This paper will consider the nature and status of Nīlakaṇṭha’s commentary on the Mahābhārata, called the Bhāratabhāvadīpa (‘Illuminating the Inner Meaning of the Mahābhārata’), as a ‘meta-epic’, following Lena Linne’s articulation of the meta-epic and meta-generic category of texts (with respect to the Greek epics). The meta-epic is described there as a text that comments upon the nature of an epic. It constitutes the ‘medium’ or ‘locus’ of the meta-generic reflection, the epic becoming its ‘object’. The prefix ‘meta’ serves to indicate that the metalanguage or text is set ‘on a higher level’ than the object language or text it comments or reflects on.
Can such a framework be brought to bear upon a parallel program to comment holistically on the nature and purpose of one of the two Sanskrit epics (Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa) in it entirety by Sanskritic authors with very distinctive sensibilities, backgrounds and spatiotemporal locations? We have a host of examples of texts that wrap one of the epics in a meta-narrative alleging a deeper spiritual, typically, non-dualist (advaita) core to its surface form. Such a meta-reading may be found, for instance, in the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa or the Mokṣopāya/Yogavāsiṣṭha Mahārāmāyaṇa, and clearly in Nīlakaṇṭha’s Bhārtabhāvadīpa. The Mokṣopāya seems to synthesize versions of non-dualist philosophy extant in Advaita, Mahāyāna and Kāśmīra Śaivism. Indeed, even the Bhagavadgītā, Uddhavagītā or Anugītā adopt a mode of representation that claims to be a meta-interpretation of the whole epic as such, even if it is merely a small segment of the larger epic.
For one, many of these texts often fall between the cracks of South Asian genre classification. One important question raised by them is: do the very distinct genres of writing to which these texts often belong nonetheless share features that may be captured by the category of the meta-epic? For some of these are ostensibly just commentaries, as the Bhārtabhāvadīpa, (even if it intends to be much more than that), some independent retellings of the original (such as the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa), others more free and independent in their use of the original as a grounding narrative, but which nevertheless claim to reveal the real import of the original (such as the Mokṣopāya), and even others (such as the various gītās) belonging within the epic itself.
A few significant features are shared by all of the above. They claim to be about the whole epic, not its part or segment. They claim to reveal the deeper or hidden (gūḍha) meaning of the epic. Thirdly, this deeper or hidden meaning import is a necessarily spiritual one. Lastly, this spiritual meaning is almost always representative of a non-dualist (advaitic) philosophical framework. This also compels us to rethink the meta-epic in terms of the puruṣārtha (or ‘ends of life’) framework (comprising dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa), as attempting or forcing the original intentionality of the epic towards the last (mokṣa) even if it does not typically have a direct bearing on the epic as such. Ultimately, the paper considers whether the framework of the meta-epic as a mode of writing or reflection, in its Indic and particularly Hindu articulations, can be helpful in thinking with a set of texts that claim to wrap the epic in an entirely new hermeneutic of meaning, import and purpose. Moreover, it asks whether is there a pre-history to such a spiritual hermeneutics in earlier Vedic or Hindu hermeneutic frameworks of textual analysis?
As I will discuss, Nīlakaṇṭha’s own commentary follows directly in the Advaitic lineage of Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, Sarvajñātman, Vidyāraṇya and Sadānanda. It wraps the Mahābhārata under an entirely new hermeneutic framework, and does so rather self-consciously and innovatively. The paper will consider some of the themes, tools and tropes it adopts, including the commentary’s adoption of various metaphors and its discussion of māyā, brahman, personhood and ethics.
This paper considers the nature and status of Nīlakaṇṭha’s Mahābhārata commentary, Bhāratabhāvadīpa (‘Illuminating the Inner Meaning of the Mahābhārata’), as a ‘meta-epic’, following Lena Linne’s articulation of the meta-epic genre as commenting upon the nature of an epic, a ‘medium’ or ‘locus’ of meta-generic reflection. Can such a framework be brought to bear upon attempts to comment holistically on the Sanskrit epic? A variety of works have alleged a meta-narrative of a deeper spiritual (adhyātma), typically, non-dualist (advaita) core to an epic’s surface form (Adhyātmarāmāyaṇa, Mokṣopāya, Bhārtabhāvadīpa, Bhagavadgītā etc.). Many often fall between the cracks of South Asian genre classification. A few significant features are shared by them: they claim to be about the whole epic, revealing its hidden (gūḍha) import, an import that is a necessarily spiritual and, lastly, typically representative of a non-dualist (advaitic) framework. The paper pays particular attention to the themes and tropes of the Bhāratabhāvadīpa.