Scan barcode
infinitebynature's review against another edition
5.0
Satyamurti has managed to retell this story in an accessible and vibrant way.
The full Mahabharata is actually 18 separate tomes so of course enormous amounts of the story are missing, it is interesting seeing what was brushed over in favour of a smooth narrative. As a piece of literature/poetry it is beautiful and I appreciated being able to read this in a modern format as having attempted to read more biased interpretations in the past I have previously found even the Bhagavad-Gita difficult to approach.
It comes off in many ways as an epic fantasy novel of war, romance, politics and moral conflict which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The full Mahabharata is actually 18 separate tomes so of course enormous amounts of the story are missing, it is interesting seeing what was brushed over in favour of a smooth narrative. As a piece of literature/poetry it is beautiful and I appreciated being able to read this in a modern format as having attempted to read more biased interpretations in the past I have previously found even the Bhagavad-Gita difficult to approach.
It comes off in many ways as an epic fantasy novel of war, romance, politics and moral conflict which I thoroughly enjoyed.
dngoldman's review against another edition
5.0
“Dharma is subtle; what is right and wrong is hard to speak about in general”
The Mahabharata (“the Epic”) deserves its places as one the great epics in literature, and indeed, one of the great works of literature of any genre. The Epic compares with Iliad with its focus on men at war, the consequences of their actions, and the nexus of fate and free will. And with the Bible with its mix of stories, ethics, religious instruction, and wisdom literature. Yet, the Epic differs from either of those two cannons, not only in style but in its worldview. It also shares with other great epics is the complex view of human nature and morals. There are heroes and villains but none of the characters is good or bad. The question of “what the right thing to do” is never answered easily. Here are some themes:
Following Darma, code, honor, vs. doing what feels right, pragmatic.
The characters frequently debate when they can depart from their assigned roles in life or the accepted path. Even when the accepted path or duty causes devastating consequences either personally or socially. Yudhishthira seems content to wander in the forest as opposed to take action to reclaim his Kingdom, and he struggles with the decision before, during and after the war. Even the characters more comfortable with action, Bishna and Arjun, are conflicted when they have to kill their former friends and teachers.
“Mother,” said Bhishma, “it is impossible. I understand your anguish, but my vow is more important to me than life itself. (p. 21).
“But is it never right,” asked Yudhishthira, “for a person to follow the life path of an order other than their own? - The answer is not clear. Bishna says “no” but the characters during the war use tricks to success.
I know that dharma for a kshatriya is to fight. That is our law. And yet where does killing stop? Killers are themselves killed in return. Thus a feud develops, vendetta never ends. No one rests easy. And does any man, even the worst, deserve to die? Should we conduct ourselves like dogs, wrangling over a piece of meat? Heroism’s a malady; the heart can never know serenity that way. “And yet, we must act. We are kshatriyas. We welcome neither war nor surrender— even capitulation would bring no end to hatred. (pp. 360-361).
While following the assigned role is almost always the advice given, particularly by Krishna, the story is replete with examples of transgressions to accomplish means. Thus, while a type of deontology is preached, a consequentialism is often practiced. While the results are fated, Krishna plays an active role in making sure of the results happen. The warrior/god counsel’s, cajoles, tricks, and cheats his way to victory. The most egregious instance is his refusal to tells the Pandvas that Korna , on the opposing side, is indeed related to them. This would have stopped the war, with its massive casualties. Is it worth? We don’t really know (cf. Job).
Determinism and who we and what is our role
In case there was any question about characters inability to influence events, Krishna puts the notion to rest.
“I AM TIME, DESTROYER OF WORLDS. Even before you act, all these warriors, rank upon rank in the opposing armies, are already dead. I have destroyed them. From the perspective of eternal time, the everlasting present, those men you see lined up, eager for battle, full of the vigor of their youth and strength, are dead already. The bodies which have known cold and heat, pleasure and suffering, already carry death and decomposition in their bones.(p. 418).
The outcome of the battle has long been decided. What does that mean for how we should act?
Here we see the differences between the Iliad, the Bible, and the Mahabharata. In the Ilia, fate is blind. The hero’s are heroic because they are acting within an uncertain world. The fact that they are often tricked into action by the immortals, only adds weight to nobility of the heroes’ actions. In the Bible fate is controlled by an almighty god with a noble ends in mind. While we might know the ultimate purpose and means, one must trust there is one. Thus, following the path set forth by god is the moral path.
In the Mahabharata the characters earn merit by doing their duty but we are not sure to what end. In some ways this does relieve them of guilt or moral responsability.
“How can you still suppose the slaughter was your fault? You were the channel for forces much more powerful than yourself. If you search for the causes of events you should look beyond your blinkered mind. (p. 746).
Given this, it shouldn’t be surprising that both sides are portrayed as both “terrible and beautiful”:
Both forces were terrible, both beautiful. In both, men’s hearts were filled with joy and pride at being part of it—this grand display, this glorious event, this sacrifice, this, the well-trained warrior’s highest calling. Fear, suffering and grief would follow later. (p. 400).
Yet, the character’s actions do have consequences. “All a person does throughout their life sticks to them as their shadow does, including actions they would wish to be forgotten. Each act is pregnant with its consequences. Just as a plant develops flowers and fruit.”(pp. 728-729).
“All a person does throughout their life sticks to them as their shadow does, including actions they would wish to be forgotten. Each act is pregnant with its consequences. Just as a plant develops flowers and fruit entity, comes into existence and then ceases to exist in accordance with its own nature. No personal effort is required to bring this about; it is simply what happens. (pp. 728-729).
How to deal with the conflicting fact that “we are already dead” and that our actions “stick to us like a bur” presents the core the Epic’s (and Hinduism’s) philosophy. The Mahabharata is the ultimate “anti consequentialist.” The goal is to act, but act without attachment.
Those attached to the outcome of their action, then that action’s consequences, like a burr, will stick to them through this life and beyond, determining the nature of their rebirth. That is the unshakable law of karma. But those who do not grasp after results, who treat success and failure as the same, are always satisfied. Although they act, they are really doing nothing—like a boatman rowing with the current, at his ease. (p. 408).
Even the attachment to our own identity is an illusion that dooms us to eternal life.
Being made of ever-shifting particles, the human being changes constantly, as the liberated person knows. By asking me who I am, and whose, you show that you are still mired in the illusion of distinct identity, seeing the world in terms of dualities. If you were truly liberated, you would see that there is no difference between me and others, or between me and you. The self is neither male nor female. If you were truly liberated, I could not have wronged you.(pp. 740-741).
Complimenting the life not attached to consequences is advice on how to live in this uncertainty. At times the advice sounds like the moderation “wisdom literature.” Indeed, this could be snuck into Ecclesiastic by changing “gods” to God.
“All you can do is live as best you can— do your duty as you understand it, enjoy your pleasures, but in moderation, worship the gods.”(pp. 699-700).
While this is enough to live a happy life, only absolute freedom allows permeant release from the cycle of suffering. This freedom is not the western sense.
Action vs thinking. The philosopher king, Yudhisththira, constantly wants to give up power to live in the woods. When banished, he throws himself into it. His brothers, push to get back to the fight. Hinduism is not a religious of acoustics, unless as a Brahmin you are assigned that role
“My friend, there are two paths through this world: the path of knowledge and the path of action. You will not attain enlightenment by renouncing action—and indeed you would find that is impossible. To live out this material existence we have to act, just to keep ourselves alive.(pp. 405-406).
What is truth? What is real can we know it?
There is a base level of reality from which we can judge our actions.
“We know it in meditation, when we see there is no ‘me’ or ‘mine’ specifically— that ‘I’ am part of everything that is. When we hear the chanting of the Vedas the Real is given expression in those sounds. “The Real is that which every living person, from the most accomplished sage right down to the lowest sweeper, has in common. It is impersonal. And it is changeless. It manifests itself in human virtue.” (p. 721).
“The virtuous life has many entrances. To carry out your worldly obligations at every stage of life will bring you merit and is never wasted. But ultimate freedom is of a different order. To approach it a person must learn to release their grasp on all that’s dear to them, whether objects, parents, children—or a cherished idea. Of course, when these are lost one feels great sorrow, but then, with the aid of meditation, one should seek to let that sorrow go, let it float free, like a passing cloud, learning detachment, equanimity” “My heart does not break,’ said the brahmin, ‘because I regard nothing as specially mine, not even my own self. I see the whole world as mine, everything as equally precious. By clinging to one son in a world of sons, you bring yourself nothing but suffering, lurching between joy and sorrow. (pp. 725-726). “
Leadership:
The last 1/4 of the book deals with Y’s questions to his grandfather about the nature of being a leader. He asked one question after another that is as relevant today as they were then.
Does the age produce the king, or the reverse?
How is it that one man, whose body is the same as other men’s, who is no more noble or accomplished than many others, who is born and dies as they do—how is it that this one man is called ‘king,’ and must protect the earth, is respected above other men and treated like a god?”
How republics can hold together without a leader (answer: only when collectively is on top of mind as is fairness and justice so corruption and greed don’t sneak).
When to use harsh means on your people and opponents. “But if the rod of force did not exist, social cooperation, and all it means, would not be possible. Without the fear of punishment, the strong would terrorize and kill the weak, and slaughter each other.” (p. 705).
Are there different rules when times are desperate, when enemies don’t follow the rules, etc. Can the dharma be abrogated.
“Dharma is subtle; what is right and wrong is hard to speak about in general. In such a case, a king who has been virtuous will find within himself the moral judgment to make the best decisions.” (p. 709). Indeed, during the war the characters, even (and especially?) Krishna, engage in deciept to win. Nearly everything is conditions. Trust is a virtue. Or to put it another way, you can only trust who you can trust.
Discussed - hidden or we don’t see
“The world is caught up by appearances, dazzled by their infinite variety, snared by illusion, endlessly distracted, and does not recognize me, the eternal principle that connects the humblest flower with the grandeur of the constellations. It is hard to penetrate appearance; only those who seek me pass beyond it. (pp. 410-411).
Star Wars?
I kept thinking of Star Wars knowing that Lucas was a follower of ancient myths and hinduism in particular. Much like that universe, the battle is not between armies but between each individuals’ inclinations. Each of the major characters on each side of the battle have a crisises of action throughout. Further, Yoda sounds a lot like Krishna.
The Mahabharata (“the Epic”) deserves its places as one the great epics in literature, and indeed, one of the great works of literature of any genre. The Epic compares with Iliad with its focus on men at war, the consequences of their actions, and the nexus of fate and free will. And with the Bible with its mix of stories, ethics, religious instruction, and wisdom literature. Yet, the Epic differs from either of those two cannons, not only in style but in its worldview. It also shares with other great epics is the complex view of human nature and morals. There are heroes and villains but none of the characters is good or bad. The question of “what the right thing to do” is never answered easily. Here are some themes:
Following Darma, code, honor, vs. doing what feels right, pragmatic.
The characters frequently debate when they can depart from their assigned roles in life or the accepted path. Even when the accepted path or duty causes devastating consequences either personally or socially. Yudhishthira seems content to wander in the forest as opposed to take action to reclaim his Kingdom, and he struggles with the decision before, during and after the war. Even the characters more comfortable with action, Bishna and Arjun, are conflicted when they have to kill their former friends and teachers.
“Mother,” said Bhishma, “it is impossible. I understand your anguish, but my vow is more important to me than life itself. (p. 21).
“But is it never right,” asked Yudhishthira, “for a person to follow the life path of an order other than their own? - The answer is not clear. Bishna says “no” but the characters during the war use tricks to success.
I know that dharma for a kshatriya is to fight. That is our law. And yet where does killing stop? Killers are themselves killed in return. Thus a feud develops, vendetta never ends. No one rests easy. And does any man, even the worst, deserve to die? Should we conduct ourselves like dogs, wrangling over a piece of meat? Heroism’s a malady; the heart can never know serenity that way. “And yet, we must act. We are kshatriyas. We welcome neither war nor surrender— even capitulation would bring no end to hatred. (pp. 360-361).
While following the assigned role is almost always the advice given, particularly by Krishna, the story is replete with examples of transgressions to accomplish means. Thus, while a type of deontology is preached, a consequentialism is often practiced. While the results are fated, Krishna plays an active role in making sure of the results happen. The warrior/god counsel’s, cajoles, tricks, and cheats his way to victory. The most egregious instance is his refusal to tells the Pandvas that Korna , on the opposing side, is indeed related to them. This would have stopped the war, with its massive casualties. Is it worth? We don’t really know (cf. Job).
Determinism and who we and what is our role
In case there was any question about characters inability to influence events, Krishna puts the notion to rest.
“I AM TIME, DESTROYER OF WORLDS. Even before you act, all these warriors, rank upon rank in the opposing armies, are already dead. I have destroyed them. From the perspective of eternal time, the everlasting present, those men you see lined up, eager for battle, full of the vigor of their youth and strength, are dead already. The bodies which have known cold and heat, pleasure and suffering, already carry death and decomposition in their bones.(p. 418).
The outcome of the battle has long been decided. What does that mean for how we should act?
Here we see the differences between the Iliad, the Bible, and the Mahabharata. In the Ilia, fate is blind. The hero’s are heroic because they are acting within an uncertain world. The fact that they are often tricked into action by the immortals, only adds weight to nobility of the heroes’ actions. In the Bible fate is controlled by an almighty god with a noble ends in mind. While we might know the ultimate purpose and means, one must trust there is one. Thus, following the path set forth by god is the moral path.
In the Mahabharata the characters earn merit by doing their duty but we are not sure to what end. In some ways this does relieve them of guilt or moral responsability.
“How can you still suppose the slaughter was your fault? You were the channel for forces much more powerful than yourself. If you search for the causes of events you should look beyond your blinkered mind. (p. 746).
Given this, it shouldn’t be surprising that both sides are portrayed as both “terrible and beautiful”:
Both forces were terrible, both beautiful. In both, men’s hearts were filled with joy and pride at being part of it—this grand display, this glorious event, this sacrifice, this, the well-trained warrior’s highest calling. Fear, suffering and grief would follow later. (p. 400).
Yet, the character’s actions do have consequences. “All a person does throughout their life sticks to them as their shadow does, including actions they would wish to be forgotten. Each act is pregnant with its consequences. Just as a plant develops flowers and fruit.”(pp. 728-729).
“All a person does throughout their life sticks to them as their shadow does, including actions they would wish to be forgotten. Each act is pregnant with its consequences. Just as a plant develops flowers and fruit entity, comes into existence and then ceases to exist in accordance with its own nature. No personal effort is required to bring this about; it is simply what happens. (pp. 728-729).
How to deal with the conflicting fact that “we are already dead” and that our actions “stick to us like a bur” presents the core the Epic’s (and Hinduism’s) philosophy. The Mahabharata is the ultimate “anti consequentialist.” The goal is to act, but act without attachment.
Those attached to the outcome of their action, then that action’s consequences, like a burr, will stick to them through this life and beyond, determining the nature of their rebirth. That is the unshakable law of karma. But those who do not grasp after results, who treat success and failure as the same, are always satisfied. Although they act, they are really doing nothing—like a boatman rowing with the current, at his ease. (p. 408).
Even the attachment to our own identity is an illusion that dooms us to eternal life.
Being made of ever-shifting particles, the human being changes constantly, as the liberated person knows. By asking me who I am, and whose, you show that you are still mired in the illusion of distinct identity, seeing the world in terms of dualities. If you were truly liberated, you would see that there is no difference between me and others, or between me and you. The self is neither male nor female. If you were truly liberated, I could not have wronged you.(pp. 740-741).
Complimenting the life not attached to consequences is advice on how to live in this uncertainty. At times the advice sounds like the moderation “wisdom literature.” Indeed, this could be snuck into Ecclesiastic by changing “gods” to God.
“All you can do is live as best you can— do your duty as you understand it, enjoy your pleasures, but in moderation, worship the gods.”(pp. 699-700).
While this is enough to live a happy life, only absolute freedom allows permeant release from the cycle of suffering. This freedom is not the western sense.
Action vs thinking. The philosopher king, Yudhisththira, constantly wants to give up power to live in the woods. When banished, he throws himself into it. His brothers, push to get back to the fight. Hinduism is not a religious of acoustics, unless as a Brahmin you are assigned that role
“My friend, there are two paths through this world: the path of knowledge and the path of action. You will not attain enlightenment by renouncing action—and indeed you would find that is impossible. To live out this material existence we have to act, just to keep ourselves alive.(pp. 405-406).
What is truth? What is real can we know it?
There is a base level of reality from which we can judge our actions.
“We know it in meditation, when we see there is no ‘me’ or ‘mine’ specifically— that ‘I’ am part of everything that is. When we hear the chanting of the Vedas the Real is given expression in those sounds. “The Real is that which every living person, from the most accomplished sage right down to the lowest sweeper, has in common. It is impersonal. And it is changeless. It manifests itself in human virtue.” (p. 721).
“The virtuous life has many entrances. To carry out your worldly obligations at every stage of life will bring you merit and is never wasted. But ultimate freedom is of a different order. To approach it a person must learn to release their grasp on all that’s dear to them, whether objects, parents, children—or a cherished idea. Of course, when these are lost one feels great sorrow, but then, with the aid of meditation, one should seek to let that sorrow go, let it float free, like a passing cloud, learning detachment, equanimity” “My heart does not break,’ said the brahmin, ‘because I regard nothing as specially mine, not even my own self. I see the whole world as mine, everything as equally precious. By clinging to one son in a world of sons, you bring yourself nothing but suffering, lurching between joy and sorrow. (pp. 725-726). “
Leadership:
The last 1/4 of the book deals with Y’s questions to his grandfather about the nature of being a leader. He asked one question after another that is as relevant today as they were then.
Does the age produce the king, or the reverse?
How is it that one man, whose body is the same as other men’s, who is no more noble or accomplished than many others, who is born and dies as they do—how is it that this one man is called ‘king,’ and must protect the earth, is respected above other men and treated like a god?”
How republics can hold together without a leader (answer: only when collectively is on top of mind as is fairness and justice so corruption and greed don’t sneak).
When to use harsh means on your people and opponents. “But if the rod of force did not exist, social cooperation, and all it means, would not be possible. Without the fear of punishment, the strong would terrorize and kill the weak, and slaughter each other.” (p. 705).
Are there different rules when times are desperate, when enemies don’t follow the rules, etc. Can the dharma be abrogated.
“Dharma is subtle; what is right and wrong is hard to speak about in general. In such a case, a king who has been virtuous will find within himself the moral judgment to make the best decisions.” (p. 709). Indeed, during the war the characters, even (and especially?) Krishna, engage in deciept to win. Nearly everything is conditions. Trust is a virtue. Or to put it another way, you can only trust who you can trust.
Discussed - hidden or we don’t see
“The world is caught up by appearances, dazzled by their infinite variety, snared by illusion, endlessly distracted, and does not recognize me, the eternal principle that connects the humblest flower with the grandeur of the constellations. It is hard to penetrate appearance; only those who seek me pass beyond it. (pp. 410-411).
Star Wars?
I kept thinking of Star Wars knowing that Lucas was a follower of ancient myths and hinduism in particular. Much like that universe, the battle is not between armies but between each individuals’ inclinations. Each of the major characters on each side of the battle have a crisises of action throughout. Further, Yoda sounds a lot like Krishna.
merythapy's review
5.0
Fantastically friendly for a modern Western reader. The blank verse pulls you along in its easy sweep and is never intrusive. This is the only version I've read, but I still feel like the author did a fantastic job choosing which episodes to expand and which to condense.
In sum: compulsively readable, moving, and enthralling.
In sum: compulsively readable, moving, and enthralling.
More...