Did Mahabharata actually happen? - Yes but more importantly....

 222

-          An enquiry into how to view Mahabharata – as historical or spiritual text or as both?

Did Mahabharata actually happen?

A question which polarizes people's opinion. The short answer to this question is – Yes.

A more complete answer to the question is - It’s happening even now, waiting for us to discover it, enter into it and eventually transcend it. It is not transcendence of just the narrative universe (weaved by Sri Vyasa) but also transcend the alternate-narrative universe, in which - I - the Jeeva, find myself in.

The actual events of the Mahabharata are the story of our ancients. Who are our ancients? – the rishis, kings, acharyas, commoners and all those who existed in the past. We must also recognize the fact that we cannot but know about them only through the narrative lens, in situ called the text - Mahabharata.

Our sanAthana dharma civilization has explored both the universe – external and internal. Thus this dual exploration (internal and external world) - culminated in a long sustaining wisdom-based tradition - which is the Sruti-Smriti-Tradition.  If Sruti revealed the blueprint of life, its source and other hitherto, unknowable things (i.e. transcendental aspects like rebirth, means to reach swarga, devAyana, means to moksha – Brahmavidya etc.), then Smriti (esp Mahabharata by Sri Vyasa) offered us a lens, by which we can study both Sruti and enrichen our life in general. So the purpose of the Smriti, is to make the Sruti accessible to us and help us eventually transcend all suffering, by knowing who I am.

Tradition holds Sruti as the highest authority and Smriti to follow Sruti - both in letter and spirit. Yet without Smriti, i.e. without the wisdom of Bhagavan Vyasa or Rishi Manu - Sruti can be misunderstood very easily. This is why Mahabharata (in Adi Parva) says that Sruti is afraid of those, who approach it without having gone through Mahabharata.

Historical value of Mahabharata is only a gate-pass, a launch pad to deeper spiritual reflection, which the narrative of the text, offers. This text is a living text that (i.e.  Sri VyAsa Himself is directly speaking to us) lovingly holds your hand, takes you through many a life journey(s) and holds a mirror (as it were ) before us.

So let us revisit the question again.  (For the sake of repetitive reflection)

So, did the Mahabharata actually happen? - Yes.

Is the Mahabharata primarily meant to provide us accurate historical aspects of our ancients – life, economy, science?  –  No. Not quite.

If not, then what is the main purpose of Mahabharata then?  - It is to spiritually transform us and make us equipped for purposeful, satisfying worldly life (Pravrtti mArga) or being exclusively committed to knowing Brahman (the highest reality, knowing which we are liberated - i.e. through Nivrtti mArga), as the case might be.

With this introduction, lets relax and read through an interesting conversation between two students of the Mahabharata class, taught by Dr. Adluri. 

Hope the following conversation is stimulating to the reader. The purpose of the conversation is to characterize the historicity aspects of Mbh as truth - but frame it "lower truth", whereas the actual Vedantic wisdom embedded in Mbh as the "higher truth".  The end goal is to soak ourselves in the "higher truth".

The ensuing discussion tries to arrive at the fact that lower truth is steppingstone to higher truth.  

The entire conversation is a stream of consciousness, winding through various relevant talking points.  This is not your typical researched essay. So do not expect too much structural consistency. It's a free flowing discussion. 

The goal is to dwell upon the two tier framing approach to Mbh - the lower truth - i.e. historical implications arising out of the epic and the higher truth - i.e. Vedantic wisdom, which forms the warp and woof of the text's spiritual intent. 

The hope is, the reader finds the conversation worth his/her time. 

Now do not bother asking if this conversation between EXT and JYS actually happened.  😊 

[ Conversation begins....Problematic usage of term Myth]

(The conversation starts with JYS commenting upon the usage of the term “mythology”, by some to describe Mahabharata.)

 JYS: The word “Mythology”, is used by some writers like DDP, when it comes to referring to Mahabharata. I find this usage derogatory, almost implying that the Mahabharata is some kind of fairy tale like say, Harry potter or the Lord of the rings.

My problem with the usage of the term Mythology, stems from the popular usage of the term Myth – which implies the story told, is a fake. This fake tag can have damaging implications.

EXT: Yes, for most Indians, when this term is employed w.r.t our Itihaasa, it becomes "received knowledge" (as it were) – with the implicit tagline – it’s not real!  

So, most would not venture to study it or approach it. They might say, that was old myth, nowadays we have newer myths like Avengers (from Marvel Comics) or Lord of the Rings!

Characterizing Mahabharata as a mythology, can become a barrier to modern Hindus, to approach the text with the reverence and enthusiasm that it otherwise commands and deserves (even till date). 

There is also the other risk in such “mythology” characterization. DDP thinks it (i.e. the “myth” tag) gives him free license to retell the “myth” differently, in accordance with his own mano-dharma (personal understanding, as opposed to sampradhAya dristi or traditional view).  Such attempts are also fraught with the risk of spiritually misguiding the reader.

So yes, I can fully understand your sentiment.

However, there is another point, which we must consider, in line with what Dr. Adluri has said in the Mahabharata – class.

JYS: Which is?

EXT: Which is – the entire ethical story telling narrative of Sri Vyasa - places greater thrust on the way the "narrative unfolds" bearing spiritual implications, more than the actual "historicity of the events". If I were to paraphrase Dr. Adluri and Dr. Bagchee, we Hindus ought not to be history centric but truth centric - so we must not wince, when somebody says Mbh is mythology. 

After all our tradition is wisdom-based /truth-based tradition, as is often repeated in the Mbh class.

JYS: Sure. But we must prepare our arguments according to the person we encounter.  With DDP, we may have to counter him appropriately, else he may get away with the damage, he is potentially causing.

EXT: Yes. Against the likes of DDP we must challenge him, in his usage of the term mythology – to probe and understand what he implies by it.

Whereas amongst members of aastika samaaj, i.e. insiders to tradition, who hold the Mbh text in high reverence - we must gently nudge them to expand thier understanding of Mbh, to go beyond the history-based thinking to reach and include the Vedanta wisdom-based thinking. 

As we have seen in the Brief orientation to Hindu studies course, this history centered thinking, in modern India is largely an outcome of western influence.

 [Next: We can’t summarily dismiss the historic implications of Mbh]

JYS: I think the historic aspect of Mbh, can’t be summarily dismissed, in lieu of pursuing deeper philosophical, spiritual insights embedded in Mbh.  I feel, our Dharma got enriched throughout Bharata desa, in every nook and corner – due to the events portrayed in Mahabharata. People leveraged the events and characters in Mbh and enriched their Dharmic life.

“Krishna was born here, Ma Seetha cooked here, Jataayu fell here”

We created various Dharma sthalas based on the itihaasa. These are local, focal points for bhakti. So, this historicity, in a way served dharma and tradition.

EXT: There are many temples related to the Pandavas, Sri Krishna and so on.  Yes. That is true.

[Next: Journey from Lower Truth (Historicity of events in Mbh) to Higher Truth (Vedanta)]

 JYS: I see that we have come to a nice point in our discussion about the relative importance of countering “myth” narrative of DDP and other western scholars, who pooh-pooh Mbh, by asserting Mbh is not fake story nor falsified narrative. 

We also cannot simply stop here but have to move beyond historicity. 

So how can put this two-fold emphasis nicely across – especially to insiders?

EXT: Good question. This reminds me of the “lower truth”, “higher truth” phrase employed by Swami Vivekananda.

JYS: What is that phrase?

EXT: Swami Vivekananda says in several instances in complete works about how the soul journeys from lower truth to higher truth. I shall quote a few examples

Volume 1 (Lecture: Vedanta as a factor in civilization) – “The soul passing through its different stages goes from truth to truth, and each stage is true; it goes from lower truth to higher truth”.

Volume 4 (Section title: Lectures and discourse) – “You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher truth, but never from error to truth”

We can borrow that phrasing and line of reasoning from Swamiji in the present context of our discussion.

Our tradition has always felt the events of the Mbh are true, but the historicity of the events is the lower truth, whereas the actual Vedanta Siddhanta which is the warp-and-woof  of the narrative weaved by Sri Vyasa, is the higher truth.

So, I see accepting the validity of the events in MBH as true, but as lower truth, whereas the actual siddhanta/narrative style as higher truth....  as logical progression, for a student of Mahabharata.

 

[Next: Sraddha the key differentiator]

JYS: This is a good characterization. But this raises the question - are you implying that DDP’s take (i.e. Mbh is not real event based but a “myth”) is lower truth and he can possibly evolve to higher truth? If so isn’t it condoning his approach? We have already agreed upon that his expositions are doing a great disservice to our people – spiritually and culturally.

EXT: Interesting question with serious ramifications. 

Our life journey - or even DDP's is the same... lower truth to higher truth. But in the journey, if one sticks to text and traditions with sraddha (as defined in Vivekachudamani verse 25), one's "lower truths" will not produce harm.

[ Ref:  

शास्त्रस्य गुरुवाक्यस्य सत्यबुद्ध्यवधारणम् ।
सा श्रद्धा कथिता सद्भिर्यया वस्तूपलभ्यते ॥ २५ ॥

śāstrasya guruvākyasya satyabuddhyavadhāraṇam |
sā śraddhā kathitā sadbhiryayā vastūpalabhyate || Vivekachudmani 25 ||

Acceptance by firm judgment as true of what the Scriptures and the Guru instruct, is called by sages Śraddhā, by means of which the Reality is perceived. (Swami Madhavanandaji's translation - Sri Ramakrishna Mutt). 

]

JYS: I guess you'd have to explain a bit more, here.

EXT: Sure.

Let’s take this hypothesis that everyone is on a journey and they go from lower truth to higher truth. Then let’s work with this hypothesis to interpret two people (by the work that they have done) - Dr. Aduluri and DDP

In Dr. Adluri’s case – It is very clear that his journey, his tapas (constituted by devoted & deep study of Hindu, Western texts and traditions), his sraddha in our tradition - has taken him to a place, where he is not only an authority but also an inspiration. He has done a lot to serve humankind by writing, teaching and defending the Mahabharata text and its tradition. Dr. Adluri's students or the students of his work, will gain the benefit of Sri Vyasa’s wisdom. Dr. Adluri’s journey has benefited him and the rest of us, for all time to come.

But what about DDP ? In his case - his journey, his work, was qualified by his mano dharma more than sraddha in text and tradition. This has resulted in a body of work which undermines the tradition and juxtaposes his personal views on the tradition and text. So what DDP is sharing with others, is not Sri VyAsa's wisdom, but his personal views. This can be spiritually harmful. So, despite his hard-work and knowledge of our texts, he has not been a conduit of Sri VyAsa's wisdom.

So this is the difference. The difference is one of sraddha. With Sraddha we can move from lower truth to higher truth, causing no harm to oneself and others too. 

JYS: This is what Vishwa ji had reiterated again and again in MBH 1 class, – namely the need to stick to the tradition.

EXT: Yes.

JYS: Can you succinctly summarize the lower truth and higher truth characterization? I want to make sure we are on same page here. 

EXT:  Sure. 

The lower Truth in the context of our discussion - is treating Mbh primarily as a historical document and by implication, secondarily as source of ancient wisdom. 

JYS: Ah! Okay

EXT: Higher Truth - is treating Mbh primarily as source of Vedantic wisdom, wherein the text gives us opportunity to experience  (through the textual narrative) those vistas of human experience and gradually soak in the Vedanta siddhanta - which eventually liberates us, here and now. 

JYS: By trying hard to find historicity, we often undermine the philosophical. It is very easy to be pulled into this whirlpool of trying to find evidence outside of the text.

EXT: Exactly! Very soon the text is no longer the object of study but some external phenomena. That would be a loss of opportunity to soak in Vedanta, through the text and it's multi layered narrative. 

 

[Next: Vedanta’s critique of lower truth and also its inclusivism]

JYS: Coming back to Advaita Standpoint... if Sat (Absolute Existence) is the only truth - absolute, would it really matter if Sri Krishna was born on a particular date/ a particular place? He as Suddha chaithanyam (pure consciousness - PrajnAnam brahma - Ait Upanisad), is beyond the limitations of time, space and causation! So how can we accommodate the historical implications, which otherwise seem to help Bhaktas around the world – like celebrating Krishna Janmashtami etc.? How to reconcile this potential conundrum?

EXT: True. But even Advaita has a nuanced position on this topic. It has the Pāramārthika (Absolute Reality beyond time, space, causation) and VyavahArika levels (Reality seen through the lens of time, space and causation), in which this can be viewed. 

From the pāramārthika standpoint – yes your statements are correct.

But we live in relative transactional plane (VyavahArika) – here Sri Krishna’s birth, birthplace, birth chart etc. all matter to our Sraddha and Bhakti.  Hence the need comes to recognize historical implications of the text, as truth - albeit as lower truth, relative to higher truth (Vedantic wisdom – divinity of soul, primacy of consciousness, non duality of existence etc.).

JYS: Ok. That is clear. What would be Vedanta’s critique of overtly emphasizing the lower truth or perspectives based on lower truth?

EXT: This phenomenal world is a result of avidya – ignorance of our essential infinite divine nature. So excessive indulgence in overtly transacting with the world, on the basis of history centric thinking can be a distraction to one’s spiritual life. 

History centered thinking serves limited transactional value, whereas the Vedantic wisdom embedded in Mbh, liberates us from all suffering. Such Vedantic wisdom also shapes the destiny of the society at large,  and for the better.

Hence depending on how much the thirst for liberation has manifested - (which varies from person to person) - people will having varying degrees of interest in historicity vs. philosophical under current in the text. 

Like we just discussed earlier, there is also the risk of undermining of historicity (rabidly) - this would lead to asraddha in Mbh for many, which is bad because that shuts the door for them to approach the text.

So we need to accommodate both the truths – lower truth (historicity) and higher truth (Vedantic  wisdom), with respect to Mbh studies.

Clearly for many the lower truth is the steppingstone to higher truth.

[Next: Potential problem with the two-tier framing]

JYS: This two tier characterization might create a problem.

EXT: Which is? 

JYS: What we are discussing here is a "ladder theory". Isnt it opening door for a demonstrating a condescending attitude, on the part of those who claim to profess the "higher truth"? 

EXT: You are right. That risk is always there in such gradation based descriptions. 

Even today several non-Advaitins are critical of Sri Sankara, for the Pāramārthika/VyavahArika and also for the Adhikari bheda gradational doctrine (i.e. Uttama Adhikari, Manda Adhikari etc.). But we must realize that our obligation is to study and present the truth in the most non-controvertible manner. We cannot satisfy all the people all the time. So those who are serious about thier spiritual life and hold on to the "higher truth" i.e. view Mbh primarily a source of Vedantic wisdom, ought to develop the pre-requisites of that path - namely Sadhana Chatushtayam (Viveka, Vairagya, Samadi-Shatsampatti, Mumukshutthvam). This itself will cure them of the malady of fake superiority. 

JYS: Fair enough. 

[Next: Is there a scriptural precedent to such gradation of Truths as “lower” and “higher”?]

JYS: So far our discussion has clearly presented a way of articulating how the history centered thinking is lower truth and the Vedantic wisdom is higher truth. It makes sense to me.  But is there a scriptural precedent to such a gradation? Doesn't the Mundaka Upanisad say something alone those lines?

EXT: Yes! Mundaka Upanisad itself presents such gradation.

Mundaka 1.1.5 : -

तत्रापरा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्ववेदः शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं छन्दो ज्योतिषमिति ।

अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते ॥ ५ ॥

tatrāparā ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo'tharvavedaḥ śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṃ niruktaṃ chando jyotiṣamiti |

atha parā yayā tadakṣaramadhigamyate || 5 ||

5. Of these, the Apara is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, the Siksha, the code of rituals (Kalpa), grammar (vyAkaranam), Nirukta, Chhandas and astrology (Jyotisha). Then the Para is that by which the imperishable is known.

According to this verse, if Veda emphatically declares that the entire body of spiritual/scriptural cannon would be reduced to apara vidya - or lower knowledge, if they are treated as mere assemblage of words. Whereas if the words serve to grant us the knowledge of our infinite self, then its parA vidya - or higher knowledge.  As the sruti above says - parā yayā tadakṣaramadhigamyate – i.e. by Para the Imperishable is known.

Thus we see that our highest authority – Sruti – gives a self-critical account of itself.  This is indeed unique about Veda. I dont think any other world religion scripture, can give such a self-critical perspective, as Vedas do. 

JYS: You are right. This is indeed unique and also shows that Vedas are committed to Absolute Truth, nothing more, nothing less. 

EXT: Yes. 

Sruti is the higher knowledge or Para vidya, if taken as Brahmavidya – else it’s only of mere transactional value - whether it be history or astronomy or grammar etc. It is not to say these disciplines are not useful - in fact they are very useful - but only at mundane plane, for transactional purpose. But the way to transcend all suffering in life - is by knowing Brahman, by obtaining parA vidya. 

It is this parA vidya, which is taught in and through the various narratives, life stories and upAkhyanas in Mbh. Hence they attain higher importance in our tradition. So this attitude is implicit in our tradition and upheld by Sruti itself.

Bhagavatpada says while commenting on above verse in Mundaka that

"UpanisadveyAksaram visayam hi vijnAnam iha parA vidyeti prAdhAnyena vivaksitam, na upanisat - sabdarAsih"

What is primarily meant in this context, by the term parA vidya is the knowledge of the immutable that is imparted only by the Upanisads (considered as revealed - sruti) and not merely the assemblage of the words found in the books calls Upanisads. 

Bhagavatpada goes one step further and declares - apara vidya = avidya. This indictment is essentially Vedanta's critique of overt emphasis on lower knowledge, which includes even attaining Swarga etc. 

JYS: So when we say Upanisad are part of Vedas and are Pramana for Brahma jnana, it’s not the mere assembly of words, but the import of the scripture – namely Brahmavidya. Did I recap the essence of your statements ?

EXT: Absolutely. But care must be taken to preserve the sanctity of the Mantras that reveal the truth, since without the Mantra, this truth is not to be found. 

I shall state a few more examples of what is "essentially" upanisad

Bhagavatpada in Mundaka Upanisad Introduction says as follows - the definition of Upanisad.

QUOTE

This is called Upanisad, because it mitigates (nisAtayati) such numerous evils as birth, old age, disease, etc., for those who approach this knowledge of Brahman with loving eagerness; or it is called so, since it leads to the supreme Brahman, and completely weakens or destroys (avasAdayati) the ignorance etc., that are the causes of the world; for traditionally, the meaning of the root sad. preceded by Upa and ni, is shown to be so.

UNQUOTE

In Katha Upanisad Bhasyam He says : -

QUOTE

Thus with regard to knowledge, the word Upanisad is used in its primary sense, (vidyAyam mukhyayA vrttyA upanisacchabdo vartate) while with regard to the book it is used in a secondary sense (granthe ti bhaktyA iti). And the purpose of this Upanisad is the absolute cessation of the transmigratory state, which consists in the attainment of Brahman.

UNQUOTE

 

Conclusion

 JYS: This is beautiful commentary by Sri Bhagavatpada. 

This clearly shows that Mbh ought to be viewed primarily as a Moksha sAstram or as Brahmavidya sAstram, and secondarily can be considered itihaasa (history) etc. So both are true. But relatively speaking the Vedantic wisdom is the "higher truth" or in other words, considering Mbh as primary source of Vedantic wisdom is the "higher truth perspective". At the same time, the "lower truth perspective" is not to be dismissed as it has several other utilities, even in terms of generating sraddha in the characters, events reported in the epic. 

EXT: Yes that would be traditional view, and this is what is taught to us in the Mbh class by Dr. Adluri and Dr. Bagchee. To make it more comprehensive, theories of narratology is also being taught, so that we can recognize the subtleties in Sri VyAsa’s narrative.

JYS: Yes absolutely.

EXT: Going forward, when we come across insiders to our tradition arguing Mbh is historical or only spiritual (Vedantic) text. We need to tell them it’s both – i.e. historical implications are true and that the end goal would be to recognize the Vedantic import of Mbh - by taking a dip in the sudAsagara called Mahabharata.