Arindam Charkabarti's Mahabharata

 A concept is an abstract idea. It may be considered a plan or a program with a particular intention. A percept is the impression made by a thing on the senses.  

What is the concept of the Mahabharata? The answer has to do with what Vedic Hindus would consider the proper content and structure of a comprehensive epic about the Bharatas (i.e. the descendants of Bharata- a legendary King, the son of Shakuntala, from whom many of the great royal dynasties on India were descended. Bharat became a synonym of the country as a whole in the way that Saudi Arabia is known by the name of its great King Ibn Saud.)

Since, in Hinduism, karma and dharma define the 'time axis' of causality and the 'space axis' of morality respectively, the concept of the Mahabharata would be a book about the descendants of Bharata in which the rigorous maintenance of symmetries permits, by Noether's theorem, the conservation of karma and dharma. This means there is a 'non-dissipative' manner in which any episode may be integrated into the text. In this way, folk heroes- e.g. Barbarik or Iravan- can enter the text without any disruption or attenuation of the text's organizing principles. One might ask 'could Spiderman or Dracula be put into the Mahabharata?' The answer is no. They are not of Bharat. The fundamental categories of karma and dharma have no, or very limited, applicability to them. It is not the case that Dracula became a vetala because of a Sage's curse or some misdeed in a past-life. Peter Parker was bitten by a radio-active spider. He was not scratched or bitten by the Goddess Maya. 

Arindam Chakrabarti & Sibaji Bandhopadhyay, who edited 'Mahabharata Now', take a different view-

The concept of a tower constructed to celebrate the victory of Islam existed before the Qutub Minar was constructed. We say, it is an Indian version of the Ghurid Minaret of Jam in Afghanistan. The concept of the leaning tower of Pisa came into existence as it was being constructed and was discovered to be likely to lean. Here an accidental percept became the basis of a concept. 

The Mahabharata explains its own 'general concept'. It is intended to contain everything found in other texts but to be comprehensible by ordinary people. Since great care was taken to preserve certain symmetries or dualities, this was indeed the outcome. However, the Mahabharata is not the only text whose general concept is to condense and present all relevant material about Indic people of antiquity. There are Buddhist and Jain and other such collections. The Mahabharata however is about Vedic religion and its author is also the editor of the Vedas. He appears as an important character within it. The Ramayana and later Vaishnavite texts are equally revered by Hindus. Sri Lanka, of course, has the Mahavamsa. One may say the general concept is the same though, since the Religion is different and the country is smaller, the method taken is different. 

Does a modern novel or film or TV series which is based on Homer or the Old Testament or the Mahabharata have the same 'general concept' as the original? No. The purpose  is different. The method is different. Just as a James Bond film may borrow from Samurai films without having the same general concept- which may involve 'bushido' and other traditional Japanese values- so too may any idiot pretend that Rama was a rapist and Ravana a champion of the rights of the down-trodden. On the other hand, a traditional form of representing the Ramayana or Mahabharata may have the same general concept even if is done using puppets or the representation is through operatic arias. What matters is whether the symmetries are preserved such that karma and dharma are conserved properties of the system. On the other hand, some may say only the soteriological worth of the great epics matter. Moreover, perhaps that which is aesthetically pleasing in a certain way, achieves the same effect. Thus some who dislike or disbelieve the Bible say they receive its equal from Bach's fugues.  

Many Hindus read the Vedas and the Brahmanas, Upanishads etc. They are welcome to supplement this by reading the Mahabharata, with or without a gloss in the vernacular. For the Sanatani Hindu, Mahabharat is 'shaashvat' or perennial. We can use it to clear up any doubts we may have in the interpretation of scripture. This is because the Indians have a pragmatic hermeneutics and jurisprudence. If you can understand economics well enough, you will have no problem with understanding Indian ethics or aesthetics. 

Arindam and Sibaji, being Bengali, quite naturally refer to the great Bengali poet Jibananda Das. But Das taught English. He was neither a Sanskritist nor had he any acquaintance with mathematical physics. It would be easy enough for either a Mimamsaka or a Math maven to lay bare the deep symmetries that permit the exposition of the MhB's 'general concept'. 

This is silly. Jibananda was a Baidya and thus his ancestors may not have studied the Itihasas. But plenty of his Brahmin friends did do so. Why would an Indian not have the same sort of relationship to the MhB which a Greek person has to Homer? Indeed, the Indian's task is much easier. True, many Hindus are poor and have to study English or Econ or Accountancy at Collidge. But lots of them are pious and, especially as they get older, start turning to scripture. Sanskrit isn't particularly difficult. If you speak Hindi or Malyalam or Gujarati or Bengali, you are already halfway home. 

What is unique about the MhB? There were other Iron Age epics which show the transition from a Timocratic to a mercantile society. The answer is the MhB alone, in the Nalophkyanam, shows that the Just King needs to learn statistical game theory to dispel 'Vishada' or mental depression. 

Since Noether's theorem was published in 1918 and Tagore and Bengal had plenty of smart mathsy guys- both SN Bose and Mahalanobis were associated with Shantiniketan- they could have quickly got the gist of the MhB's general concept. Once game theory became available, the symmetries could be appreciated for their aesthetic value. Since the system is 'non-dissipative', there is actually an element of suspense or 'surprisal'- e.g. will Lord Krishna forget that Arjuna doesn't know he has 'chaksushi vidya'? Thankfully Arjuna reminds the Lord of this and is granted 'divine eyes'. But the reader remembers that Arjuna had been given this (unvested or asvamika) boon by a Gandharva. Once he ceased to be his own master because of 'Vishada' (i.e. he himself was asvamika) the faery's gift vested in him. But it could have no ill effect. As the Quran says, God is the best of planners! But, perhaps, our reminders to God (zikr), too, are part of his plan. 

The MbH has a lot of good stories but the reason it has the form it has is because it was useful for jurists and economists and businessmen (like the Vyadha (butcher) in the Vyadha Gita). It's like when you read a John Grisham novel and gain some small knowledge of the law. But its basic organizing principle is perhaps most easily recognized by accountants- who do double entry- or production economists who find it easier to solve the 'dual' of a problem. My guess is that ancient Indians used some form of 'discrete math' for sampling and cluster analysis. That's why the Nalophkhyanam is not just a superbly romantic tale. Nothing of that earlier learning survives in the Naishadyacharitra. Why? By then there was a hereditary caste of such calculators. 

The MbH doesn't say that everything is perishable. It merely says that all compound things are perishable. That is Vedic. That is Buddhist. That is Jain. It is also what we mean when we speak of Markov properties- though strong Markov may have time irreversibility. There is also the problem that the state space must be de-limitable. The MbH does reflect on this sort of thing which is why we would have expected Bengalis- more especially those trained in Mahalanobis's Institute- to be able to tell us something interesting about the Gita. Sadly, Bengali buddhijivis are virtue signaling cretins. 

Consider the following- 

The MhB isn't a midden in which archaeologists can poke around. True, it describes a transition from a Timocracy when Great Rishis and Kings wandered around to a more mercantile 'homonoia'. But so too do other Iron Age epics. What makes it different from other works is that it is so scrupulous in maintaining symmetry and providing every character, every episode, every event, with a dual. Obviously, for unambiguous interpretation, this type of 'redundancy' is necessary. What is dramatic or aesthetic is the way in which each episode is a 'balanced game'. Also there is a lot of humor under the surface. It is like a situation comedy on TV. You know that if a character says 'I will never do x', he will do x in a particularly humiliating manner by the time the credits roll. 

These two cretins think the MhB is a 'literary unthing'. It isn't. There's a reason why every sentence in it is where it is. True, for any artistic purpose you can leave things out but if you find you are going wrong, you can go back to the text or better yet employ a Pundit to do it for you. I suppose it is fair to say that people who didn't get to go to Collidge before the Great War were somewhat handicapped in grasping the mathematical side of things. It would also be fair to say Andre Weill didn't understand the Gita. But then the fucker was French. Allowances should be made. Still, for Bengalis born after about 1918 who went to Presidency, there is no fucking excuse. 

Consider the phrase 'compulsion to repeat'. Either repetition is by reason of hysteresis, in which case there is no such compulsion, or else what we have is 'memoryless'. If stochastic, it is a Markov process. Strong Markov is defined in terms of a repetition time, or stopping time, which may be random, after which the chain restarts. The MhB doesn't really take a position on this. We may say 'strong Markov' implies pralaya or is 'Saguna'. Alternatively, we could say MhB is mithya or maya. Karma and dharma are illusions. Neither 'state space' nor the 'time index' can be defined. Even the Just King's 'samkhya' is an illusion. Indeed Yuddhisthra does say as much at the end of MhB but that takes us back to its beginning. If there is a future, we are interested in it. If there isn't, though the Vedas remain there can be no nearer approach to its knowers. 

Turning to a specific example of the editor's stupidity, I may mention Sibaji's addled account of the gambler's lament. Every Hindu who has read the Rg Veda however perfunctorily knows that the disrobing of Draupati is a reference to the 'stripping of the gambler's wife'. What is the solution? The answer is Krishi- agriculture. You may say that it is a bit of a gamble, but it aint a zero-sum game. Neither is Krishna. That's it. Simples. 

Another supremely silly essay is by Enakshi Mitra who thinks the Bhagvad Gita's message applies to Yuddhisthra. It doesn't. What causes him 'vishada' is the duty to dependents. Even if you don't want 'fruits' for yourself, you do for your kiddies or younger brothers or family retainers. They are agents. You are a principal though, as such, you may be concerned with the welfare of your agents. That's why Yuddhisthra's vishad is dispelled in two parts. The first is the Vyadha Gita which says, if you are self-employed, tell Pundits and Princes to fuck off. Earn well. Live well. Treat your own parents as your gods. Taste the honeyed wisdom of the Chandogya.

Yuddhisthra has another problem- viz. gambling. Now, if you don't care about 'fruit', gambling is just as good a way of redistributing wealth as any other. If it is okay that slavery exists, it is okay to be a slave. However, for some reason, the dude's wife had an objection to being stripped and forced to suck off all and sundry. What to do? Women are like that only. Still, there is a remedy. Learn statistical game theory of the Von Neumann sort. Make smart decisions. Fuck Witlesstein and his 'language games'. That's it. That's the whole story. 

This is crazy shit. Yuddhishtra is law minded. The fact is a game of dice was part of the coronation ritual. True, he was a shitty gambler. But he could learn statistical game theory (though a king could always appoint someone else to play for him). It is easy to understand Yuddhishtra's actions. His 'vishada' was caused by Bhima saying he would go off an kill the Kauravas by himself because Yuddhishtra would be bound to fuck up in exactly the same way once again. But Kings and other 'Principals'- i.e. guys running their own business- can always outsource expert advise or else take a course at the local College.

Consider the action of scratching your bum. Which 'fruit consequence' or 'desire consequence' does it absorb into itself? I want to scratch my bum. Sadly my hand ended up on your wife's behind. She slapped the black off me. Wittgenstein would so not have approved.