d is freely the is - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/430/9/09_chapter3.pdfstories can be seen. Narratological studies range from theories of authorship, enunciation,

Chapter ili

Modem Narratokgy

When two different cuHural streams are put face to face, only

diuimilariiies can be expected to a great extent. Particularly when the

areas d knowledge, Ierature, philosophy, arts etc. are analysed, the

widIh and depth d dissimilarity become more and more intense. This is

because the unidenHfiable undercurrent of all these is 'culture' alone, a

clear-cut definition of which is yet to come. External signs, costumes.

rituals, life-styles, social customs, linguistic variations etc. only provide

some very remote clues of that 'internal'. In the communications the

words 'culture', 'civilizdion'. 'tradition'. 'herltage' etc. are freely wed.

But thew words do not cover that inconceivable range with all their

connototions. A 'culture' or 'civilization' comes into existence as the

result of the social, linguistic, historical, psychological, ritualistic,

geographlcai and other modes of coordination of a particular set of

people, which accumulates through thousands of years by the power of

diverging and converging forces of thoughts, feelings, ideas and

impulses of that people. So a mcdern investigator of an ancient culture is

faced up wlh one prime difficulty: the total incapability of reading the

pristsne shaping patterns of that culture which he wants to explore. Of his

many took, language is the most effective one. Then the sphere d

language in particular and Meratwe in general is Wended here lor ihe

purpose d invest&@ion d the cultures d he East and West.

Semidogy:

The concept of language in the West underwent radical changes

by me begbming (31 this century. The S w b linguist Ferdinand de Somure

introduced a new dimension in the study d lingubtlcs. He nego)ed the

idea of language as a collection d words pa#hrely denoting ideas.

Instead, he argued that a language is a structured system of linguistic

'signs', which exists as a social contract. The word 'sign' has a two-fold

connotaiion i.e. 'signified' (meaning or idea) and 'sign~mr' (the word).

Not only the words, but many other items can have the stohrs of 'signs'.

These are the words of Soussure:

u A k x t g w g e i s a ~ e m s o f . i g n r , e x p c r l n g i d c c r , o n d h e n c e ~ b

w t i l i n g , t h e d e d a n d d u r n b d p h c b e t , ~ f i t ~ f a m r d ~ m Y ) a y

dgdsandsoon. lfkimplythemodhpqrtantofdlarhyrlem*"

This led Sauwure to a further conclusion that a 'science of signs', which

studii the rob of signs as a part of social life can be conceived and

developed. He states: - " - -

'We rhdl ca# it '-' (frcnn the Greek 4-9 trigr*). inverligde

These findings of Soussure triggered off same d r d c changes with

far-reaching reparcussions in the field d westem thought, especially in

literature and philosophy. One of the major repsccursionz was the

fomKltion of the intellectual movement d the IWMs and sixtias. 'French

~lructuraliun'. It is fhe study and analysis d the tom and the tunctkm ot

the 'structures' and their inter-reldiomhiip. When it is linguistic

nambtogy, !?&ucturalism confines its# to the sbdy d linguh)ic stmdwes

such as phoneme, morpheme and so on. The essential 'structuredners'

of language comes within the scope of structural linguislics and its

analytical devices operaW at the phonemic, morphemic and phrasal

levels. The 'siructuredness' of narratives comes within the scope d

nanatdogy and enables to analyse the various narrative devices used in

literary diicounes. As Jonathan Culler has relwanny stre8sed qwWng

Roland Barthas, the linguistic structural devices uHh??tately trail back to the

cultural attifacts d society. To quote Culler :

'~arMoa h i once defined ShuduroYm, in its most qmdhhed and

c m mod m k v d vardon. m a mode of mdyrir of culturai orWfPd* *h

Structuralism in a wider perspective can be applied to almost all

communicative systems of knowledge. But the French critics mostly

propended to apply it to literature. '~itetature' in a very general sense

can be taken as a communicative discipline having the formula of a

tetkr, red or ticmious, narrating something to a iiener. With I t s strong

IinguIsM base, Shucturalism and its methock ot evaluation were fully

made ure of by some critics to analyse this 'teller-listener' relationship.

This can be reckoned as the Inauguration of a new branch of

Structuralism 1.e. 'Structuralist Narratdogy'. Paul Ricowr ddnes

narratology thus:

''Strktly -kg, nandology should be termsd a8 the kknce oi nandke

structures. w#hout considering the distinction between historical nancltive and

ktioncd n e e . However. according to the contemporary use of the term

A 'nanatology' is centered on the fictional narrdive."

Any linguistic sequence can be brought under the scope of

'narrativkation' only when a 'narrative centre' is fixed and a definite

order or pattern d analysis is applied. The 'narrative centre' can be

either a 'narrator' engaged in a speech act or a 'narrative perspective'

or a 'narrative mode'. The narratological study of literary genres like

epk, short story, novel, etc. depends upon the said 'narrative centre'.

The reader normally does not apprehend or recognise this 'narrative

centre' in the reading process, which is mostly an intellectual or

emotional interaction with the text. It is tor the narratologist to identify the

'centre' and unravel the subtly used devices of narrativlzation.

Primarily because of the impact d structuralism. It became

increasingly necessary to find the grammar d narraWe structures from

various angles and perspectives in the middle decades of the twentieth

century. The 'narrative personae' of fiction as present in the narrative

structures have been studied by Henry Jams, Bulwer Lytton, Percy

Lubbock and E.M. Forster highlighting the plot, character, action and

point d view levels d the fictional design. The application of identifiable

narrative devices into other forms of literary discourses such as poetry

and drama with the optimistic view that there will be a universality behind

all the narrative structures, paved the way for modern narratological

studies in France, Germany and Russia. From the apparently simple

concept d Todorov's 'narrative syntax' (which involves the subject and

object positions d personae in narrative actions). ~ropp's study of the

folk story and Cluade Levi-Strausses's structural anthropology are

developed. There the attempts to trace a 'mythemic' element in all Me

stories can be seen. Narratological studies range from theories of

authorship, enunciation, lobule, story, reception and reader-response to

highly sophisticated theories d self-referentiality and inter-textuality.

So it is to be remembered that narratology is the 'science of

fictional narrative'. Roland Barthes, A.J. Griemas. Claude Bremond,

G6rard Genette and Tzvetan Todorov are the major figures of French

Nanatdogy. Although some rudimentary elements of nanatdogkal

tenets cun be traced back to the Poef/cs of AfkMe, narratobgy enjoyed

ihe status of a tully devebped science through the subttantiol

contrikdlonr d W e outhon. VIadhnir Propp. Wayne C bob. Shbmmlth

Rhnmon-Kenan , hanz Sawel, Paul Rlcowr and W e Bcll ako have

made valuable contrlbuiions.

The Awmbm&a - - - and Modern Nanatdogy: -

A suitable working model or a deHnite approach to

make a nanatdog+ical appraisal of the hWmbhm& - - is to be found out.

RR1 of OH, the llmltt of the ancient Indian narra))ve sysiem, briefty

discussed in the prevlow chapter and Its pecul)arMes as reflected in the

- - are to be consickred. Another interesHng paint is whether

the nonative pOItiMHthlQ proposed by thew clnalysls can be opplkd as

such to M great epic. On what all points the klbn- -CK- beyond

their InWectwl and analyWcal horkon, on whlch occorlona li pet?ectly

concurs to the principles of modem narfo)ology and to what extent the

epic shows pa~W amnabllliy - these qwstlons should mothrute the

analytis hereafter. Moreover, modem narrotolagy can otter many

approaches or M o d s of analyds of the Mvh&Mda neve-,

the main facud d discussion will be Sage Vyka's multi-taceted

narratdogical idenmy.

A summary of the fundamentals of French Narratobgy will prove

usetui In anoiyslng the narratologlcal status d the k l o h 6 ~ ~ .

&mrd Genette has devdoped a comprehensive and powerful

theary d narrative in the context d the study ot Roust. He h a tocwed on

Hlslcrrh (story) and McH (dkcwm). In the Introduction to hk Ncmcrt/ve

Dkcoum, Ward Genette gives various connotations d me word

'narrathre'. It refers to the narrative statement, oral or written, which is

generally termed 'discourse'. It speaks d an event or series of events.'

Another meaning is the succession of events. real or fictitious, wldch

f a r m the subject matter d this discourse. It is the narrative content or

b story'. The third meaning is that event in which the narration takes

place. Strictly speaking, It is the narrating act. ' These are the conclusive

words of Genette:

"I propose, -out irubting on tha obvkua reasons for my choke ol terms to uw tha . word 'story' for the 'SignUied' or 'nandive contont ', to uw the word 'narrative' for

'signtfhr' or 'stdemont ' or 'dkowe' or 'nandkre text' itsob, old to u n ttm word

'nandhg' for producing 'nandhre action' and the whde of the real tictknol

r Y u d i in which lhd action takes place. "

Discourse or narrative text is the connecting link between the story and

the act of narrating. The discourse or norrathre text cannot be designated

as such If it does not tell a story and is not uttered by a narrator to a

listener. So the members ot this triad are mutually dependent.

Discourse t-------, Nanathg9

T h e n 6 . n s f t e s h o v r s l h e t h r e e n a n a t k r e ~ p r ~ b Y T N ~

Todorw. They are ( I ) 'Tense' i.e. in wttich the r- betweon the

nrm ot the story and me tinm ot discourse is expressed (2) '-t' Le-

the way In wbkh the stcny is perceived by the namtuand (3) 'Mood'

10 i.e. me type d dlrcourse used by the norrator. For his own analylkal

convenience. 6.nelte has replaced me category d 'aspect' (whkh

cwen. fhe queskm d pokrt ot view) wllh mat ot %oice'. These

categorical distinctions d nanoldogy wlH be the bark d assemmnk

ConJdsrkrg the vastness, heterogeneity and the broad pempeclh d the

- these GenetHan proporiliaro con be effectively applied as

thematuritobk,mnatdogicdm.ThoopiniwdMeothsnclulhors

also con be considered, wherever relevant.

T h e MdQblKlmffr - - trom ))re nwatolopkal anale :

Betore the nanatlve intricacies d the hW&Mriil4lb are sought

after, torno importclnt aspects also deoenre to be mentioned. A

signMccmt observation d Rdand Barthec would be helpful to get the

correct pompective in the analytlcal angle. He writes:

"Faced wHh ihe inlhily d namlkroo, the rntWpklly d rkndpoMs - hblolkd,

r o e w d . e(mokgicd, a d h d c etc. - horn w k h lhey con be

~ t h e a n d y r t ( h d r h i m r ( ( i n a m o r e a ~ r m e i ) u d i o n a a S a u r e

conbmtd by lhe Mamgmdy d language U m and d i n g to extract a

pimiph d ckuifkdmn and a centml focus for dercriptkn from the qpcrrent

11 confusion d indkridual rne-gos."

The multlpliclty of standpoints gets more and more multiplied when it

comes to a complicated gigantic narrcdive like the MhWtWtZ To

name a few more standpoints, there can be philosophical, religious.

spicituai, ritualistic, iinguisiic. ethical, mythdogical, theological, moraiktic.

anthropologkal and the like. Keeplng away horn all other evasive

notions for the present, the standpoint is to be tixed at the very outset. It is

'nanatdogicai' and nothing .be. The casual diversions to the philosophy

or ethics or anything like should finally contrlbule to the narrative detign

of the epic. So the prime task is to release the WMbh5rfo from the

apparent contusion of its individual message and fo bring it into a

common piolform, which it shares with other narratives. This most

important point is to be remembered always, lest the discussion should

take wrong routes endlessly and aimlessly.

Another important question coming up for consideration is whether

the MMCfbhb. is to be approached as pure fiction or non-fiction or a

mixture of the two. This question has its own narratolagical Implications.

whatever be the general concept of the people. Gmette observes:

"Nonetbhss, the two pure types can be conrid.md of. and llterory nanatology has

confined ihclf a mtk too blindly to the cludy of fictional nanafiwe, as U a matter of

course wery lhmry nonaliwe m k l ohrays be pure fiction ... In non-fiction. the

~ ~ p a v k l o ~ e a x l d o c ~ i h e t . l r m k b k q a p h . r ~

m e m o l k r u r e c l r h o o n l i d . d h M k n . M e ~ , b ~ , t h . s p i c - p d

c o u ~ ~ ( k n ~ , w - ~ , a r ~ t . ~ ~ ~ m o r r i t ~ ~ a m m d r t g i t u p * . "12

Soitistobedetcrdnodto~Mch~a(.9cxyihsgr6d~~

Apart hmn the vclgue r d e m m m s of legendary names of placer. then, is

no concrete evMsnce that the M&&hum& - -

ctoryisrealhirtocy.Sothe

epk tends to fail within lhe mnge of puce fiction os far as its stofy portion

is concerned. Here ihe epic-poet VyGra, setting the stage for me

nonation d ihe epic in the form of a '~arinr6da' between Sauti and the

rager at Nahni&m~ya, indtrectty declares - '1 know it because I am

making it up'. He has achieved it through the 4fak5s &red by Souti:

Sauti, the first narrator, has pmsented it as a direct replica of ~ y h ' s

words to Lord Bfuhm. Genette would call it a transposed speech. which

runs pemllel to Dorlt ~ohn's narrated rnonoiogue, a mondogue relayed

by lhe narrdor in the form of direct discusskm." Sage Vy- can be

C h a r a c W as the 'omnbclent author*, but in the view of narratobglsts

it is not exactly the same:

%plrp~e#on~btem,isIWerd)y~(theadhorhanothhgb'knorr ' , . inceh

invents -) md we would beiter of mplacing it with cMnplelenert of

infonndion. which rrhen oupplkd to a r e a d e r makes him(~e cumor) wnniscjent. "I5

Bartfrer presents three conceptions of narrator and VyZixl con be

consider4 as a personifkcition of the second conception. He regards

the narrator as an 'omniscient, apparently impersonal. Consciousness,

that tells the story from a superior point d vkw. that of God: the narrator is

at once inslde his characters (since he knows everyHling that goes on in

them ) and h k J e them (since he never identifies with any one more

' 16 than another) . At first giance this description suits mostly the ideal

figure d Vy-, which is derived from the epk. But Barthes rejects such

conceptions, for, in modern narratological perspecthre narrators and

characters are essentially 'paper beings' and the author is not to be

confused with the narrator." Having the idea of Vy- tradition, which

deletes him from history and gives a mythical coiour to his name, it is

better to subscribe to Barthes's view. So at least for the present, the idea

that Vyaa is the author of the epic, who hos appointed the traditional

epic narrator Sauti for some specific purposes, is to be kept.

Another interesting coincidence between the Mah&hBmkt, (taken

as a whole narraflve), and modern narratology can be found. Precisely,

this coincidence is not actually between the Muhfibh&?/u and

narratology, but it pertains to the mysterious authorship of VyZisa.

Genette's opinion is that:

"Eversince the doy when the nomatof in a trance perceived the unityimg signilkonce

of hi dory. he never ceawr to hold of its thnads simultaneoudy. to appmhend

sim~aneowly dl Its places and all b moments. to be capabk to edabfihlng a

mult#udo of M r o p k mlationshtps among them: a ubiquw that b spatid. but dm

, ,918 temporal, an 'Omnlompomlity .

m n the w t l n g of Vyasa wHh Lord G a d , his amonuensk, in the very

flnt chapter as nanated by Sauti, is analysed. Genelte's observation is

reminded:

i+mit wrtmumfmq zwm-aail

d a Fmasn?rr s;nn r n m a I I ' ~

0 Ganeio! I pkow be the scribe d thb

Bhiirotcr, whkh has beon concehrsd

by me and being nanated now.

Here 'scrr w m ~ mffszrrrr' at first offers a striking comparison with the

'narrator in a trance perceived the unifying significance of his story '. The

moment V y 5 ~ realised the unifying significance of the chains of the

events perceived in his mind, he was anxious to hold its threads, precisely

the narrative threads, by geliing them by wrltten through another equally

competent person. He was possibly hying to preserve the spatial and

temporal ubiquity and thereby the 'omnitemporality' and universality of

his c o m ~ t i o n . 'ma wtmu' - of this Bhdmfo - points to the unifying

signlficance i.e. 'the wholeneas of the story' because 's em' (the

pronoun k ) normally denotes something which is directly perceived:

m:mm- *m-ql

3KWRJ RnlqT*md&l?mAaq llZO

'q' - wmething of direct perception.

' m' - wmething ot pcoximly.

'~'-wmethhg distant.

'm$- -thing imperceptible.

Then there are some contrasting elements too. The first one is the

propodtion that Vyesa is the author; not the narrator. But when It is

stressed - 'du nbmmu', the idea that VyGsa himsew is the original

narrator of the epic and for representational purposes he has installed

Sauti at the narrator, gains importonce. ' sm m' -'only by Me'. Here the

particle ' m denotes that Vyesa alone is the narrator. '-' -

which is being told. Here the sulfix 'smq' , which replaces aq (present

tense) only, shows that narrating is still gdng oh2' So , ' e m ' and

'm' are semiologically important linguistic signs, which gradually

transtorm into 'narrative signs'. Collectively they signify that the narration

of the Mrrh&thTm& is still gdng on and Vy6sa alone is the narrator, who

has directly perceked it in his mind. Another point of contrast is ' m

mihaw '- which is concahred by the mind - cannot be recommended

as an exact equivalent to ' in a trance'. 'Trance' signifies tullness of

contemplation and inspiration without volition and 'm:m wm' is the

imagination of the mind. Still it has to be remembered that the mind of

VyEsa is not an ordinary one, but blejsed with the rarest faculty of

RTHva and Munitva simultaneously, having divine perception.

The next narratologkai point is the extent of a narrative text.

Genette's vi6w is that senimces like 'I walk'. 'Pierre has come' are

minimal toms of He writes:

"Since any n W e . even one as exhnrkre ond complex as Rech~~he, is a

linguidk production undeltaking to ten of one or several events. it is perhaps

kgltimate to trod it as the &v.kpnwnt rnondrour - U you will - given to a 'verbal'

form h the gramma!kd sonu ot the term ' the expansion of a verb'. " 23

The M h&Mimkr is an extensive and complex narrative, perhaps

the most extensive and most complex in the world. Now the question is

whether the hf&&~rot4 can come under this narratologkai possibility.

'an expansion of a verb'. This question can be answered in affirmative.

since H is known from many references that there was another name for

the epic ' ma ' - 'd -SF' .24 'ma' is the noun form ot the

rod ' f%T &nd' 25 and ' f%T d'. 26 Its first expamion is 'd WfKRit

And-again 'm: qi& mu:' is seen.28 - 'Wherever there is

d , there i s m ' and ' Wherever there is zpm , there is m'. The ethical

and didactic background of the epic points to the tact that the

MahBbMmto is an expansion or illustration of the verb 'cia'. Here there

is a controversial element that why should an extra-ordinary

stress be given on 'mu'. 'Id' and 'F W' are also there clubbed with

'm'. There also the possibility of 'the expanskm of a verb' can be

established. 'd' can be ckwlved trom the root 'w end' and 'TW'

from 'ip a f&%kid' But a norratdogist w l l be dannltely inclined to

'm' which appears very frequently in the epic. it serves as a 'narrative

code'. Genette recognises the idea of 'narrative codes'. They can be

general or appropriate to a particular genre or a particular work. These

codes can be deciphered more quickly by a reader with 'narrative

31 competence'. This narrative code 'm' is repeated on many

occasions and in many ways. First of all there is the repetition of the

invocatory verse ' =rmmi =wqm ' at the beginning of every panra.

The conclusive portion of the 6lokG is '& e.'. Then 'd

wM?mrdsq' , ' mum imimy m' ". 'm+i - immq aq: 34, then

the secret names of the P5flwZis during their life incugnito ( )

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ' 36 , then Yudhis!hir6's propitiation

o f G o d d e a s D u r @ - ' m ~ h m & ~ B jmazr 1 w d 3 M

16 , then ' ud erkwft m:' ", ' ua: ~ m r r a a i m:' ' m

'N%h'd *:' a 39, then again ' ud *: qiroit mi e r a f w d ma:' 'O.

then immediately otter the war ' wkm: zp d mi e d % d

isrrr:+', then Vyiisa himself repeating ' d ed?ad m:' '2. then the

final 1-nce ' ammit a h m y ' * . These are only a few direct

appearances of 'mu' and there ore many indirect ones a h . The war-

nonator Soiifaya has ' m' at the end of his name. King Janmmjoya,

me tistener to Soge VC&mptiyana, has o h 'au' in his name. 'im'

could be the victory of Dhana over Adham. It cWM be the victory of

an individual soul over AjGina or MZiya (from the @rihml point of view).

BtZt a norratdogicai invmtigdor with 'narrative comp.tcmce' witl never

fail to read the narrative signMcance of the word ' i d . Whenever the

narrator or the listener or the reader tends to loose its right, it surtaces

again and csgain in the ocean of the M- - - , keeping me rmrrathre

thread intact and protecting the narration from irrelraceable diversions.

More interestingly in ' z m qmlxach m:' , ' qm~' can be taken for the

name of Vyiisa. 'pw' is me name ol the sage, whereas P6rSarya,

Dvaip6yana. V y h , Satyovatisuta etc. are only the epilhets referring

to him. Then the meaning is 'Whenever and wherwer there is Sage

K!gr?a Dva@tiyana, them and then is the epic au also'. It should be

noted that %xu' is a narrattve code specifically given to the

Mah5bMfa& It is neither a general one, nor particular to a genre.

The idea of 'advance mention' proposed by Genette leads to Me

discussion of the 'narrme seeds' in the Mbh&?h&ata. 'Advance

mention' appears as an insignificant seed or even as an impercepiibie

element. Its importance as a seed will be disclosed only in the later

44 course of narration and that too retrospectively. The narrative

compdmce of the reader does not stop at reading the codes. but that

reodlng helps hlm in identifying the 'seeds'. 46 From this perspective, the

ilokiis of the first chapter:

ixikmt " qmit mmp:

=of: w& em- e m : I - pll?iT: y4w& T q d

?T)?i m eplq$srrsfhff I1

m* * w7Ljts*at?m+tsFu t m : I

!F-& iTq79

%% ~4 V m P J 1Id6

acquire narratdogicol importance. Nanatlvely speaking, two 'seeds'

have been sown here by the narrator 'FU' ( wrath ) and 'd' "

(righteousness). The first one V?T , which inflicts the tree ' cdwr ' . is the " "

root cause of the catastrophe. The second seed ' Urf' , the saving force,

is also there as a contrast to the destructive force of 'q'. The narrative

perfection d the M~h&~rotcr lies in this contrast. The narrative

progression of the epic is not a single-channeled one, but it is

dichotomised through the parallel branching out of the two trees of '-'

and 'd'. The previous metaphoric representation of the Ma~bh6mto

as a tree - '~~ mmzw:' stands over-ridden by the subsequent e

exposition d the seeds d 'm' - and 'mf'.

Bafthes speaks d three levels of story-telling i.e. the level d

functions (a function is a narrative unit with its own meaning), the level of

actions (characters) and the level d narration (discourse). These are not

separate, but they are a co-rektion of progressive integration. A function

is mearhghl only when it progresses into the lwel d action and an

actlon finds its real meaning when it is attached to the level d narration.

The essence d a function, continues Barn, is the 'seed' it sows in the

nanatlve, planting an element, that would come into fruition later." In this

view 'id?d - w=md - ...' is a functional unit of the Mo/r@bh6mta and its

essence lies in the seeds d ' ~ ( 7 ~ 5 ' and 'd'. So at the functional level

the seeds of 'wu' and 'd' ore sown and they sprout when related to "

the respective characters or actions (Me second level) and finally these

actions and characters achieve theh purpose when they are

communicated in a discourse ( the third level 1. For example the seed ol

'T', the root-cause of destruction, sprouts when it is related to

Duryodhana and his actions, poisoning hi ma, burning the PtinpctvCis in

the lac-house etc. The seed of 'd', the root-cause d all good, sprouts

through the character of Yudhif!hira and his actions - begging for

Nokula's #Ib when he was asked by Yakpa to choode the IWe d me ol his

bralhen and tho Hke:

wlqwn-4- =m52T?vsr .m a b q 1 "

I w a d equaWy h my mdhorh

MV rkpmanm Mi id i dso mud hav.

o ron. So Nakuk be hm@M back b sh.

Then tho nanatologicd In#efp&atbn of ' 9 4 ...' is that the

c o d of thb dichatomimd narrative prognrrkn of 'T' and 'd' is

incrcwrml whon the tree d Dhma is depicted or having thme roots - rp d BW v mmm - Krlna, Brohman ( the V& or me

RaaBy) and the Hhmins.

Tenro , Mood and Votce -- Now tho podbilitles of the narratologkd proposfflons d 'tome',

'mood' Md 'voice' are to be analysed. The temporal relation between

the nanolhre text and the nanotlve content (story) is meant by the term

'tenso'. One atmuid be very caretul here. shce modern narratology

offers shkt ~~ d analysk pertaining to 'tense'. The first caution

from Gmetb is that the temporallly of written narr-e is condnional,

since It k tho Inn needed for 'consuming' It. The time of a narrative text

is the time for 'crortlng' or ' t rming ' R like a nxrd or a field. Here there

is a dl(Acult problem that there is no proper reading time for the

~ - &

This is the lint appearance d t i or the concept d the temporal

6 dimenstan d the narrative. Here ' b the time d the 'sQMed'

(story), ' ma' is the time of the 'signitkr' ( discourse ) and ' wf8srr' is

the time or ternpofal perception of a reader as he conceives it horn the

text. Thk is ihe best possible nanalologkal explanation d ihe lim, wbkh

is found in the list d topics dealt wlth in the epic. (It would be absurd-to

think that the author of the MahtBMrato just wanted to introduce the

three layers or dhrbions d time). The narrative sequence of the epk is

pulled back to infinite past and pushed furward to the endless future and

being stretched through the present. This is a strict warning to those who

try to rcrdrict the time seqwnce of the epic into a specific time frame. the

life span d the PBpqiavCs and KauravCs.

But it can be argued that this is only the cosmological aspect d time

and not at all connected with the narrative of the Mob-m. Then

those may be referred to:

RRnMf:-rs: ~aor$mmtsF?r: "

mm: c*: e m : d

. q=clwcl-* 1 5 '

m : T i z h m i t tplehmi*: "

and again

Rrf3rdB: Fie yIf Fpjdwm au: - 3iRmirnxi* - R ~ * : i s J

mat an-powortul Sage Qyp Dvalpijyana.

with a ctean vi*on and undergoing tho

austerltkr d ponance and alwayr vigilant

nntmrdt or f%7d&!m ) did the wonderhrl

narrative d the M&Ef&&ahin ih

entirdy within a period ol three yeam.

Here ' m:' ( three years )cannot literally mean that the sage wrote it

in three years or he conceived it in three yean. Here the cosmological

three-dimensional time ' @ rmi HfBad' is brought to the mundane

level a( the narration of the epk and thereby within the range of the

human conception of time. Here is the remark of Paul Ricceur:

" ... time k c m r human to the extent that it h aftkuldod through a narrative

mode and 'narmtlve' attahr its full mranhg when it kcomer a condmon of

hmporal oxbtence. 944

In the saki 6lok6s the epithets Sakta, Prabhu , Bhagav6n show that

only Sage Vy6sa is capable ol rendering the phenomenal time in actual

time of narrative, which human beings can perceive. Then '&&'

and ' %d@87~'- always vwbnt - show that be was always eager to

hokltigMMe~ethreadrdMeepicagoindMemmpa~oftime.

In ancient Indian nanathres, the concept d time is extremely

deceptive, skrce the natmtion comprises of events not d days, months,

yean of cenlwb, but d 'Yugtis ' . anva van tar&' and 'KO@&'. Even

the most competent reader will get contus6d when he faces the problem

of time. The corrhtdon gets more entangJed when the events are related

in dkcoume wilh a different time scheme. For exam-. The Vir&opawa

ofme- - -

deals with Me 'ajfGbv5sa' d the P6p@vi% in Viriita

kingdom, the duraWan at which is one year. When it finds its discourse

form in Me nanatlve, H is spread over seventy-two chapters. But the war

of jusi eighteen doys is prolonged to tour paw& ~hiyna, Drqa, Kama

and h a and more than 460 chapters in its discursive elaboration. So a

comprehmsbe conception d the ochml time d the mated events and

the tinte of thsir narration is tatally impowible. Here Genette's view of

'pseudo-lme' ot the written nanalive is the d y resort.= If this is the usual

case d ordinary nanaiives, much deeper will be the temporal chaos d

Me great epic of InscnrtaMe length.

Bathes argues that Aristotefian contrast d tragedy (defined by lhe

unity of action) and h i i c a l narrative (defined by tho plurality ol actions

and unlty of time) is to give primacy to the logical over the

chronologica~.~ And nanatdogical analysts today tends to

'dechrondoglte' the narrative continuum and to 'relogicise' it. " So the

confusion over tho factual (actual) time is replaced by the flcthre time in

narrallve to tind it8 own loglc. Conthues Barthes :

" ll b tot n e e to ascount tot nandhro tima." 58

It is the ffedom d the author or narrator to readjust the tempofalily into a

( i c t i i tfmporafity, which ofmates in its own logic. In this way, Me

actual time of the &?hugmat G ~ M is to be 'dechrondogised' and

'relogklsed' to find Its narrative thne. Not only the ~ i . but all such

instances are to be perceived in tMt method.

Apad form the said ' 9 slfaai' . repeated references d the

'omnipokmttalily' of time can be seen in the first chapter itsek

m ~ d ~ ~ 1 1 - mm: pl% p f 3 mm: m:

dw=cim:rnnii ~ m : t d 11

m d 63 F& ~rmr;[ d d i b p , p r p , ~

mm: d: mm f&pd m: - I I

mm: and3 mmi f& e x : - aim:* @ .?. wmEq~~: -:I\

3m%mmar: rrmr:a a -dzfRmm-q

~ r n m f M 5 w m -7i M S T @ R T I I ~ ~

Tim k the root of cdl these; BhSa and Abh5va ;

Sukha and Dukha . T i credos and destroys everything.

h b t h e . d e u o d a o f h h u a n d ~ .

~ ~ ~ g M o ~ c n d ~ a g d =

~only-enmy,-kwFs

v -mrymhg. I r~hd.opm

hrdgnrarpanewereachard

-*-parra.

~ b d n g r ~ l h . p c n t , ~ c n d M . e

a e ~ t h e r n ~ a t ~

andknorrhgthkyoushwldnolboapuswm.

These ore the words d Saiijaya to Dhjar6ptm. From tho narraltve point of

view. ihese lines: ' rn- d ...' inviie a nonotobQicol ancllyrt tor

an intuesnng interpretation. ' m m ' dso means 'black' which is

generalty cbnded by the word ' p =m ' in Sanskrit. Thk semantic

resemblance gives a hint that ' m m ' is the very some ' PQf ', the

outha 01 me epk. Then ' rnmwafk - Kd' con be red to mean that the

'all-embacing imaginathre mind ol Sage K!p?ra is lhe root d this

narrative'. 'm. m*. ' - all these thtng6 or beings, nonathrely

9 the charactem and events, are nbthing but the crealion d ' m m ,

i.e. 'p~or ' . This apprwch k in harmony wilh me previous ' pw'

and ' wmr rnfhma a'. H e r e the author identilying himsel with ' mm'

the time, has hied to establish his supreme authority, hanscendentolity

and sovereignly over his narrative. Once again Vyaa proclaims (off-

fiction). 'I know it, becawe I am moking it up'. ' lhe klbh&h&mb from

t M s a ~ , c c l n b e v i e w d a s a n ~ d t h e M e o d b ~ e with

an ormtrclent narrator' or ' vision from behlnd' (zero racafbation), wm

61 none d its characters as the focus of the nonation. Eut the p r a m

again comes up whelhm V y W , the aultwt, can appear ako in the garb

of nandar. Thh quastran wanants a ddaHQd examhwtion to be carried

out later.

So a reader, erp.ciolfy d a cbsicd narrative like the

- - is lett with no option other than to mdte out hi own

' ~ t o m p o m W y ' of the text. This ‘pseudo-tsmporo(lty' is that

nanalive technique, whkh allows the narrator to atMbute aU kinds a!

temporal d)stortions. These temporal distortions are not only the undue

expomdon of some event or dialogue of IitHe impotfunce at that

particular point d the story, but also rigid controctioM of more important

and relevant events. An exceltent example d tampcud didortion in the

Muht56Mrodo k the eighteen-chapter pMtotopMccrl dialogue beheen

K!)l?a and Arjuna b m w d as the 'Bhagavat ~ i m ' . It occurs just betore

the c ~ c e m e n t of the war. Many scholan believe that it cannot be

the recounting of a true event, since such a prolonged and time-

consuming dkcugion would not have taken place in a battlefield. But

nanatdoglcally it is the freedom d the narrator to expand the gist of the

speech betweon K!qy and Arjuna into any lenglh. There are two more

86

ternpod distortioM i.e. anticipatury and rehospective statements,

which Gemtte would call 'proleprb' and 'and.psk' respacWe4y.

Anllclpalkn or 't.mpoKII prd.pair' is Ihr, evoking in advance an went

that 16 to M e pkce kter. Rebospection or 'bmpcutd anakpuir' k any

evocalion after the tact d an went that took place eaMr me point in

the story. '~6pse' in Greek means ' the fact ol taking'. 'Lipse' m n r 'the

fact d kKnrkrg out, poo~ing by wibout any mention'. 'u T h e n when an

0rdmoryrsodslcomss~meJlOk~

Ixi *: mor: q f h l f a *:

- . f h k + % T T I W w S i q 11"

~ h u s ~ , ~ ~ a n c l f d t u r i ~ s d

t o k i l t h a c ~ 6 s b y r r a n r l m d t m d s .

the reader will faM a prey to contusion. Because thb 6lok5 appears

among Me description d the childish pranks ol Me KauravCS and

P&p$ov* Duryodhana conspired by hknrdf to kill hi ma by poisonfnO

Kama and Sakuni have not made their tkst appearance at dl at this pdnt

ol time in the course d the stary. The particle 'TI' whkh ollerr the

meaning of past tense only intenMies the confusion. But a

nanoWoglcolly aware reader would read It as a 'temporal pmkpsis'

applied by the narrator.

Regarding the 'temporal analepsi$' all episodes ('upiikhyiinCS'),

which are nomxrlly narrated in rehobpection, may appear to be

anakptkal. But the episodes, which have no direct rdafion with the main

theme cf the M r h 6 b h m , cannot be taken into account. For example,

V&mp6yana narrates the episodes d 0u)yanta and Ya@tl, alter the

pr0p.r s#ading point cf the story: ' udvf%d am'." But these episodes

do not have any direct connection wlth the main stream of the story as

such. But the episode of Dro~6's birth, hio education, hi hosffliiy against

King DNpada etc. are recounted by Vaihmpiiyana retrospecfiveiy

65 according Janarnejaya's request. Th is retrotpecfion has a direct

connochion wilh the main story and hence it b a 'temporal analepsis'.

Then there are 'Explicit ellipses' and 'Implicit ellipses'. 'Explicit

ellipses' arise from an indication (definite or not ) of the lapse d time they

elide which assimiates them to very quick summaries of 'some

years passed' type. 66

'Explicit el#pses' can arise from elision pure and simple ( zero

degree d me elliptical ted ), plus. when the narrative starts again, an

67 indication of the time elapsed, like 'two yean later . So I a certain

period elapses wlth a clear indication or not, between two points d story,

it is 'eXplicit snips-'. When t i is read:

rnmRmu m m miwzt - ulWax - Tiqm @m=eei * zfamwe* I I 6'

Then alter certain period ( d months or years ) .

Y- mnwmberhg th. wa6 ot

w w ( + ) r p c d r s t h = . - .

it can be notad that It is expkll eHLpr)s d the 'some yean possed' type.

type d 'expikit ellipsis'. Then chapter 137 d the &-wa ends with the

compWan of ~ro@'s revengo agninst King Dnrpoda. Chapter 138 starls

as:

lhusdlho.ndoftheyea, Ywhi@hka,

t h e s c m o f ~ . was-ncd

- ashitkirbyKingW@aogba.

Here %am&' indicates that one complete year has elapsed after

the evenb of the previous chapter. This is the 'explicit elliprir' of 'two

yean lclter' type. 'Implicit ettiprres' are More 'whose presence is not

announced in the text and which the reader can infer only from some

chrondogicoi lacuna or gap in narrative continuity'. For example, the

whole d the Udyogaparva of ninety-slx chapters. does not give any hint

d the lime taken for the events in it. The preparation d war on both

sides, Saiijaya's arrival as a messenger d Dhparva, Viura's

prolonged advice of D h m m , ~ r i ~fsna's jwmey to the capital of the

Kuriis as the messenger etc. are narrated in the Udy~gapa~a. But it is

inferred from the chrondogical lacuna that a considerable time has been

consumed by these events. Thus is an 'lrnplicn ellipsis'. Then there are

the repetnkms of events not only in the Mah&bht3&, but dmolit in all

Pwiin6s and lflh&&. Nanatolagkts would prefer to term these repetmons

'narrative frequency'. For exampte, the story d the birth of Sage Vyaa

is w e n in a concise tom by Sauti in two i loktk

wi-cmm u mrdt a d : vji .s m r ~ i q

m e m u m 4 f4msPq 11

mam'3W a: m: ?hmaquq

-&emi?md v a n s [ -. -err: i I '' The same story is repeated by Sage VaihmpZiyana in chapter 63 wlth

more details." Genette obsewes that rnaierially (phonetically) or even

ideally (Ilnguisticatly) these recurrences are not exactly identical. By

virtue of their co-presence and succession, they get diversified as the

first, the next and the last." In all such instances, as mentioned, the

events have been 'dechronologked' and brought to the logical rhythm

of the nonative. This is a classic teature of the epics either of the East or

of the West. Genetie shows that the three great epics of the West the

I#@ the Odyssey and the Aene/d begin with a sort of anticipatory

summary. Thk /usimes, adds Genelie, the Todorovion concept d Homeric

9 75 Narrative i.e. 'plot of pre-desttnation .

Since time and space are always mentioned together, lt is only

natural to conckler the spatial dimension too. But the narratobgkts almost

reject tho spatial cons^ for obvious reasons. Genette says that a

story can be told wlthout saying where t i happens and whether this pkce

is mom or less distant from the venue of narration. But it is almost

I ~ b k not to connect the story and its narrating act to time. And a

story is indlspemably related to a three-dimensional time i.e. the past,

present and future." Consequently the temporal dimensions are more

77 important than the spatial dimensions. In the light of these conclwiont.

the spatial dimension of the M ~ h & ~ r d a does not make a topic for

discusion. Nonetheless, some hints can be seen, whkh point to the

'omnkpatiolity' of the narrative text of the MaMWMo, and not of the

narrative content (story):

R'elTmmid ?I " &mEb *. MwRJXerrhiir ww&J *@I I

F i i i 8 l m d ~ Illiwmq 1170

The text of the epic is about 30 lakh verses among the Devh. 15 lakhs

among the Mrs. 14 lakhs among the Gandha~6S and one lakh among

the human beings. Beyond these numbers, the implication here stretches

to the four-dimensional spatialty d the Moh&bh6roto, contrasted wlth the

three-dlnnnsionai temporality. (it could be a remote hint of the 'four%-

dimension' of the epic.)

Mood

The next b the nanatological category 'mood'. It is generally

dofind as the madd#kt d narrative reprosmhtkm." It has to be

clearly und6&md what exactly 'mood' mwns in terms d modem

nurraldogy. A narrator can tdl more or tdl less what he wanb to tell, and

according to onc point af view or another. These variatitms d n a m e

represmtdon and W i r apefalive methods come under the cd.gory of

'mood'. The narrator's amtuda whelhef he gives mare or le9 details.

whether he gives those detaik in a direct way or other, are the deciding

factofs af the narrative 'distance' that the narrator keeps.m Again a

palticular character or a group characters in the stocy can have dilferent

degrees of knowledge and this determines the character's 'vision' or

'point d view'. Consequently the story can be presented through

dlffennt 'perspectives' of dilhent participants of characters. Hence

these two 'dkrtcmce' and 'pempective' are nanatdogiccltly ddgmted

as the two aspects d the category 'm~od'.~' Gsnette further cautions

about a possible confurion between Me second and third categories

'mood' and 'voice'. When 'mood' is assessed, the question is 'who is

the character, whase point of view orients the narrative perspective?'.

And regarding the 'voice', it is the question d 'who is Me narrator ?'.

Putting it more precisely and simply, 'mood' is related to 'who sees ?'

' 82 or ' who percelvea 7'. ' voice' is the qwstion of 'who speaks? .

Considering W e directions and avoiding confusion, an analysis of the

' m o o d ' o f t h e ~ - - is attempted here.

Wtien the question d the 'distance', the narrator has kept in the

epic, comes up, the chief concern is the two (or m e ) narrating

situations of the epic. The tint situation is the tradmonai Purenic narration

at Naim&hnya, where Sauti the Pur6nk narrator narrates the s t w to the

sages. This can be termed the extra-dlogetic narrative level. The

peculiartty of an extra-diegotic narrative iwel is that the firsl narrator A,

here Souti, who is not a character in the story, produces another intra-

diegetic level d narratlon. In this intra-diegetic level a chc~racter B

himelf assumes the role of narrator. Here Sage V y b ~ , who is a character

in the narratlon of Sauti, presents himself in the role of a second narrator.

This is authenlicated by me line: ' dRr xkmm?~'." There hi narratee is

Lord Go&. who takes dawn the words of Sage Vy&a. it could have

been very well gumsed that Sage Vyasa it the real author-narrator of the

epic and just because he wants to adhere to the norms of Purenic

narration, he has introduced the tirst narrator Sauti. But the real puzzle

becomes more hay when the narrating situation of the same story

emerging in the sixtieth chapter of the xdipawa, is comidered. There d

King Janameiaya requests Sage Vyasa to narrate the story, since he had

been the eye-witness of what had happened to the Kaurovh ond

P6ndovZis:

m3ranq -. m. -. 1

mamrsiaur & I I "

There Vy6so's response WQI:

~eorbrsdhirdriivdbmpayona. - seated m, to numte it.

Thus o third narrator Sage Vohp6yana emerges. Fo#orring GeneRe, it

can be presented thus:

When lhe 'distance' of the narrator is thought d, the disquieting question

is the 'dbkmce' of which narrator? Sauli? or Vy&a? or V a i i e d n a ?

or Saiijop? or...? Sauti can be ruled out because bohg lhe common

narrator d many a l h e r Pur&&, he does not have anylhing special in lhe

Mofr&k%&?. In a way Vadampiiyana alto can be removed because

d his remark:

-S;T:-* 1'"

mehrpkalknd.lhred(romihep.rsnced

myGuu a'dhisbshedencoumgernyrnlnd

' 4: - -'- the vibration of the lips d my Guru - is enough to

indicate that VyW himself speaks through the mouth d hi diitple.

VaiSampClyana is only a mouthpiece. In both cases i.e. in the case of

Souti or that of Vdamp6yana, V y h has refrained himel from direct

narration. The reoson could be that he appears as a character on many

occasions. T h e whale epk has been moulded in the mrrMx of third

penon nomotive and that is why Vyfiw does not want to speak about

himel in the lint person.

Another posaibilify is the quastion of a motive 'without a narrator'.

Geneite speaks d and analyses this possWMy as shown by Ann Banfield

in her 'Unspeakable Sentences'. In such a state, characters and events

appear to speak or show themselves 'not uttered by anyone'. Genelte

rejects this porstbility because the narrothre discourse should have an

enunciding instance i.e. the narrating with 'a matof and a narmtee'. It

is an act d communication. Narrating wilhout a nanator is pure illusion. W

In the cmsbm concept also the narration of the P- and IIihW are

conducWd in the f m of 'Sariw5da'. It shouM have a giving end i.e. a

narrator or ( -1 ) and a i i or ( hl ). So the possibility d the

charackn and events of the AkrhGbMWo rhowing or telling themselves

cannot be thought of. So It must be said that when the Munltva, the

essence d which is silence, dominates the personality of Sage V y h , he

is reluctant to speak. Then he speoks through omen. When m a , which

urges him to speak, takes control, the sage k seen in the role of narrator.

The 'narrative distance' falls into varied degree. This degree is

narratologicdly determined by 'rhesis' i.e. character's discourse or

narrative d words and 'diegesis' i.e. narrator's discourse or narrative of

eventsw The ancient contrast of 'diegerk/rnimwis' promoted by Pkrto

and Arbtdle, when app l i i to modem narratdogy, would lead to the

bifurcation d 'narratlve d events' and 'narrative of words'. '' ( D i b is

pure narration and Mimesis is the direct imitatian d events). In the

narrathre of words, me speech of characters is reproduced by the

narrator. The general method in the Pur5pCis and ItfhCisiis, is to imitate

directly not only the speeches, but the thoughts and feelings also ot the

the head d %am'. The words of Vyba to Lord Brahma in the first chapter

of the epic:

q5Fisb-i ¶imiq rmm?[mmrq wi$m-qin

are without ' mwr m '. These words are directly imitated by Sauti. But

Lord ~rahmij's reply is under the head ' iwham ' and it is also

mimetically represented by Sauti. And the thought of Vyijsa

'a% emwmmh fPwr;[' '' - How can I teach this nanative to my

disciples ? - is also dlrectly imitated by Sauti. In such imitations, the

narrator doer not want to intrude into the innermost mind of the

characters. Theretore, he keeps considerable distance, the 'narrathre

distance'. Gewlte's words also are to be taken Into account that in

'epic'. 'story'. 'novel ', 'noveiia', etc. i.e. in purely fictive narration, it is

only a pretense to reproduce the thoughts and speeches of Me

characters. Really these thoughts and speeches are produced from the

fictive imoginolion of Ww narrator.'' in fact Me wards and thoughts d

Vy6sa are only the imagination of Sauti according to the nanatdogical

standpoint.

T b e is yet another highly interesting ( l not confusing), proposition.

Was Vyesa. the super author-narrator, trying to imitate his own words and

thoughts indirectly through the direct imitation of Sauti and thereby trying

to keep the maximum possible distance?. If so, what was his purpose?

These queslons olter a strong challenge to an analyst who traverses the

path of modern narratdogy. 1 he manages to find a solution. it would

amount to the disclosing of Vym's myrtbtious role in the epic. Genette

recognh the complexmOs of narrc~tive representation proposed by

N m n Friedman, who speaks of the two types d ornnlscient narrating

with or without 'authorial intrusions'. 95 SO Vyaa's omniscient narrating

with 'authorial intrusions' is acknowledged by modern narratologists. But

the problem is that he never speaks a single word in the whole epic in the

capacity d the author. Even the first person singular ' md JnmsmR' is

dragged to a distant d i m o n by souti's ' zaaRmurq' -'thus he

96 thought'. So 'd 8%' - I know - also looses its first person nature

because of the previous ' mg w,' " - 'Thus said Sage

~vaip6yana'. ' 3d dfb' may be the indication of his omniscience, but

not an open authorial intervention. Whenever he appears as a character

in me story, he comes to the frame of the 'first person narrating 1 - 98 witness', another suggestion by Friedrnm. Even in the narration of

~y6sa's own birth in the sixtieth chapter of the Adipa~a, it cannot be

believed Mat he is speaking about himself. These are the iiokas:

Tf s l c l i w - t a m r " m F R = b s = h d

* s & CPM ~~ a *its*. I

mi zhu=ft * TlmaRri Vllem,

~ h e g . l f h g c o n r e r d h o m h i r ~ ,

t o d c a k m ~ t o & p . n a r r e .

H e t o l d h . r i h d ~ ~ t l e

* rouk ldnnwHnwl ( tohoc .Thurhr~

h a d h i s b L I h b y ~ T f r o m F u a a a .

~ i h e b o y w a 8 p l o c e d h a n i r b n d ,

- heiducanetobekno*masmdpayam.

These words cldinitely came out trom a persun who has a vague and

remote knowledge d ~ y a ' s birth. Here alro there is a Rnrt penon

SingUkr -' - I shall show rnysdf -, but wrlh no better result

because of the subsequent a 3 h s d q ' - thus he told hi mather. So

as and when the first person creeps into the narrothre, Vyiita is eager to

jump out of the subjectivity of his personal thoughts and feeiings. It can

be put thus : Applying highly intricate and complicated technique d

narration (perhaps uwxplored hitherto), Sage V y h speaks through

either Sad, or Va&ampZiyana, or Saiijaya, or some other nanator to fuMll

the asplroiions d Rihra, yst not diluting the essence d Munihra.

Another poulbility is whether Vy6w can be brought to the concept

of 'lrnpliod Author'. Gene* rejects the idea d 'impkd author' as an

actual nanothre agent between the real author and the narrator. Yet he

recognises the idea, 'fhe Image of the real author'. He cltes the words of

Wayne C Booth, the creator of the idea. in Booth's view 'the implied

author is an implicl picture of the author who stands behind the

scene'.lm Genetto again quotes Mieke Bai, who argues that 'the implied

101 author ... is the imoge of the overall subject . This is to be discussed in

detail later. Ceneiie finally takes some relW in the tertirnony of Prwst,

who says,

"A book is tho product 01 a 'difbmnt wlf' ( a wcond wW Booth would say) trom the

're# ' , manb8t.d in habits. h social h, in vker etc."

On the basts of this Proustian assessment, it can be said that V y h who

wrote the kbon5W-rata was a 'different self', a Rsi . compassionate

and sympathetic, dmerent from his own ' self ', a Muni, established in

transcendental silence. ' ' - an island - symboiises an isolated

exisience and ' awhi ', the ant-hill, a covering trom the eyes of

ordinary people. Hence the symbolism of 'btu' of ' Zkwi ' and

'&' of ' ?n'&%' could be the symbol of this supreme aloofness of

silence. Vyiisa's dkappearance from the scene on many occasions is

connected with ' tmq' (penance)- ' m d a h d' lw, 'm

p.il-wf'M, 'mfhm wmm:' I" are some ot the e x a m . ' 7mq' means

the withdrawal of all the senses into the 'self', to that supreme state of

silence. Vyiisa is sometimes addressed a ' fb~' or ' f&iihw'. It could

be takon as the two lev& of hi6 existence and ako as the 'difference in

Gefaid Rhce suggests many varieties d 'distance' - temporal.

physical, httmlbdual, moral and the 11ke.'~' But 'narrative dbtance' is the

main concern. For what purpoee Vy6sa hat kept such a dlttance? It can

be answered Mat the 'dlllerence in self ' implies that it is a 'spiritual

distance'. Thus In a way. It agrees wnh the varieties al 'dktance'

prapomd by Gerakl Prince.

Next it the question of 'perspective' or 'vision' or 'point d view'. It

also come, und6r the head ot 'mood'. It is the questton d 'who sees?' or

108 'who perceives? . Through which character's vbion or perspective

does the nanation progress? Thk is the sole quesiion here. It is a great

punk when applkd to the wb/rdmfrr, Since none of the characten

has bean shren the focus d narration. Weabr is the puzzle, when Vy-

enters the third plcme of his p.rrondity i.e. also as a character. This 'a

character' be# is dubious, for, hi 'character' is also a rnuffl-faceted

one. Soms#mes he appears as the father of Dhftarwa, w u and

Vidura; (the grand father of the P&)+vGs and KaurwGs); sometimes as a

i 1

peHect sogo; sometimes as a casual observer a

. relevant quddion is:

You olocn have perceived directly.

So w t r d w e r be the nature ol hb 'character' only VyZita possesses the

knowledge In nt entirety or the direct experience ot the events. So from

the narrathre paint of view, the first preference is to try VyBsa as the focus

of percsptlon. Here there is a relevant quotation, which has been

brackehd and Included in the South Indian tradition:

e dsveuq Kds;aa: I "' Entow the Yoga M e . he perceived werything

wmin himself by the power of knowledge.

The previous 'm r n f h i m 7 ' may at first seem to support this. But the

dltlerence is that 'm mfP9ara' denotes that he was conceiving

through what all levels his narration should proceed; while 'dssenq

Kds?aa:' means he dlrectty perceived whal actually happened. Again

It can be seen in the concluding chapter:

*?,=&re* - m a p I 'I1

Having perceived through divine viaion.

Genette proposes three formulae here : (1) Narrator > character

(the omniscient narrator knows much more than the character and

hence it Is a 'vision from behind' as Pouillion calls it ) (2) Narrator =

character (the narrator says only what a wen character knows and

hence 'vldon with' ) and (3) nanator < chamcbf ((he norrotor saw less

than tho character knows and hence 'viskm trom wlthaut ' ).I1' Doubtless

it is. ~y6sa's perception sulk mostly with the first propaMan. This is ako

caUed non-tocal&ation or z e r e f o c a l i i in madom nanatdogy."' It

should be with groat c a m to pursue Vyesa's perspective d the story,

since Mo 'character' cannot be delimited to a parlicularfy penonafised

indhriduaMy. He is an obdkmt son and oboerver d D h m when his

mother engages him in producing progeny for the sake d hi brother by

'Rrrh':

awm%-. a-Jt@aumnsq

e % k = i f t m R w t t r ~ ~ . ~ .

WEJ: azrrmFtr i 3 m m o r z i t : m . II 11'

He is a powerful king-maker and thereby the decider d the fate d

Bhorata V&, when he proclaims in a pcophek mood:

E%~WIFJ:W - a=paq 3~a ~r;er r r a 1 1 1 5

Butbythedruabacko(themdher,

theprhcetobebanrrillbeblhd

On the next occasion, V y h takes Me rob of a super physician, as

he comes to know that ~ZindMri had lost her patience and disastrou~ly

crushed the foetus and the resuit was a piece of flesh. The sage

prescribes an extra-ordinary treatment i.e. to prepare hundred pots of

ghee and to wakrr the piece d flesh, which will gradually be divided Into

a hundred pkces. Then thew, pieces are to be kept in hose palr of g m

wTfF'=e--.

z?$!za * m*faeftrrrrrq

a &~TIZTI I~ '"

' e ' r n a a n r me grinder d the griMhg stone and hen, the piece d

flesh in the shape d the grlnd6f d the grinding stone is meant.

Vy- k just a narrator like any othew R@, when he narrates the story

of Piincai's previous wrth and points out mat she is me dhrlneiy ordained

wife d the P m i S s :

fal-zta sradi & igxwr ~ 1 1 "

The sage then exhibits himsell as a supreme judge of Dharma, who

delivers the verdlct only after a hearing from all partles:

fasIaa3 i3k&eh&

In mk coni rov~d m a

(of a rroman becoming the wi(e of-- m),

* b -w the SCriphrd ifl)ufldbttE

andurud~cur tomt ,1rvant tohw

komeachcndeverymanwhowmktobehead.

When he tails to convince Drupada. Vyciw bleott h i with divine

vision by which Drupado real- the divine nature d lhe PWCIV* and

~6ncEili:

=a;svT-.

~~~:~

* d 3Rm

-.mm*mari#dbn,

DrupaQkndbdor,nleunol

s a i y a d a n d d d - ' O S u p r w n e ~

mgadngyou il isnotaworder'.

Here V y h shows himself as the divine aufhcnily d hi characten and

events.

In his next appearance in Sabh@panra, Vy* maker a prediction

to YuUhbthira:

-wit mqa-mmt -a 4&1

33Z.f- - %elma

~ m n o i ~ ~ ~

* a mi erri uRuf%izrrm

0 Kingl only browfa of yw the whole

k@riycl roM nRI be doomed dm

lhirteenyeamosihererJIof)heoeil~.

Vy&a is an affectionate, but irnpaMal advisan and well-wisher d

Khrg -, when appears in the eighth and ninth chapters d the

vanaparva:

?an@ 3 q : w o g im@*s*lJ3i5

f&ma - aamzs: +bT&tq *. I 12'

o w = d m v c ~ ~ . ~

andVWRareequdtome.Iklyw

thb out ot my alkction for you.

in the very next chopter, he cleverly avoids any direct instruction to

Duryodhana. although requested by the king. The sage knom that it wiU

end wlM a curse and he leaves it to Saga MaiIreya.

Another of Vyiisa's curious appearances, which invites special

care, is in the second and third chapters of ~hipwpawa. The war is

about to commence and the sage, after having a look at the armies.

appears as the Lord himseff:

m: d Q 3 e. =%a d g a wlaF@:

: a?uadkm: - I t P

He discloses his divinity wHhout any reservation and is prepared to Mess

Dh!tar@lra wHh divine vision, if he wished to see the M e . Perceiving

the reluctance of the king, the sage bequealhs dlvine vision of a high

or- to Saiijoya and appoints him as the special narrator of the war. T h e

sage then speaks of the two entities ' m' (tear) and 'm' and their

vislbte omens. He concfudQl his speech with the warning that the krrger

army need not o.cclssarily bring victory:

=I -d=mr:d wafa elzelw: IIU

His next appcKuance in lhe Drqaparva rn a phibopher is also

in- He conies when Yudhighim laments over the dealh d

Abhimanyu. V y k convinces Me king d Me inwitabUity of deolh with

many omcdobs pmlongd to abaut twenty ch~pters.'~

Vya's next appearance is with Saga M a beiween the

devostdhg fire spreadii out of the two mitriks (Brahmdiras) d

Ir jwaNhh5 and Arjuna. He ordw Arjuna to withdraw his missile. Then

VyZka purbhes A 6 w a M by making him surrender hi crest-jewel.

This is a m ot the rare contexts, where the two K~nZir, ~ r i Krsna and Sage

Krsna Dv-ana come together:

mo2mrParfzr aMEi ZTiqiFa s.?lfkw:

gmdwa=i ih =m$ a e. I

It is a million dollar quodon which one among these appeammes d

Sage VyZka ( and among thore, which are not mentianed here ) is the

most reliable one and subject to the analysis d the focus d perception.

When a reader starts concentrating on a particular feature among the

plurality ol hi rde, Sage V y h evasively moves to some another feature,

making an Illusion d focus.

Explorklg the possibilities of heterodiegetic (narrator absent in the

story) and homodiegotic ( narrator pmmt as a character ) types.

Gbnet). observes that absence is absolute but presence has degr6es.

So in v c type, where the narrator is present in the story, he

can be &?her the hero or playing a minor role, which always will be the

role of observer and wltnes~.'~' But VyT#a, no doubt, is not the hero,

illustrates himself in many more roles than those of the observer and

wltneu. Here il is to be noted that he has transgressed the limits of

analywal ingenuity of modern narratologish. Not only the various

fedum of his appearances, but the other characters are atso enveloped

in an Hfutory focalization. According to ~ n e t t e the idea of 'focaliier'

and 'focaltzed' introduced by Mieke Bal, cannot be approved as such.

He says:

'For ma. there b no focaliig or tocaked character : focdfred can be appiiid only

to the natdive itww. " 12'

This is what happens in the M a b ~ - l o f a as tar as the character

tocatbation is concerned. Only the narrative and nothing else is

focalized. Regarding the 'focaiizer', tt is nobody other than the person

who tocalk- the narrative. To be more pntcise, the narrator himself at his

will focakes. Genette conciudes that it one wanted to go outslde the

convention of fiction, the author himself delegates (or does not delegate)

to the narrator the power of focalization or not With this

narratological assumplion it ir to be admitted that VyW has m d

the power of focalization to Sauti, Vadawyana and SaiiiaVa. They

have carried out this authorisation from their supreme m d e ~ in such a

way that a r&r is entitled to make hls own choice. For example, Sautl

has assigned a temporary tocallration to Dh!tar@tra, who epitomizes the

story content d the epic in the very first chapter. This was done after

Sauti inmat- the narrating instance d the serpent sacrifice and me

conversation d Vy&a and Lord Ganeia. In the serpent wcMce lhe

same story content is repeated by Valiampiiyana.

Gemlte disapproves the theory d 'pure tranttocalkaHon' where

the same story b repeated tnxn several points d vieWhls carld be an

instance d 'transfocalhation'.'" From Stanzel speaks d a narrator

functioning as the d o t o r between the author and the reader and

between the story and the reader. And this narrator has to Mtil cettain

mediating tunctlon~.'~~ It can be assumed that in rMrrhoblronrto - -

Swti

or V a ~ ~ a n a or Saiijaya plays the role c4 the medbb in hrm. Their

main rnedia(lng luncfion k to shift the focus c4 perception from one

character to another to as to keep the entirety d focakafkm on the

narraWve HseW. Another d their functions, especially d ~athm@Yana, is

to sub-delegab the power bestowed by W r Guru to other narraton.

These functions vary from narrathre to narrative. Some subsequent

dramatists have Med Duryodhana and Karqa ( m ' s ~ ~ & a and

- K u q u M t m respectively) as the focus of dramatic presentation. T h i i

process can go endless, since the characters of the epic ore of such an

at)rwrlrhtng variety and abundance. In all such cases the nanathre

contknnrm of ttm epic is premved, but wtttr a s M n g tocut. However.

there k no queskm of focus d perception in the AWwMomb - -

anditka

vain pursuit to ind if. V y h , as the 'metamwotor', controls and manages

the pmmmsqp of his appointed subordies souti, Vai5oWyana.

Saiijaya etc. at the level ot narration. At the level d action. VyZisa, the

dynamlc 'metocharacter', emerges froin the greenroom from time to

h e k lmpect, regulak and dirbct the perfatnuance of his characters.

T h i i has rendered the Muh&h@c& the peerless narrathre transcending

time.

voice - Considering the question of 'voice', Paul Ricoeur obsewes :

"ltirrdh.ramdkrofingleAnc)DnoonidmdAantrrpd@Wmt~ 'M

d v k r r ' - t h e ~ ' l r a n w h o r e r r e ~ ~ h 3 h o m t o u r b y i h e

kactdb.hgncnd.dl' Hono6Aanw)wwebomp.dring?'. ' V n i c e ' ~ M e

qmdtar. 'who h rprdrlng hem?'." '=I

'Paint of view' and 'voice' ace only two dinerent aspects of the same

functtan 'speaklng'. But there is the subite dWterence 'from where ?' and

'who?' . Taking this subtle element for granted, the third nanotologicol

category 'voice' is to be analysed. In Genette's view alto if has been

specM.d that 'voice' is the question of 'who speaks?'. He points out that

0 9 the impenoncll statements like 'Water bdls at 100 c are to be clearly

distinguished from the personal utterances lke 'For a long time I used to

go to bed early'. These personal utterances can be interpreted only with

respect to Me 'person' who utters it and the 'situation' in which he utters

it.I3' SO it is to be recognbed that the question of 'voice'- who speaks -

involves two aspects i.e. the 'person' and the 'situation'. Genette adds

that the subject to which the action of the verb is related, is not only the

person who carrier out or submtts to the action, but also the person (the

same one or another) who reports it. Genette flnaliy reaches the

conclusion Mat these people who participate in narrating activity can be

, 133 included in the range d the term 'person . So in a broader sense, the

situation in which a narrator, a narratee and the diiourse between them

are c-, is to be considered. Quotlng Benviniste, Genette reminds

that instead of the analysis of statements, the analysis of relations

between these statements is sought after, which generates an instance

9 134 called 'enunciating . The 'enunciating' has its paratiel in norfatology

9 135 'narrating . The relations of the statemnts are determined or revealed

by the analysis of the triad 'narrator' , 'narratee' and their discourse.

Franz Stanzel makes a shrewd comment in this connection. He writes:

"The madacy of prarsntatiin of the narrative text provlder the latitude for the author

in whkh he can dew an appr-e form for the transmission of each story."

Thk mediacy is defined at the 'voice' of a narrator, whenever a fact is

reported or a piece of news is conveyed.137 This obrervation rakes a new

chamgo. An endeavour to anaiyse a new facet d ~yijta's personality,

perhaps nd thought d so far, i.e. as the 'designer' of the appropriate

form of tho transmission of the story of the MuMbhd&, is to be made. it

is to be recognited that Vyha's 'designership' of the form d

transmission is quite different from his authonh)p. in the capacity of the

author, Vyaa has only to collect, compile and arrange the previous

renderings d hk pfedecemson and to compose on his own. But whether

this work is carded out along with the search of a suitable form of the

transmission of iha story is another matter. His norratonhip, which induces

him to appoint sub-narrators, appears to be considerably related to his

'designenhip' d the form of transmistion. it is to be distinguished

betwoon the form of the story and the form of the transmission of the story.

By delegating power to his sub-norraton, it is doubtful whether he has

contorred authority to find a suitable form of transmistion also to them.

d ?idimfa m: WtaFTRT - I

Tell this kmg everything you hove heard from me - is the order to Vaiiamptiyana. This does not actually give such a

freedom to Vaifamp6yana. Vaifarnp6yana too does not make himself

aware d lhdbg an apt form d transmirrion. It thdne was a word like

'aewd&' ( accolding to one's wisdom and will ), it could hove been a

hint that V-ana is enjoying full tnedom. a 'narrative M o m ' .

He just und.roknds his task:

5lasQrfh 9-ii y z i znwmRu WWPFi: 1 159

I r h d l t e l e v s c y l h i n g ~

by lhb~rau lVy5Kl .

From the perspective d Sbclnzel, it can be concluded that Vy-

alone rsrcmes the right to dedgn the form d trarrrmisrion of the otory. The

ncrnatologkal imptications d this new sphere of Vyw's pcmrondny

could be intefesting.

Returning to ~enette's terminology, the main questions are of

'penon' and 'situation'. Cenatte makes it clear that unlike history or

autobiography, in the narrative of fiction, the narrator is fictive and the

author by himsell assumes a narrating sihrafion, which is very different

from the act of writing." At the beginning of the A&hMam& - - . me usual

situation of Pusnic narration- is evoked, inaugurating the 'Sark6da'

between Sauti and the sages of NairnESFH~ya. In the very first chapter

the act of writing i.e. the meeting d VyW with Lord BrahmZi first and then

with Lord Go&, has alto been presented. MeanwhHe another

'Sarktida' between Soiimya and Dhftarwa hos also been

incorporated in the same chapter. All these intema! diegetlc sua#ons ol

VyW and Ganeki and d SaTr)aya and m a , and between

Vadompiiyona and Janamejaya fall within the external weroll dYuatkn

afSautiandthesuges.SovrhcdisthercKIInanatings~envbogsd

by the author is a difkull question. For the time being the '~arinr6da'

bdween Seii)aya and Dh.rtar@tra can be excluded on the excuse that

they appear only in the later stages. But why thsre two have been

rskctbd for the purpose d prwmting the synopsis is yet another puzzle.

Narratobgists admit such altemtions of narrating situations. Genefte sop

that the instance does not necessarily remain Identical and invariable in

the course of a single work."'

Another of Genelte's obrc~vations is exhsmely signi(icont as tar as

- - the situations of the MclJMiWMla)o are concerned. He says that an

analysis or simple description carmot dMerentiak a complex narrating

situation. There would be subtle interrekrtions among the narrating act, its

protogarirk and its spotio-temporal dimndons. The tight web of these

interrelaths is to be tom asunder, if an unening differentiating inrim of

the sihralion is aspired. Genette confesses that c rka l discourse-cannot

say evewing at once.Iu

In the hW&MGruto the birth of Drops, his friendship wifh Drupada,

their enhnity, Drona's defeating Drupada in the form of '~urudak+inZi' by

the WnpavZis etc. have been narrated to Janarnejaya by

~ a i k i w a n a . ' ~ The same story content wlth fewer details is found

repeated in ch-r 165 of Adipawa. There the narrator is a Brfihmin,

who Is a guest In the house where the Pfi-6s stay in Ekacakr6 village.

~e nanakr the otory to the ~ m f i s ( the characten of me story)

wmout ncognioing them Here the nofrator's non-recognition d his

normtees nOb played a vital role In the dYIer6nlbttan d the narratlng

situation. So Wpemcial examination d facts, simple description or even

the crllicd discourse carmot reveal the complexities d the nanative text

ot once. A painstaking analysis is needed to tear apart the tight and

complex narrative web. This nanatological principle could be an eye-

opener to those who approach lightly the most complex nonatives like

the hfah&h&uk~.

Generatty the nanation of the PurCin6s and ItIhiirZis diverges to

many other narrating situations after the assumption of the first initial

sHuation. There could be a natural retwn to the main situation. This play d

- - divergence and convergence is protuse in the Ma- The

diversion to an episode, a 'metonanative', in -'s tewnindogy may

or may not invoke another narrating sihrotion." Invoking another

situation means a 'Sarirv@da' between one nanator and his nanatee, is

shifted to the 'Satiwiida' a( another nanator and his nanatee. For

example, the 'SahEda' of Saiijaya and Dh$at@qtra, through whlch the

panoramic vision d the war develops, moves to the '~arnv@da' d K!?w

- and A@m. This 'K!-rinrtklo' is set in an entirely merit

narrating d)ua#on. But the episodes ot ~ ~ ~ a n t a " and Yay= '" do not

actually Woke anatlrsr Jtuatkn. They toH within the 'Sarinriida' d

Vahmp6yana and Janarnejaya. But Mh length d some episodes

creates an Hfurfon Mat it has gone off-situation. Because far several

chap- %emRm 3m' or %dau jam' is not seen. These M n g

divergmcm show be andysed caretully. it is miis mat created ail doubts

about the baric structure ol the nanathre text d the Moh4bhavol4 - - . But

modem nonatdogists admit such s#uations that one nonative can

'embed' anather nanathre. but only with clear indications. These

indicalions in the Puraniit and ltihas6s are generally coded os ' 33

w.' - Here mis old legend is cited - or ' 3~ &

rne&Q@r' - Here I shall t e l l - or something like that. And the return to the

moin rihrcrtSon will be coded os 'rat3 ?Ehmmnq myw?lssf% m' -

'All that whkh has been asked by you, is narroted by me'. The first two

are the signals of ddtling to another situation ' S a ~ ~ ' or another

episode.

Genette is not certain about such a sibation in which this iype

Of m g con be done without the indicating devices. He

write%

U~conkr rmy~toroncehFeof fhkr i tud ionuto l indatudexamplero f~ .

a R W ~ a J y d m y i g r o c m c e , m y b c k d m a O L w l i o n o r ~ m e ~

la~her d a even dl throe pit toge(hsc.* "'

His apen-htmkdws and convicfSon al ?he limits d the analytical

intelligence are to be appreciated. His pori#on is much higher than that

of those scholan who would say 'It cannot be accepted because it

cannot be conceived eadiy'. Genette might not have read

' '& - 'There is no such a sage whose opinion is '3act$w?3*m.

unhferoatr/ accepted'. But he has a6similated the spirit of this line.

GerWte's confestlon is an invttdion to seek such a possibitlty in the

MahebhaWIb.

T h e r e is me narrating sHuation of the Bhugmo? ~ i A 5 In me twenty-

fifth chapter of the Bhismapawa, Dh!tar&tra urges Saiijoya to tell what

was done by the Kaumviir and the P & y j a v h

g m m f wm* fampda Tc5i3-U I lA9

But m a ' s narration gradually slips to another 'SainvBda' through the

words d Arjuna:

OQmPkaretdcemychcrkt

toaplacobat*renthetwoannie*

Here any usual indications d embedding are not given. At the time of

return horn K~Cwjunosohvtida, Saiijaya's conclusion is that

=n-Q=Tw m.w* V;Sq llS1

I h e head this exhllmaling esoteric

convena#on. by whkh my hcah *cmd on end.

only becaux of the bkrring d Soge V y h .

Here also any of the usual Indicating words are not seen.

But H can be argued that this is not a sub-narrative or an episode.

Then a mofe careful search is to be conducted. In chapters 146 to 155 of

the Vanapanra, the adventurous journey of hi ma in purwH of the

celestial flower Saugandhika can be seen. His meeting with his brother

Hanumb. ~anumSln's conversation with hi ma, which includes a brief

narration of the Rarn6yana, ~himG's fight with the Gandhawtis etc. are

described in those chapters.152 Here also any indication of moving to an

episode is not inserted. This is an example of a sub-narrative embedded

in the main narrative. So once agaln the Mob- abhiWfa tmnscends the

limlts of modem nanatdogy.

Among the functlans proposed by Genette, the directive function

related to the narrathre text, desenres a special hntion. The other

functions are narrative function (story). communicative function

(situation), testhnonial function and ideological t~nction."~ Directive

function of the text means the narrator's discourse about the internal

orgonk#on of the concerned text. In the very first chapter, the sages of

Nai&raqya begin the disclosing ol the intarnal organization of the text:

lhi8 exqubite nandke. htl of dgnkant

but ambtgwur words. w8h SUM mwninga

s u p w e d by kgi. Is decoraled

with the erreftce of the Ved&.

Then VyW hlmsdt continues the disclosure:

Here the disclosure of the internal organbation or directhre function is not

petformed by the narrator, but by Me narratee first and then by the author

himeit. Or Vyiiscl, the supreme narrator himelf hos done it in a detaled

manner.

Coming to communicative function, the question previously left

unanalysed, still persists. That k ~tanzel's concept of the design of the

'form of transmission of the story'. Here V y h , thinking of a suitable form

of transmkrion, could have definitely given priority to the

listencm/readers, the receivers d the 'transrnist(0n'. He was concerned

with the receptive capacity of his readers, especially the readers of the

Mure genercatiom. Knowing the incomprehodbility d the Vedlc

language. Vy- decided to r d to pobtic style. Here k the hint:

q i z + ~ w m q r n r a j m w $ 3 m y 1'"

0 lodl I hav. compeaod this

poem, Mul and Mnc(Ukd.

It is needl.rr to explain how me epic contatns me characte1W1cs ot

classical poetry. But choorlng the Khya style is only the external part of

V y W t deslgn d the 'form d transmistkm'. There k an internal part d

this design.

Stauel recognioes iwo levels of nanclthre representation. The first is

the process d conception, the genesis d a nanathre text, 'deep

9 157 structure . So When Vy6sa manitests or rweals himself proclaiming

'WRIT r n i h t n u 8'. his operation is at the conceptual level of Me text,

the '&BOP structure'. The second kwel. 'me process of trammission'.

where 'the tab has beon m being tdd', denotes the 'surface structure'.

When Vyfba is men brooding ' m cmunmrr;ffg f3wr;f' - How can I

teach tMr to my disciples? -, it is to be noted that his nanatological

poeftian k at the level of 'surface druct~fe'. His act of conception, (he

' W p rkucture', reveals his Munltva; thai of tronsmktion, the 'surface

structure' his &ma. Hence the significance of the word 'Rpi':

WlU ?&I@?Wf glRm 'jTS*: J I 15'

s t a l u e l ~

" l tgomrr lhwlmyhgihdih .actd~andthwaeto l * lap lng ih .qpnls

ol nandw tmnmWon am inth~dsly connrckd and occu d much the u n e

tima." '60

So it IS obviow that the act d shaping the agents of narraticm is the

internal opemtkm d the 'design' of V y 3 . M e alro he hos taken care

about the recipknts of the transmi. The first agent d his nanative

tranuniorion is Wu8, who is not a Briihmin. The klakB is to be referred to:

,. WCUIB-m.Tm - - . 3 d t ; r ~

rn- p. -Qrr mi

This ghrm a hint that the Moh6bhdroto is mainly tnmnt for those who are

kept out of Vedic education. ~ytisa's selection of Sauli, who by birth is

deprived of Vedic education, as hi fkst-level narrator is to be

apprecW. T h e next agent d narrative transmission In the first chawr is

the Mind King Dhftcwijghzl. Actually he was me narrotbe ot Saiijaya in the

narration of the war. Now he has been attributed the r o l e d a narrator, or

an agent of m a W e transmiston, in which he Wmmorises the content of

the epic in sixty-eight 41&i*:

onshai eFJwPu m.

His narration is comprised within the synopticai narration of the epic by

the Hrsl narrator Scluti. The importance of this synopsis is to be read

without fail.

Stanzel regrets that narrative criticism and theory of interpretation

have alrnaat e n t l ~ y neglected synopsis 'as a means d illuminating

those components of the narrathre process, which determines the

163 specRc form d mediacy in a narrative text . So the synopsis is a vital

part of the fonn d narrative transmission or communication.

Vy6sa presents this temporary narrator Dhtamgtra, the would-be

narratee d the war narration, thus:

pz99amrrrR afkJ€ErR - " aaa:

a a t m s i * w " " I 16.

0 Souti ! having heard my words of

At.uigence, you will mcognbe me

m a Rajii6cdt?u - one who h m doveloped

tho kmer eye of Praihi ( Viieka ).

Here VyW has presented his interlocutory narrating agent, the blind

king, who being the narratee tint and then gradually develops the inner

eye of Prajfiii. Prlma facie, the synopticai narration of the epic by

D h m a seems to be unnecessary because a more detailed synopsis

of the nan&e text is given by Sauti in the next chopter specilyii the

numbers of the bWBs and acihy6yBs d each ponra But its signilkonce

soWy lbes h th. exprerokn ' P r a ~ a k ~ ' .

Vyh's chief narrator, dkecly appointed by hi, is V-ana.

He is Me mo6l authordative one because he is the 'sole narrator' of the

epic among the human bdngs:

m. a - &ib aaam~~ xmy I lm

Vy6sa's next narrative agent Saiijaya, the war-nonotor, is also directly

appdntud by him Saiijaya, a Sta. belongs to the same social level of

Sauti. Here on interesting cyclic evolution d the narrative agsnis of the

Mah&h&du - from Sauti to the blind king, who is inwardly

'Prajii6cak)u'. and then to Va&m@yana, a peffect Briihmin and sage.

and again back to a S W . Saiijaya, can be seen. Towards the end the

agency of narration is brought back to Vdmp6yana trom Saiijaya and

then trom Voifamp6yana to Souti again. So Vyka has dexterously

selected and 'shcped' (to borrow Sbnzel's ward) some very special

agentt of hi narrdve transmission. It is cerkiii Mot VyZisa has not only

conceived the Mah&h&tWu, but also has communicated or transmitted

if in a most effective. appropriate form.

Regar* the ideofogical function d 'narrator', Genelte remarks

lhot nanda's direct or indirect intewentiorrs con take the more didactic

f m of an oulhorkad conmentory on the acfion.'" Here the normtor

tokes hk own freedom to hove his ideolagicat expodlkns. In the

c h a m 231 to W of the %ntipc~wa, Vyaa inknvenes during the

'~ark5da' of ~hisrna and Yud%?hira and expfewes his ldeobgical

position under the pretext of teaching his son h a .

Person

Geneite's obsewalion is that every narrative is explicitly not in the

ffnt person. This means that at every moment the narrator may use lhe

pronoun ' 1' to designate himself. But in the kkrh&h%h, the case is

different. When '36-q' or a verb in first person singular under the head

'm ~ a r ~ ' occurs, 01 is an imitation of Vy6sa's words by some another

narrator. V y b preters to be hidden among the pluralii of norraton and

keeps his 'voice' unidelrtrtied. For some hidden reason, he has

maintained the aforesaid 'difference in self' by this 'narrative

impenonation'. In this respect there is no definite answer to the quertion

'who speaks?'.

Geneite's terminology of hornodiegetic and heterodiegetic types

cannot also be fully applicable in the - - . 'Homodit ic

norrotor' speaks in 'first person'. He is present as a character in the story.

'Hebrodiegelic narrator' always speaks in 'third person' who is not

present in the story.167 It is mentioned that VyCso's (int person renderings

filter through another 'subject', Sauti or Vaihmpijyana or someone else.

Strkt)y speaking, lhese first person renderings do not denote fhelr oflgin~l

'pem' and may be polluted by the imagination d the mediaton. And

Vyasa's 'third person' utterances like '?f%?mirm' or '&rr=mm m'

may not neeecwflly mean his clbtence as a character in the story. ' sila

sikrmmr' - It it being nonated by me - is the only hint that Vy6sa

himself speaks. When his speech 'mumi m' or '-

mm ?-im:' 16r stark , atter seven or eight klakiit ' =ft?@m am'

comes and it automatically erases the 'original voice'. It can be

assumed lhot the narrators like Sauti are fictive and all renderings come

direcly from Vyba. But the trouble is that this asuqptlon can exist only

as a speculation.

Putting in a pure Genettian style, it can be hypothetically suggested

that Vy-a has kept equal distance from hwnodiegeticity and

heterodlegetlcity. Here ako no definlte answer to the question 'who

speaks?'.

The next poulbility shown by Genette is highly intriguing. It is to be

deciphered carefully. Two cases are proposed: ( 1 ) me reader perceives

that the author speaks manifestly about himself, but pretends to be

tp.alrlng about someone eke. (2) The read.r perceives that the authoi

speaks manilwlty about h im#, but pfebnds lhot someone elso it

spe&imgabouthimlnlhefintcoreMoclu#lukindktingukhobktran

the mmdor. But in the second, the aulhor ir indhlinguklwble from the

Asplkcltoihe- - -

lhef&stcasekthatVy~htpeafr ing

about hhselt, but pretends to be rpwkhg about lhe P6qqhvZk and

Kaumr58 . ~hecannotbedWhg&bdtromSadlorVaiSanpcyana -

or soiijoya. The second case is thot Vysa spooks about himsnw, but

prehndr to be Souti or Vohmptiyana a Soiijaya speaking about him

These asmswrmnts are only ot the perceptive level d lhe reader.

Immenm variations of the subjective perception of the rwden can

change Mngs completefy. Moreover, it can be seen fhot V y 6 m never

aHows hir 'self' to intrude; he always trht to Wer from it. So 'speaking

about hbmdf' is skeptical. Whatever is seen under '=am rmm' does not

come from hit 'selt', but from somewhere else.

It it exhemcrly dinscul to fix V y W ' s exact position as the mediator ol the

text of the MbhoMbhobb6mto and the reader among the ioyen of this

complex and muHi-layered phenomenon.

In Batthes's view 'the responsibility for a narrative is never assumed

9 171 by a penon, but by a mediator . Here it is to be noted that Vyba steps

on to an mW.Iv dllferent plane, a new facet as a mediator by erasing his

‘voice'. Horn again the puzzling question 'who speaks?' persists.

It would not be out of place to examine some more of the

terminology of Stamel. He points out that the answer to the question 'who

is nanclting?' may be:

nmdor who appears the reader or em ind.p.ndmt por8ondty or one

who wtthdrarr so hw behind the nanated events thd he becomer prackdly

imrf*bk to th. n-r." '* The tint proportiion may be cancelled, because Vy6sa never appears

before the reader as an independent narrator. There is a strong

1

Inclination to accept the second. since Vyhsa always tends to withdraw

hlmself tar behind the narrated events or to rise to his supreme silence ol

Munftva. But the clause 'he becomes practically invisible to the reader'

requires claritication.

A reacler af the epic sees Vyba appearing now and then in the

course of the story. Then how can he be practically invlsiMe to the

reader? The answer is that Vyhsa is practicaly invisible to the reader in

the sense that he does not show himself as an individualized character

'X' or 'Y'. In this respect Vyhsa's position is almost akin to the second

proposition of Stanzel.

Stanzel, after introducing the binary opposites - true/scenic

narration of Otto Ludwig, panoramic/scenk presentation of Lubbok.

telllng/showing d NomKIn Modman and reportorial narration/ scenic

presentation of himself, proceeds to dMinguish the two technlquer d

scenic ~ n t a t i ~ n . " ~ His second technique is interesting. He writes:

"The 0th.r techniqw is the rofloction of the Rctknal events through the

COMC-U of a character in the novel without nanatorial comment. I call such a

charactor a n(kctor to &hgubh him from the nwator as the ather nardbe

agent.u 'I'

If the postiblllly of me consciousmrco of such a character is pursued, the

concentrotion should be on one supreme metacharacter Vy6sa. Here

not only a new narrative agent, a reflector-character. is introduced, but

also a new Vyiisa, the supreme reflector-character, through whose

consciousness the story cows out. The lines like '+svauq adwmr:' ,

'M *' etc. are in support of this view. Furthermore:

*- e.d%mm =us

mft lk ih pj3w rn wfiao~rrl*r

- f!ada7hr* Tlkmhml =us

-"'&? & Z h B v I 'I5

By that sage, who k omniscient. who knows

the ways of dediny, who knowr Dharma

cnrd who pomomos superne knowkdge.

who is transcendental, who is b leared wilh

ihmlogical sbhs d an incamotkm ('avo%'), but the supremacy over

the thou(314r and actions d hk charackrr. So if a refktor-ctmacfur is

s o u g h t a l ) . r i n t h e w h d e t . x t d ~ ~ ~ M e r e i s n o o l h . r o p 3 ) o n

but V y h . But can he be distfngukhed. (as Sonzel says). from the

nanakn as the 'ofher nancrfhre agent'? The answer is yes. Vyaa has

assigned Hw labour d direct norration to hi disciples. From such a

viewpoint, he can be dlstinguirhed from me namtor/mmaton.

Stomel's next obsewation is a puzzling one. He writes:

events; and ut tho same time he transconds Ih. banien d tiction. The

word '-' d the said &ok& can be sftongly used to Wend this.

Here ako the pouiM% dution is mat he has broken the singukxlly d his

character to attoin tramcndentality. Or, he wnhdrows MmseU to Wie

reakn d authorship from that ot the narrators. But he must be a first-

person nanator in the i h t case (according to the hadmono1 naRatology).

In the mamd case it must b a third penon narrative.'"

V y W Is cettalnty not a first-person narrator, since his 'I' comes

through someone else's consciousness. Even In the neutral Werances

like ' i#bmh~% mm m:' etc. , there is not a slightest trace d'I'.

Themfore, his transcendentallty has placed htm in such a hlgh podllon

from where he plays Ms multi-character role and has mbased himrd(

from tho M-person singular authorship.

If yel m e is a trace of ind.linReness In answefing the quertlon

'who speaks?', it is because of the nanathre structure d the

- - -. It is based on the irracognisabk switching aver from one

person to another. This switching over is sometimes with the indicator

'm', someWnes without it. However, this is one d the fundamental

features of ths nanative enlgma of the MWtm-&.

Implled Aulho~ and impbd Re-r in the M u h m

The concepts d the 'ImpUsd author' and the 'lmphd reader' have

gained theoretical base in nonatology. Critics llke Wayne C Booth,

ShlommRh Rhnman-Kenan have enthusiasHccrlly developed this idea;

Gonette does not concwi his reluctance to accept the idea d 'implied

author' and 'imphd reader'. He writes:

Yn my opinion, ncmobbgy has no need to go beyond the narrative dtualbn and the

two agenis 'hplbd author' and 'implied mad.r9 are cbarly dtwted in thd

beyond. ,,I78

&fore n3e podtiMNty of the 'implied author' d the - -

is

exprored, it is necessary to have a clear idea d the term. Shlornmith

Rlmmon-Kemon, quoting Booth and Chahnan, shows fhe narmfological

diagram:

Real author ->lmpkd m w - > Worrdoc->Nand.*-> 1rnpli.d moder->Rod Reador I"

'Real author' and 'Real reader' are obviously situated outside the

province of the narrative text. 'Implied author' and 'Implied reader'

have been enshrined in their respective places. An author may atticulate

many idea, feelings, beliefs and emotions, whkh may be fictive or real

and whkh cwld come out of his experience, in his work. These will not

only lnlluence the reader, but will unknowingly create a virtual image of

the author. This 'image figure' is called the 'Implied author'. It is the

vigwr of Me narrative communication that gives shape to this 'mental

construct'. Shlornmith Rlmmon-Kenan quotes Chatman for his specific

semiotic interpretation:

?he impkd author can tell us nothing ... 'if' indwtr us rllsntly. through ot (hs whole.

rm all me voieer, by at1 means it has chosen to k t ut laam.'*

This interpretation evokes curiosity. V y W is neither a contemporary

novelitt nor a legendary poet. The chances of his singularity are

dlminkhed by the plurality of the 'Vy-'. Rdeased from all the personal

~~ and beiiefs ot his admirers, V y h appears to be a remote

qmculdke reabny. In the Droyiparva d ihe AWmbbmm - - , Vy& has

been charcidmhd as 'ad ?mmw:d'.'e'~ere ltyiixl has been

compomd to lhe 'elm cknidkas sky'. Beyond the apparent ctority, the

infinity of his personaWIy is fett. The sky when covered with clouds does

not woke the feeling d infinity; but when devoid of clouds spreads out to

infinity. And thir 'infinity' of Vy6s0, when translobd to narrative terms.

ceiloinly accounts for thc mentally created V y k as the author of the

When c hat man's idea is applied to the klbh~Tbh6froto, the

'depenonalhed' and 'infinttated' ( m and Jrarm ) Vy5sa. ('It'),

instructs rlkntly through the design of his epic, through the 'voices' of

Sauti. Vaitampiiyana, Saiijaya and so on. Thus a possible answer to the

question 'who speaks?' is almost round out. Care should be taken not to

mix up thk 'infinhness' of Vy&a with lhe manlfddness of his character.

It will only destroy the 'image' OI the 'mental construct'. In another

angle, 'It l ~ c t s silently' is in petfect accordance with the popular

Guru-&&a relatiof5ship of ancient India:

*a=i zzmaFi fPrarr;sa - ~&R%PToT: I

SYoncekthIedDquenceOfMP GUN

md al the doublr ol the dfocipkr are dkpelkd.

Thus VyGm Is culerting his suprefne position as the Guru through silent

instruction.

Coming to GOndfe~, who never likes any dbviation horn narratology,

the qumtkm is whether the 'implied author' is a necessary narrative

agent behvcn,n the narrator and Mo real author. In the case d a fiction, it

is fictively produced by the nanator/actually by the author. No one can

stand betweon thew ~ 0 . ' ' ~

In the Muhd.&u& There is a chain d narmtm emerging a d

disqrpcMltng. So there is no question of the fictive production by a single

narrator. The actual production by the author designate, VyBsa, becomes

an inevltabmty in these circumstances. But the diversity d the VybBs,

casts the shadow of doubt over his actual production. The unifying

signifkance (Chotman's 'whole') of the epic with its unbroken narrative

thread pkys a magic by which the Vy6sas merge together and fuse into

a sin* Vyha entity. He can be proposed or ldealsed as the 'implied

author', 'the governing consciousness of the work as a whole'. '" A

refwence '&m=fts&~ -. ' '" - I am the Dvaipiiyana among

the VyZisas - is given in the previous chapter. This also points to the

convergence of many Vy- into a singte penonatity. Viilmiki, Vas@!ha

and Par6fara were some prominent figures d the Vyiisa tradition, but

none ot mem can claim the title Vyiisa.

G6mette odro, though wnh some resewations, accepts the idedioed

image d the author with tho example d rsadmg Jme@ ond inb &o#Ws

He states:

9hearinih.t.ao'vdce',fhoLvob.'dlhelMivenatda.-kl*nw1M

thevdcekdThaM.Mam't .... A i l M e ~ a s I i M ~ b o m l h e t e x t . R k t h e

i r n a g o ~ , t t m t t c x t m g g w t s m e ~ t t s o u ~ o r . ~ ~ ~

Therefore, the idea of an 'imptisd' or an 'ideobed' image of V y k

persists very much in the miml d the reader.

Rd=raqw-.s;rrrr-a

T d w q a i mj ;R a3 Fmpml lw

PocceMng by divine c o n ) a c n p l ~ and

drowmhkmlndpointedtowardstMt

contempldion, he mcmoged to know

iheinnorandrublle~ofdlUvingcreduror

This picture o( Vy6sa takes him to the higher superior regions af an

Idealisad figure. ' d m m p ~ ! w' means the inner substance of all

'morya.'. km' means the 'life' as a character and '-.' means

all charocten (of the story) to whom life has baen infused by V y k .

Vyaa shows the members of the Kuru family, who are deod in the war, in

187 6 the 'puhdahm' section d the %ramav&ikapmva. Gcweming

consciousness of the work as a whole' siands almast equal to this.

GeneM proceeds with his analysis. He examines the argwmnb of

the promoters d the 'implied author' that it is the involuntary revelatian d

a subconscious penonaiity.'M He links this with me tctea of prow mi a

bodc is tha product d a 'dlllorent sew'. Wayne C Booth will call it 'second

self ' 'a9 . Proust again speaks of a 'deep sen ', which, Genetk, considen,

will be more true than Me supdcial self d consciousness. This 'different

N ' d V ~ i s t h e m a n i f ~ o n d h l s ~ a . l t r e g o r d t h h q ~ t o

inrtruct whof he has reailsod. It is the questbn d crealing an imoge of his

own or making hi readers create one d their own. Genette speoks of a

second hypolherk that he real author creates a deliberate simutalion d

hi own personality, which is quite different from his real one or from the

idea he has of It. IPC

Keeping W e ideas of 'Merent self ', 'involuntary revelalion d a

subconscious personality' and the 'deliberate simulation d his ewn

pemnailty by the author himsetf', the contexts d the Muh&&m& - - are

to be analysed. It is easier to go straight to the chapters 333 and 349 d

the !%nlipawa. In chapter 333, VyiEsa witnesses the spiritual liberation d

his son hka through supreme knowledge and d i i o n . VyiEsa himself

was guiding and getting hka prepared tor this attainment, as depicted in

previous chapters. But when it happens finally, Vyijsa becomes deeply

dimesed by the separation from his son:

atrwai a m*: m a m 0 " " "

dtats- zWmea a I 19'

That rag. knowhg the liberation of

hk son ond hb o m altachment.

became delighted and ashomad at tho same time.

This blok5 k a challenging paradox not only lor the admirers of Vyasa, but

for the analysts of the Vy&a myth. On many occasions in the

MuMbh&m& and in other Pur6p6s as well Vy- has been addressed as

'=maw:, qaFzrtaft, id$ etc. How a situation where such a supreme

personage crying for his son like an ordinary man, can be interpreted?

Lord &a, who comas to pacity him, asks:

a Fi3 h e m I '92 "

How can you lament tor

your son. who attained Moltfa ?

Is Vyesa imposing a 'difference in self'? Or creating a 'deliberate

simulation of himself for some unknown purpose'? Vyiisa may or may

not be creating an 'image' c4 himself. It is interesting to note that the

same Vyka witnessed the catastrophe of hls kindred with a high degree

of impartiality and detachment. Even the harmonizing equipoise of his

Munltva and esitvo comes under grave suspicion here. Rqitva, the state of

a Rsi, only allows to sympathize with other's feelings, but not to plunge

into one's own grief. The only solution here is that Vyiisa was undergoing

a sew imposed state of ignorance temporarily for some unknown

purpose. Thot unknown purpose kames known only when the

compodtionollhehwi&hm& - - is canpkr)ed.

WIIh thk interence, lhe second hypolll.tfr shown by Gemtte i.e.

the cWbamk sitnulotion d his own p.nonafily by the author, b to be

acc- intwdingly, Vy& hirnse# hat inaugurated the creation of hi

image, let alone the varhriy d choices d hi readen. So W e b all

portiblll(y ol a 'Real V y h ' and an 'lmplkd ~y6sa'.

Anolher instance of the same kind comes in the chapter 349 of

htiparva. There Vy&a himself narrates the story of his previous bilth as

a son of the supreme Lord Niif6yana Vy&o was then known as

'Apiintufafinna'. T h e fiterol m i n g of Me word is 'one whose darkness

betw66n (humon and clhrine) is removed'. In terms of Vediinta. the

signlfiiance of this name is clear. It b a ' -' (a liberated

soul), whose darkness of ignorance is gone. But the normtological

orientation leads to the conclusion that VyBa is trying to have an

'invoiuntory revelalon of hit own subcwcious tor superconscious?)

pemmlny'. In that chapter the Supreme Lord predicts that he wili be the

forefo(hsr of the Kuriis. And again:

gm%Vjta+zpmdwfhR

tmfwifafagmiamafswmwaa~

=ram.Emitd I"'

WhrnMe&kage(M.agrd k d i ) r * l s h ,

youwlk qmlmf(biac&h~O(OUand

KgQabynane). YouwMbwthehrkucta

dmanY.Ihicdand--

You rrl htwe (h. power d pawrre.

SiiWyou*rlndkHberUed(homihe

bond d IR.) beaun d &a&mkmt.

Here m e again the pnwious coWusion reemerges. T h e power of

penance refen to Munitva. But ' =r 3 amq f $ J h d ' is a clear

d.grak#on from both Muma and &ha. V y h recognisea himselt

3mRRmn ;RS ZlZh i5mfrs.m irt: I '94

I was ~ ~ a n a ttmn, and now

RbommurbymeocdudtheLord

According to the incamation m, bdh and VyCm are

the incornations of the Lad. They are only two among the innumerable

incarnations. There am a number of incamations before between and

atkrr these two. So why does Vy&a refer only to this particular

incamation as his prwious birth? Whatever be the theoretical averments

of ths supporters of incamafions, nanatologicafly this special

reference d Vyesa can be only an m t to t i a 'deep

self ' or 'dI#erent sen '. 'm - FX - m' can have another

connotalion. The word ' means difference . '3r;a~a9' means

eflrerm dMerence. Then '-' mans 'one who has found out

and dispdhd the extreme dlfbrence (in sew )'. Here also an 'authorial

image' is brought up, whkh evokes the idea of an 'irnplled author'. So

thk is not in concurrence WMI 6eneite's view. He hakr to entertain the

'Implied author'. He concludes thus:

W y ~o@bn on tho "mpH.d ouhor' b n . in OM mr, nmaClr balcdly nypllve.

nut in ~ O H W ssnw I w a ~ m a w td II poetve?

His negOUvW is because of his obrWnacy in not cl#ovrlng any unwanted

narrathro agds. Hk pa6tkrity is due to the InaWMy to deny the 'idu~1b.d

image' (he prefers 'idba' to 'image') of the author. GemetW cites

~rontwaer's words:

"In thir wnr I wUHngly approve of Bmowae~r'r tamuk - 'lh. rcop. of namsve

th.ocy ( I would mom cafdul)y d portict) exclud.r the wRer but hdu&r b

l m p m ~llhor'. IP6

So nanattvsly there is no such agent 'impW author', but poetically

there may be one. Pursuing Geneition view, It can be put thus: There is

VyZka, the real author of the AA4- - - and v y h . -me supreme

nanator wWh the club of his narrators, but there k no nordive agent

between them.

Implied Reader

prclt~ants the idsa of 'implied reader' mus:

"Contrafy to the 'bnplkd author', who is the idea of a red author, the 'impNed

reader9 irthebidea', in the red author's head of a 'possible* reader/listener.'' 19'

So the 'implied reader' obviously stands counterpart to the 'implied

author'. The 'implied reader' takes his origin from the thought d the real

author 'who should read my work?' or 'what ail basic qualitkaths

should be possessed by a reader, who reads or intends to read my

work?'. In the case d narratives the basic qwMcation is narrative

competence. This competence necessarily involves the aMlity to read

the narrative codes and signs designed by the author for that porlicuiar

work. Aesthetk sensitivity, which is applcable to general poetic

appreciation, will not be enough.

In the world of the Pur6nk and itihaa, the narrative competence

may require some more basic qualities. The Puranic narration is not a

'one man show' by the narrator. It is absolutely a

cooperative/reciprocative effort between the narrator and the listener.

The fraddhijl d the listener is the deciding factor of how the narration

should progress. So there is an intenrention otten by the sages of

Naimii6rqya (the narratees of Sauti ) and by King Janamejaya (narratee

of Vaiiampiiyana). This is not an interruption in the How of narration; but it

only encourages and envigoun the spirit of narration. The narrator, on the

other hand, consldem the narratee not just as an individual sitting betore

him, but as the representative of the future generations. that could listen

to or read it. SO the question whether there is any possibility of an 'implied

reader' between the narratee and the real reader, is relevant.

Gendte artem Mat every author wants to address a possible

reader, a definite or deserving recipient al what he writes. This 'possible

reader' remains potential as conceived by the author and so it would be

9 I98 better to call him 'potential reader . Genefie *writes the popular

diagram al narrative as thus:

RA ( IA ) + Narrator i, Narrative + Norratee + ( PR ) RR 19'

Coming to the r d m of the Mah- &Mmia, Sauti presents the picture d

Vyaa thinking ' rn- f8w?qZo0 - HOW shall I teach this to my

disciples?'. 'f8w' generally means a disciple. But it was uttered just

betore the instance of the epic coming into a written form. So in wider

perspective, the word ' Rw' refers to all future readers. Again:

~ s * s ~ : " R*: m d f@: I 201

men the sogo gave t to dl other denwing dbclpks.

The word '-9' (desewing) should be given special stress. VyW was

having an idea of his future readers and also expecting minimum

qualltications fW hem. This is elaborated lucidly in the chapters 243 and

327 of the Gntiparva. A considerable potlion of Gntiparva deals with

Vyiisa's role as a Guru and his instruction to the tour disciples Paila,

Vaiiamp?jyana. Jaimini and Sumantu and then to his son Suka. In

chapter 243 afbr a brief spiritual discourse, VyGsa cautions h k a not to

divulge the secrets of knowledge to the undeserving. There he explains

the negalhre and poslilve sides af his tuture readers. Again In chapter

327. Vy&a's dkciplos including his son h k a pray him that there should

not be a bx#l one known or the disciple of Vy6sa:

WXKRrsrit =r &aurET a d z 3 m& T:Izo2

Broad-minded as he was, Vy& does not comply with their request and

states that a real 'b' should be educated by all means. He says:

Why y w only We? 0 my dkcipks I

You may grow in number.

Let this knowkdge be spread.

He lays stress on the qualitis d o 'f8w'. These are his words:

Knowledge rvill bear trul only aCc0IdiIIg

to the receptive intmlligence and

dientiwemr ot a disciple. let clU crou

the ocean ol mberier and let oH ree only good.

These words of Vyha express not only the mlmnt features of the 'Guru-

iisya' relationship, but also the narrative coordination of the narrator and

his nanatee. Therelore. It can be admitted that Vy- has implied some

genuine readem d hi literature, be it in the form of philasophy or

narrathre.

I C o u m in O.Mlcll Unguidlcs FerdkKnd de Scamure 6D 1963 Chapter Ill p 1 5

2 Ibld. Chc#er Ill p 1 5

3 J.Culkr RKF' London1986 Chap).rlp3 4 Notes - h a n d lYarotive P. RiMeur UCP 1965 Vd. 11 p161 5

N&e Dhroune - G. 6enslte BBO 1980 l&oducth p 2 5 6 bid. P-25 7 Ibid. P-26 8 Ibid. p-28 9 IW. ~ 2 9

" lbid. p- 31 I 1 IMl - R. Bather lntroducti i to the Structurd Andpi8 of NaraWvet FONT 1977 pbO

l2 Namtive Diocoune revisited G. Genelte INY 1988 p-15 13 m-Maz1-cwnWmn ~d-iM%ai*M%w&wn 11

- ~ ~ a q i [ l @ ~ W a M r n ~ q 1 1

- ~ w a 1 f a F a e r r P a a 4 i r r i m a m o l i a m m r q l 1

- ~ a ~ a - q r z r ; r e r : ~ - i m r R ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ - ~ ~ r m r o i a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d a a 1 1

~ m ~ a ~ m p , m i i m r r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ; r r ~ - I I

~ i f a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~srft;limmnia&m=mwa 11

y m i ~ ~ a w m i ~ . ~ ~ h a ~ ~ a v : 1 1

~ ~ ~ a S & a f t m r R a q l l ~ ~ i i d i p o r v a k l . 1-51, 61to70GPGM13

Vdkm- VOl. I pp. 2-3 I4

NrmaWve Diacwrss revirlted G. a n & INY 1988 p-58 I5 Ibid. P74 16 IMl- R. Barthos Introduction to the Slructural Analysis of Nomativet FONT 1977

pp.110-111.

The other two types ore: The fi& holds that a narrative emanates from a penon (in

the fully psychalogicol sense of the torm). Thin penon has a name, the author, in

w h o m ~ k m d o o t e x c ~ b e t w e o n i h e ~ ~ d M e ~ o f a

perkctr/ idanMed indviduol, rvho pcHiodicdly talres up his pen to mite a dory. the

na~m (notably the novel) then boing simply tho expmasion of an 1.

The W i d end rnort recent concoplkn (Henry Janms, Sarh.) decrees Mct the h e o r

mud limn hi8 mrrccdhre to whal tha characters con otsewe or know, everything

proceeding or if each of the chclrocters h turn wem the rcwtder of the namcdhre.

" lbid. p-111

'' N d e Dircoutae G. GQnelk BBO 1980 p- 78 I9 MB Zidipa~a Ad.l- 9. 77 GfG 2013 VdkramEbda Vol. I p- 3 'a amsaarq - Anonthcnb6yar)a h i k a l G X C T 1990 p-43

FIE: BQ- -SK MLB 1979 Vol.lll a i h 3100 p-116

P Nandive MPc- revidted G. Genelte INV 1908 p 1 8

Namtiw Diourse 6. Gonrdte BBO 1980 p 30

" MB Zic~panra GPG 2013 Vdkram5bda VOI. I ~ d . 62- 9. m p-76

Ibid. W r o h a r l a p a ~ a GPG 2015 V d k ~ n n 6 b d a Vol. IV Ad. 5- 9.51 p 448

a SK MLB 1W5 Vol. HI Bhv* - MU 946 p-224

(bid. - D m 561 p-154

21 MB UdYOBaPQVa Ad.148- 9.16 GPG 2014 Vdkmm5bda VOI. 11 p-246 (1

Ibid. BhimaparvaAd.2-9.14&21-11 GPG2013Vd l t~5bdaVOl . IIpp.-298&319 -a IM. ~hifmaparva Ad. 21- 9.12 6 14 GPG 2013 Vaikmm&x+a Vol. 11 p 319 l9 SK MLB Vol. 111 1965 Bhvkli Dhau 900 p- 207 30 Ibid. W u 990 p-241

Ncndhre Disc- G. Gen* BBO 1980 p-77

* MB ~dlpava Ad. 62- 9.20 GPG 2013 Vaikramiibdcl Vol. t p 7 6 &

Ibid. -0hqapa~a Ad. 5- 9. 51 GPG 2015 Vdkran6bda Vol. IV p 448 sa

Ibid. Ad.61- 9.53 GPG 2013 V a i k r ~ m W Vol. I P-75 Y IM. Sabh5patva Ad. 3- 9.1 GPG 2013 Vaikmm&da Vol. p-291 Y ftid. Ad. 5- 9.35 GPG 2014 Vakram6bda Vol. I1 p 6

36 IM. Ad. 6- 9.16 GPG 2014 Vakram6bda Vol. I1 p 7

37 fbid. IJdyogaparva Ad.148- 9.16 GPG 2014 Vdkram&da VoI. 11 p246 &

IMd. ~hipnapawa Ad. 2- 9.14 & 21-1 1 GPG 2014 VaikmGbda Vol. II pp.- 290 & 319 a8 Ibid. Ad.21- 9.11 GPG2014Vdkrom6bda Vol. II p- 319 39

Ibid. ( ~ i t 6 ) Ad. 42- 51.78 GPG 2014 Vaikram6Wa Vol. II p-344

IW. A d 43- SI. 60 GPG 2014 Vaikr-Ma Vd. 11 p346

" IW. Sdyaparva ~ d . 62- S. 32 GPG 2014 vaikmnatda Vd. Ill p- 262

4 Ibbd. Shlpatva Ad.14- 9. 9 & 12 GP62014 VdkrcunGbda Vd. Ill p 304

"Mi.- - a Ad. 5- SI. 52 GPO 2015 Vdkmtdbda Vd. IV pUb

u NamdkrDiscame G.G.nent 0801980p76 a N a r d v o Discourre G. Gmene BM) 1980 p 7 7

' M8 i i d ipava Ad.1- SI.l10 & SI.111 GPG 2013 VaikromGbda Vd. I p 4

47 Ibid. Ad.1- SI. 92 -2013 Vdkrm5bda Vd. I p-3 40 IMI - R. Barthes lntroductlon to Me Shuctural Andyjr of naTc th reS FONl 1977 p 8 6

@MBV-a Ad313-SI.132GP62013VdkranGbdaVd. I p 782

" bid. KdiparJa Ad. 1- 9 . 6 3 -2013 Vaikmn6bdaVd. I p- 3 51 Ibid. Ad. 62- 8.41 & 3.42 GP6 2013 Vdkromiibda Vd. I p 7 2 a2 Ibld. Ad.62- S.52 6PG 2013 Vdkmn8bda Vol. I p-77

U - IM. Smrgcroh-a Ad. C SY) GPG 2015 VaikmmijMa Vol. IV pM8

lime and ~arra)ive - P. Rcicowr UCP 1985 Vd. I p-52

N u d i v e Diacoww rwid)ed 6. Genelie INY 1968 p 23

IMI - R. BorMes InhPduction to Me Shuctuml Anal* of nondwes FONT 1977 p-98

" lbid p-99 Se Ibld. P-99 sv M8 m a Ad.1- SI. 247 to 9.251 GPGM13 V a l l r a m m Vol. I p 9

" NarratWe Discowre revisi)ed G. Genette INY 1 9 0 p 1 5 dl Ibid. P- 65

' N&e Dhcowse G. Genelte BM) 1980 Footnote pdO

" MB Ad.128- 51.40 6PG 2013 Vaik m I l 6 b d a V d . I p l m

64 Ibid. Ad.63- 51.1 G P 6 2013 Vaikr~r* Val. I p-77

ta Ibld. Ad.129 6 Ad.13UGP62013 Vd*ran&da Vd. I w. 170-174

M NarrJNve Discourse G. Genette BM) 1980 p 106

" Ibkl. p 106

' MB Vanclpanra Ad. 37- 51.1 GPG 2013 V a i k m n w Vol. I p 474

ds Ibid. &Upawa Ad. 138- 9.1 GP6 2013 Vaikram5bda Vd. I p 183

N&e Discourse G. Genette BBO 1980 p- 108 ?I

Ibid. p113 n MB xdlponra Ad.60- 51.2 & S. 3 GPG 2013 Vdk- Vd. I p-73

73 IMd. Ad. 63 - 51 69 to 90 GPG 2013 Vaikram- Vol. I p-79

74 NaRCMVe Dkcourre G. G0Ilde BBO 1980 p- 1 14

lbid. P 67

76 Ibid. p- 215

lbid. p-2 15

" M B &Spawa Ad.1- 9.106 & 9.107 GPG 2013 Vaikrfxdbda Val. I p4 79 Nandhro MPcouno G. Gendte 880 1980 p-31

" Ibid. p-161 81 Ibid. pp.- 161 - 162 8 l Ibid. p-186

MB ildlpava Ad. l- 51.77 GPO 2013 V d k r M b d a Vol. I p-3 M Ibid. Ad. 60- 51.18 GPG 2 0 1 3 V a i k m d k d ~ Vol. I p 74

" Ibid. Ad. 60- 51.21 GPG 2013 Voiltmm&dCl Vol. I p-74

* N a n d i e D i rcwne revirlted G. G e d t e INY 1988 p- 85

" MB &d@awa Ad.61- 51.3 GPG 2013 VdkramZiWa Vol. I p-74

80 Narrdive D i r o u n o revisited G. Genette INY 1988 p 100 a9 Ibid. p-101 PO Ibid. P-43 91 IMd. p-46 P1 M B i id ipava Ad.1- 51.61 -2013 VaikramGWa Vol. I p-2 93 Ibid. Ad. 1-51.56 GPG 2013 VaikrarnZibda Vol. I p-2 er Nandive Dircoume revisited G. Genette INY 1988 p-50

Narrative Discourse G. Genette BB0 1980 p-187 W MB Zidipava Ad.1-51. 81 GPG 2013 Vdkra-a Val. I p-3 97 IM. Ad. 1 -SI. 80 GPO 2013 Valkramijbda Vol. I p-3 $4 Narrative Diacourm G. Omette 880 1980 p 187 W M B &jipawa Ad.63- S1.85 & 51. 86 GPG 2013 VaikramGbda Vol. I p-79 Im N&ive Discourse revisited G. Genctte INY 1988 p-140 101 Ibid. p-140 Irn Ibid. p 1 M

lrn M B Adlpawa Ad.63- Sl.85 GPO2013 Vaiktam&xh Vol. I p-79

Ibid. Ad. 1 14- '3.24 GPG 2013 V d k r o m W a Vol. I p-142

& V a n a p a ~ a Ad.261- S.51 GPG 2013 VaikramEbda Vol. I p- 719

lmlbld. &Sapuva Ad.l6L)-SI.l6GfG2013VdkmabdoVd. Ip215 106 Ibid. Ad.60- SI.18 GP6 2013 V c l i l v P m w Vd. I p 7 4

Irn Nm&obgy G. Rbrce M d o n Pu#bh.rr EmNn Now Y a k Amrt8dan 1982 p 13

l m ~ e ~ r e v W t e d G.GenelhlNY 1908 p61

'* MB Ad.63- SI.18 OPG 2013 Vd-a Vd. I p 7 4

110 Ibid. A d 1 --tween S I . 2 8 & S I . 2 9 6 P G 2 0 1 3 V d k r ~ m ~ V d . I p 2

I" Ibid. Swcrgarohacwparvcr - M.5- 51.36 GPG 2015 Vdk ramiiwa Vd. IV p-448

lI2 ~ a n d v e ~kcoun 6. Gende BE0 1980 p l 6 9

Narmliue Dhf- revised G. 6enei1e INY 1988 p 65 I I4 MB iidlparvcr Ad.104- SI. 40 & 51.41 GPG 2013 Vdknm- Vol. I p-143 1 I5 Ibid. Ad.105- 51.10 -2013 VdkKm&& Vol. I plM

'Ib lbid. Ad.114- 51.18 h 19GfG2013 V d k m m Vd. I p l 5 l

117 Ibid. Ad.166- SI.15GPG2013ValkramiadaVol. I p-215 118 Ibid. Ad. 195- 9.6 GPG 20 13 V d k m i i b d a Vol. I p 2 M

II. Ibid. Ad.l%- Sl.43GP62013 V d k d W a Vol. 1 p-266

1.20 Ibid. Ad.46- 51.12 & 51. 13 GPG 2013 Vakrmn6Wa Vol. I p363

12' I M ~ . Vanapawa ~ . 9 - SI. m GPG 2013 va~~ratniibdcl vd. I p420

I* Ibid. Ehipapawa Ad.2- 9.1 GPG 2014 Vaikrclm5bda Vd. 11 p298 1P Ibid. Ad.3- SI. 85 GPG 2014 V d k m m Vd. II ~ 3 0 1

IY lbld. -a Ad.52 to Ad. 71 GPG 2014 VaikmZibda V d II pp.

In Ibid. Snuptiiaparva Ad.16- Sl.21 GPG 2014 Vak mmGbda Vol. Ill p290 la NaTalhre Disc- G Gem INY 1988 pp. 244-245

ln N e e Dhfourae revirihd G. Gendte INY 1988 p 7 3 I= IW. P73

!bid. P-66

lW TTh.ay of N - i F.K. Staud CUP 1984 p 1 3

la' T i m e and Nanatlve P. RicaBrr UCP 1985 Vol. ll p 9 9

t+amnve G. Gcnet)e BBO 190 p-212

IU Ibid. p-2 13 la4 Ibid. p-213

lbid. p-213 136 Theory of NaraWve F.K. Sianzel CUP 1984 P-20 157 IMd. P-4

'" MB Xapova Ad.60- 9.22 GPG 2013 ~ a i k r a m ~ b d a ~ d . I P-74 la9 Ibld. Ad.61- SI.3 -2013 Vdkraniibda Vd. I p 7 4

la Nurdivo Disc- G. 6anotie BBO 1980 pp. 213-214

l4I lbkl. p214

la lbjd p215

la ~ ~ A d l p a v a Ad.129 to Ad.1376PG2013V-Vd. lpp. 170-183 IU lXscwne wkRod G. 0.nelk INY 1- p 9 1

MB &spawa Ad. 68 to Ad. 74 GFG 2013 Vdkmm6bda Vd. l pp. 90-102

" IMd. Ad. 75 io Ad. 93 GP6 2013 V&rcmEbda Vd. I pp. 103-125

147 Namhe Dkoume revldted G. Getmite INY 1988 p 8 8 1M MB Vampavo Ad. 313- SI.117 -2013 VdkrarniiWcr Vd. I p-782

" lbid. Bhz- Ad. 25- SI.1 GPG 2014 V d k m i i b d a Vd. 11 p322

IM Ibid. Ad. 25- 51.21 GPG 2014 Vdkran- Vd. 11 p322

If.! Ibid. Ad.42- SI. 44 & 9.45 GPG 2014 VdkfanEMa Vd. II p344

'"lbld. Vanqxrva Ad.146 to Ad.155 GFG 2013 Vdknmb$do Vol. I pp. 582-592

lsa Nardbe Discoune G. Genette BBO 1980 pp. 255-256

MB Xdlpava Ad.1- 51.18 GPG 2013 V a l k r a m m Vol. I p-1

'" IMd. Ad.1- SI. 62 to 70 GPG 2013 Vaikram6bda Vd. I pp. 2-3

I" Ibid. Ad.1- SI. 61 -2013 Vdk-Zlklovd. I p 2

'" Theory of Narrathfe F.K. Stanzel CUP 1984 p 2 0

I" MB -a Ad. 1 - SI.54 6PG 2013 V a k r a n m Vd. I p-2

IW lbld. Ad. 1 - 51.56 GFG 2013 V d k ~ m 6 b d a Vol. I p-2 1w T h e o r y of NmaHve F.K. Stanzel CUP 1984 p-20

"I 86 Skd.1- Ad.4- 9.25 GFG 2001 Sanivat p-54

IeMB k@xnva Ad.1- SI.150 to SI. 217 GPG2013 Vdk r u n 6 b d a Vol. I pp.- 5-8

la Theory of Narrative F.K. St-l CUP 1984 p 2 2 - I" MB iidiparva Ad.1- SI.149 6PG 2013 V o i k r a n w Vd. I p 5 led Ibid. Ad.1- S1.108 -2013 Vdk- Vol. I p 4 I& N e e D i r w n e G. GerunP 880 1980 p254

I" Ibid. P-98

la MB kil;dlponra Ad.1- 51.1 GPO 2013 Vaikmm6bda Vol. I pl

'"Narrative Discourse revirited 0. Genette tNY 1988 p107

" TTheory of Noncztlve F.K. Stonzel CUP 1984 p-47

"I IMI - Th. Death of Me Author - R. Batihes FONT 1977 p142 in Thoory of NanclHve F.K. Stmzel CUP 1984 p 4 7 173 Ibid. P47

Th. oth.r technkpm h : Om of them is dematizad scene concbting of pure

-, aologue with ki.l dog9 &ectioM or didogue with very ccmdonwd

nardor# @. This pocedwe is well lluhaled by mkgway's zholt doty 'The

Kl lkn '. (Ibid pp. 47-48)

174 Ibid. P - a

ln MB S v a Ad.5- 51.37 (L 51.38 GPG 2015 V d k m r n m W. IV pU8 176 Theory of Nonative F.K. S)aurl CUP 1984 p 4 8 In Ibid. P-48 In NamHve Dbcource revhited G. Genette INY 1986 p137 1w NuraHve Ficlbn - Contemporacy Poetics S. Rimmon-Kenan Routledge 1989 p a 6 IW Narrdive Fktion - Contemporary Poetics S. Rimrnon-Kenan 1989 p87

lo' MB m w a Ad.71- 51.24 GPG2014 Vakrarn&da Vd. 11 p543

'" Narrcdive Dbcoune revldted G. Genelte INY 1986 p-139 1m Narfdive Fktion - Contompomy Poetics S. Rimrnon-Konan Rout- 1989 p86 la4 FIG Skd. 1 1 - Ad. 16- 51.28 GF'G 2001 Samvd p-698 1- Narrative Discourse revisited G. Genelte INY 1988 p141 116 MB siripanra Ad.14- 51.5 GPG 2014 VdkramSbda Vol. Ill p-304

Io7 Ibid. &anwaapnva Ad. 32 GPG 2015 Vdkran&do Vd. IV p421

I" ~ a n c l ~ v e wourse revisited G. Genetie INY 1988 p142

'"Rhetoric of Fichon W.C. 0odh HBanonsworth Penguin 1983 p67

I" Narclthre Dlrcwne revkited G. Gende INY 198.8 pl44.

'" MB hirpawa Ad.333- 51.30 & 51.31 GPG 2014 V a i k m m Vol. 111 p-697 Icn lbki. Ad.333- 51.36 GPG 2014 Vaik rcmijwa Vol. 111 -97

I" Ibid. Ad.349- 51.47 GPG 2014 Valkrmiibda Vd. Ill p-728

19* Ibid. Ad.349- S.59 GPG 2014 V d k m & d a Vol. 111 p-728

'" Na&e Disc- revidid G. G.nde INY 1988 pp. 147-148

IW Ibid. p-148 In Ibid. p149 1- Ibid. p-149 1w Ibid. p-149

MB iidlpawa Ad. 1- 51.56 GPG 2013 Vcllkram6Wo Vol. I p-2 m1 Ibld. Ad.1- 51.105 GPG2013 VaIkmm5bda Vd. I p-4

ZQ lbid. hipatva Ad.327- 51.40 GPG 2014 Vdkmntbda Vd. 111 p-689

Ibid. Ad.327- 51.44 GPC 2014 VaHtraniiWcl Vol. 111 p-689

* Ibid. Ad.327- Sl.46 GFG 2014 VaikramEMa Vol. Ill p-689