction, or trying to do too much by proxy than could be supported.
Strangely, gambling in a sense characterises the whole situation - they keep going, but due to a certain circumstance, such as the sins of Duryodhana, things tilt as they go on in an unfavourable direction. They are hence here encouraged to take a fairly high-stakes choice, possibly drawing ire. This might not abate the overall direction. It might worsen it.
If the aim was to avoid war, such movements against one group might be of limited efficacy, in a sense they function here as a sort of post-event catharsis or an ideological function, as trying to put the Pandava elements into the 'appropriate' light so far as they are concerned, in the form of casting fog around the concrete circumstances of the war.
"'With subdued senses he will rule his land truly.'"
This is misleading - Yudhistira, as the name suggests, had senses, as for instance in gambling, which were hardly 'subdued.' As such, it seems out-of-place.
Nonetheless, the alternative clearly posited to this chance circumstance and conflict is that Yudhistira take charge, which would lead to harmony.
"'[L]ook at all creatures with the same eyes, O lord of men.'"
From there, even if Yudhistira is not to rule, they should keep a gaze which is even across all creatures. This could mean many things. Nonetheless, they are exhorted to avoid baseless favouritism,
Hence, despite this accumulation of things they are to do, they are exhorted also to follow such a general modus operandi, which is so to speak to posit this in abstraction as stable. Of course, this is problematic - as is noted, they are a 'lord of men,' and hence showing favour to those of their own class might be expected. This would usually only be the case if they approved of them generally, hence giving the validity of the previous advice - they would perhaps if with 'subdued senses' favour the Pandavas, but do not -, but in the cirrcumstances of familial ties and so on, they form preferences based on spurious reasons before this is relevant. Hence, this becomes a 'class,' or self-perpetuating classification, or classification of the 'self-perpetuating' in an abstract sense, rather than something that can be governed clearly.
"'May your family [...] live by your generosity.'"
Finally, they are to have these people continue by generosity, without clear constraints on this. This is slightly double-edged, due to the implicit threat of death, but nonetheless he is told to attempt to give himself up to this task, so far as possible.
"I followed my foolish son Duryodhana. Only deaf ears heard the speech of the good man, and now I'm in considerably deep anguish."
Despite the goodness of the man, that they now recognise, they failed to recognise this earlier on, and so were threatened with the danger which came to pass. They instead followed Duryodhana, and took upon his faults.
This led to notable suffering on their part, due to others dying.
"But for your sadness, oh master of all people, I see no reason."
They do not see reason for the suffering of Yudhistira, despite their suffering through the same deaths. Of course, after these sufferings, such a fall might have more impact. Nonetheless, in brief they take issue with Yudhistira's suffering in the circumstances of their fall, when they have not suffered as much. At some point along this, their 'duty' was no longer mentioned. Nonetheless, it is likely to be the focus, as past suffering falls on either side and can so to speak be left out of the account.
They are told that their suffering here, and its alleviation consequently, is of little account, and to look instead to the sufferings caused elsewhere. The sense of duty is hence somehow to relate to their sufferings and their possible alleviation, but the precise manner this is to be done may be unclear.
To summarise this segment, then, Yudhistira goes with another to the Ganga, but falls down on the way. He is comforted by the other Pandavas, who also feel sorrow for this. Krishna says that it should happen no more. However, he is told by Dhritarashtra to get up, and then confronted with the war in a somewhat mutedly accusing fashion, although they are offered praise which off-sets this. He is exhorted to follow his duty, as a powerful entity, and to rejoice in his fate. However, his sufferings are brought into question despite this, compared to the slightly different suffering of Dhritarashtra, who suffered many deaths, although he in some way brought them upon himself by 'gambling' with the situation in a way that punished him. In this way the spirit of the failed gambling also lives on in some form, in a slightly less pronounced way than Bhishma in this passage, but still notably. They are hence exhorted to carry on, and resume their duties, which they may be uncertain about.
Hence, the general contrast here is between Yudhistira, on the one hand, who feels sorrowed by the fall after it occurs, albeit in part due to the sense that they might have to leave their present security, and on the other hand Dhritarashtra, who wishes to exhort them towards duty and the usual way of things, and towards using their power. This will hence be developed going further. This is in a sense a struggle over on which side Yudhistira's future lies. The overall format is one of chastisement, but Dhritarashtra is also chastised, albeit only functionally, on the side, which implies the likelihood of continuation or an underpronounced ending to this episode of falling in mud. Rather than wishing Yudhistira to take further precautions, Dhritarashtra wish them neither to take these, nor give up their high status, which would usually bring with it more concern. As such, their overall direction might be uncertain, although there is a tone of regret over the whole event. Their clear relation to the religious context is not yet drawn out, and hence the clear direction and denouement of these events is not yet, necessarily clear. While Dhritarashtra raises roles to be above persons, Yudhistira while partially in agreement also hopes for some place for the person's overall concerns. These social roles and duties are hence implicitly in possible conflict with the human being. This grounds the general discussion going forwards, which shall be quite chastising in some sense because they are basically in agreement, although they aren't fully in harmony, and hence there is the opening for acting like Yudhistira is merely straying and would rather return to the status quo view in the book.
Good post. The part bout the human elment and roles was cool.
ReplyDelete