The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhira's Sorrow / Sin

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 72, No. 3, March 2024 （5） The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin: A Study of the Śāntiparvan and the Āśvamedhikaparvan of the Mahābhārata Takahashi Kenji 1. Introduction The Mahābhārata is a Sanskrit epic of imposing size, amounting to approximately seventyfive thousand verses in the Poona critical edition. The text is considered to have undergone several compositional processes over several centuries, and the overlapping of some contents in different parts of the text is not completely unexpected. Among the various recurring topics in the epic, this paper features the repeated cleasenings of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs sin or sorrow for killing his kinsmen in the Śāntiparvan（Book 12）and in the Āśvamedhikaparvan（Book 14）. After the great massacre of the war, Yudhiṣṭhira grieves over having slayed his respected relatives, and Vyāsa and others tell him different stories to pacify his grief in the Śāntiparvan（ Book 12 ）. Although Yudhiṣṭhira seems to be completely consoled by the stories told by his elders, he is said to be grief-stricken again at the beginning of the Āśvamedhikaparvan（Book 14）owing to the sin of killing. He absolves his sin by performing the Aśvamedha ritual and offering huge donations to the officiating Brāhmaṇas. By analyzing the narrative structure of these scenes, the present paper explores possible explanations for redundancy in the appeasement of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs sin or sorrow. 2. Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow in the Śāntiparvan At the beginning of the Śāntiparvan, Yudhiṣṭhira grieves over having killed his kinsmen, above all, Karṇa, whom Kuntī revealed to be the Pāṇḍavasʼ eldest brother after the war （Mahābhārata 12.6.1–7.33）. Yudhiṣṭhira says: Mahābhārata 12.7.33: The heroes were killed. The sin was done. [Our] own kingdom was ruined. After killing [them], our fighting spirit is gone. This sorrow oppresses me. ― 973 ― （6） The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin (Takahashi) Then Yudhiṣṭhira then says that he is going to renounce his kingdom to live in a forest as a hermit（Mahābhārata 12.7.34–40, cf. Fitzgerald 2004, 90–92）. His brothers, their shared wife Draupadī, and others try to persuade Yudhiṣṭhira not to do so, but in vain （Mahābhārata 12.8–22） . Then Vyāsa intervenes and narrates different stories to console Yudhiṣṭhira. At the beginning of Chapter 38, Vyāsa advises Yudhiṣṭhira to ask Bhīṣma for guidance. Nevertheless, without consulting Bhīṣma, Yudhiṣṭhira is said to have recovered from his grief at the end of Chapter 38. Vaiśampāyana says: Mahābhārata 12.38.28–29: Having been instructed by these and many others, the great-minded Yudhiṣṭhira got rid of his mental suffering and agony.（28）After hearing their words and their sources, he became well-versed in what is heard and what is to be heard. The son of Pāṇḍu （Yudhiṣṭhira）made up his mind and obtained the peace（śānti）of his mind.（29） Tokunaga（2002, 163; 2005, 177–178）observes that the Śāntiparvan is named after the mental peace（ śānti ）that Yudhiṣṭhira attained. Yudhiṣṭhira then enters the city of Hastināpura, performs various funeral rites, and establishes a system of rule for the new kingdom（Mahābhārata 12.39–46）. Tokunaga（2002, 2005）demonstrates convincingly that narrations of old stories found in the Śāntiparvan are modeled after the scheme of the obsequious rite Udakakriyā “water-rite,” in which various old stories are narrated for the appeasement of the sorrow for the loss of oneʼs relatives. Tokunaga（2005, 179; 2009, 372） hypothesizes that the original Śāntiparvan, and arguably the original Mahābhārata, ended here and that the following parts are the result of later insertion. The remaining part of the extant Śāntiparvan is Bhīṣmaʼs series of teachings（Mahābhārata 12.47–353）. Tokunaga （2009, 374）argues that Bhīṣmaʼs instructions were initially relatively short and were placed before the description of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs arrival at Hastināpura, and they were later replaced in their present location（i.e., after the completion of the funeral rites and others） with the expansion of the contents. According to Tokunaga（2009, 374）, the Nārāyaṇīya （Mahābhārata 12.321–339）and the Anuśāsanaparvan（Book 13）were added to the text as a continuation of Bhīṣmaʼs discourse at the last phase of the textual development. 3. Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sins Are Yet To Be Cleansed Strangely enough, at the outset of the Āśvamedhikaparvan（Book 14）, Yudhiṣṭhira grieves over killing his relatives in the Kurukṣetra war, even though his sorrow has already been dispelled by the discourses of Vyāsa and others in the Śāntiparvan, as we have seen: ― 974 ― The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin (Takahashi) （7） Mahābhārata 14.1.1–2: Having honored King Dhṛtarāṣṭra who had accomplished the water [rite], long-armed Yudhiṣṭhira went up [the bank] with his senses agitated.（1）And, after going up [the bank], he fell on the bank of Gaṅgā with his eyes filled with tears, like an elephant pierced by [the arrows of] a hunter.（2） We see that Yudhiṣṭhira is greatly afflicted by sorrow（Mahābhārata 14.1.6）, but the exact reason why he is still sorrowful is not specified in the first chapter of the Āśvamedhikaparvan. Dhṛtarāṣṭra advises Yudhiṣṭhira not to grieve over his actions, but Yudhiṣṭhira remains silent（Mahābhārata 14.1.6–2.1）. Kṛṣṇa also tells Yudhiṣṭhira not to indulge in sorrow, and he advises him to perform various rituals endowed with abundant donations. Yudhiṣṭhira then asks by which action he can be liberated from the consequences of his cruel action. In response, Vyāsa, not Kṛṣṇa, explains how one can be liberated from oneʼs sins: Mahābhārata 14.3.4: Those who have committed sins always get over their sins by austerities, rituals, and donation, O Yudhiṣṭhira. Vyāsaʼs words indicate that Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs grief was caused by his sense of having commited sins（pāpa）. This sorrow may be slightly different from the sorrow that he felt from his own cruel action of killing his relatives and friends in the Śāntiparvan. In the case of the Āśvamedhikaparvan, Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs sorrow seems to be more concerned about Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs exemption from sin. Vyāsa offers three options for the expiation of sins: austerity, ritual, and donation. Among them, he suggests the combination of the latter two: Mahābhārata 14.3.8–9: Rājasūya, Aśvamedha, Sarvamedha, O Bhārata, and Naramedha, O king, you should offer [them], O Yudhiṣṭhira.（8）Perform the Horse sacrifice that is endowed with donations―with lots of objects of desire, food, and wealth―according to prescription, just like Rāma, the son of Daśaratha, did.（9） Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 13.3.1.1 says that the Aśvamedha can be performed for the expiation （prāyaścitti）of all kinds of sins, including the killing of a Brāhmaṇa（cf. Dumont 1927, 1）. Teshima（2020, 45, n. 23）notes that the idea of expiation of sins by the performance of Aśvamedha can be traced to Vedic prescriptions. Although the idea of the Aśvamedha serving the purpose of expiation seems to be a result of later development, we can observe that Vyāsaʼs recommendation is based on Vedic ritualistic tenets. ― 975 ― （8） The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin (Takahashi) 4. Is the Āśvamedhikaparvan the Result of Later Accretion? Some scholars regard the Āśvamedhikaparvan as belonging to a later compositional layer. Brockington（1998, 153–154）remarks that the limited number of starred passages in the Āśvamedhikaparvan indicates its more recent inclusion. Tokunaga（2009, 372）argues that the original Mahābhārata ended with Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs consecration in chapters 40–45 of the Śāntiparvan（Book 12）, thus suggesting that the Āśvamedhikaparvan was added later. However, since the oldest extant parvan-list found in the Spitzer manuscript1） which was dated around the second half of the third century A.D. by Franco（2004. I, 32–33）2） includes both the Śāntiparvan and the Āśvamedhikaparvan, at least its nucleus is not very young（ cf. Brockington 2010, 83 ）. We must note that the evidence of the Spitzer manuscripts does not indicate that the Āśvamedhikaparvan belongs to the oldest layer of the epic, and there is still some room left for the arguments for supporting the recency of this parvan. Koskikallio（1995, 173–178）and Brockington（1998, 154）draw our attention to the considerable similarities between the descriptions of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Aśvamedha in this part of the text and those of Daśarathaʼs Aśvamedha found in the Bālakāṇḍa “the Book of Boyhood” of the Rāmāyaṇa（ Mahābhārata 14.90.20–22, 24–30, 34cd, 91.3–5 and Rāmāyaṇa 1.13.4–7, 15–22, 25cd, 29–31 ）. The Rāmāyaṇa has another account of Aśvamedha: Rāmaʼs Aśvamedha is narrated in the Uttarakāṇḍa “The Last Book,” but it does not have a parallel relationship with the two above-mentioned descriptions of the Aśvamedha（cf. Koskikallio 1995, 173–178）. Koskikallio（1995, 171）concludes his comparison of these three epic narratives of this royal sacrifice by saying that Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Aśvamedha in the Mahābhārata and that of Daśaratha in the Rāmāyaṇa represent an early phase of the ideologization of this royal ritual, whereas Rāmaʼs Aśvamedha belongs to a later phase of such ideologization. We cannot determine whether the Āśvamedhikaparvan of the Mahābhārata influenced the corresponding textual part of the Rāmāyaṇa or vice versa. Brockington（1998, 155） prudently attributes the parallels between Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Aśvamedha in the Mahābhārata and that of Daśaratha in the Rāmāyaṇa to their common sūtra sources. Unfortunately, ritualistic descriptions in these parts of text are so general and laconic that it is difficult to identify on which texts or Vedic Śākhās they are based. Considering the striking similarity ― 976 ― The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin (Takahashi) （9） of their wordings,3） we may well argue that the two texts are based not only on common ritualistic manuals, which are often written in prose, but also on their shared bardic tradition comprising basic vocabularies, plots, and styles. 5. The Śāntiparvan and the Āśvamedhikaparvan The Āśvamedhikaparvan shares its basic narrative framework of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs sorrow（for sin）and its appeasement with the Śāntiparvan. One could imagine that either of the two parvans was added later in the Mahābhārataʼs compositional process, as Tokunaga（2009, 372 ）was inclined to regard the Āśvamedhikaparvan, along with the majority of the Śāntiparvan and the Books 13–18, as unoriginal to the epic. I would like to argue, however, that the evidence currently available to us deters us from judging which part of the text is older: （1）both the Śāntiparvan and the Āśvamedhikaparvan are registered in the oldest parvan-list found in the Spitzer Manuscript;（2）both follow the liturgical scheme for the appeasement of sorrow/sin;（3）the Śāntiparvan features the sorrow of killing relatives, whereas the Āśvamedhikaparvan deals with the sense of sins. While these two types of sorrow（for sin）overlap with each other for sure, it may be possible to see a subtle difference between them. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the remarkable similarity in their scheme of appeasement of sorrow/sin, and the repeated references to Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs sorrow （śoka）in both the Śāntiparvan and in the Āśvamedhikaparvan raise our suspicion that either of them echoes the other. Notes 1）See Schlingloff（1969）for the discussions of the parvan-list of the Mahābhārata found in the Spitzer manuscript. 2）In “Three Notes on the Spitzer Manuscripts”（Franco 2006）, which was published after Franco （2004）, the same author says that 14C dating conducted by Dr. Feistel sugests a date of 130 AD and individual results vary between AD 80 and AD 230, but he expresses his hesitation to accept the date of AD 130. 3）Mahābhārata 14.90.20: kṛtvā pravargyaṃ dharmajñā yathāvad dvijasattamāḥ / cakrus te vidhivad rājaṃs tathaivābhiṣavaṃ dvijāḥ //. Rāmāyaṇa 1.13.4: pravargyaṃ śāstrataḥ kṛtvā tathaivopasadaṃ dvijāḥ / cakruś ca vidhivat sarvam adhikaṃ karma śāstrataḥ // Koskikallio（1995, 165）notes that the repeated affirmation of conformity to prescriptions（yathāvad, vidhivad, śāstrataḥ ）is also one of the stylistic similarities between the two descriptions of the Aśvamedha（cf. Brockington 1998, 154）. ― 977 ― （10） The Double Cleasening of Yudhiṣṭhiraʼs Sorrow/Sin (Takahashi) Bibliography Brockington, John. 1998. The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill. ―――. 2010. “The Spitzer Manuscript and the Mahābhārata.” In From Turfan to Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Eli Franco and Monika Zin, 75–87. Rupandehi: Lumbini International Research Institute. Dumont, Paul-Émile. 1927. Lʼaśvamedha: Description du sacrifice solennel du cheval dans le culte védique d ʼ après les textes du Yajurveda blanc（ Vājasaneyisaṃhitā, Śatapathabrāhmaṇa, Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra）. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Fitzgerald, James L. 2004. The Mahābhārata. Volume 7, 11 The Book of the Women, 12 The Book of Peace, Part One. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Franco, Eli. 2004. The Spitzer Manuscript: the Oldest Philosophical Manuscript in Sanskrit. 2 vols. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ―――. 2006. “Three Notes on the Spitzer Manuscript.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 49: 109–111. Koskikallio, Patteri. 1995. “Epic Descriptions of the Horse Sacrifice.” In International Conference on Sanskrit and Related Studies, September 23–26, 1993（Proceedings）, ed. Cezary Galewicz, 165– 178. Cracow: The Enigma Press. Teshima Hideki 手嶋英貴. 2020. “Yudishutira to Bukkyō-teki ʻTenrinʼōʼ no kanʼnen: Mahābārata dai 14 kan to Butten no Tenrinʼō setsuwa to no hikaku” ユディシュティラと仏教的「転輪王」の観念：『マ ハーバーラタ』第 14 巻と仏典の転輪王説話との比較 [Yudhisthiraʼs Figure in the 14th Volume of the Mahābhārata: In Comparison with the Characteristics of Cakravartin in the Buddhist Texts]. Jinbun gakuhō 人文学報 115: 27–49. Tokunaga Muneo 徳永宗雄. 2002. “ʻHeiʼan no makiʼ to mizukuyō（udakakriyā）: Mahābārata dai 12 kan no keisei katei o saguru”「平安の巻」と水供養（udakakriyā）: 『マハーバーラタ』第 12 巻の形成過 程を探る [Udakakriyā and the Śāntiparvan: The Origin and Development of the Mahābhārata, Book XII]. Tohōgaku 東方学 [Eastern Studies] 104: 169–155. ―――. 2005. “Udakakriyā and the Śāntiparvan.” In Epics, Khilas and Purāṇas: Continuities and Ruptures; Proceedings of the Third Dubrovnik International Conference on the Sanskrit Epics and Purāṇas, September 2002, ed. Petteri Koskikallio, 169–181. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. ―――. 2009. “Bhīṣmaʼs Discourse as a śokāpanodana.” In Epic Undertakings: Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. Robert P. Goldman and Muneo Tokunaga, 371–382. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Schlingloff, Dieter. 1968. “The Oldest Extant Parvan-List of the Mahābhārata.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89（2）: 334–338. （This research was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K19953 and Humanities Center, the University of Tokyo） Key words Horse Sacrifice, Mahābhārata, Āśvamedhikaparvan, Śāntiparvan （Assistant Professor, The University of Tokyo, PhD） ― 978 ―