The beginnings of Western scholarship on the Sanskrit epic, the Mahābhārata, are marked by a great puzzlement at the work. The text does not fit Western canons of literature—too heterogeneous its contents, too abstract its ideas that Western scholars can make sense of it.1 The “confusion” of fact and fantasy—a cosmological narrative that begins with Brahmā, the Creator, and descends through the repeated names of obscure dynastic kings to connect with present-day “history”—violates all Western expectations of narrative consistency and reality. In contrast to the Vedas, considered the earliest documents of “Indo-European” civilization, the Mahābhārata appears a corrupted work, and German scholars are quick to identify the culprits: the “aboriginal” population of India, those from “the darker side” (Garbe). In the German scholars’ view, the aboriginal influence can be seen in features such as the emphasis on gift-giving to the Brahmans, the belief in karma and rebirth, and the “repugnant” cults of Viṣṇu, Śiva, and the Devī—features they consider inimical to the “Aryan” inheritance of ancient India.2 The task of scholarship can only be to excise these elements from the “old, genuine Mahābhārata” (Holtzmann Jr.). The Mahābhārata, they reason, must have arisen as an amalgam of a heroic culture (whose extent Holtzmann Sr. identifies in 1854 with a common Indo-Greek-Germanic epic tradition stretching from the Baltic to the Gangetic plain) and the debased views and religious practices of the negroid inhabitants of the subcontinent that the Aryans, invading from the north, encountered. Contrasting—by first identifying—the religious ideas of the latter (chiefly, nature worship, pantheism if not a rational monotheism, and worship of warlike gods such as Indra) with those of the former becomes a favorite pastime of theirs and, not incidentally, gives rise to the disciplines of comparative religions and comparative mythology.
These racial prejudices find an easy anchor in the text. The Mahābhārata, at least to the uninitiated, appears a war narrative of the kind Hermann Oldenberg yearns for, when he exults over the Aryan victories over the natives, the “battles in which the land was taken away from the dark-skinned foes, [and] the shattering of their strongholds” (Das Mahābhārata, 7). Does the text not recount the story of a great battle? Does it not relate the names of some of the combatants to color? Is this not definitive evidence for the great Völkerwanderung that Friedrich Schlegel has been fantasizing about since at least 1806 as part of his plans for a great Universalgeschichte? Is it not the long-sought evidence required to finally anchor the biracial theory—the view that the Indian population comprised a mixture of the white, “Caucasian” race (the “Hindus”) and a black, negroid race—that theoreticians of race such as A. W. Schlegel had been propounding in Indian history?3 The turn to a “historical” interpretation of the Mahābhārata is finally taken in 1837 when Christian Lassen, a student of A. W. Schlegel’s, proposes that the Mahābhārata is a historical record of the battle fought between “the originally native black [race] and the Sanskrit speaking, light-skinned [race] that had immigrated from the north, whose western racial relatives are, even now, successfully fighting a similar battle with similar superiority over the red races of America” (“Beiträge zur Kunde des indischen Alterthums,” 1: 75; Lassen’s italics). Henceforward, ignoring the text’s self-presentation as a philosophical treatise, a law book, and a salvific history; ignoring, also, its own time reckoning, the sole task Western scholarship will pursue is the separation of this (imagined) historical fact from its narrative trappings—a project it advertises to Indians as the necessary “critical” clarification of their texts so that they may be admitted into “history.”4
As tendentious as they were, Lassen’s pseudohistorical investigations provided a structuring principle for Western researches into the Mahābhārata. Scholars could now dissociate the text into its alleged “core,” identified either with a spontaneous bardic composition hymning the deeds of the bard’s liege lord or a historical recollection of the primordial racial battle, and its “accretions,” variously imagined as attempts by Brahmans either to inculcate the warriors in the spirit of their theology5 or to challenge them for their position at the head of the social order.6 A text that Western scholars could not interpret and that would remain eternally mysterious to them could at last be made sense of, even if this “sense-making” consisted in something as banal as identifying the various motivations postulated behind the text. The basic assumption, after all, was that the text was meaningless; that the only reason it could have been put together as it was was due to the vagaries of historical time—the changing dictates of political reason and theological fashion, which scholars would painstakingly, if speculatively, map over the next two centuries. In an era of condescension, what Hindus had to say about the text mattered less than what Western scholars could clarify about their history and traditions to them, and the imputation of a cognitive deficiency to the Indians accorded well with the charge of primitivism laid upon them once it had been decided that, as Winternitz declared, “the critical historian of Indian literature will not join in this praise of the Mahābhārata. He will not see in it as a whole a work of art at all, but a literary monstrosity” (“The Mahābhārata,” 347). Perversely, every attempt by Hindus to insist otherwise would now be interpreted as evidence of their lack of critical self-reflexivity, that very Mündigkeit that the German Indologists had arrogantly arrogated to themselves,7 or, in an act of racial segregation, labeled as support for a militant Hindu nationalism.8
As we showed in The Nay Science, for the past two hundred years, scholars have seldom approached the Mahābhārata as a text. They have been interested neither in what the text had to say about itself nor in what it had to say about the universe or reality nor in what it had to say about the intellectual cosmos in which Hinduism unfolds. Rather, the text was read primarily for what it could reveal about the racial history of the Hindus, that is, for the story of how, “mixing with the dark-skinned aborigines [had] transform[ed] the invaders, cause[d] the Aryan to turn into the Hindu” (Oldenberg, “Indologie,” 640). The German scholars identified this narrative with the content of history and the Mahābhārata itself was considered historical and of interest only insofar as it cohered with this story. Thus, whereas Holtzmann Jr. could assert that the Mahābhārata “had, until now, made an impression on every impartial reader that it is historical […] [,] that here real history wishes to be presented” (Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahābhārata, 41–42),9 Lassen would call it “that Indian work that contains the maximum [number of] fragments of ancient history” (Lassen, “Beiträge,” 61), that is, that Indian work that contained the maximum number of fragments useful for the German narrative of invasion, racial mixing, and racial decline. The Mahābhārata was pressed into a historical narrative that was both racist and anti-Semitic in intent.10 Extending the argument of The Nay Science, Philology and Criticism makes four points:
1. German Mahābhārata scholars did not actually contribute to textual criticism. Despite claiming that, unlike the tradition, they were critical,11 they contributed neither to a mechanical reconstruction of the archetype based on an exhaustive recensio of the extant witnesses and a genealogical analysis of the relations of filiation between them nor to an objective history of the text. Rather, what they presented in the name of “text-critical” (textkritische) or “text-historical” (texthistorische) investigations were anti-Semitic and anti-Brahmanic resentments (see The Nay Science), theological maxims, and racial prejudices (about ancient Aryans, Indo-Germans, etc.). Their “criticism” consisted entirely of separating parts they thought were Brahmanic in origin from those they considered to be reflective of a Kṣatriya outlook.
2. Even after the completion of a critical edition in 1966, German Indologists persisted with the kind of subjective and unscientific “higher critical” reconstructions of the text that they had previously undertaken. Not one of the critics, whose work we examined, identified new significant errors. Not one collated a manuscript. They had no idea of how manuscripts were classified or how the editors had reconstructed the reading of the archetype. Instead, aware that a critical text would end their arbitrary speculations, they raised irrelevant objections to the editorial process and redefined the constituted text as a Brahmanic redaction.12 Even those who, like Bigger, argued that “these are arguments from higher textual criticism, whose application to lower textual criticism I already refused myself” (Bigger, Balarāma im Mahābhārata, 121), did not actually contribute to lower criticism. Rather, their “lower criticism” consisted of proposing recondite models for why readings the editor had rejected from the constituted text (readings the critics thought were typical of a “heroic epic”) could nevertheless be older or why the editor might have overlooked them.
3. The resultant fragmentation of the text was not the unintended consequence of applying a valid scientific procedure to the text, necessary in order to recover better readings or to provide a more readable text. Rather, it was explicitly desired. As we have seen, no such procedure existed, and Mahābhārata scholars were not interested in preserving the text or making it accessible to its readers. Their sole aim in pursuing Mahābhārata “criticism” was to ensure that the text, which articulates a comprehensive vision of the Hindu cosmos, did not survive as a unity. No critic doubted the Mahābhārata’s centrality to Hinduism. No critic was unaware of its theological significance. As comments by the rabidly evangelical Nazi Indologist Paul Hacker and his acolytes such as Gerhard Oberhammer and James T. Laine attest,13 there was an urgent need to deconstruct the text, in full awareness of the challenge it posed to Christianity. The invocation of a “critical” procedure merely served as a pretext. Thus, “layers” were made up, the theory of “euhemerism” was brought in to explain the worship of Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva, and, when all else failed, the preposterous notion of “inclusivism” was postulated, as though the “Hindu mind” (Hacker) was incapable of comprehending difference or polytheism had to be some kind of epistemological mistake, an illusion resulting from several monotheistic sects competing for influence over the same text.14
4. The scholarly reception of the Mahābhārata has been inherently racist. It repeatedly ignored what the Hindu tradition had to say about the text, even though a rich tradition of philosophical commentary on the text has existed since at least the tenth century. Indeed, as Cerequas reminds us, the basic presumption has been that “men so poor in philological training and so rich in melanin” could not “have a commentarial tradition in the first place” (“Ātman, Psuchê, Anima,” 8). German Indologists even excluded twentieth-century Indian scholars from discourse on the specious grounds that “each author establishes his own hermeneutics on the basis of the religious or philosophical tradition he adheres to” (Malinar, The Bhagavadgītā, 7),15 a curious justification since the Indologists saw no difficulty in citing Nazis such as J. W. Hauer and Paul Hacker. Scholars repeatedly attributed a cognitive deficiency to the Indians, whether it was an inability to see the real (Oldenberg), an inability to separate myth from (historical) fact (van Buitenen), or an inability to liberate themselves from the bonds of religion (Hanneder). The Indologists’ “philology” has thus unfolded primarily as an ethnology, led, as Hegel says, “of itself to investigate and to trace the basic lines of the common element, the principles of the Indian consciousness” (Humboldt-Rezension, 75). Measured against the German scholars’ prejudices, the classical commentators, who interpret the text with careful attention to its letter and the reader’s ultimate concerns, appear surprisingly modern. Instead of explaining the text anthropologically-ethnographically by referring to “the increasingly documented peculiarity of the Indian mind” (ibid.), they read the text thoughtfully and philosophically, relating it to the conventions of Vedic and śāstric literature and concepts in Sanskrit poetics. It is time we looked to them rather than to the German Indologists or their indigenous collaborators for clarification of Indian texts.
An earlier version of this essay was distributed at the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in Vancouver,Canada. This version has been revised and expanded.
1. “The Mahābhārata began its existence as a simple epic narrative. It grew in the course of the centuries to a monstrous chaos: besides the main narrative there are true primal forests of smaller narratives, furthermore, countless and endless teachings about theological, philosophical, natural-scientific matters, law, politics, worldly wisdom and practical advice. A poem full of deep dreaming and intuition, gentle poetry, school-masterly platitudes—full of the sparkling play of colors, overpowering masses of images that crush each other, of showers of arrows of endless battles, cries upon cries of heroes that scorn death, overly pious ideal humans, overwhelmingly beautiful women, wrathful ascetics, adventurous mythic beasts, amazing miracles—of empty flood of words and of wide, free insights into the order of the world-unfolding” (Oldenberg, Das Mahābhārata, 1).
2. How deeply rooted this prejudice is can be seen from the following comments, which document a history of negating the text’s actual contents insofar as they mention the Hindu pantheon: “If this exit of the old gods is an irreplaceable loss, the interference of the younger gods, in contrast, of Viṣṇu, of Śiva, of Devī led to the almost total destruction of the poem. In place of the poetic-miraculous, which let fantasy perform the work of the understanding, entered the degenerate-miraculous that resists the representing [faculty of] fantasy just as much as it does the thinking reason” (Holtzmann Sr., Indische Sagen, ix); “Buddhism has disappeared from its Indian homeland. What has triumphed is the power we call ‘Hinduism’. Its gods are the misshapen, wild, cruel, [and] lascivious Hindu gods, at their head Shiva and Vishnu. Its books are the gigantic epic, the Mahābhārata, and an unsurveyable host of literature [made up] of epic poems, legendary works, narratives, fairy tales, dramas. Everywhere we find how this people, this faith, this literature, whose familial context, pointing to the West, clearly appears in the old period, distanced itself ever further from those origins [in the West] in the course of centuries. A transformation that affects the innermost core of the people, of the soul of the people. Mixing with the dark-skinned aborigines transforms the invaders, causes the Aryan to turn into the Hindu” (Oldenberg, “Indologie,” 640); “There is no bridge from the radiant forms of the Veda to the forms of the modern gods [of Hinduism], whose monstrous representations with their tastelessly multiplied animal limbs and so on, should be familiar to all, at least as a type. … In spite of their Aryan names, I consider the modern Hindu gods—Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Hanuman, and whatever else they may be called—not to be Aryan conceptions, but to be conceptions of the aborigines” (Garbe, Indische Reiseskizzen, 85).
3. Compare Schlegel’s account of the “Hindus”—“The face of an oval shape, the forehead high and dominating the lower parts; the cheekbones effaced by the cheeks; the eyes placed horizontally, large, though veiled by thick eyelids, and mostly well split; a nose prominent and often aquiline, of which the ridge is well marked, the nostrils close together and widening little, the opening of the nostrils turned downwards; the two rows of teeth placed vertically the one above the other; the mouth small, delicately traced, and lined by lips moderately swollen; the chin rounded; finally, the hair black, long, silky, and wavy, but not frizzy; in men of a virile age, a thick beard which, if it is not cut, grows to a great length; add to this a slender waist, especially among the women, a fine proportion between the height of the legs and thighs and the part of the body between the shoulders and the hips; hands and feet of a remarkable elegance: such are the traits which place the Hindus incontestably in the race of men to which belong the Persians, the Arabs, the inhabitants of anterior Asia and of Europe […]”—whom he contrasts with the aboriginals thus: “Though, for the reasons I have just developed, we cannot accept that the nation of the Hindus has been formed by the fusion of two peoples coming from different stock, and perhaps from different races, from a conquering people and a subjugated people; it seems that their ancestors were not the first occupants of the country; that they found already there inhabitants more anciently indigenous. There exist even today, in northern India, in some mountainous districts where nature presents great obstacles to the clearing and cultivation of the land, tribes of savage hunters. Without regular cult, having for their entire religion only some confused superstitions, recognizing in no way the Brahmanic law, they live on the products of the hunt, or upon wild roots and fruit; they eat even the most impure meats. Almost nude, but armed with bows, spears, and maces, they go forth from time to time from their inaccessible lairs and commit depredations among their neighbors in the plains. […] This population belongs to a race totally different than that of the Hindus. They are indeed blacks, and their planar forehead, their woolly hair, their flat nose, their figure and stature mark them as Asiatic negroes” (“On the Origin of the Hindus,” trans. E. P. Butler, 423–24).
4. “For us, however, we who regard the Mahābhārata not as faithful Hindus do, but rather, as critical historians of literature, it is nothing less than an artificial work, and we in no way may we see in it the work of a [single] composer, indeed, not even of a skilled collector and arranger. The Mahābhārata as a whole is a literary absurdity. Never has an artist’s hand attempted—and it would hardly have been possible—to combine the conflicting elements to a unitary poem. Only unpoetic theologians and commentators and untalented copyists have ultimately welded together the parts that are, in fact, irreconcilable and derive from different centuries into a disorganized mass” (Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur 1: 272). It is only a late echo of this when Pollock claims that “successful applicants for admission to the twenty-first-century temple of disciplinarity will have to [subject themselves to the test of] historical self-awareness. [They] cannot remain arrogantly indifferent to their own historicity, constructedness, and changeability” (World Philology, 23).
5. “It is in the nature of their [social] position and can also be deduced from various provisions of their legal code that the Indian priestly caste had a clear awareness of the means suitable for securing it lasting dominance over the minds of the remaining folk. It therefore cannot surprise us that we find epic poetry being used as a tool of an addiction to spiritual domination. […] There was no more suitable means of raising the warrior caste in the priestly spirit than linking instruction about religious and social laws to the narratives that already enjoyed general approval. That such an intention was realized in the diaskeusis of the Mahābhārata is clear to me, […[ The Indian priestly caste had a clear understanding of the appropriate means […] for securing it lasting dominance over the minds of the remaining people. It therefore cannot surprise us that we find epic poetry used as an instrument of an addiction to spiritual domination. […] There was no means as appropriate for raising the warrior caste in the priestly spirit than linking instruction about religious and social laws to the narratives that already enjoyed universal favor. That such an intention was realized in the diaskeusis of the Mahābhārata appears clear to me from the large number and the extent of the didactic portions” (Lassen, “Beiträge zur Kunde des indischen Alterthums,” 1: 86).
6. “A record of the greatest martial event of ancient India would have emphatically been claimed as the property of the second or military caste, the Kshattriyas. […] But such an exaltation of kingly splendour and of the importance of the military caste, would as naturally threaten to depress that of the first or Brahmanical caste. Brahmans, therefore, would endeavour to become the arrangers of the national epos; and as the keepers of the ancestral lore, as the spiritual teachers and guides, as priestly diplomatists, too, they would easily succeed in subjecting it to their censorship. […] It became thus the aim of the Brâhmanas to transform the original legend of the great war into a testimony to the superiority of their caste over that of the Kshattriyas. And this aim was effected not only by the manner in which the chief story was told, but also by adding to the narrative all such matter as would show that the position and might of a Kshattriya depends on the divine nature and favour of the Brâhmana caste” (Goldstücker, “Hindu Epic Poetry: The Mahābhārata,”388–89).
“But we are Europeans, and our precedence, our spiritual maturity [Mündigkeit] lies precisely therein that we survey the globe with its inhabitants, and have the drive to trace the history of both back to the most remote prehistory. Consequently, no monument of venerable antiquity should solicit us in vain for its interpretation” (A. W. Schlegel, “Ueber den gegenwärtigen Zustand der Indischen Philologie,” 25).
8. Compare Franco’s review of our book, which interprets our call for a more sensitive reading of the Mahābhārata as “an open invitation for reading and using a text like the Gītā as a justification of the abominable concepts and practices of caste distinction, Hindu nationalism, Brahmin supremacy, Right-wing militarism and fascism, to mention but a few possibilities” (Franco, review of The Nay Science, 698). This is rich coming from someone who collaborated in covering up the anti-Semitic and Nazi background of his predecessors in Leipzig.
9 Note the identification of “real history” with this story. This is not to say that the invasion happened or did not happen or that its vector was reversed. Rather, a decision about what is to count as “the real” is being made here. It is only once this decision is made that Oldenberg will be able to say, “Only later—for the period of which we shall speak, this lies for the most part in the future—one learns, instead of the imaginary occurrences, to see the real” (Die Lehre der Upanishaden, 12), a statement that makes a massive threefold assumption, namely, that we ourselves know “the real,” that we know what is to count as “the real,” and that we can, therefore, now determine whether other people have learned to see “the real.” It is from this decision that Indology’s Bildungsauftrag (pedagogic responsibility) flows: Indians, who do not know “the real,” must now be taught to recognize it. They must become historical in a Western sense. We have learned to identify a highly determinate experience, a specific way of ordering events and endowing them with meaning that was invented in nineteenth-century Germany with history as such and to identify this history, in turn, with “the real.” Herein lies the deepest root of not only India’s intellectual colonization, but also all other peoples.
On the racial interpretation of the text, see Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, 1: 643: “Since the Pāñcāla definitely belonged to the Aryan peoples, we may not interpret the relationship between them and the Pāṇḍavas in such a way that the former, through the black color ascribed to Kṛṣṇā [Draupadī] should be understood as being described as belonging to the black natives of India, the latter as the white Aryans. Nonetheless, the distinction in terms of color must have a meaning, and this can only be that the Pāñcāla, as well as the Yādava who are represented by Kṛṣṇa [Vāsudeva], both belonged to the Aryan peoples who had immigrated [into India] earlier, [that they] had become darker through the influence of the climate than the more recent immigrants from the north and, in contrast to these, were called the black ones.” On the anti-
Semitic association of the category of “epic” see ibid., 414–15: “History is evidence that the Semites lacked the harmonious balance of all psychic powers through which the Indo-Germans became preeminent. […] The Semite cannot separate the relationship of the world to man in general from the relationship of the world to his own ‘I.’ He cannot represent ideas in the mind in pure objectivity. His way of looking at things is subjective and egotistical. His poetry is lyrical [and] hence subjective. His spirit expresses its joy and its pain, its love and its hatred, its admiration and its scorn. […] Even if he expands his horizon it is only to represent his tribe as an individual over against other tribes. […] He is unsuccessful at [creating] epic because here the ‘I’ of the poet recedes before the object [and] even less at dramatic works, which demand that the poet shed his personality even more completely. [In contrast,] the Indo-Germans possess, alongside the lyrical, also the other genres of poetry. They alone produced a national drama. They alone produced the great heroic poems that reflect the great deeds of antiquity handed down in the legend in glorified form, that present the entire worldview of the spirit of a people to us and are present as the result of the poetic effort of an entire people. The Semite is lacking in the material of the epic, but not the saga, which he poetically ornaments and develops but does not combine into larger cycles and, instead, preserves in his memory as primordial history.”
11. Compare Stietencron’s comment: “The analytical thinking of Western scholars trained in historical and philological methodology stood in contrast to the traditional Indian commentators. The latter not only generously harmonized all the disjunctions in the text but, above all, attempted to recognise in particular passages of the text their own philosophical and theological concepts. This was done in order to secure for themselves the divine authority of Kṛṣṇa. In this manner, several philosophical schools developed Gītā interpretations of their own—a spectrum that has been further expanded through politically motivated, modern interpretations since the beginning of the Indian independence struggle” (Stietencron, “Editor’s
Here is how Simson characterizes the edition: “If, however, we proceed from the assumption the redactions had before them older versions of the Mahābhārata, then we must reckon with the fact that these older versions were already revised in various ways and that interpolations entered into them before they were evaluated for our Mahābhārata [the critical edition]. Further, we may assume that even after the completion of the final redaction, for a certain period of time until the final separation of the north and south Indian recensions, interpolations entered into the text, and which hence could not be eliminated using the editorial principles of the Poona edition [the critical edition]. The history of development of our Mahābhārata text can
then be outlined as follows: (1) In the beginning there was […] the short epic transmitted as an oral, improvised composition in the tradition. Here it is meaningless to inquire into the original text and the author: the poem was realized by several epic bards in constantly changing form; bard and author were identical in this stage. From this period arise many of the formulaic expressions of our Mahābhārata, the technique of the adhyāya introductions and conclusions, the schematic development of the small battle-scenes, etc. (2) There followed a period of written fixation of the text; indeed, we can also assume with certainty that different versions of the poem were written down at different times, of which remains can still be traced in our text. (3) Finally, an individual diaskeuast or a committee of diaskeuasts, compilators, or redactors took up the task of forging together from the different written versions in circulation a great epic intended to exceed all previous versions in both extent and comprehensivity. The result was a text one can characterize as the goal of the Poona edition, a goal that could, of course, only be partially attained due to the inadequacy of the written transmission” (Simson, “Altindische epische Schlachtbeschreibung,” 283–84).
13 For Hacker’s comments, see Adluri and Bagchee, “The Passion of Paul Hacker”; for Laine’s comments, see Adluri, “Hindu Studies in a Christian, Secular Academy.” On Oberhammer, see Marlewicz, “The Religious Hermeneutics of Gerhard Oberhammer.”
14. Mertens provides the best illustration of this inane approach, which serves no purpose except to validate its central assumption about the primacy of monotheism. Here is her reconstruction of the alleged historical development of the motif of Rudra’s deconstruction of Dakṣa’s sacrifice, mentioned in Mahābhārata 7.173, 13.145–46, 10.18, 12.270–74, and App. 1, no. 28. “The religious orientation of this version reveals itself to be unambiguously Śaiva: the redactor, who has developed the Vedic mythologeme into an epic episode, seeks recognition of Rudra’s claim to power. Hence two parties confront each other in the battle: on one side, Dakṣa, the vidhi following sacrificer and prototype of the Brahman, and the gods participating in the sacrifice including Pūṣan, Ṛṣis, and Asuras; on the other side, Rudra alone. As yet, Rudra’s manifestation corresponds entirely to the dark Vedic ideas […]. But what is new in contrast is the motivation for Rudra’s actions, his claim to universal power […]. […] The gods of the ‘orthodox’ Vedic pantheon have lost their power. The motifs developed thus in the interests of Śaivism reflect the historical situation: a small or a young following of the rising outsider-god Rudra [that] fights against ‘orthodox’ Brahmanism for recognition in cult and society” (Der Dakṣa mythus in der episch-purāṇischen Literatur, 20–21; italics added); “The inevitable conclusion is that the redactor of the Mahābhārata 13 version took over an entire chapter from its original context into a new context. It is evident that he undertook this interpolation in the interest of Śaivism merely from the fact that he retained Kṛṣṇa, who has the role of a narrator in this context, as a spokesperson to announce the Rudra doctrine and thus subordinated him [Kṛṣṇa], who is Viṣṇu incarnate, to his ‘rival’ Rudra. Inasmuch as Kṛṣṇa must acknowledge that he recites the śatrudrīya every morning, he reveals himself practically as a loyal devotee of
Rudra […]. That the previous chapters, which postulate worship of the powerful Brahmans, do not show any traces of Śaiva theology strengthens us in the assumption that the entire passage was interpolated by a Śaiva redactor in Mahābhārata 13 with the aim of degrading the rival Vaiṣṇavism” (ibid., 24); “To assess the religious orientation of this version we must examine the opposed parties as in Mahābhārata 7 and 13. Rudra’s nature is ambiguous: we find ‘archaic’ (ṛg) vedic traits in his representation, but also qualities that characterize his situation, which is undergoing transformation, and, additionally, facets that already hint at a milder character (as propagated by his devotees in later texts). […] It is practically bitter mockery that Rudra, who appears in this [martial] guise, is described as an eternal Brahmanic pupil (brahmacāriṇam avyayam 9). The incorporation of Brahmanic ideas of ritual is intended to legitimate Rudra’s sacrilegious action and his new status in the sacrifice to the gods resulting therefrom. […] Although there is no victor in this battle, the author of this version of the myth unequivocally sympathizes with the Śaiva side. The redactor’s attitude becomes clear not only from Rudra’s manifestation but also from a formal criterion: Kṛṣṇa-Viṣṇu is, once again following the Mahābhārata 13 version, the narrator of the episode. In this function, he must prove himself to be a knower of Rudra’s deeds (e.g., the attainment of a share of the sacrifice) and to elevate the god with his own words to the universal lord (10.17.9). Thus, here also Kṛṣṇa is manifestly subordinated to his rival and, moreover, represented as his worshipper. In this way, the historical situation is reflected in the narration of an individual: this version of the myth attests to the fact that Śaivas had infiltrated the existing Brahmanic order and, moreover, sought to assert themselves vis-à-vis Vaiṣṇava groups” (ibid., 27–30; italics added); “The Mahābhārata 12.274 version represents a Śaiva transformation of a mythologeme previously transmitted in context with the ‘Dakṣa myth’.” […] The final redaction of these four chapters [270–74] is Vaiṣṇava: myths of diverse theological provenance were revised by a Vaiṣṇava redactor and combined in this Mahābhārata section. […] Summing up, we can conclude regarding the redaction history of chapters 12.270–71 that an older doctrinal text was successively viṣṇufied [viṣṇuitisiert]: 1. through the introduction of new (narrated) persons, 2. through taking up and viṣṇufying the preexisting doctrine of rebirth, and 3. through the interpolation of a Vaiṣṇava doctrinal segment. […] Whereas chapters 270–71 must be regarded as a Vaiṣṇava revision of an older text core, we can identify at least three levels of redaction in chapters 272–73: an older text core, a Śaiva, and one or possibly two Vaiṣṇava revisions. […] If one compares the respective intensity of the sectarian revision and the presence of the relevant sectarian highest god thus produced it is conspicuous that the Śaiva revision represents a complete penetration of the Vṛtra myth theme and the Vaiṣṇava revision appears to be added secondarily and superficially. […] The inevitable conclusion is that the Śaiva [revision] represents the primary and the Vaiṣṇava [revision] the secondary revision of this passage. This means that the original text was transformed by a Śaiva redactor in his interest, and this Śaiva Vṛtra myth version was then added superficially, using the crudest means, by a Vaiṣṇava redactor with the goal of assimilating it to the already viṣṇufied chapters 270–71. […] Thus already in this epic version of the myth we find the beginnings of the method of orienting the text to specific religious interests, which will be further refined and enriched in the later Purāṇic literature [my italics]: the fundamental Śaiva orientation is underscored here 1. via the substantial-mythological route and 2. through concrete statements about the god” (ibid., 30–31, 34, 36, 40–41, 50; italics added); and “In contrast to the previous Mahābhārata versions, this version, which has been developed along Śaiva lines, reveals a new image of Rudra, which simultaneously lends emphasis to the transformed self-assurance of his followers: Rudra is a rival for the other (high) gods and, especially, Viṣṇu, who must be taken seriously, and the conflict between Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas is conducted openly for the first time. The indications for this development are found not only in the substantial-mythological route and statements about the god but also in a specific Rudra theology: 1. The substantial-mythological route: Besides the addition of new actors (Dadhīci, Bhadrakālī, the Raumyas), the function or significance of familiar actors has been significantly expanded: With Umā’s role is associated a displacement of the motivation, which affects the intention of the entire myth. Thus, as the reason for the destruction of the sacrifice is mentioned not the achievement of a share for Rudra, but rather, repeatedly, the elimination of Umā’s fury. This shift in motivation corresponds to the new status of Rudra: he is already the god, to whom all sacrificial activities are addressed (61–42), he no longer has to demand his place among the others. […] Dakṣa is no longer the vidhi following merely nominal sacrificer supported by the gods of the ‘orthodox’ pantheon: the redactors continuously expands his role by presenting him first as a representative of Viṣṇu’s devotees and, later, as the paradigmatic example of one who has converted to Śaivism. But before this ‘orthodox’ Brahman and confessing devotee of Viṣṇu is violently converted to Rudra and his theology, he defends Viṣṇu before Dadhīci as the sole lord of the sacrifice and denies Rudra’s existence. The argumentation in this manifest religious conflict certainly corresponds to the historical situation” (ibid., 67–68; italics in last sentence added; all others in original).
15. The circumstance that some Indian scholars from the colonial period (Bhandarkar) or shortly thereafter (Bhargava) and Jewish scholars, both before and after World War II, collaborated in this episteme does not negate the charge. A demonstrated pattern exists of incentivizing collaboration with the discipline, both institutionally through jobs and career advancement and intellectually through citation and favorable peer-review. Jewish scholars faced such dire challenges in Germany that many were forced to emigrate. Their stories make for harrowing reading as documented in Adluri and Bagchee, “Jews and Hindus in Indology,” https://www.academia.edu/30937643/Jews_and_Hindus_in_Indology.
This article is an introductory note for the book tour for ‘Philology and Criticism; A Guide to Mahābhārata Textual Criticism’, the new book by Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, authors of ‘The Nay Science: A History of German Indology’
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.

Tá tús scoláireacht an Iarthair ar an eipic Sanskrit, an Mahābhārata, marcáilte le puzzlement mór ag an obair. Ní oireann an téacs do chanóin na litríochta an Iarthair - tá a chuid ábhar ró-éagothroime, a chuid smaointe ró-shaorga chun go bhféadfaidh scoláirí an Iarthair ciall a bhaint as. [1] Tá an "confusion" fírinne agus fantaisíochta - scéal cosmaíoch a thosaíonn le Brahmā, an Cruthaitheoir, agus a thagann síos trí ainmneacha athdhéanta ríghdí obscure chun nasc a dhéanamh le "stair" an lae inniu - ag sárú gach ionchas an Iarthair maidir le comhsheasmhacht agus réaltacht na scéalaíochta. I gcodarsnacht leis na Véidí, a mheastar gurb iad na doiciméid is luaithe de shibhialtacht Ind-Eorpach, is cosúil gur saothar truaillithe é an Mahābhārata, agus tá scoláirí na Gearmáine tapa chun na ciontóirí a aithint: daonra aboriginal na hIndia, iad siúd ó an taobh dorcha (Garbe). I dtuairim na scoláirí Gearmáine, is féidir an tionchar aboriginal a fheiceáil i ngnéithe mar an béim ar bhronnadh bronntanais do na Brahmans, an creideamh i karma agus i n-athbhreithniú, agus na cultúirí repugnant de Viṣṇu, Śiva, agus na tréithe Devī a mheasann siad inimical leis an oidhreacht Aryan na hIndia ársa. Caithfidh an Mahābhārata, a mhaíonn siad, a bheith tagtha chun cinn mar amalgam de chultúr laoch (a bhfuil Holtzmann Sr. ag aithint i 1854 le traidisiún eipic coiteann Indo-Gréigis-Germanic a shíneann ó na Baltach go dtí an gclann Gangetic) agus na tuairimí agus na cleachtais reiligiúnacha ísealchaighdeáin de mhuintir na fo-chríoch a bhuail na Arians, ag ionradh ón tuaisceart. Ag cur in aghaidh na smaointe reiligiúnacha den dara ceann (go príomha, adhradh na nádúr, panteism mura monoteism réasúnach, agus adhradh déithe cogaidh mar Indra) leis na cinn den chéad cheann bíonn sé ina amharc is fearr leo agus, ní hamháin, tugann sé tús do na disciplíní creidimh chomparáideacha agus miotaseolaíocht chomparáideach.
Tá sé éasca do na foréagáin rásúla seo a bheith ag teacht ar anonn sa téacs. Is cosúil go bhfuil an Mahābhārata, ar a laghad do na daoine neamh-thosaithe, ina scéal cogaidh den chineál a bhfuil Hermann Oldenberg ag iarraidh, nuair a bhíonn sé ag exult thar na buaiteacha Airiúla ar na dúchasaigh, na cathracha inar tógadh an talamh as na naimhde dorcha-scartha, [agus] an scrios a gcuid daingne (Das Mahābhārata, 7). Nach bhfuil an téacs a chlúdach an scéal de cath mór? Nach mbaineann sé le hainmneacha cuid de na comhraic le dath? Nach fianaise chinnte é seo don Völkerwanderung mór a bhí ag Friedrich Schlegel ag fantasú faoi ó 1806 ar a laghad mar chuid dá phleananna le haghaidh Universalgeschichte mór? Nach é an fhianaise a bhí á lorg le fada an lá chun an teoiric bhirtheangach a aimsiú ar deireadh - an tuairim go raibh meascán den daonra Indiach den chraic bán, Caucasian (an Hindus) agus de chraic dhubh, negroid  a bhí ag teoiricí cine mar A. W. Schlegel ag moladh i stair na hIndia?3 An t-athrú go léirmhíniú  stairiúil ar an Mahābhārata a glacadh sa deireadh i 1837 nuair a mhol Christian Lassen, mac léinn de A. W. Schlegels, gurb é an Mahābhārata taifead stairiúil den cath a throid idir  an [raic] dubh dúchasach ar dtús agus an [raic] a labhair Sanscrait, a raibh a gcuid cineacha léire ag teacht ó thuaidh, a bhfuil a gcairde cineálacha, fiú anois, ag troid go rathúil le superiority dearg thar rásaí Mheiriceá (Beiträge, Lassen, 75: Kunde des des Kunde zur zur Deutschen). Ón am sin i leith, ag neamhaird a dhéanamh ar féin-chomhdháil an téacs mar thráchtas fealsúnachta, leabhar dlí, agus stair salvific; ag neamhaird, freisin, a chuid féin ama a ríomh, is é an tasc amháin a leanfaidh scoláireacht an Iarthair ná an fhadhb stairiúil (amhlaithe) seo a scaradh óna thráchtanna scéalacha - tionscadal a fhógairt sé do na hIndiaigh mar an soiléiriú riachtanach  criticiúil  ar a gcuid téacsanna ionas gur féidir leo a ligean isteach i  stair.4
Cé go raibh siad claonta, chuir imscrúduithe pseudohistorical Lassen prionsabal struchtúrtha ar fáil do thaighde an Iarthair ar an Mahābhārata. D'fhéadfadh scoláirí an téacs a dhíscaoileadh anois ina alleged core, a shainaithníodh le comhdhéanamh bardic spontáineach ag canadh gníomhartha an Tiarna liege bard nó cuimhne stairiúil ar an gcath ciníoch primordial, agus a accretions, variously imagined as iarrachtaí ag Brahmans an dá chuid a chur ar na cogairí i spiorad a n-theology5 nó chun dúshlán a thabhairt dóibh as a n-suíomh ar cheann an ord sóisialta.6 D'fhéadfaí tuiscint a fháil ar théacs nach bhféadfadh scoláirí an Iarthair a léiriú agus a bheadh ina mistéireach go deo dóibh, fiú dá mbeadh an  sense-making seo ina rud chomh banal mar a aithníonn na spreagadh éagsúla a cheaptar taobh thiar den téacs. Ba é an t-amhrán bunúsach, tar éis an tsaoil, nach raibh an téacs ciallmhar; gurbh é an t-aon chúis a d'fhéadfadh sé a bheith curtha le chéile mar a bhí sé mar gheall ar na vagaries ama stairiúil - na dicteachtaí athraitheacha réasún polaitiúil agus faisin theolaíoch, a d'fhéadfadh scoláirí a mhapáil go cúramach, más rud é go measta, thar an dá chéad bliain eile. I ré na condescension, cad Hindus a bhí le rá faoi an téacs a bhí níos lú ná cad a bhí scoláirí an Iarthair d'fhéadfadh a shoiléiriú faoi a stair agus traidisiúin dóibh, agus an imputation de easpa cognaíoch do na hIndiaigh accorded go maith leis an cúis primitivism a cuireadh orthu nuair a bhí sé cinneadh go, mar a dhearbhaigh Winternitz, the critéir staire na litríochta Indiach ní bheidh a bheith páirteach sa moladh seo ar an Mahābhārata. Ní fheicfidh sé ina iomláine é mar shaothar ealaíne ar chor ar bith, ach monstrosity liteartha ( An Mahābhārata,  347). Ar an drochuair, léirmhínítear gach iarracht ag Hindus a mhalairt a éileamh anois mar fhianaise ar a easpa féin-iarsmachta criticiúil, an Mündigkeit sin féin a bhí ag na hIndologists Gearmánach arrogantly arrogant dóibh féin,7 nó, i ngníomh de leithchealú ciníoch, lipéadaithe mar thacaíocht do náisiúnachas militant Hindu.8
Mar a thaispeánamar in The Nay Science, le dhá chéad bliain anuas, is annamh a chuaigh scoláirí i dteagmháil leis an Mahābhārata mar théacs. Ní raibh suim acu ná i ndíol na téacs a bhí le rá faoina féin ná i ndíol a bhí le rá faoina chruinne nó ar an réaltacht ná i ndíol a bhí le rá faoina cosmos intleachtúil ina bhfuil an t-Indúchas ag teacht chun cinn. Ina áit sin, léitear an téacs go príomha as an méid a d'fhéadfadh sé a nochtadh faoi stair chraicinn na n-Induis, is é sin, as an scéal ar conas,  meascadh leis na aborigines dorcha-scinn [a] athraigh na ionsaitheoirí, a[d] chúis leis an Arian dul isteach sa Hindu (Oldenberg,  Indologie,  640). D'aithin scoláirí na Gearmáine an scéal seo le hábhar na staire agus níor mheasadh an Mahābhārata féin go raibh sé stairiúil agus nach raibh suim aige ach chomh fada agus a bhí sé comhoiriúnach leis an scéal seo. Dá bhrí sin, cé go bhféadfadh Holtzmann Jr. a dhearbhú go raibh an Mahābhārata , go dtí seo, tar éis tuiscint a dhéanamh ar gach léitheoir neamhchlaonta go bhfuil sé stairiúil [...] [,] go bhfuil an fíor-stair ag iarraidh a chur i láthair anseo (Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahābhārata, 4142),9 Lassen glaoigh sé air  gur saothar Indiach é a bhfuil an [uasmhéid] de chuid de na hailt ársa (Lassen, Beiträge, 61), is é sin, gur saothar Indiach é a raibh an uasmhéid de chuid de na hailt úsáideach aige do thuairisc na Gearmáine ar ionradh, meascán ciníoch, agus titim ciníoch. Cuireadh an Mahābhārata i gcuimhne ar scéal stairiúil a bhí ina intinn ciníoch agus frith-Shéimíteach araon.10 Ag leathnú argóint The Nay Science, Philology and Criticism déantar ceithre phointe:
1. an t-am a bhí ann. Níor chuir scoláirí Gearmánacha Mahābhārata go fírinneach le critice téacsúil. In ainneoin a mhaígh go raibh siad criticiúil, murab ionann agus an traidisiún (11), níor chuir siad le hathchóiriú meicniúil an archetype bunaithe ar recensio críochnúil na finnéithe atá ann agus anailís ginealaíoch ar na caidrimh fílíochta eatarthu ná le stair oibiachtúil an téacs. Ina áit sin, ba é an rud a chuir siad i láthair in ainm text-critical (textkritische) nó text-historical (texthistorische) imscrúduithe ná géarchéimeanna frith-Shéimicigh agus frith-Brahmainiceacha (féach An Eolaíocht Nay), maxims theoiliúla, agus claontachtaí ciníocha (maidir le sean-Airians, Ind-Germans, srl.). Bhí a gcuid "critice" comhdhéanta go hiomlán de na codanna a scaradh a cheap siad a bhí Brahmanic i dtosach ó na cinn a mheas siad a bheith ag léiriú dearcadh Kṣatriya.
2. Seachadadh. Fiú tar éis a eagrán criticiúil a bheith críochnaithe i 1966, lean Indologists Gearmánach leis an gcineál athchóiriú suibiachtúil agus neamh-eolaíoch "ard-chríocha" den téacs a rinne siad roimhe seo. Ní raibh aon cheann de na léirmheastóirí, a ndearna muid scrúdú ar a gcuid oibre, ag aithint earráidí suntasacha nua. Ní raibh aon cheann acu ag comhlánú lámhscríbhinn. Ní raibh aon smaoineamh acu ar an gcaoi a aicmitheadh lámhscríbhinní nó ar an gcaoi a d'athchruthaigh na hachtóir léitheoireacht an archetype. Ina áit sin, agus iad ar an eolas go gcuirfeadh téacs criticiúil deireadh lena gcuid tuairimí tofa, d'ardaigh siad agóidí neamhriachtanacha don phróiseas eagarthóireachta agus athshainmhínigh siad an téacs comhdhéanta mar athscríobh Brahmanic.12 Fiú amháin iad siúd, cosúil le Bigger, a mhaígh go bhfuil "argóintí ó cháineadh téacsúil níos airde, a bhfuil a chur i bhfeidhm ar cháineadh téacsúil níos ísle dhiúltaigh mé féin cheana féin" (Bigger, Balarāma im Mahābhārata, 121), ní chuir siad go fírinneach le cáineadh níos ísle. Ina áit sin, ba é a "critice níos ísle" samhlacha rúnda a mholadh maidir le cén fáth go bhféadfadh léitheoireacht a dhiúltaigh an t-eagarthóir ón téacs comhdhéanta (léitheoireacht a cheap na criticeoirí a bhí tipiciúil do "eipic laoch" a bheith níos sine fós nó cén fáth go bhféadfadh an t-eagarthóir dearmad a dhéanamh orthu.
3. Tá an t-am ann. Ní raibh an sracadh a tháinig as an téacs mar thoradh ar iarmhairt neamhbheartaithe ar nós imeachta eolaíoch bailí a chur i bhfeidhm ar an téacs, a bhí riachtanach chun léitheoireacht níos fearr a aisghabháil nó téacs níos inléite a sholáthar. Ina áit sin, ba é an fonn go soiléir é. Mar a chonaic muid, ní raibh aon nós imeachta den sórt sin ann, agus ní raibh suim ag scoláirí Mahābhārata an téacs a chaomhnú ná é a chur inrochtana dá léitheoirí. Ba é an t-aon chuspóir a bhí acu i mbun Mahābhārata criticism a chinntiú nach mairfeadh an téacs, a chuireann fís chuimsitheach ar an cosmos Hindu, mar aonad. Ní raibh aon amhras ar bith ag criticeoir ar lárnacht an Mahābhārata don Hindeachas. Ní raibh aon léirmheastóir ar an eolas faoi a thábhacht theoideolaíoch. Mar a dhearbhaíonn tuairimí an Indologist Naitsíoch éabhlóideach Paul Hacker agus a chuid acóilí mar Gerhard Oberhammer agus James T. Laine,13 bhí gá práinneach ann an téacs a dhíchóiriú, i dtuiscint iomlán ar an dúshlán a chuir sé ar an gCríostaíocht. Ní raibh ach mar chúlra ag an aitear ar nós imeachta "criticiúil". Dá bhrí sin, rinneadh  sraitheanna, tugadh teoiric euhemerism isteach chun adhradh Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva a mhíniú, agus, nuair a theip ar gach rud eile, cuireadh an nocion absurd de inclusivism i bhfeidhm, amhail is dá mba nach raibh an intinn  (Hacker) in ann difríocht a thuiscint nó go raibh roinnt mícheart epistemological ag politeism, illúis a tháinig as roinnt seicteanna monoteistic ag dul san iomaíocht le haghaidh tionchar ar an téacs céanna.14
4. Tá an t-am Bhí glactha eolach ar an Mahābhārata ciníoch go bunúsach. D'éirigh sé go minic leis an méid a bhí le rá ag traidisiún na hIndia faoin téacs, cé go raibh traidisiún saibhir de thuairimí fealsamacha ar an téacs ann ó an deichú haois ar a laghad. Go deimhin, mar a mheabhraíonn Cerequas dúinn, is é an fhrithmheas bunúsach ná nach bhféadfadh "daoine chomh bocht i oiliúint fhiléolaíochta agus chomh saibhir i melanin" "traidisiún tráchtála a bheith acu sa chéad áit" (Ātman, Psuchê, Anima,  8). D'eisigh Indologists Gearmánach fiú scoláirí Indiach an fiche céad ó chúrsa ar na forais specious go  gach údar a bhunú a chuid féin hermeneutics ar bhonn an reiligiúnach nó an traidisiún fealsúnachta adheres sé go  (Malinar, An Bhagavadgītā, 7),15 údar aisteach ós rud é nach bhfaca na Indologists aon deacracht a lua Nazis mar J. W. Hauer agus Paul Hacker. Chuir scoláirí easnamh cognaíoch leis na hIndiaigh arís agus arís eile, cibé acu nach raibh sé in ann an fíor a fheiceáil (Oldenberg), an t-éagmais a scaradh ó fhírinne (stairiúil) (van Buitenen), nó an t-éagmais iad féin a shaoradh ó na bannaí reiligiúin (Hanneder). Tá na hIndologists philology tar éis é a fhorleathnú mar eitnéolaíocht, mar a deir Hegel,  dá bharr féin chun iniúchadh a dhéanamh agus línte bunúsacha an ghné choitinn a rianú, prionsabail na cosanta Indiach (Humboldt-Rezension, 75). Má dhéantar iad a thomhas i gcoinne na mbreithnithe Gearmánach, is cosúil go bhfuil na tuairisceoirí clasaiceacha, a léirmhíníonn an téacs le aird chúramach ar a litreach agus ar na cúiseanna deiridh atá ag an léitheoir, nua-aimseartha go héasca. In ionad an téacs a mhíniú go heanthropo-eitneagrafach trí tagairt a dhéanamh do  peculiarity a bhfuil doiciméadacht níos mó agus níos mó ar intinn na hIndia (ibid. ), léigh siad an téacs go smaointeoireachta agus go fealsúnachta, ag baint leis na coinbhinsiúin a bhaineann le litríocht Véideach agus śāstric agus coincheapa i bpóitic Sanskrit. Tá sé in am dúinn breathnú orthu seachas ar Indologists na Gearmáine nó a gcomhghleacaithe dúchasacha chun téacsanna Indiach a shoiléiriú.
Roinneadh leagan níos luaithe den aiste seo ag an 17ú Comhdháil Domhanda Sanscrait i Vancouver, Ceanada. Tá an leagan seo athbhreithnithe agus leathnaithe.
1. an t-am a bhí ann.  Thosaigh an Mahābhārata a bheith ann mar scéal eipic simplí. D'fhás sé le linn na gcéadta bliain go dtí caos ollmhór: seachas an príomh-scéal tá foraoisí fíor-chéadmhóra de scéalta níos lú ann, ina theannta sin, teagasc gan áireamh agus gan deireadh faoi ábhair theolaíocha, fealsúnachta, nádúrtha-eolaíocha, dlí, polaitíocht, eagna an domhain agus comhairle phraiticiúil. An dán lán de aisling agus intuition domhain, filíocht bhuí, plaitiséid máistreachta scoile lán de chluiche spárála dathanna, maisí overpowering de íomhánna a smash a chéile, de shower de saigheadaí de cathanna gan deireadh, scread ar scread de laochanna a scamhnaigh bás, daoine idéalach ró-piúnach, mná álainn go mór, ascetics feargach, beithigh miotasach eachtrannach, míorúiltí iontach de shliocht folamh focal agus de léargas leathan, saor in aisce ar ord an domhain-fhorbairt (Oldenberg, Das Mahābhārata, 1).
2. Seachadadh. Is féidir a fheiceáil cé chomh domhain is atá an claontacht seo ó na tráchtanna seo a leanas, a dhoiciméadaíonn stair a bhaineann le cion iarbhír an téacs a dhiúltú a mhéid a luaitear an panteón Hindu: Má tá an t-eitilt seo de na sean-diaga caillteanas dochloíte, mar gheall ar an idirghabháil ó na déithe níos óige, i gcodarsnacht leis sin, Viṣṇu, de Śiva, de Devī, ba chúis le scrios beagnach iomlán an dánta. In ionad an phéatach-míorúil, a lig an fantasy a dhéanamh ar an obair an tuiscint, isteach an degenerate-míorúil go resists an ionadaíocht [faculty of] fantasy díreach chomh maith agus a dhéanann sé an smaoineamh cúis (Holtzmann Sr., Indische Sagen, ix); Buddhism tá imithe as a homeland Indiach. Is é an chumhacht a ghlaoimid ar Hinduism a bhuaigh. Is iad na déithe a bhfuil na déithe hindú míchruinn, fiáin, cruálach, [agus] leann, agus Shiva agus Vishnu ina gceannas orthu. Is iad a leabhair an eipic ollmhór, an Mahābhārata, agus an iliomad litreachais nach féidir a shárú [a dhéantar suas] de chuid dánta eipic, saothair legendary, scéalta, scéalta fairy, drámaí. I ngach áit a fhaighimid conas an pobal seo, an creideamh seo, an litríocht seo, a bhfuil a gcomhthéacs teaghlaigh, ag pointeáil ar an Iarthar, le feiceáil go soiléir sa sean-réim, a bhí níos faide ná sin ó na bunús [sa Iarthar] i rith na gcéadta bliain. Athrú a théann i bhfeidhm ar an gcroílár is inmheánaí de na daoine, ar anam na ndaoine. Déantar an ionsaí a athrú trí mheascadh leis na bunscoileanna dorcha, rud a fhágann go n-athraíonn an Aryan go Hindus (Oldenberg,  Indologie,  640);  Níl aon droichead ó fhoirmeacha geal na Veda go foirmeacha na n-dia na n-dia nua-aimseartha [an Hindus], a bhfuil a n-ionadaíochtaí monstruous lena gcuid foircinn ainmhithe atá iolraithe go míbhríoch agus mar sin de, ba chóir go mbeadh aithne ag gach duine orthu, ar a laghad mar chineál. ... In ainneoin a n-ainmneacha Airianach, measaim na déithe Indíocha nua-aimseartha - Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Hanuman, agus cibé rud eile a d'fhéadfadh a bheith á n-ainmniú orthu - nach smaointe Airianach iad, ach smaointe na mborthanach (Garbe, Indische Reiseskizzen, 85).
3. Tá an t-am ann. Déan comparáid le Schlegel's cuntas ar an  HindusAn aghaidh de chruth uibheach, an forehead ard agus ceannas ar na codanna níos ísle; na cheekbones scriosadh ag na gcos; na súile a chur go cothrománach, mór, cé veiled ag clúdaigh tiubh, agus den chuid is mó go maith scoilte; srón suntasach agus go minic aquiline, a bhfuil an crann go maith marcáilte, an nostrils dún le chéile agus leathnú beag, an oscailt na nostrils chas síos; an dá shraith fiacla go ingearach an ceann os cionn an ceann eile; an béal beag, delicately rianú, agus lined ag liopaí measartha swollen; an chin rounded; sa deireadh, an gruaig dubh, fada, silky, agus wavy, ach ní frizzy; fir i virile, beard tiubh, nach bhfuil, más rud é nach bhfuil sé gearradh, ní féidir a chur ar fad mór; go Hindist go háirithe a shuíomh i measc na mná Arabach, a bhfuil an crann go maith, an crann a bhfuil an crann mar aill agus na cosa ag fás go han-mhaith, agus beag, an oscailt na nostrils ag cur síos síos síos, an oscailt na nostrils i dtreoibh, an dá shraith agus na nostrils beagán, an oscailt ar a oscailt na nostrils, an oscailt na nostrils, an oscailt na nostrils, an oscailt na nostrils, an ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann ceann eile; agus na n-líneacha, an ceann eile, an ceann eile, an ceann, an ceann is mó, an ceann is mó, an ceann is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is mó, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is Tá fiú sa lá atá inniu ann, i dtuaisceart na hIndia, i roinnt ceantair sléibheacha áit a chuireann an nádúr constaicí móra i gcoinne an clearing agus saothrú na talún, treibheanna de sealgairí fiáin. Gan cult rialta, ag a n-reiligiún iomlán ach roinnt superstitions mearbhall, ag aithint ar bhealach ar bith an dlí Brahmanic, maireann siad ar na táirgí an fhiadh, nó ar fhréamhacha fiáine agus torthaí; itheann siad fiú na feola is neamhghlan. Go bhfuil siad beagnach nude, ach armtha le bows, spears, agus maces, téann siad amach ó am go ham as a n-lár inacmhainne agus déanann siad depredations i measc a gcomharsana sna clóis. [...] Baineann an daonra seo le cine atá go hiomlán difriúil ná an t-Induis. Is daoine dubh iad i ndáiríre, agus is iad a n-aghaidh phláin, a gcuid gruaige uachtar, a n-aigne phláin, a n-figiúr agus a n-ardú a thugann siad mar niggerí na hÁise (On the Origin of the Hindus, trans. E. P. Butler, 42324).
4. Tá an t-am Nár n-aghaidh, áfach, ní dhéanaimid an Mahābhārata mar Hindus dílis, ach mar stairiúnaithe criticiúla litríochta, níl sé níos lú ná saothar saorga, agus ní féidir linn ar bhealach ar bith obair ailtire [aon] a fheiceáil ann, go deimhin, ní fiú bailiúcháin agus socraitheoir sásúil. Is absurdity liteartha é an Mahābhārata ina iomláine. Níor rinne lámh ealaíontóra iarracht riamh agus is deacair a bheith in ann na heilimintí frithpháirteacha a chur le chéile i bpáipéar aontaitheach. Ní raibh ach teolaithe agus léitheoirí neamh-dhéanta agus cóipéirí gan tallann ag soláthar na codanna a bhí, i ndáiríre, neamh-in-chomhshóite agus a tháinig ó na céadta bliain éagsúla le chéile i mais neamh-eagraithe (Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur 1: 272). Ní raibh ach iar-ghloine déanach ann nuair a mhaígh Pollock go mbeidh ar iarratasóirí rathúla ar ligean isteach i teampall an disciplín sa chéad fichead a bheith [ag tabhairt faoi thástáil] féinfhiosrúchta stairiúil. Ní féidir leo fanacht neamhspleách go arrogantly dá stair féin, a dtógáil, agus a n-athraitheacht féin (Fíololaíocht an Domhain, 23).
5. Tá an t-am ann. Tá sé i nádúr a seasamh [sóisialta] agus is féidir é a bhaint amach ó fhorálacha éagsúla a gcód dlíthiúil go raibh feasacht soiléir ag an gcasta sagart Indiach ar na modhanna is oiriúnaí chun a bheith i gceannas buan ar intinn na ndaoine atá fágtha. Ní féidir, dá bhrí sin, a bheith iontas orainn go bhfaighimid filíocht eipic á úsáid mar uirlis de andúil le smacht spioradálta. [...] Ní raibh aon mhodh níos oiriúnaí ann chun an casta cogaíochta a ardú san spiorad sa sagart ná oideachas a cheangal ar dhlíthe reiligiúnacha agus sóisialta leis na scéalta a raibh toiliú ginearálta acu cheana féin. Tá sé soiléir domsa go raibh intinn den sórt sin tugtha i gcrích i diaskeusis an Mahābhārata, [...] Bhí tuiscint shoiléir ag an gcasta sagart Indiach ar na modhanna cuí [...] chun a bheith i gceannas buan ar intinn na ndaoine atá fágtha. Ní féidir, dá bhrí sin, a bheith iontas orainn go bhfaighimid filíocht eipic a úsáidtear mar uirlis de andúil le smacht spioradálta. [...] Ní raibh aon mhodh níos oiriúnaí ann chun an casta cogaíochta a ardú san spiorad sa sagart ná oideachas a cheangal ar dhlíthe reiligiúnacha agus sóisialta leis na scéalta a raibh fabhraí uilíoch acu cheana féin. Is cosúil go soiléir domsa go raibh intinn den sórt sin tugtha i gcrích i diaskeusis an Mahābhārata ó líon mór agus raon na gcodanna teagaisc (Lassen, Beiträge zur Kunde des indischen Alterthums,  1: 86).
6. Ceacht. Díreadh go láidir gur é an t-eagrán is mó de imeacht cósmála na hIndia ársa ná seilbh an dara casta nó na míleata, na Kshattriyas. [...] Ach bheadh ardú den sórt sin ar splendor ríoga agus ar thábhacht an chasta míleata, mar a bheadh i mbaol go nádúrtha an chéad chasta nó Brahmanical a íoslaghdú. Dá bhrí sin, bheadh Brahmans iarracht a bheith ar an arrangers an epos náisiúnta; agus mar chaomhnóirí an lore sinsearach, mar na múinteoirí spioradálta agus treoracha, mar diplomataí priestach, freisin, bheadh siad go héasca a éirigh i réir a censorship. [...] Ba é aidhm na Brahmanas mar sin an finscéal bunaidh den chogadh mór a athrú ina fhianais ar mhaitheas a gcasta thar Kshattriyas. Agus ní amháin go ndearnadh an aidhm seo a bhaint amach tríd an mbealach a dúradh an príomh-scéal, ach freisin trí ábhar den sórt sin a chur leis an scéal a thaispeánfadh go bhfuil seasamh agus cumhacht Kshattriya ag brath ar nádúr diaga agus ar bhfabhar an chasta Brahmana (Goldstücker,  Poetry Epic Hindu: The Mahābhārata, 38889).
Ach is Eorpachaí muid, agus is é ár réamhtheachtaí, ár n-aisteacht spioradálta [Mündigkeit] go díreach go ndéanaimid suirbhé ar an domhan le a chuid áitritheoirí, agus go bhfuil an tiomáint againn stair an dá cheann a rianú ar ais go dtí an réamhstair is iargúlta. Dá bhrí sin, níor cheart go n-iarrfadh aon séadchomhartha sean-réime uafásach orainn a léirmhíniú (A. W. Schlegel, Ueber den gegenwärtigen Zustand der Indischen Philologie,  25).
8. Ceacht. Déan comparáid le athbhreithniú Franco ar ár leabhar, a léirmhíníonn ár ngá le léitheoireacht níos íogaire ar an Mahābhārata mar "iarrata oscailte ar léamh agus ar théacs mar an Gītā a úsáid mar údarú ar na coincheapa agus na cleachtais uafásacha de dhifríocht chasta, náisiúntacht Hindu, uachtaracht Brahmin, míleatachas na láimhe deise agus faisean, chun lua ach cúpla féidearthacht" (Franco, athbhreithniú ar The Nay Science, 698). Tá sé seo an-sásta ó dhuine a d'oibrigh i ndlúthú chúlra frith-Shéimiceach agus Naitsíoch a réamhtheachtaí i Leipzig.
9 Tabhair faoi deara go bhfuil an scéal seo á chur i gcomhar le 'scéal fíor'. Ní chiallaíonn sé seo gur tharla an ionradh nó nár tharla sé nó go ndearnadh a veictear a aisiompú. Ach is é an cinneadh atá á dhéanamh anseo ná cad atá le comhaireamh mar an fíor. Is é an cinneadh seo a dhéanamh amháin a bheidh Oldenberg in ann a rá, "Ní dhéanfaidh ach níos déanaí" don tréimhse a labhróimid, tá sé seo den chuid is mó sa todhchaí "tuigeann duine, in ionad na n-imeachtaí samhlacha, an fhíor a fheiceáil" (Die Lehre der Upanishaden, 12), ráiteas a dhéanann glacadh tromchúiseach tromchúiseach, eadhon, go bhfuil a fhios againn féin "an fhíor", "go bhfuil a fhios againn cad atá le comhaireamh mar" an fhíor", "agus gur féidir linn, dá bhrí sin, a chinneadh anois an bhfuil daoine eile tar éis foghlaim a fheiceáil "an fhíor". Is as an gcinneadh seo a thagann Bildungsauftrag (coiste teagaisc) na hIndology: ní mór Indians, nach bhfuil a fhios acu "an fhíor", a aithint anois. Ní mór dóibh a bheith stairiúil i bhfocail an Iarthair. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil taithí an-chinnteach, bealach sonrach d'ordú imeachtaí agus a thabhairt dóibh le brí a bhí invented sa Ghearmáin na naoú haois déag le stair mar sin agus a aithint an stair, ina dhiaidh sin, leis an  an fíor.  anseo fágann an fréamh is doimhne ní amháin Indiach colonisation intleachtúil, ach freisin gach pobal eile.
Maidir le léirmhíniú ciníoch an téacs, féach Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, 1: 643:  Ós rud é go raibh na Pāñcāla go cinnte i measc na bpobal Airianach, ní féidir linn an gaol idir iad agus na Pāṇḍavas a léirmhíniú ar bhealach go gcaithfí an chéad cheann, tríd an dath dubh a thugtar do Kṛṣṇā [Draupadī] a thuiscint mar a thuairiscítear go mbaineann sé le dúchasaigh dúchasacha na hIndia, an dara ceann mar na Airíanna bán. Mar sin féin, ní mór go mbeadh brí ag an idirdhealú ó thaobh dathanna de, agus ní féidir é seo a bheith ach gurbh iad na Pāñcāla, chomh maith leis na Yādava a bhfuil Kṛṣṇa [Vāsudeva] ina n-ionadaí orthu, an dá chuid de na daoine Airianach a d'imircigh [an India] níos luaithe, [go raibh siad] níos dorcha trí thionchar an aeráide ná na hinimircigh níos déanaí ón tuaisceart agus, i gcodarsnacht leis seo, ar a dtugtar na cinn dubh.
Comhlachas Seimitigh den chatagóir epic féach an áit chéanna, 41415: Is fianaise é an stair nach raibh cothromaíocht chomhchuibhithe na gcumhachtaí síceacha go léir ag na Seimitigh trína raibh na hInd-Germans ina n-éire. [...] Ní féidir leis an Seamánach caidreamh an domhain leis an duine i gcoitinne a scaradh ó chaidreamh an domhain lena I féin. Ní féidir leis smaointe a léiriú sa intinn i n-aonad íon. Tá a bhealach chun rudaí a fheiceáil suibiachtúil agus egoistic. Tá a chuid filíochta liricí [agus] dá bhrí sin suibiachtúil. Léiríonn a spiorad a áthas agus a pian, a ghrá agus a fuath, a admiration agus a scorn. [...] Fiú má leathnaíonn sé a chuid spéire níl ann ach chun a threibh a léiriú mar dhuine aonair i gcoinne threibh eile. [...] Ní éiríonn leis an eipic a chruthú toisc go dtéann I an file anseo ar ais roimh an réad [agus] níos lú fós ag saothair drámatúla, a éilíonn ar an file a phearsantacht a chailleadh níos iomláine. [Ar a mhalairt,] tá na seánraí eile de chuid na n-Ind-Germans, in éineacht leis an liric, freisin. Tá siad ina n-aonar a tháirgtear dráma náisiúnta. Is iad amháin a d'eisigh na dánta mór-laochra a léiríonn na gníomhartha móra ársa a tharchur i bhfoirm glóirithe, a chuireann an domhanféar iomlán ar spiorad daoine i láthair dúinn agus atá i láthair mar thoradh ar iarrachtaí filíochta daoine ar fad. Tá easpa ag an Seimití i ábhar an eipic, ach ní sa saga, a dhéanann sé ornáidí agus forbairtí filíochta ach nach gcuireann sé le chéile i dtimthriallta níos mó agus, ina ionad sin, a chaomhnaíonn ina chuimhne mar stair primordial.
11. Céard a tharla? Comparáid a dhéanamh le tuairim Stietencron:  Bhí smaointeoireacht anailíseach scoláirí an Iarthair a bhí oilte i modheolaíocht stairiúil agus filolaíoch i gcodarsnacht leis na léirmheastóirí traidisiúnta Indiach. Ní hamháin go raibh na daoine sin ag comhchuibhiú go mór leis na dícheangail go léir sa téacs ach, thar aon rud eile, rinne siad iarracht a gcuid coincheapa fealsúnachta agus theolaíocha féin a aithint i bpáirtithe áirithe den téacs. Rinneadh é seo chun údarás diaga Kṛṣṇa a chinntiú dóibh féin. Ar an mbealach seo, d'fhorbair roinnt scoileanna fealsúnacha léirmhínithe Gītā dá gcuid féin - speictream a leathnaíodh tuilleadh trí léirmhínithe nua-aimseartha a spreagadh go polaitiúil ó thús streachailt neamhspleáchais na hIndia (Stietencron, Editors
Seo mar a dhéanann Simson carachtarú ar an eagrán: Má théann muid ar aghaidh ón bharúil go raibh na leaganacha níos sine den Mahābhārata roimh na leaganacha a d'athchóirigh, ansin ní mór dúinn a bheith ag brath ar an bhfíric go ndearnadh athbhreithniú ar na leaganacha níos sine seo ar bhealaí éagsúla cheana féin agus go ndearnadh idirghabhálacha isteach iontu sula ndearnadh measúnú orthu don Mahābhārata [an eagrán criticiúil]. Ina theannta sin, is féidir linn a mheas go fiú tar éis an deisiú deiridh a chríochnú, ar feadh tréimhse áirithe ama go dtí go dtarlaíonn na hathbhreithnithe deisceart agus deisceart na hIndia, tháinig interpolations isteach sa téacs, agus dá bhrí sin ní fhéadfaí iad a dhíchur ag baint úsáide as prionsabail eagarthóireachta an eagrán Poona [an eagrán criticiúil]. Is féidir leis an stair forbartha ár téacs Mahābhārata
Tá an t-eipic ghearr a bhí ar fáil i dtús báire mar chumadh ó bhéal, improvised sa traidisiún. Anseo níl sé ciallmhar fiosrú a dhéanamh ar an téacs bunaidh agus ar an údar: rinne roinnt bardaí eipic an dán i bhfoirm ag athrú i gcónaí; bhí an bard agus an t-údar comhionann sa chéim seo. Ón tréimhse seo a thagann go leor de na foirmleacha a léiriú ar ár Mahābhārata, an teicníc an adhyāya iontrálacha agus conclúidí, an fhorbairt scéiméadach na scáine cath beag, etc. (2) Tharla tréimhse ina ndearnadh an téacs a shocrú i scríbhinn; go deimhin, is féidir linn a mheas go cinnte gur scríobhadh leaganacha éagsúla den dán ag amanna éagsúla, agus is féidir fós a gcuid fáinní a rianú inár téacs. (3) Ar deireadh, ghlac diaskeuast aonair nó coiste de diaskeuasts, comhlánaithe, nó eagarthóirí leis an tasc a bheith ag cóipeáil le chéile ó na leaganacha éagsúla scríofa a bhí i gcúrsaíocht eipic mhór a bhí beartaithe a shárú ar gach leagan roimhe sin i méid agus i cuimsitheacht araon. Ba é an toradh téacs is féidir a charachtarú mar sprioc an eagrán Poona, sprioc nach bhféadfaí, ar ndóigh, a bhaint amach ach go páirteach mar gheall ar neamhleor an tarchur i scríbhinn (Simson, Altindische epische Schlachtbeschreibung, 283-84).
13 Maidir le tuairimí Hacker, féach Adluri agus Bagchee, The Passion of Paul Hacker; le haghaidh tuairimí Laine, féach Adluri, Hindu Studies in a Christian, Secular Academy. Maidir le Oberhammer, féach Marlewicz, The Religious Hermeneutics of Gerhard Oberhammer.
14. Céard a tharla? Soláthraíonn Mertens an léiriú is fearr ar an gcur chuige neamhchinnte seo, nach bhfuil aon chuspóir aige ach a mheabhrú lárnach faoi phríomhacht an monaitheasa. Seo a athchruthú ar fhorbairt stairiúil líomhnaithe an mhóitíp de dhíscaoileadh Rudra ar íobairt Dakṣa, a luaitear i Mahābhārata 7.173, 13.14546, 10.18, 12.27074, agus App. 1, níl. 28. Ceoltóirí Is é an treoshuíomh reiligiúnach den leagan seo go bhfuil sé gan dabht Śaiva: tá an t-eagarthóir, a d'fhorbair an miotologema Véideach ina eipeasóid eipic, ag iarraidh aitheantas a thabhairt d'éileamh Rudra ar chumhacht. Dá bhrí sin, bíonn dhá pháirtí ag tabhairt aghaidh ar a chéile sa chath: ar thaobh amháin, Dakṣa, an vidhi ag leanúint íobairt agus fréamhshamhail an Brahman, agus na déithe a ghlacann páirt sa íobairt lena n-áirítear Pūṣan, Ṛṣis, agus Asuras; ar an taobh eile, Rudra ina n-aonar. Go dtí seo, tá léiriú Rudra ag teacht go hiomlán leis na smaointe dorcha Véideacha [...]. Ach is é an rud atá nua ina choinne ná an spreagadh do ghníomhartha Rudra, a éileamh ar chumhacht uilíoch [...]. [...] Tá na déithe de orthodox pantheon Vedic caillte a gcuid cumhachta. Léiríonn na móitíifí a forbraíodh mar sin ar mhaithe le Śaivism an staid stairiúil: leanann beag nó óg den rud a bhí ag éirí amach Rudra-dia a throid i gcoinne  orthoideachas  Brahmanism le haghaidh aitheantais i gcult agus i sochaí  (Der Dakṣa mythus in der episch-purāṇischen Literatur, 2021; cursive curtha leis);  Is é an chonclúid dosheachanta go ndearna rídeoir an leagan Mahābhārata 13 caibidil iomlán a ghlacadh óna chomhthéacs bunaidh i gcomhthéacs nua. Is léir gur ghlac sé an idirphlé seo ar mhaithe le Śaivism ach amháin ón bhfíric gur choinnigh sé Kṛṣṇa, a bhfuil ról an scéalaitheora aige sa chomhthéacs seo, mar labhraí chun an teagasc Rudra a fhógairt agus dá bhrí sin chuir sé [Kṛṣṇa], atá ina incarnate Viṣṇu, faoi réir a rival Rudra. Toisc go gcaithfidh Kṛṣṇa a admháil go ndéanann sé an śatrudrīya a aithris gach maidin, nochtann sé é féin go praiticiúil mar thiománaí dílis de
Rudra [...]. Ní léiríonn na caibidil roimhe seo, a chuireann ar bun adhartha na Brahmans cumhachtach, aon rianta de theolaíocht Śaiva a neartú dúinn sa tuairim go ndearna eagarthóir Śaiva an t-aistriúchán ar fad i Mahabharata 13 leis an aidhm an Vaiṣṇavism  (ibid., 24) a íoslaghdú;  Chun treoshuíomh reiligiúnach an leagan seo a mheas ní mór dúinn scrúdú a dhéanamh ar na páirtithe frithpháirteacha mar atá i Mahabharata 7 agus 13. Tá nádúr Rudra éadrom: tá tréithe archaic (ṛg) véideacha i láthair aige, ach freisin cáilíochtaí a dhéanann saintréith ar a staid, atá ag dul faoi thrasnú, agus, ina theannta sin, gnéithe a thugann le tuiscint cheana féin ar charachtar níos socair (mar a phléann a thiománaithe i dtéacsanna níos déanaí). [...] Is gá go leor go bhfuil Rudra, a léirítear sa ghné seo [martaí], cur síos air mar mhic léinn bramaicneach síoraí (brahmacāriṇam avyayam 9). Tá sé i gceist le smaointe Brahmanic an deasghnátha a ionchorprú chun gníomh sacrilegious Rudra agus a stádas nua a dhlíthiú sa íobairt do na déithe a eascraíonn as sin. [...] Cé nach bhfuil aon bhuaiteoir sa chath seo, tá an t-údar an leagan seo den mhiotas go soiléir ag comhbhrón leis an taobh Śaiva. Tá dearcadh an eagarthóra soiléir ní amháin ó léiriú Rudra ach freisin ó chritéar foirmiúil: is é Kṛṣṇa-Viṣṇu, arís eile ag leanúint leagan 13 Mahābhārata, an t-aistritheoir an eipeasóid. Sa fheidhm seo, ní mór dó a chruthú go bhfuil aithne aige ar ghníomhartha Rudra (m.sh., an sciar a bhaint amach den íobairt) agus an dia a ardú lena chuid focal féin don Tiarna uilíoch (10.17.9). Dá bhrí sin, anseo freisin tá Kṛṣṇa faoi réir go soiléir dá iomaitheoir agus, ina theannta sin, tá sé ionadaithe mar a adhradhóir. Ar an mbealach seo, léirítear an staid stairiúil i dtrí scéal aonair: déanann an leagan seo den mhiotas fianaise ar an bhfíric go raibh Śaivas tar éis dul isteach san ord Brahmanic atá ann cheana féin agus, ina theannta sin, d'iarr siad iad féin a dhearbhú i gcoinne grúpaí Vaiṣṇava (ibid., 2730; cur síos curtha leis);  Léiríonn leagan Mahābhārata 12.274 athrú Śaiva ar mhiotlóim a d'eisigh roimhe seo i gcomhthéacs na Dakṣa miotas.  [...] Is é Vaiṣṇava an t-athrú deiridh ar na ceithre chaibidil seo [27074]: athbhreithníodh miotais an tionscnaimh dhifreagrach ag redálaí Vaiṣṇava agus comhcheangailte sa chuid seo de Mahābhārata. [...] Ag achoimre, is féidir linn a thabhairt i gcrích maidir le stair eagarthóireachta chaibidil 12.27071 gur viṣṇufied téacs sean-dochtúrtha go ceannasach [viṣṇuitisiert]: 1. trí dhaoine nua (a insítear) a thabhairt isteach, 2. trí an fhoghlaim atá ann cheana féin a thógáil suas agus a viṣṇufying, agus 3. trí thréimhse dochtúrtha Vaiṣṇava a idirghabháil. [...] Cé gur chóir go mbreathnófaí ar chaibidil 27071 mar athbhreithniú Vaiṣṇava ar chroí téacs níos sine, is féidir linn trí leibhéal de dheisiú ar a laghad a aithint i gcaibidil 27273: croí téacs níos sine, Śaiva, agus athbhreithniú Vaiṣṇava amháin nó dhá cheann. [...] Má dhéantar comparáid idir déine an athbhreithnithe sectarian agus láithreacht an dé sectarian is airde ábhartha a tháirgtear mar sin, is léir go léiríonn an t-athbhreithniú Śaiva go hiomlán an téama miotaseolaíochta Vṛtra agus is cosúil go bhfuil an t-athbhreithniú Vaiṣṇava curtha leis go hachomair agus go superficially. [...] Is é an chonclúid dosheachanta go léiríonn an Śaiva [athbhreithniú] an príomhathbhreithniú agus an Vaiṣṇava [athbhreithniú] an t-athbhreithniú tánaisteach ar an rann seo. Ciallaíonn sé seo gur athraigh eagarthóir Śaiva an téacs bunaidh ina leas féin, agus chuir an leagan miotais Śaiva Vṛtra seo leis ansin go barr-leithid, ag baint úsáide as na modhanna is crua, ag eagarthóir Vaiṣṇava leis an gcuspóir é a chomhghuail leis na caibidil 27071 atá viṣṇufied cheana féin. [...] Dá bhrí sin, sa leagan eipic seo den mhiotas, tá tús an mhodha chun an téacs a dhíriú ar leasanna reiligiúnacha sonracha, a rachaidh i mbun níos mó a scagadh agus a shaibhriú sa litríocht Purāṇic níos déanaí [mo chuid léarscáil]: cuirtear béim ar an treo bunúsach Śaiva anseo 1. tríd an mbóthar substaintiúil-míotúil agus 2. trí ráitis choincréite faoin dia (ibid., 3031, 34, 36, 4041, 50; cur síos a chur leis); agus  I gcodarsnacht leis na leaganacha roimhe seo de Mahābhārata, nochtann an leagan seo, a forbraíodh ar shlíne Śaiva, íomhá nua de Rudra, a thugann béim ag an am céanna ar fhéin-dhíobháil athraithe a leanúna: is iomaitheoir é Rudra do na déithe (ard) eile agus go háirithe, Viṣṇu, a chaithfear a ghlacadh go dáiríre, agus déantar an choim idir Śaivas agus Vaiṣṇavas go hoscailte den chéad uair. Tá na táscairí don fhorbairt seo le fáil ní amháin sa bhealach substaintiúil-mitheolaíoch agus sna ráitis faoin dia ach freisin i dteolaíocht Rudra ar leith: 1. An bealach substaintiúil-mitheolaíoch: Chomh maith le hionstraimí nua a chur leis (Dadhīci, Bhadrakālī, na Raumyas), tá feidhm nó tábhacht na n-aisteoirí is gnách leathnaithe go suntasach: Le ról Umā tá díláithriú an spreagadh bainteach leis, a théann i bhfeidhm ar intinn an mhiotaseachta ar fad. Dá bhrí sin, mar chúis le scrios an íobairt, luaitear ní chun sciar a bhaint amach do Rudra, ach, arís agus arís eile, chun deireadh a chur le fury Umā. Freagraíonn an t-athrú seo ar spreagadh do stádas nua Rudra: is é an dia é cheana féin, a bhfuil gach gníomhaíocht íobairt dírithe air (6142), ní gá dó a áit a éileamh i measc na ndaoine eile a thuilleadh. [...] Ní é Dakṣa an vidhi a leanann íobairt ainmniúil amháin a thacaíonn le déithe an orthodox pantheon: leathnaíonn na redhaitheoirí a ról go leanúnach trína chur i láthair ar dtús mar ionadaí ar thiománaithe Viṣṇu agus, ina dhiaidh sin, mar shampla paradigmatic de dhuine a d'athraigh go Śaivism. Ach sula ndéantar an Brahman "orthochtódach" seo agus dílis a admhaíonn Viṣṇu a thiontú go foréigneach go Rudra agus a reiligiún, cosnaíonn sé Viṣṇu os comhair Dadhīci mar an Tiarna aonair na hionadaithe agus diúltaíonn sé d'eisíocht Rudra. Is cinnte go gcomhlíonann an argóint sa choimhlint fhéideartha reiligiúnach seo an staid stairiúil (ibid., 6768; cur síos i ndánta deiridh a chur leis; gach ceann eile san bhunfhocal).
15. Ceacht. Ní dhéanann an imthosca go raibh roinnt scoláirí Indiacha ón tréimhse choilíneach (Bhandarkar) nó go gairid ina dhiaidh sin (Bhargava) agus scoláirí Giúdacha, roimh agus tar éis an Dara Cogadh Domhanda, ag comhoibriú san episteme seo an t-uaire a dhiúltú. Tá patrún léirithe ann chun comhoibriú leis an disciplín a spreagadh, go hinstitiúideach trí phoist agus dul chun cinn gairme agus go intleachtúil trí lua agus athbhreithniú comhionann fabhrach. Bhí deacrachtaí chomh mór sin ag scoláirí Giúdacha sa Ghearmáin go raibh ar go leor acu imeacht. Déanann a gcuid scéalta léamh scanrúil mar a dhéantar iad a dhoiciméadú in Adluri agus Bagchee,  Giúdaigh agus Hindus in Indology,  https://www.academia.edu/30937643/Jews_and_Hindus_in_Indology.
Is nóta tosaigh é an t-alt seo don turas leabhar le haghaidh Philology and Criticism; A Guide to Mahābhārata Textual Criticism, an leabhar nua le Vishwa Adluri agus Joydeep Bagchee, údar na The Nay Science: A History of German Indology
Díriú: Is iad na tuairimí a léirítear san alt seo ná tuairimí an údair. Ní bhíonn Indic Today freagrach ná faoi dhliteanas as cruinneas, iomláine, oiriúnacht nó bailíocht aon fhaisnéis san alt.


The Importance of Understanding Layers & Flattening in Photoshop
Photoshop is a very diversified tool that can help you make minor touch-ups to a photograph or complete the creation of an artwork. Either way, you may or may not have heard about layers. With layers you have the ability to efficiently edit different elements of your image without the worry of mistakenly losing other parts or your design. Layers accomplish this by allowing you to manipulate individual layers with filters, editing tools, and more. You can even change the order of your layers.
Flattening Your Layers
So what is the big deal within flattening an image in Photoshop and why might it be important when it comes to your printing?
- First, the biggest thing you will notice, depending on how many layers you had, is a reduction in file size. Flattened files can be more easily transferred for print in this reduced size.
- Second, you will no longer be able to manipulate the individual layers…simply because they are no longer there. We suggest saving a copy of your layered file, just in case you need to get back in there and edit a thing or two.
- Third, all vector artwork, including text, will be rasterized (converting into pixels). This will prevent your fonts from defaulting to some undesirable font you were not expecting. The rasterization will normally prevent issues with transparency as well.
How to Flatten Layers
There are a few different ways of flattening your artwork in Photoshop. One of the quickest is to locate the menu button on the layers window tab. Click the menu button to bring up a list of options and simply select Flatten Image.
You can also find the Flatten Image command in the Layer menu at the top of your screen.
Photoshop has so many features so we hope this mini-tutorial helps you in the creation of your artwork and designs. Happy creating!
View this on our website: http://www.catprint.com/pages/setting-up-your-files/photoshop-layers-and-flattening

An tábhacht a bhaineann le Léideanna agus Leagú a Thuiscint i Photoshop
Is uirlis an-éagsúil é Photoshop a chabhróidh leat mion-athruithe a dhéanamh ar ghrianghraf nó cruthaitheacht saothar ealaíne a chomhlánú. Ar aon nós, d'fhéadfadh go mbeadh nó nach mbeadh chuala tú faoi shraith. Le sraitheanna tá an cumas agat gnéithe éagsúla de do íomhá a chur in eagar go héifeachtach gan an imní go gcaillfidh tú codanna eile nó do dhearadh go botún. Déantar é seo trí shraith a chur ar fáil duit chun sraitheanna aonair a ionramháil le scagairí, uirlisí eagarthóireachta, agus go leor eile. Is féidir leat fiú ord na sraitheanna a athrú.
Do Scairteanna a Chéimniú
Mar sin, cad é an deal mór laistigh de flattening íomhá i Photoshop agus cén fáth go bhféadfadh sé a bheith tábhachtach nuair a thagann sé do phriontáil?
- Ar dtús, is é an rud is mó a gheobhaidh tú faoi deara, ag brath ar cé mhéad sraitheanna a bhí agat, laghdú ar mhéid an chomhad. Is féidir comhaid phlátaithe a aistriú níos éasca chun iad a phriontáil sa mhéid laghdaithe seo.
- An dara, ní bheidh tú in ann a thuilleadh a ionramháil na sraitheanna aonair... simplí toisc nach bhfuil siad ann a thuilleadh. Molaimid cóip de do chomhad sraithe a shábháil, ar eagla go gcaithfidh tú dul ar ais ann agus rud nó dhó a chur in eagar.
- Ar an tríú dul síos, déanfar gach saothar ealaíne veicteora, lena n-áirítear téacs, a rástáiriú (ag athrú go píseáin). Cuirfidh sé seo cosc ar do chuid foinsí ó bheith réamhshocraithe le roinnt foinse neamh-inmhianaithe nach raibh tú ag súil leis. De ghnáth, cuideoidh an rástéarú le saincheisteanna trédhearcachta a sheachaint freisin.
Conas Scaighdeáin a Chéimniú
Tá roinnt bealaí éagsúla ann chun do chuid saothar ealaíne a phláint i Photoshop. Ceann de na is tapúla ná an cnaipe roghchlár a aimsiú ar an tab fuinneog sraitheanna. Cliceáil ar an gcnaipe roghchlár chun liosta roghanna a thabhairt suas agus roghnaigh Flatten Image.
Is féidir leat an t-ordú Flatten Image a fháil freisin sa roghchlár Ciseal ag barr do scáileáin.
Tá an oiread sin gnéithe ag Photoshop agus tá súil againn go gcabhróidh an mion-oideas seo leat do chuid saothair ealaíne agus dearaí a chruthú. Cruthaithe sásta!
Féach ar seo ar ár suíomh Gréasáin: http://www.catprint.com/pages/setting-up-your-files/photoshop-layers-and-flattening


power transfered through wireless for charging wheel chair and mobile phone of the disabled persons at their [url removed, login to view] disabled persons find difficult,if the batteries charge of the wheel chair and or mobile phone goes low when they are alone at their home Since they cannot move and or communicate in low [url removed, login to view] the charge of their mobile phone becomes low during emergency situation they cannot be able to communicate with their care takers. To overcome these drawbacks we implement wireless power transfer technology by which both mobile phone as well as wheel chair will be chargered through wireless . The working principle behind wireless power transmission is electromagnetic induction. The wheel chair will be controlled by the user by giving commands from his mobile phone. The commands will be received by the Bluetooth module in the wheel chair. Wireless transmission is useful in cases where interconnecting wires are inconvenient, hazardous, or impossible. We need a power source and a transmitting antenna, and also a receiving antenna to which we can connect the device to be powered (the electrical load, or just the load). The power source will deliver a high power signal to the antenna. This will create an electrostatic field around the antenna that changes as the signal to it changes. This will create electromagnetic waves that will travel out from the antenna and through the [url removed, login to view] receiving antenna will be in the path of these waves, and the waves will pass by it and "sweep" it with their moving electromagnetic fields. This will induce a signal in the receiving antenna proportional to the energy that the antenna captures. This signal will cause current flow that will power the load.

Tá sé deacair ar dhaoine faoi mhíchumas, má théann muirir an chathaoir rothaí agus/nó an fhóin phóca íseal nuair a bhíonn siad ina n-aonar ina dteach Ós rud é nach féidir leo bogadh agus/nó cumarsáid a dhéanamh i [url removed, login to view] ní bhíonn muirear a gcuid fón póca íseal le linn éigeandála ní féidir leo cumarsáid a dhéanamh lena gcuid cúramtóirí. Chun na míbhuntáistí seo a shárú déanaimid teicneolaíocht aistrithe cumhachta gan sreang a chur i bhfeidhm trína n-uisceofar an fón póca chomh maith le cathaoir rothaí trí sreang gan sreang . Is é an prionsabal oibre atá taobh thiar de tharchur cumhachta gan sreang ná indúchadh leictreamaighnéadach. Beidh an chairr rothaí á rialú ag an úsáideoir trí orduithe a thabhairt óna fhón póca. Gheobhaidh an modúl Bluetooth sa chathaoir rothaí na horduithe. Tá tarchur gan sreang úsáideach i gcásanna ina bhfuil sreangacha idirnasctha míchuí, contúirteach nó dodhéanta. Ní mór dúinn foinse cumhachta agus antenna tarchuir, agus freisin antenna glactha a bhféadfaimis an gléas a chur i bhfeidhm a nascadh (an t-ualach leictreach, nó an t-ualach amháin). Cuirfidh an foinse cumhachta comhartha ardchumhachta chuig an antenna. Cruthaíonn sé seo réimse leictreastaiticiúil timpeall an antenna a athraíonn de réir mar a athraíonn an comhartha dó. Cruthaíonn sé seo tonnta leictreamaighnéadacha a thaisteal amach ón antenna agus tríd an [url a bhaint, logáil isteach chun féachaint] beidh an antenna glactha i mbealach na tonnta seo, agus rachaidh na tonnta tríd agus "scanfaidh" iad lena réimsí leictreamaighnéadacha gluaiseachta. Cuirfidh sé seo comhartha isteach san antenna glactha atá comhréireach leis an fuinneamh a ghabháilfidh an antenna. Beidh an comhartha seo a chur faoi deara sreabhadh reatha a bheidh cumhachta an t-ualach.


When the weather gets hotter and the air becomes more humid, you can expect a few illnesses to suddenly materialize, many of them affecting the skin. Kids are often more prone to these conditions than adults. After those two-day hiking and camping trips in the Rockies, or those long days spent swimming and holding barbecues in your backyard, you may just find your little ones starting to scratch themselves nonstop, or crying because of stinging pain on their skin.
The classic sunburn is perhaps the most common cause of discomfort, but skin infections, allergies, and a bunch of other conditions could cause rashes, blisters, or even mysterious lumps and bumps. When a child can’t stop scratching an itchy area, the tiny sores or eruptions can look worse, get more irritating, or even become infected. Here’s a list of common skin irritations that kids can suffer every summer, and which just might require a visit to a Littleton pediatrics clinic.
Aside from sunburns, the hot weather can also bring about heat rash, which appears as bumps on skin folds. This itchy rash happens when sweat gets trapped underneath the skin because of clogged sweat ducts. Normally, the rash disappears after a few days, but if it persists longer than four days, or becomes itchier, redder, or more painful, it needs to be seen by a physician.
Reaction to Poison Ivy
About 85% of Americans are allergic to urushiol, oil found in poison ivy, oak, or sumac sap. If your child’s skin comes into contact with the leaves or any part of those plants, he/she could easily develop red patches or blisters, swelling, and itching within 12 hours up to three days. A pediatrician can prescribe the proper topical medications or lotions, as well as anti-allergy medicines for severe reactions.
Heat stress, excessive perspirations, and exposure to various allergens can trigger hives. Aside from animal dander and insect bites, these pink or red welts can also erupt after touching flowers like lavender, daffodils, and chrysanthemums, or other allergenic plant vines. When the hives don’t disappear after a cold shower and wearing loose clothing, the child may need antihistamines.
Take note that when watering holes are contaminated or not properly treated (too much or too little chlorine in pools, for instance), various bacteria and viruses can thrive in them. This means your child can develop several other skin irritations and illnesses. A trusted Littleton pediatrician like one at Focus on Kids Pediatrics can help you sort out these concerns, so your child can “just keep swimming” this summer.
How to Treat (and Avoid!) Summer Skin Problems, Health.com
5 Surprising Summer Skin Problems And How To Avoid Them, The Huffington Post
Skin Allergies Can Flare Up in Summer Heat, MedicineNet.com

Nuair a thiocfaidh teas níos mó agus a thiocfaidh an t-aer níos taise, is féidir leat a bheith ag súil go dtiocfaidh roinnt galair go tobann, agus go leor acu ag dul i bhfeidhm ar an gcraiceann. Is minic a bhíonn leanaí níos so-ghabhálach do na coinníollacha seo ná daoine fásta. Tar éis na turais siúlóide agus campaíochta dhá lá sin sna Rockies, nó na laethanta fada sin a chaith tú ag snámh agus ag déanamh barbecues i do chúlchúrsa, b'fhéidir go bhfaighidh tú do chuid beagáinín ag tosú ag scratch féin gan stad, nó ag caoineadh mar gheall ar pian stinging ar a gcraiceann.
Is dócha gurb é an lasadh gréine clasaiceach an chúis is coitianta le míchompord, ach d'fhéadfadh ionfhabhtuithe craicinn, ailléirgí, agus sraith riochtaí eile rubair, blisters, nó fiú cnapanna agus cnámha mistéireach a chur faoi deara. Nuair nach féidir le leanbh stop a chur le crathadh ar limistéar itchy, d'fhéadfadh na sáracha nó na rátaí beaga a bheith níos measa, a bheith níos irritating, nó fiú a bheith ionfhabhtaithe. Seo liosta de na irritations craiceann coitianta go bhféadfadh leanaí a fhulaingt gach samhradh, agus a d'fhéadfadh ach a bheith ag teastáil cuairt a thabhairt ar clinic péidiatraice Littleton.
Seachas lasadh na gréine, is féidir leis an aimsir theas ráiteas teasa a chur ar fáil freisin, a léiríonn mar bhumps ar fhillteanna craiceann. Tarlaíonn an rash itchy seo nuair a bhíonn an t-othar gafa faoi bhun an chraiceann mar gheall ar chuiríotáin sweat clogged. De ghnáth, imíonn an rash tar éis cúpla lá, ach má leanann sé ar aghaidh níos faide ná ceithre lá, nó má éiríonn sé níos itchier, níos dearga, nó níos pianmhara, ní mór dó a bheith le feiceáil ag dochtúir.
Freagairt ar Poison Ivy
Tá thart ar 85% de na Meiriceánaigh ailléirgeach ar urushiol, ola a fhaightear i ndúnra nimhe, oak, nó sumac. Má thagann craiceann do pháiste i dteagmháil leis na duilleoga nó le haon chuid de na plandaí sin, d'fhéadfadh sé nó sí go héasca patches nó blisters dearga a fhorbairt, tuitim, agus itching laistigh de 12 uair an chloig go dtí trí lá. Is féidir le dochtúir leanaí na cógais nó na lóisíní áitiúla cuí a fhorordú, chomh maith le cógais frith-ailléirgeacha le haghaidh frithghníomhartha tromchúiseacha.
Is féidir le strus teasa, sweats iomarcach, agus nochtadh do ailléirgíní éagsúla hives a spreagadh. Seachas dander ainmhithe agus bites insect, is féidir na welts pinc nó dearg seo a thrasnú freisin tar éis dóibh bláthanna mar lavender, daffodils, agus chrysanthemums, nó fíonchaora plandaí ailléirgeacha eile a chur i dteagmháil. Má bhíonn an t- urlár ag dul in olcas tar éis cith fuar agus é a chaitheamh i éadaí scaoilte, b'fhéidir go mbeidh gá le frith- histamíní ag an leanbh.
Tabhair faoi deara go bhféadfadh baictéir agus víris éagsúla a bheith ag fás ina gcuid uisce nuair a bhíonn siad truaillithe nó mura ndéantar cóireáil chuí orthu (líon nó íseal clóirín i mbaileanna snámha, mar shampla). Ciallaíonn sé seo go bhféadfadh roinnt irritations agus galair chraiceann eile a bheith ag do leanbh. Is féidir le páistí Littleton iontaofa cosúil le ceann ag Fócas ar Leanaí Leanaí cabhrú leat na hábhair imní seo a réiteach, ionas gur féidir le do leanbh "a bheith ag snámh" an samhradh seo.
Conas a Phlé (agus a Sheachaint!) Fadhbanna Craiceann an tSamhraidh, Health.com
5 Fadhbanna i gcraiceann an tsamhraidh a chuireann iontas ort agus conas iad a sheachaint, The Huffington Post
Is Féidir le Hailéirgí Craiceann Fuaradh suas i Sath an tSamhraidh, MedicineNet.com