365bet娱乐

Some More Considerations about Textual criticism [pathasamiksa siddhanta visayako vimarsah] / By Dr. Madeleine Biardeau, Directeur D'eludes Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Sorbonne, Paris. / 115-123

[ asmin nibandhe mahabharatasya pathasamiksatmakasamskarana- madharikrtya mahabharatadinam purananam ca etadrsanam samskarananama- nupayogitvamapramanyam ca pradarsitam | vidusya lekhikaya mate maukhika- paramparaya praptanam vibhinnapathasaraninam samanameva mahattvam vartate atah paramparagata pathasaraninam samkaya na vidheyam | mahabharatam puranani ca prathamam maukhika paramparaya pracaram praptani yasmin vibhinnasthanesu vibhinnakalesu ca bahvyah pathaparamparah samjatah | tesam samraksanamavasyameva karttavyam | sarvasam pathasaraninam samanantarameva ekatra pathasamiksatmakam prthak prthak samskaranam karttavyam yena tasam saraninam tulanatmake sradhyayane saukarya syat | ] The critical editions of puranas which are now being prepared in Varanasi appear to be based on the same principles which were applied to the Bhandarkar Institute edition of the Mahabharata. Shri A. S. Gupta, in his article "Constitution of the Vamana Purana text" (Purana, Vasantapancami Number, Vol. IX. 1, Jan. 1967, pp. 141-194) deals only with the practical problems of textreconstruction, which seems to imply that on the whole he has relied on the theoretical conclusions reached by V. S. Sukthankar in his elaborate Introduction to the first volume of the Mahabharata. In 1929 and in 1934 (Journal Asiatique, Oct.-Dec. 1929, pp. 345-348; Oct.-Dec. 1934, pp. 281-283), Sylvain Levi hailed the publication of the first three and the last fascicules of the Adiparvan as a great event, but at the same time he expressed some doubt as to the value of the text so reconstructed. Sukthankar in his Introduction of 1933, discarded the 1929 criticism as "a paradox natural to the subtle mentality of the learned critic", which "we need not take too seriously" (Mbh. Vol. I. p. LXXXIV). Though my mind is far from being as subtle as that of my paramaguru, I fell to see any Paradox in S. Levi's appraisal

116 puranam -- PURANA [Vol. X., No. 2 of Sukthankar's work, but I would rather quote from his review of the 7th fascicule of the Adiparvan (1934), which may help clarify his reasoning (p. 282): "Mr. Sukthankar, who has been trained by the pandits and by the German philologists, remains halfway between the Indian tradition and Wolff. He cannot help thinking that Vyasa and Vaisampayana are historical characters, and he holds the idea of an old organic poem, which is the basis of all alterations; but he also says about this poem that it "practically never existed". This contradiction that Sylvain Levi brought to light years ago has remained in the minds of Indians as one of the unsolved conflicts resulting from the impact of Western science. The French scholar was aware of the limits of textual criticism when applied to such monuments of oral tradition as the Indian epics, and since his time, Western scientists have become increasingly conscious of the specific problems of oral tradition (even when it is only available to us through written texts). But the Indian scholars have continued to adhere to Sukthankar's principles of method, though the latter was already fully aware, as his Introduction shows, of the difficulties of textual criticism. The reason for this is not necessarily that the modern developments of Western science are not yet known in India. It must be considered that the conception of what the western scholar calls "oral tradition" is nothing like Indian conception of oral tradition. In the West, oral tradition refers essentially to the manner that popular beliefs, myths and legends, which were in olden days narrated by more or less skilled people, are transmitted. The narrators were not necessarily specially authorized for this activity; rather they were appreciated on the basis of their ability to tell stories. It was not expected of them to repeat faithfully a given text, which had been learnt by heart. On the contrary, a good story-teller was one who knew how to make the same old story lively and captivating, to a certain extent through the use of his own words. Only the gist of the story, its essential pattern or meaning, remained the same. Oral tradition in this sense is considered to be authorless, or rather, anonymous and

July, 1968] CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 117 collective. As such it is in opposition to written literature, which is comprised exclusively of works composed by individual authors, whether known or unknown, and which are maintained unaltered, as far as possible, through the manuscript tradition. Since the written literature in the West is valued more highly than the oral tradition, the specific features of the latter were ignored for a long time. The rules of textual criticism were evolved for only the written literature and their main purpose was to reconstruct, out of the variations of manuscripts, the original work of an author. But to the Indian mind, "oral tradition" has quite different connotations. On the one hand, it is the highest form of literature, a form which gives us the religious truth itself in its unalterable expression, the truth about invisible things. Actually the phrase "oral tradition" is not quite an accurate translation of the Sanskrit word sruti, which denotes the revealed truth received through the hearing of immutable words or sentences. The emphasis here is placed on the hearing rather than on the reciting of what has been heard. The transmission process, of course, implies a guru who speaks and a disciple who listens, but the correct hearing and remembering practically ends the work of the sisya. From ear to mouth of the same speaker no word should be altered; the speaker's mind should not be allowed to interfere with the received message. The Vedic text is not considered to be composed by men, but selfrevealed, and at the same time it is the perfect expression of the meaning to be expressed. Only the brahmins are fit to hear and recite it, not only because they have acquired a special skill, but also because they were born brahmins. In point of fact, however, there are several Vedic texts, though they deal essentially with the same rituals and could at least partly be brought together and reconciled. But, as they are considered immutable they are classified under different "branches" or schools and kept as they are with their variations. Even the most staunch supporters of Western textual criticism in India would never dream of "critically editing" the Vedas in the same way as the epics and the puranas, since they are absolutely authoritative as they are. 2

118 puranam - PURANA [Vol. X., No. 2 On the other hand, however, there is another variety of oral tradition if we mean by this phrase any form of literature which has been transmitted through the centuries primarily by oral recitation-, namely, that which comes under the generic term smrti. The epics and puranas are smrti texts and, as such they have been composed by men. For this reason they are less authoritative than the sruti, but at the same time, they are given a definite religious normative value, provided their contents are found by the learned brahmins (that is, the brahmins who are well-versed in the sruti to be in agreement with the revealed truth. Hence there are a number of consequences which a modern pandit constantly keeps in mind, even when he sets to work at bringing out a critical edition: if a purana is of human origin, it must have been composed by a man and that man must have been of the most authoritative kind. Vyasa is the great-grandson of Vasistha, the very symbol of pure brahminhood. He is a rsi, but for an Indian mind his mythic characterisation does not exclude his historical reality; it simply keeps it out of reach. At the same time, however, it must be admitted that what we have now is not a single text with negligible variant readings, but different recension of the same work, which obviously have been evolved independently of one another to a certain extent, in different parts of India. These different recensions cannot be easily reconciled with one another, since not all of them even include the same stories, nor are they always given in the same order. The problem is quite similar for the epics and the puranas. In both cases the oral tradition of the last centuries has been maintained at least partially through manuscript transmission, but everybody is aware of the vast variations that occur, not only between two recensions, but also between two versions of the same recension. It cannot be concealed that the bards (usually non-brahmins) who narrated the stories partly re-created them for each recitation in the same manner as the Western bards during the Middle Ages. To a modern brahmin's mind this means unauthoritativeness, sheer fancy and hopeless separation from the pure source of wisdom.

July, 1968] CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 119 Here in my opinion, lies the fundamental misunderstanding and the reason why Sukthankar and others have held to textual criticism in spite of all the theoretical difficulties, which they could see as clearly as we do. In using a seemingly Western scientific method, which was not meant for that kind of literature, they had in mind a purpose which could only superficially be stated in scientific terms; in fact it remained purely religious. The question whether Vyasa was a mythic or an historical author could not even be clearly raised, since he was primarily the symbol of the authoritativeness of the epic and puranic texts. What was to be reached was not so much the original text as the most authoritative one, and it was hoped that the oldest possible version would come closer to the truthful version, having less intermediary transmitting agents to alter it. This hope, of course, is not sufficient to make the methods of textual criticism applicable; Sukthankar's analysis of the critical problems of the Mahabharata is proof to the contrary. Once the "fluidity" of the text has been admitted, once we have become aware of the regional and temporal variations which have resulted in different recensions and versions, we cannot be easily convinced that the shortest recension (that of Kashmir) is the best and that the oldest manuscripts, which in any case are much more recent than the beginnings of the epic traditions, are the most faithful to the assumed original. At best, to use Sylvain Levi's own terms, Sukthankar has created a new recension of the Mahabharata and it is likely that in the near future we shall also have some new recensions of puranas. But it is not clear why these should be either better from a scientific viewpoint, or more authoritative from a traditional angle. Since the traditional Indian pandits presently seem to share in this opinion, it would seem that the target has been missed. Let us examine the problem once again from both sides. I shall start from the traditional standpoint, since the aim of any scientific method in human sciences should be to determine the right approach to an object through an understanding of its particular setting. If we want to scientifically study some piece

120 puranam - PURANA [Vol. X., No. 2 of the Indian oral tradition we should not begin by focusing our attention on the changes that took place in the process of transmitting the texts, but determine for any given time, whether a particular piece of oral literature had some relation to the actual beliefs of the people and how it was understood by them. We are all the more invited to do so as the old Indian commentators did not ignore the variations in the tradition, though they were not bothered too much by them, and even made use of them. If we compare the fate of the Mahabharata to that of the Vedic texts, we find a particularly striking difference. On the one hand, the Vedic so-called "branches", which were differentiated very early but made immutable at one point, have been maintained unaltered up to the present time. For each school of each Veda there is a group of brahmins who should recite only the particular recension of the school; the text of each recension is thus related to a permanent social group and made inseparable from it. If the text disappeared, there would no longer be a basis for the distinction of the group. On the other hand, the smrtitexts, which also probably in one form or other date back to a very early period, embody the entire popular lore, with occasional marked differences in the degree of brahminic orthodoxy. They were probably never exclusively in the hands of brahmins, and for centuries they have conveyed in a striking manner the beliefs and ideals of the people. Although the expression might slightly change, the essential message has remained the same. The meaning has been more important than the form, which is the very sign of a living tradition. Not only could one story vary in its details but even the number and content of stories from one recension to the other could vary as a result of their spreading over such a vast area during a period of many centuries. But the overall meaning has still been felt as one and the same. This is why, speaking now from a scientific standpoint, we have some difficulty in agreeing with Sukthankar's poor opinion of the Vulgate edition of the Mahabharata. To him this text compiled in the 17th century, is the very symbol of an unscientific mind. Instead of choosing and eliminating, Nilakantha tried to collect all the available versions of the Mahabharata and

July, 1968] CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 121 on the basis of them all, to compose a more complete text, which Sukthankar called a "conflated" recension. Unfortunately we do not have much evidence of Nilakantha's kind of work but we know at least that his text became very popular, from which we can assume that, at the very least, he did not assemble the stray pieces of his puzzle altogether indiscriminately; or, to put it in other words, that his Mahabharata received a warmer welcome than the present critical edition. No doubt he had also sometimes to eliminate and choose, and it is obvious that he did not retain stories or details of stories which were meaningless to him. His main concern was not to give a critical edition but rather to bring out as complete a collection as possible of the epic stories that were prevalent at that time and known by everybody in one form or other. But certainly he was equally concerned with the authoritativeness of the stories, as any good brahmin should be. He was probably even more conscious of this religious requirement than the modern pandits, and his definition of the authoritativeness of the smrti is likely to have been the same as that of any caste-Hindu at any time. We can at least tentatively express the traditional idea in these terms: any epic or puranic story is true if the local brahmins recognize it as part of their beliefs. These brahmins are the sruta, the people that warrant the authority of the local tradition because they are well-versed in the sruti. And if such a story is recognized by the brahmins, it is attributed to Vyasa, the mythic author of epics and puranas, regardless of whether it is mentioned in any of the classical texts. I think I found something of this situation recently (Oct. 1967) when talking with the Srivaisnava pandits of the Simhachalam pathasala in Andhra. The latter had no difficulty in admitting that the local purana, which relates the story of Narasimha and Prahlada, was quite different from the Skandapurana version of the same story, though this was the avowed source of it. In spite of this difference the local purana was for them authoritative, since it expressed their belief and therefore was considered superior to any other local version. A non-brahmin Hindu, who was accompanying me at the time, tried to propose another version of the same story-that is, essentially another interpretation of the

122 puranam - PURANA [Vol. X., No. 2 same iconographical details, which, on closer examination, happened to be saivite. The Srivaisnava brahmins thought it was enough to refute it by saying that it was "a purana coming from the mouth". In contradistinction, their sthalapurana was no doubt attributed to Vyasa just like the Skandapurana or any other mahapurana. In other words, the Srivaisnava brahmins found in themselves the real source of the authoritativeness of the story without caring too much for the real origin of the tradition in time or place. Their interpretation of the story must be eternal or at least, extremely old, as old as Vyasa himself. This way of thinking also accounts for conflicting traditions, which are not held by the same people but each of which has its authority directly grounded in the people's minds. The modern pandits are now in the name of science trying to reverse the terms, and decide what is old enough to possibly date back to Vyasa and use this as the basis for determining the authoritative version. They have introduced the historical dimension into the realm of myth where it cannot exist. For a long time people have been aware of differences in local recensions or traditions but it has not occured to them that these differences should be accounted for in terms of historical change. A criterion for decision could immediately be found in their own social groupstatus. The modern interpretation is obviously the result of the impact of Western science, at least of the dominant trend of Western Indian studies, that is, historical philology. But the approach of historical philology will never be suitable for an oral tradition, which has no essential reference to its historical origin and which, through the centuries, has spread over a vast area without preserving its material unity. It would just be wrong to make Vyasa the historical origin of what has no single historical origin. Of course Sukthankar was too much a part of the Indian traditional culture not to have felt this, and the difficulties in preparing a critical edition, which he listed in his Introduction, bear witness to his uneasiness. But he failed to see that these same difficulties required an altogether different scientific approach. Actually his attitude was shared by many Western scientists of the time and Sylvain Levi appears to have been one of the very few dissenting voices in the West. The only conclusion which suggests itself is that any locally

July, 1968] CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TEXTUAL CRITICISM 123 accepted version is authoritative in its own right. It does not mean that the Mahabharata or any widespread purana has no unity whatever, but rather that its unity is to be found in the meaning of the stories and not in their particular contents or historical bearing. This is why the orthodox Hindu consciousness has always found it so easy to accept wide variations in the texts. Any scientific study should first of all preserve these variations and determine the kind of socio-religious idea they conveyed to people. This is a sufficient indication of the method that should be followed in bringing out crititical editions of this kind of literature. The editors up till now have concentrated on the reconstruction of a single text out of the several known recensions, but it is recognized by everybody, including the editors themselves, that such a text never existed. It never represented the actual beliefs of any particular group of people nor could it claim to stand for the minimum common beliefs of the Hindus. For this reason the main concern of the editors should be to publish not only the different recensions as they are, but also, when necessary, the different versions of each recension. It would be very useful if the different texts could be published in parallel. Each version could be "critically edited" to a certain extent, though final certainty or a completely satisfactory text is impossible due to the very conditions of oral literature. But this detailed critical work should not be mechanically compiled just on the basis of the known rules of critical editions. Though this is outside the subject of the present paper, I would suggest that the manuscript evidence be checked and strengthened through consultations with the people who, even now, have a first hand knowledge of the epics and puranas. A number of questions and objections may be raised in relation to the above discussion. I purposely remained at the level of generalities to make my point clearer, but this does not mean that all practical difficulties have disappeared. It would be very interesting indeed, and certainly worthwhile, if people who have something to say in this connection cared to express their opinions.