Suffering in the Mahābhārata : Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira
La souffrance dans le Mahābhārata : Draupadī et Yudhiṣṭhira
p. 109-129
Résumés
Through an analysis of the figures of Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira this article examines some of the speculations about “ suffering ” (duḥkha) which are developed in the Mahābhārata (Mbh). Such speculations can be understood only in relationship to the thematic framework of the Mbh dominated by themes such as fate, dharma, adharma, karma, and kingship. Draupadī sufiers because of the conflicting daims of various dharmas, the evil of adharma and the rigidity of dharma itself. Ultimately she suffers because the fundamental forces which uphold the dharmic world-order are absent. Yudhiṣṭhira’s suffering strongly reflects ascetic values, for throughout the epic he seeks to renounce and, unlike Draupadī, continually questions the validity of dharma as a norm of conduct in the triple-world. At a deeper level there is an opposition between the sufierings of both figures and this reflects a more basic opposition between the ideologies of pravṛtti and nivṛtti.
À travers l’analyse des personnages de Draupadī et de Yudhiṣṭhira, cet article étudie quelques-unes des spéculations sur la souffrance (duḥkha) développées dans le Mahābhārata (Mbh). On ne peut comprendre ces spéculations qu’en les reliant à la structure thématique du Mbh, dominé par des thèmes comme celui du destin, du dharma, de l’adharma, du karma et de la royauté. Draupadī souffre à cause des exigences contradictoires des différents dharma, à cause du mal que représente l’adharma et du caractère inexorable du dharma lui-même. Elle souffre en fait parce que les forces fondamentales qui soutiennent l’ordre du monde dharmique sont absentes. La souffrance de Yudhiṣṭhira renvoie aux valeurs ascétiques car tout au long de l’épopée il cherche le renoncement, et, différent en cela de Draupadi, il remet sans cesse en question la justesse du dharma en tant que norme de conduite dans le triple monde. À un niveau plus profond, il y a une opposition entre les souffrances des deux personnages et celle-ci témoigne d’une opposition plus essentielle entre les idéologies de pravṛitti et nivṛtti.
Texte intégral
1In the first book of the Mbh. there is a śloka which says that whatever is not found in the epic does not exist .1 This is not an understatement, as anyone who has read the entire text of the epic would know. The Mbh. is an encyclopedic interpretation of Indian culture and religion during the ten centuries from 500 BC to 500 AD in which the epic tradition took place. As with many other concerns germane to Indian religion, the concept of “ suffering ” is given a rich treatment. The sheer bulk of the Mbh., however, and the frequency with which terms falling within the semantic field “ suffering ” occur, represents a challenge to anyone who would attempt a systematic treatment of it in this text. Two approaches suggest themselves. Firstly, one could cull all the references to terms such as duḥkha, ŚOC and TAP, to name just a few general terms which can denote a sense of suffering, and analyse them with a view to developing a distinct epic theory (or theories) of suffering. Secondly, one could concentrate on the characters who figure prominently in the epic narrative and analyse their emotions and general life situations, giving particular stress to those figures who contemplate their own troubles and vissicitudes. The five Pāṇḍavas and Draupadī, as well as the principle followers of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Duryodhana fall into the latter category and present a remarkable blending of personality and character which develops into a rich epic psychology.2 I have opted for the second approach because it is the best way to consider seriously the narrative portion of the epic along with the large didactic portion which occurs in the third, twelfth and thirteenth books. What is implicit in the narrative material is made explicit in the didactic material. This approach rests on the assumption that there are thematic unities in the narrative, and that the varions kinds of suffering which occur in the epic can be grouped into unities and compared with the other important epic themes as part of the process of determining the meaning of the whole narrative.
2Because of the sheer bulk of the Mbh. this study is of necessity forced to be modest. To attempt anything like complete coverage of the epic text would resuit in a very diffuse statement about the intricacies of epic notions of suffering. What I propose to do here is to look at two of the principal characters of the epic, namely, Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira. Their importance – along with that of the other four Pāṇḍavas and Kṛṣṇa – throughout the epic virtually guarantees that the suffering experienced by them will point us towards the epic’s central teachings pertaining to suffering. As it happens, much of the speculation about suffering and the agonizing it produces is placed in the mouths of, and expressed through, the feelings of Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira.
3A few preliminary remarks are necessary here to clarify what follows. Firstly, the bland english word “ suffering ” is inadequate as a rendering even for duḥkha, lit. “ badly-centered ” , let alone the multitude of other Sanskrit words whose meanings fall within the semantic field “ suffering ”. In the texts of the principal Indian religions the word duḥkha conveys a sense of spiritual, mental and physical suffering, and when, for example, existence is diagnosed as sarvaṃ lokaṃ duḥkham, all three senses are present together. Though I will use translations such as “ trouble ” , “ pain ” , “ grief ” and “ suffering ” , for the various Sanskrit words conveying these notions, I do so in full awareness that shades of meaning and subtleties are frequently obscured. Hopefully this deficiency will be rectified by a study of the main epic characters.
4Secondly, an epic view of suffering cannot be developed in isolation of the other principal themes of the Mbh. The full significance of suffering in the epic derives its meaning only within the total ensemble of speculations about fate, dharma, karma, human effort (puruṣakāra) and adharma; these constitute part of the thematic web of the epic. Where notions of suffering are expressed most clearly in the Mbh., questions about dharma and fate are usually in the background. This requires that any understanding of suffering will have to reflect these concerns about cosmic order (dharma) and fate which have such a marked bearing on the epic’s main characters. It would not be too much to describe the Mbh. as an epic about dharma, suggested nowhere more clearly than in the polarity of the Pāṇḍavas and Kauravas as exemplifying dharma and adharma respectively. But we will see that this is not a bland opposition, that individuals on both sides have attitudes to dharma contrary to that suggested by their family allegiance. This has allowed the epic “ authors ” to conduct a full exploration of dharma and its adequacy as a norm for behaviour. Similarly, the actions of most of the epic’s principal characters are ascribed to the hand of fate expressed in a variety of manifestations.3 These characters react to fate in a variety of ways, some in stoic acceptance, others in violent antagonism. Out of these varied reactions and the suffering they produce comes a wide-ranging debate centred on whether divine will (daiva) or human effort (puruṣakāra) is the ultimate factor determinative of human behaviour.
Draupadī
5It is during the dice games described in the second book of the Mbh. that the beginnings of the conflict which will end in the Bhārata war become apparent. And it is also here that we see the first signs of Draupadī’s many privations which are always intimately connected with those of the Pāṇḍavas themselves. Yudhiṣṭhira is invited by Dhṛtarāṣṭra (at the insistence of Duryodhana) to play dice with Śakuni. He knows that he will be beaten and is warned that the game will eventually lead to disaster (2, 52, 11), yet he cannot refuse his uncle’s command, nor does he wish to go against the edicts of Dhātṛ, that is, against fate (2, 52, 14-15; 18; 67, 3). In the first game he loses everything, including himself and his four brothers, and finally gambles away Draupadî who is then humiliated in Dhrtartra’s court by Duryodhana, Duḥśāsana and Kaṛna. For certain technical reasons Draupadī refuses to acknowledge that she has been won, and after some disputation she is released as are the Pāṇḍavas and all else that Yudhiṣṭhira has lost. However, when Yudhiṣṭhira loses the second game they are all banished to the forest for twelve years after which it is stipulated that they are to live a year in disguise in full view of people.4 During these thirteen years Duryodhana is king.
6For the rest of the epic Yudhiṣṭhira grieves about the dice game and the path of destruction it sets in operation. His grief is not just self-pity arising from his bad luck. It is also a reaction to severe criticism at the hands of several people, most of all Draupadī, and to a lesser extent, Bhīma. The depth of Draupadī’s criticism and the suffering which has provoked it cornes out most clearly in a speech she makes to Bhīma after she has been molested by Kīcaka in King Virāṭa’s court:
Why should one not grieve (aśokyam) for a woman whose husband is Yudhiṣṭhira? Knowing all my troubles (duḥkāni), why do you ask me [what should be done]? Bhārata, it burns me that a servant dragged me into the midst of the assembly in the hall, calling me a slave! Who, like me – just the daughter of a king –, would want to live after experiencing such severe grief (br̥śam duḥkham)? Who, except Draupadī, O King? And who would bear to endure a second assault by the evil-souled Saindhava [Jayadratha] when we were living in the forest. And now, kicked by Kīcaka’s foot in full view of the Matsya king whilst the gambler [Yudhiṣṭhira] was watching; who, like me, would want to live? [...]
[...] Revile your eldest brother, the gambler! It was through his activity that I have incurred this never-ending suffering (duḥkhametadanantakam). For who but a gambler would dice for wandering forth [in the forest] and the giving up of his kingdom, along with all his possessions and himself [...]. Under the name of dicing this one has been toppled down from his fortune (śriyā) and now sits in silence, as though he were bewildered, contemplating his activities [...]. [...] Yudhiṣṭhira was never thoughtless and happily maintained the blind, the aged, the unprotected and all the unfortunate in his territories. Now he has eamed hell as a servant of the Matsyan king [...]. [...] At the time when he lived at Indraprastha all the kings brought tribute to him. Now he seeks maintenance from others. He is the king who once had the kings, protectors of the earth, in his power. Now he is helpless in the power of others [...]. On seeing Yudhiṣṭhira whose being is dharma, who is very wise and underserving [of his misfortune], resorting [to another king] for his livelihood, who would not be disturbed (duḥkham)? O Bhārata, look at that Bhārata! In his hall the entire earth used to sit beneath him. Now he sits beneath another, O hero. So, Bhīma, can’t you now see me, being oppressed with many sorrows (bahuvidhairduḥkhaiḥ pīḍyamānām), unprotected and standing in the midst of an ocean of grief (śokasāgaramadhyasthām).5
7This chapter does not signal the end of Draupadī’s outburst. In the next two chapters the other four Pāndava’s become the subject of her grieving.
8What are the roots of Draupadī’s suffering poured out in this and others passages of the epic.6 Clearly, the central reason for her distress is that she is molested on three separate occasions. Though three separate accounts of her molestation exist, their similarity in theme and plot makes it certain that they are variant forms of the one story.7 The plot of this story can be summarized as follows: Draupadī is absent from the Pāṇḍavas or they are unable to help her, when another male, usually a king or an associate of a king, sees and desires to possess her. She is then molested and warns her molester that what he is doing is adharmic and will lead to his death at the hands of the Pāṇḍava’s. At length, the Pāṇḍava’s take action and Draupadī is returned to them. Besides the similarity in plot, there are similarities between the protagonists, to the extent that Jayadratha and Kīcaka are multiforms of Duryodhana.8 As we will see later, the account of Draupadī’s molestation is in essence the story of the epic as a whole.
9For a man to molest an unprotected woman is bad enough, but Draupadī is a special kind of woman, on the question of which I will elaborate later. In Draupadī’s case the gravity of this offence is exacerbated by the fact that each man who molests her is a king (Jayadratha), the son (Duhśāsana) of a king (Dhṛtarāṣṭra) and the general (Kīcaka) of a king (Virāṭa). Draupadī’s molestation disturbs and grieves her because of the actual physical pain involved in being beaten, because of the shame it causes her, and most crucially, because it points to an ascendancy of adharma over dharma. The first aspect of her suffering – physical pain – is self-explanatory, but it serves to remind us that in the analysis of duḥkha in Indian religion, even in its most metaphysical expression, the physical basis of suffering should never be denied. Her shame and feeling of degradation are most in evidence at the time of her appearance in Dhrtartra’s hall after the first dicing match. This is so for two reasons. In the first place, there is always the possibility that even the least sign of encouragement (even if unintended) will be mistaken by her husbands as a betrayal of them.9 Secondly, her “ brother-in-law ” (even though unknown to her), Karna, calls her a whore because, he says, she gives herself to five men. This slander is an attempt to further humiliate her in the degraded position in which she already finds herself and giving vent to self-pity she says:
What greater humiliation (kr̥paṇa) than that I, a woman virtuous and beautiful, must now go into the middle of the men’s assembly hall! Where, indeed, is the dharma of kings? (2, 62, 8).
10The third aspect of her suffering – the ascendancy of adharma over dharma – is hinted at in the passage cited above and is one of the central themes of the epic, so it will be treated here in some detail.10 The most immédiate sign that Draupadī’s molestation is explicable in terms of dharma and adharma is the fact that she is always molested in the presence of a king, whose dharmic duty is to protect all those living in his kingdom. Whilst being humiliated in Dhṛtrāṣṭra’s court she realises that her lack of protection by the king points to her situation being an adharmic one. Condemning the Kurus and other she says:
It is base that whilst I am menstruating you drag me amongst the Kuru heroes. Nobody at all respects your plan, but they have allowed it to occur. Damn! Lost to the Bhāratas is dhavma and the conduct of wise warriors when all these Kurus witness the limits of the Kuru dharma being trangressed in the assembly hall. There is no substance to Drona and Bhīṣma, nor indeed, to that greatsouled one [Dhṛtarāṣṭra]. For the most venerable of the Kurus do not recognize the harsh dharma of this king.11
11This speech is directed towards kṣatriyas as well as towards brāhmaṇas such as Bhīṣma and Droṇa who are present on the occasion. This merely serves to highlight the adharmic nature of the whole situation, for it was above all the king and the brāhmaṇa who were supposed to be the pillars of dharma in the kingdom.
12It should be said here that Draupadī is attacked on each occasion when she is at her weakest. Once when she is having her period (and is rendered impure), secondly, when the Pāṇḍavas are out hunting and she is protected only by a brāhmaṇa, and thirdly when she is a slave in the service of the Matsya queen. The epic authors have deliberately used these situations to heighten the experience of her depradation, and, from a broader perspective, to focus in on the deplorably low State of dharma, exemplified in the very figure of the suffering Draupadī.
13The second and more interesting sign that each situation is adharmic and a principal cause of Draupadī’s suffering is the disposition and situation of the Pāṇḍava’s themselves. Each time she is molested the Pāṇḍava’s are prevented in some way from helping her. In Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s court they cannot help her because they are not free agents, having been won – dharmically (2, 60, 20; 61, 37) – in the dice game and therefore the property of Kauravas. In the forest she is abducted by Jayadratha at a time when the Pāṇḍava’s have gone hunting, leaving her unattended except for the presence of the brāhmaṇa Dhaumya. Finally, when residing at Virāṭa’s court, they are constrained from intervening when Draupadī is publicly kicked by Kīcaka, because the stipulation concerning the exile says that they must be in full view of people yet not be recognized for who they are. To have sprung to Draupadī’s defence would have meant revealing their true identifies.
14Only on one of the three occasions to which Draupadī alludes in her speech, to Bhīma are the Pāṇḍava’s unable to help her because of physical separation. On the other two occasions they are present when she is humiliated and their inaction is a great source of anguish to her. Since they are her husbands it is their duty to protect her, as a statement made about the scene in Dḥṛtaāṣṭtra’s court makes clear, adding some purposeful ambiguity as to who should be the protectors:
Handling her roughly, Duhśāna brought Kṛṣṇā [Draupadī] with the jet black hair to that assembly hall. Although she had protectors (nāthavatīm or “ husbands ” ) she was as though unprotected (anāthavat), and he overpowered her as the wind a suffering (ārta) tree (2, 60, 24).
15The absence of any reaction in them and their seeming acceptance of her molestation severely angered Draupadī and she threw scornful glances (kānkṣeṇa [...] apaśyat) at them and burned them with sideway looks (saṁdipayāmāsa kaṭākṣapātaiḥ).12 What is anger here turns to extreme grief, frustration and despair by the time of the episode in Virāṭa’s court, where she has an opportunity to reflect not only on her molestations at the hands of others, but also on the low fortunes of the Pāṇḍava’s – their exile in the forest, loss of kingdom and status. Her suffering is indeed a product of these events, but more so because she cannot understand why these evils could possibly happen to the Pāṇḍava’s who have scrupulously adhered to dharma, whereas the adharmic Kauravas appear to get away scot free.
16Nevertheless, why do the Pāṇḍva’s restrain themselves when Draupadī is in distress, especially since their restraint can be seen to have led circuitously to the Bhārata war? The answer to this question, at least from Yudhiṣṭhira’s perspective, is a simple one. They are held in thrall by their adherence to dharma. This point is continually made. It is said, for example, that Draupadī was won in accord with dharma (2, 60, 20; 61, 37), a fact acknowledged by all present in Dhrtarastra’s court and in full knowledge that the game had been rigged. And when, at the same time, Bhīma verbally attacked Yudhiṣṭhira for losing Draupadī in the dice game, Arjuna defended the latter on the grounds that he was adhering to dharma:
Bhïmasena, you have never said words like these before. Surely your respect for dharma has been destroyed by these harsh enemies. Do not be party to the enemys’ objectives! Follow the highest dharma. Conforming to dharma one should not go beyond his eldest brother. The king was challenged by the enemy, and, remembering the warrior dharma, he gambled at the enemy’s wish. This has brought us great fame (2, 61, 7-9).
17Bhīma later rejoins the conversation amongst the Pāṇḍava’s and stresses that he and the other three Pāṇḍava’s will follow Yudhiṣṭhira through thick and thin. Then he explains why he witholds himself from attacking the Kauravas at that very instant:
But now, bound by dharma’s noose, restrained by respect [for Yudhisṭhira] and held back by Arjuna, I do not become dangerous. But when freed by King Dharma, I will crush the evil sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra with swords like the fiat of my hand, just as a lion crushes small game (2, 62, 36-37).
18Draupadī, too, uses the words “ bound by dharma’s noose ” (dhar-mapāśā-sitas) to explain the Pāṇḍava’s inactivity when she is kicked by Kīcaka in Virāṭa’s court.13
19To sum up the last few pages, Draupadī’s suffering is the result of two principal factors – the evil of adharma with its deleterious effect on her person, and the rigidity of dharma which temporarily prevents the overthrow of adharma. Thus an interesting paradox presents itself. Dharma, adherence to which is normally consistent with the promotion of harmony in the triple-world, here brings about misery and unhappiness for Draupadī, the Pāṇḍava’s and many others who pledge support to them. However, it is not surprising that we are confronted with such a paradox, because the validity of, and the problems associated with dharma as the norm of conduct for beings in the triple world is a central theme of the Mbh.
20In Virāṭa’s court all the sufferings of the previous fourteen years corne to a head. The chapters following her attack on Yudhiṣṭhira (4, 17) reveal Draupadī in a state of extreme dejection. Technical terms which fall in the semantic field “ suffering ” occur twenty-eight times in Chs. 17-19. Of these duḥkha is by far the most common.14 And additional to the presence of technical terms these chapters abound in the imagery of suffering. Draupadī is described as being depressed (sīdati me manaḥ), disoriented (diśo naśyanti me), become pale (pāṇḍubhūtāsmi), feverish (me bhavati jvaraḥ), unable to obtain rest (na śāntimavaśā labhe), fearful (bhītā tiṣṭhāmi) and sighing (niḥśvasantī).15 Clearly, her experience is deep and traumatic, covering all permutations of suffering as understood in Indian thought. This should remind us that even though Draupadī’s suffering is ultimately a product of the stringencies of dharma and the evils of adharma, it is manifested at a very human level, an emphasis characteristic of the epic genre.
21Her extreme suffering manifested so vividly in these chapters leads her to the perception that something is astray with dharma as a norm of conduct for the triple-world. She equivocates between rejecting it outright and stoically accepting it for what it is. Her rejection of it is principally expressed through her attacks on Yudhiṣṭhira, for attacks on him are equivalent to attacking dharma because he embodies dharma. To see her most strident attack upon dharma, one which cornes ont of the depths of depression, it is necessary to return to the third book. The scene is the forest where the Pāṇḍava’s are beginning their exile. The actual attack on dharma is recounted in 3, 31, but the chapters preceding this are themselves full of speculation about dharma and contain accounts of various sages warning Yudhiṣṭhira that under no circumstances should he break dharma (3, 24-26). In the circumstances under which these warnings take place, their intent is clear; Yudhiṣṭhira must refrain from attacking the Kauravas until the exile is done. This is dharma. But Draupadī is not impressed by pleas for restraint and upbraids Yudhiṣṭhira for not attacking the Kauravas immediately after the dice game. Yudhiṣṭhira persists in counselling for restraint and adherence to agreements formerly reached and then in frustration Draupadī says:
Glory be to Dhātṛ and Vidhātṛ, the two who have made you deluded ¡ Although you should follow the life style of your father and grandfather, your mind is on something else.
If this unbearable calamity has visited itself upon you, O Bhārata, something neither of you deserve, nor these august brothers of yours, then a man never gains prosperity (śriyam) on earth through compassion, honesty, patience, mildness or dharma. The brāhmaṇas, elders and also the deities know the purpose of your kingdom is dharma and the purpose of your life is dharma. Then as now, they knew that to you nothing whatsoever on earth was ever dearer than dharma, even life itself. I think that before you completely abandoned dharma, you would abandon Bhīmasena, Arjuna, the sons of Mādrī and me (3.31.1-6).16
22If Draupadī explicity attacks Yudhiṣṭhira she implicitly attacks dharma as well. Her main complaint about dharma is its failure (through its supporters) to protect her from the forces of adharma. Yet despite her many attacks and her anger at what she sees as an inadequacy in dharma she usually acknowledges its validity as the norm of conduct for the triple world. It is this attitude that makes the attack cited above so different. For here she queries the adequacy of dharma as a norm of conduct, a radical query in the context of brāhmaṇical orthodoxy, but not unexpected in this epic about dharma.
23I have laid stress on the fact that Draupadī attacks Yudhiṣṭhira rather than the other four Pāṇḍava’s because this gives a key to the interpretation of her anguish in terms of the epic plot as a whole, rather than restricting it just to human terms. He is King Dharma and it is dharma that she attacks. Her concern is that rigid adherence to dharma can inadvertently subvert another dharma, something which can have cosmic consequences. This, at least, is the tenor of a statement she makes to Bhīma before he kills Kīcaka:
Whilst you are supporting one dharma, a great dharma is disappearing. And whilst you are holding to your agreement, your wife will be no more (na bhaviṣyati). When a wife is being protected, her offspring (praja) are protected, and when offspring are protected, the self is protected. I have heard recitations being made by brāhmaṇas on the classes (varṇa) and the rules (dharma) pertaining to them. The dharma of a warrior is never anything but the destruction of warriors (4, 20, 26-28).
24Here a contradiction between dharmas is being suggested.17 The Pdavas adhere strictly to their agreement with the Kauravas to remain in disguise during the thirteenth year of their exile. To have killed Kīcaka in public would have signalled their true identities. Yet the true consequence of this is that their wife suffers – the greater dharma is that they should protect their wife.
25This passage is important because it points beyond the Pāṇḍava’s personal situation to a cosmic situation. This is brought to light by some of the terms Draupadī uses in her speech. She refers to herself as bhāryā, “ wife ” , which in literal terms can be rendered “ that which should be borne ” .18 Similarly, her children are termed prajā, a word which can also designate the subjects of a king. Thus Draupadī is that which must be borne or maintained by her husband. In texts dealing with kingship the king, during his consecration, is said to marry the earth, whom he must therefore, as part of his kingship, protect in a way analogous to the treatment of his real wife.19 On the basis of this model which is the one which informs the notion of kingship in the Mbh., Draupadī can be seen as the earth who should be supported by the king – Yudhiṣṭhira. The evidence that she symbolizes the earth is overwhelming and explains much about her relationship with Yudhiṣṭhira as well as Duryodhana and his multiforms.20 She is also the embodiment of the goddess Śrī and so represents the general wealth (including the earth) of the king conceived of as śrī. 21 Draupadī herself once alludes to this latter sense of the word when she accuses Yudhiṣṭhira of losing his śrī in the dice game.22
26From the perspective opened up by the recognition of the symbolic roles played by Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira, it becomes clear .that Yudhiṣṭhira is the king who should be protecting the earth in accordance with his kṣatriya status. Yet the events leading up to the battle, especially the disastrous dice game and the forest exile, are signs that Yudhiṣṭhira is not giving adequate protection to his wife – the earth. Therefore, she suffers, because if dharmic forces do not rule, then adharmic forces will rule. From as early as the first dice game there is no doubt that Draupadï is the sought after prize, not the Pāṇḍavas and their worldly wealth. Biardeau is certainly correct when she writes: “ Duryodhana fait des avances à Draupadī – dont il apparaît clairement dès lors qu’elle est le véritable enjeu, non seulement des dés, mais du drame tout entier. ”23 Thus Draupadī’s suffering is that kind of discomfort, grief and anguish which occurs when the fundamental forces which guarantee and uphold the dharmic world order are absent, the time in which the forces of disorder i.e. adharma, become dominant. One cannot stress enough that this is a kind of suffering manifested most strongly in human terms, exemplified in the physical and mental pain she endures.
Yudhiṣṭhira
27Having seen something of Draupadī’s own suffering and her attitude towards Yudhiṣṭhira, we can now briefly examine the latter’s own reaction to the misery he endures along with the other Pāṇḍavas. His figure is especially important, partially because of his central rôle in the cosmic drama summarized at the end of the last section of this paper, partly because the other Pāṇḍavas lay the blame for their predicament at his feet.
28Yudhiṣṭhira embodies a suffering which strongly reflects ascetic values. It is as though it was modelled on the Buddhist notion of duḥkha and all which it implies. This reflection of ascetic values, however, is to be expected of him, for throughout the epic he seeks to renounce the kingship in favour of an ascetic life in the forest. Much effort is spent by others (Bhīṣma, Vyāsa and the other Pāṇḍavas) in preventing him doing this. Such a yearning for the recouncer’s life is consistent with his yogic affiliations which are present right from his gestation because his father, Dharma, took the form of a yogin to have intercourse with his mother, Kunti.24 Moreover many epic teachings which enunciate ascetic doctrines are directed specifically towards him or corne from his mouth. These doctrines and the life style they imply underlie Yudhiṣṭhira’s attitude and conduct in the Mbh.
29A most perceptive account of how he sees the world and the nature of existence cornes from Mbh. 12, 7, one of many passages dominated by his intention to renounce the kingship. On this occasion the atmosphere is one of extreme grief (śok). Yudhiṣṭhira has been recalling the memory of Karṇa, whom he now knows to have been his brother, and recapitulates and reflects upon many of the events in the battle. He begins his reflection with the suggestion that instead of going into a battle that has killed so many of their kinsmen, the Pāṇḍavas should have become beggars in the city of the Vṛṣṇi’s and the Andhakas. Then he curses the martial code (kṣatramācāram), strength, vigour and anger – attitudes and qualifies which caused the war –, and praises restraint, goodness, self-control, non-violence, lack of hostility and negation of self interest (amatsarah), which, he says, are the characteristics of forest-wanderers (vanacāriṇām = ascetics) (7, 6). And, he asks, having lost so many kinsmen in the war, how can the earth be enjoyed (in the sense befitting an Indian king as described in treatises on kingship)? He goes on to bemoan the death of the hosts of young warriors, blaming Duryodhana for causing the war (30-31). Even though the war is over and his anger subdued, he says, “ grief still torments me ” (śoko māṃ rundhayatyayam) (33), and that the evil he and the other Pāṇḍavas have committed in waging war can be extirpated only by an auspicious act like renunciation (34-5). Finally, he resolves to give up all possessions including the kingdom and proceed to the forest (36-40).
30This presents the practical side of affairs and is reiterated by Yudhiṣṭhira throughout the epic.25 In the end he does not renounce and celebrates a second aśvamedha which is described in the fourteenth book of the Mbh. Despite this, a reading of the fourteenth to eighteenth books reveals that he enjoys neither the kingship nor the earth, a situation he presages in the passage just cited. Clearly he cannot enjoy kingship – which so much embodies a martial attitude – whilst maintaining the pessimistic attitude implied in the above passage. And on the positive side of the card, in this same passage he comments favourably on the ascetic virtues of restraint and non-violence, virtues which are in contradiction with his kṣatriya status.
31The theoretical substance which sustains his pessimistic attitude is presented in a number of places in the Mbh., especially in the third book. There, just as Yudhiṣṭhira enters the forest (the locational centre for ascetics), Śaunaka teaches him about the true nature of existence, laying special emphasis on “ suffering ” and the concept of tṛṣṇā, “ thirst ” :
A man who is overpowered by impetuous desire (rāga) is dragged about by desire (kāma). Longing arises in him and from that thirst is produced. Thirst is the worst of all evils, causing confinons worry amongst men. As well, it is fraught with adharma, fearsome and concomitant with evil. It is hard to abandon for the weak-willed and it does not age, even though man ages. It is a disease which lessens one’s vigour, but if it is abandoned happiness (sukha) can be found. Having neither beginning nor end, thirst penetrates into the bodies of men; and once arisen, it destroys like a fire that has no origin (3, 2, 33-36).
32These didactic statements are representative of a whole body of teachings directed at Yudhiṣṭhira just as he enters the forest where he will be exiled for twelve years. Their practical aspect dictates that Yudhiṣṭhira must persist with his adherence to dharma and must never fall back into adharma, the implication being that the situation in which he finds himself will be righted in the long-run. Yet, whilst this practical aspect is an important part of these teachings, the impression of an underlying emphasis to world-renunciation is unmistakeable.26
33Considering Yudhiṣṭhira as the embodiment of dharma and the steadfastness of his adherence to it even when that of his followers wavers, one might expect the suffering he experiences to be similar to that of Draupadī, a suffering arising out of the dominance of adharma in the triple world. But this is not so. Even when the war is won and dharma restored, Yudhiṣṭhira shows no satisfaction with his lot and seeks only to renounce. His intense desire to renounce is a prime symptom of his unhappiness, but it also indicates that his attitude to the world of dharma is far from being one of unequivocal support.
34This attitude which finds dharma wanting is expressed in several passages of the epic, most notably in the fifth book which details the diplomatic activity undertaken in a bid to prevent the war. During this period of activity Yudhiṣṭhira has time to reflect on what is becoming a steadily worsening “ political ” situation, one he knows will end in final and devastating battle. Amidst his reflections he is visited by the Kaurava diplomat, Sañjaya. He tries to persuade Yudhiṣṭhira not to fight, using precisely the arguments – transience of life amidst the evils of desire and greed – which sometimes the latter voices himself (5, 27, 1 ff). Instead of positively supporting dharma on this occasion and opting for war, Yudhiṣṭhira throws the burden of decision making back onto the shoulders of Kṛṣṇa:
Would I be blameless if I abandoned war, or would I shirk my own dharma if I do fight? The glorious Keśava must tell me this, for Vāsudeva is concerned for the welfare of both parties. (5, 28, 10).
35In the very next chapter Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) responds to Yudhiṣṭhira’s plea, enjoining the Pāṇḍava’s to act, very much as he does to Arjuna in the Bhagavadgītā.
36Yudhiṣṭhira’s dilemna about dharma deepens when Sañjaya indicates Duryodhana’s refusai to return the five villages which are the Pāṇḍava’s rightful propeity, their due after the years of exile. This refusal simply means war, for on the point of the villages Yudhiṣṭhira will not compromise. However, despite his stubborness on this very meagre demand he is deeply concerned about the consequences of the stalemate:
[I said] “ father, [Dhṛtaraṣṭra], we should be given five towns or villages where we can live together. In them the Bhāratas must not disturb us! ” But the evil souled Dhārtāraṣṭra (Duryodhana) did not allow us even that, thinking that he is master of it. What is more grevious [duḥkhatara] than that? If someone who is born and raised in a lineage covets the possession of others, greed kills his prudence, and his prudence dead, shame dies. Shame destroyed kills dharma and dharma kills prosperity. Prosperity killed kills men and poverty is the death of man [...]. What indeed is glorious in war? This warrior dharma is evil and we have been born into the warrior class. This is adharma even though it is our dharma. For us any other life style is despised [...].
O Kṛṣna, there is always discord in war. In battle the spirits depart. Power exists for the implementation of policy; victory or defeat rests on fate (haṭha). Similarly, the life and death of beings does not corne about through their own choice. Even at the wrong time one finds neither happiness nor suffering, O best of the Yadus. One can kill many or many can kill one. A coward can kill a hero, an infamous person a famous person. Victory is seen to corne to both and defeat cornes to both. The same also applies in time of decline. In retreat there is only death and ruin [...]. (5.70, 16-19; 45-46; 49-52).
37His admission here is that although he is a kṣatriya, one whose svadharma is war, he does not wish to fight. His concern is as much with the physical suffering that will ensue from the destruction of a family as with the carnage of the battle itself – a battle whose chief characteristic is divided loyalty, relative against relative, something like civil war. In the end the sole question remains – is dharma worth upholding if it can be maintained only at the cost of great suffering?
38Yudhiṣṭhira’s palpable anxiety in this passage is not motivated exclusively by the thought of the physical and mental suffering which will accompany the war. He is equally perturbed by the knowledge that fate decides the resuit of war; the side which supports the forces of dharma does not necessarily win. Frequently, he acknowledges that fate has a major hand in determining the events which lead up to the battle.27 Whilst this is no place to discuss his attitudes to fate, even a cursory reading of the epic shows that he conceives of fate in a very deterministic sense as something acting upon him which he can only react to, something from which he cannot escape. This stoic acceptance is contradicted in the epic (and much other Indian literature) by another view of fate, namely puruṣakāra. This notion is closely associated with the doctrine of karma and emphasizes the human capacity to determine life style irrespective of the presence of some external force. Part of the ascetic’s motivation to renounce the world is to turn back on an inscrutable fate and seek his own enlightenment, a view which figures in Yudhiṣṭhira’s condemnation of his own fate, that of being a kṣatriya.
39The important aspects of Yudhiṣṭhira’s suffering are revulsion at the futility and evil of war and the feeling of powerlessness in the face of an often mystifying fatalism. Both aspects are continually pushed into the foreground by the constant pressure placed upon him by his peers to perform his regai duties and not to relinquish his kṣatriya dharma. In the terms of the principal theme of the epic – the disappearance of dharma from the earth and its subsequent re-emergence as a resuit of the Bhārata war – Yudhiṣṭhira’s tendency to renunciation places him in an invidious position. As Biardeau says, referring directly to him:
Il y a donc deux manières pour un roi d’être un mauvais roi, de violer son dharma de roi: ignorer les enseignements des brâhmanes et ne chercher que son plaisir et son intérêt personnel, ou encore se retirer dans la forêt en laissant la Terre sans souverain. Dans les deux cas il est coupable d’égoïsme.28
40It is the consistency of this tendency throughout the epic which is of interest in the figure of Yudhiṣṭhira, especially since, as Biardeau’s statement confirms, it is a position frowned upon, if not abhorred, by the other Pāṇḍava’s, Draupadī, Bhīṣma and Drona.
41The overriding aspect of Yudhiṣṭhira’s character in the final books of the Mbh., those which narrate the events folio wing the battle, is grief prompted by reflection on the kinsmen killed in battle. To him the only means of expiating this grief is to renounce (14, 2, 12; 12, 7). All this in the face of constant assertions by Kṛṣṇa and Vyāsa that this killing is permissible in the context of the dictates of kṣatradharma. Kṛṣṇa even tries to develop the arguments of the second to fourth chapters of the Bhagavadgītā, which he has used previously to persuade Arjuna to fight after he had threatened to renounce (14, 13 1 ff). Finally, after considerable pressure has been brought to bear, Yudhiṣṭhira does go through with the horse sacrifice, but remains uneasy and in truth, grieves about the war and other ancillary matters till the end of the epic. As the exemplar of dharma and in terms of the final dharmic resolution of the epic – restoration of the earth to her healthy position, Draupadî to her husbands – Yudhiṣṭhira’s protracted grief is difficult to comprehend. However, it makes sense when we realise that ascetic values lie beneath his character and that the ascetic tradition rejected the notion that mokṣa could be attained by adherence to a svadharma which obligated one to act out one’s life in the world. Moreover, even as early as the third book and especially in the fifth book, another ascetic tendency reveals itself in the figure of Yudhiṣṭhira – his explicit acceptance of ahiṃsā, as a fundamental tenet of life, an acceptance which finds its concomitant in his persistent grieving in the later books.29 This acceptance is further convincing evidence that Yudhiṣṭhira’s figure is underlain by the renouncer’s values. And finally, his is the most striking example of an enduring theme of the epic – the questioning of dharma by those who are obliged to uphold it.30
Conclusion
42The epic does not allow a precise resolution to be made of the opposition inherent in the two kinds of suffering epitomised in the figures of Draupadī and Yudhiṣṭhira. This is because the epic operates on several levels, not all of which allow for such a resolution. At the level of “ deep structure ” the two forms of suffering can be reduced to the basic dichotomy of pravrtti and nivṛtti, a dichotomy of values which has had such an important place in the development of Indian religion.31 At the theoretical level a resolution of the two opposed value Systems designated by these terms was offered by the doctrine of bhakti. This possibiliy of resolution can be best seen in the Bhagavadgītā,32 a text which develops the idea of bhaktiyoga as subsuming both karmayoga (= pravṛtti) and jñānayoga (= nivṛtti).33 Renunciation (reflecting nivṛtti values) of the desire for the fruits of actions is seen as a sacrifice of these fruits, sacrificed to god in the spirit of devotion. In return for devotion god grants liberation.
43This schemata can be readily applied to our two characters and the kinds of suffering they undergo. In Draupadī’s case suffering results from the predominance of the forces of adharma in the triple-world, a conception of suffering which falls within the ambit of pravṛitti values. This set of values was centred on the concept of the active person who lives in caste society at the centre of a world System operating normatively on dharmically determined guidelines. With the overthrow of these dharmically determined guidelines and their replacement by adharma, general social and religious dislocation occurs, social roles are thrown into confusion and widespread unhappiness results. This is the classic situation into which the avatāra steps and usually the avatāra is a bhakti god such as Kṛṣṇa. In the Mbh. Kṛṣṇa helps provoke the Bhārata war and helps the Pāṇḍava’s win it, thus paving the way for the alleviation of Draupadī’s suffering through the re-establishment of dharma in the world. Though his activity fits the avatāra paradigm it is in no sense divorced from bhakti values according to which the deity can “ liberate ” his devotees in more mundane ways than just mokṣa.
44If Kṛṣṇa alleviates Draupadī’s suffering because of the pivotal role he plays in winning the Bhārata war, it is not so clear how as the bhakti god par excellence, he alleviates the suffering of Yudhiṣṭhira. A few chapters in the Aśvamedhikaparvan suggest a solution to this problem. In these chapters Kṛṣṇa virtually orders Yudhiṣṭhira to forget the carnage of the Bhārata war and to relinquish his desire to renounce the kingship.34 He justifies his order with arguments taken straight from the Bhagavadgītā, arguing two things. Firstly, the killing of a human body is consistent with ahiṃsā because the real part of the person – the ātman – is indestructible (14, 13, 5). Secondly, those ascetics who renounce external objects, and by implication, worldly life, are hypocritical if in their minds they still think about sensuous things for this shows they are still motivated by desire (14, 13, 7). The teaching here is that a person must eschew desire whether he be renouncer or man-in-the-world. Kṛṣṇa proposes that Yudhiṣṭhira should be a recouncer in the spirit of karmayoga, in doing which he can still adopt an attitude consistent with ahiṃsā and reject desire, the hallmarks of the Indian ascetic tradition. And just to relate this to the quest for mokṣa, as befits a bhakti god, Kṛṣṇa says, “ he who sees the true being (bhūtam) is released (mucyate) from great fear ” (14, 13, 8). Here then is a path which will allow Yudhiṣṭhira to remain in the world and follow dharma, yet attain to liberation and, hence, escape from suffering.
45Despite this theoretical resolution where the bhakti god Kṛṣṇa opens the way for the alleviation of both kinds of suffering, neither this resolution nor the alleviation of suffering is in consonance with what happens on the narrative level of the epic. The history of Yudhiṣṭhira after his consecration is one of a grieving and suffering person unsure of his responsibility for the events that have happened and pessimistic about the position of man in the triple-world. His suffering is never abated and is exemplified even at the end of the epic in the pathetic episode of the little dog. In the latter books of the Mbh. Yudhiṣṭhira does not grieve alone. Throughout the last four books all the Pāṇḍava’s and Draupadī are depicted grieving for those who were lost in battle and at no stage are they able really to enjoy the fruits of their victory. Dhṛtarāṣṭra too plays a major part in these final books, suffering with remorse at the battle he thinks he caused through failing to curb his son’s tremendous pride and avarice. However, he expiates his grief to some extent when he renounces and goes to live in the forest with Kuntī, mother of the three eldest Pāṇḍava’s (15, 9-15). His and Kuntī’s renunciation brings further grief to the Pāṇḍava’s and right to the end their suffering presses down upon them. Only at the end when Yudhiṣṭhira realises that all of them will eventually go to heaven (after first spending a small period in hell) is the hope raised of their suffering being alleviated. He himself is admitted straight into heaven but he refuses to go because of the stipulation that he leaves aside the dog accompanying him. This excess attachment is really a sign that he is not yet ready for liberation. Thus, in the end, the question of suffering remains unresolved on the narrative level, but it is just this tension between the narrative and the “ deep structure ” that brings to life so many of the didactic topics treated in the epic.
Bibliographie
Bibliography
Bailey, G. M., “ Brahmā, Pṛthu and the Theme of the Earth-Milker in Hindu Mythology ” , Indo-Iranian Journal, XXIII (1981) 2, 105-116.
Bailey, G. M., The Mythology of Brahmā (New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1983).
Biardeau, M., « Études de mythologie hindoue: Cosmogonies purāṇiques II », Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, t. LV (Paris, École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1969), pp. 59-105.
Biardeau, M., « Études de mythologie hindoue (V) », Part II. Bhakti et avatāra (suite), Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, L. LXV (Paris, École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1978), pp. 87-238.
Dumézil, G., Mythe et Épopée, I (Paris, Gallimard, 1968).
Hiltebeitel, A., The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the Mahābhārata (Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1976).
Mahābhārata (The), for the first time critically edited by Vishnu S. Sukthankar (Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1932-1969).
O’Flaherty, W. D., The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1976).
Zaehner, R. C., Hinduism (London, Oxford University Press, 1966).
Notes de bas de page
1 Mbh. 1, 56, 34. Unless otherwise indicated all references to the Mahābhārata (Mbh.) are taken from the Mahābhārata (1929-1969).
2 On the importance of character and psychology in epic see Hiltebeitel 1976: 39-43.
3 Cf. Hiltebeitel (op. cit.: 33): “ The cosmic order which the gods (polytheistic or monotheistic) create and sustain is nothing else for the hero than fate, sometimes happy, but usually cruel and harsh. Indeed, in epies where such themes are already articulated, the relation between these two forces – cosmic order and human destiny – is often a matter for great reflection
4 There is no room here to give a summary of the epic narrative. A usefui summary can be found in Dumézil 1968, vol. I: 34-42.
5 4, 17, 1-5, 10-11, 14, 21-24, 27-29.
6 Cf. 3, 30-33, where her attack is yet again directed against Yudhiṣṭhira and all that he stands for. Though more metaphysical in tone than the passage cited above its import is identical.
7 For details of each account see 2, 60, 1-63, 25; 3, 248, 1-256, 21; 4, 13, 1-23, 5.
8 See the description of Duryodhana at 3, 28, 4-5. At 3, 254, 2, Jayadratha is described as “ innately wicked ” and a string of epithets including pāpātmā, pāpabhāvas, kāmarāgavaśānugaḥ and duṣṭātmā are used of Kīcaka at 4, 20, 25.
9 This is reminiscent of Rāma’s rejection of Sītā, whom he mistakenly thought had given in to the advances of Rāvaṇa.
10 Several scholars have suggested that the epic narrative concems a struggle between dharma and adharma. See, for exemple Biardeau 1969: 103.
11 2, 60, 32-34. Cf. 3, 13, 66; 3, 252, 25 ff (where similar words are put in the mouth of the brāhmaṇa, Dhaumya); 4, 15, 23-25.
12 2.60.35. It should not be thought that the Paṇḍava’s represent a united front in their refusal to help Draupadī in the kind of situation under discussion. All of them are consumed with anguish when they see what is done to her. Bhīma in particular, the most rambunctious of the five, chafes for immediate revenge on each occasion, but is always restrained by Yudhisfhira (e.g. 2, 62, 33-37). Eventually it is Bhīma who kills Kīcaka and Duryodhana, but only at the right time.
13 The passage in which this term occurs is a lament for the Pāṇḍava’s and reminds us that Draupadī’s suffering is not just personal discomfort, but equally a feeling of hurt at the sad plight in which her formerly famous husbands find themselves. She laments:
Where now are these great warriors who are wandering the world in disguise, they who are the refuge for those coming in search of shelter? How can these powerful and immeasurably strong men, as if they were emasculated, put up with their good and beloved wife being struck by a sūta’s son? Where has their intransigency gone, where their virility and fiery splendour, if they do not want to defend their wife who is being struck by an evil-souled one? [...] [4-15, 20-22].
14 In these chapters duḥkha occurs nineteen times, derivatives of KLIŚ twice, derivative of ŚOC twice, and terms which indicate a burning pain occur three times.
15 See respectively 4, 18, 19-20; 18-22; 18, 24 (cf. 19, 14); 18, 27; 19, 15; 19, 24 and 19, 27.
16 Compare the vitriol in Bhīma’s attack on Yudhiṣṭhira a few chapters later. He repeats the main themes of Draupadī’s speech:
A dharma which is a scourge for ourselves and our allies is a disaster, O King! It is not dharma, it is bad dharma. O elder, dharma and artha always abandon the man who adheres constantly to dharma and the one who is weak in dharma. In the same way sufiering and happiness abandon the dead man. The person of whom dharma generates anxiety for the sake of dharma is not wise. He does not know the purpose of dharma just as a blind man does not know the sun’s light (3, 34, 21-24):
17 O’Flaherty 1976, ch. 5, has made some insightful observations on the conflicts expressed through myth arising out of the contradiction between a person’s duty to conform with his svadharma and the more general concept of sadhāraṇadharma.
18 Bhāryā is the reading adopted in the critical edition of the Mbh. Some other manuscripts contain the more specific dārā.
19 For details see Bailey 1981: 119, 112 n. 30.
20 See Biardeau (op. cit.: 103): « Cette princesse etrange, incarnation de Śrī, née de l’autel sacrificiel et non d’une femme, dont le nom propre est Kṛṣṇā ( « Draupadī » signifie « fille de Drupada »), est évidemment la Terre, surgie du Sacrifice dans l’éclat de sa prospérité, et maintenue en cet état par la société parfaite ».
21 Hiltebeitel (op. cit.: 68), does not see Draupadī as exclusively representing the earth. Rather she is the prosperity of the king in general.
22 See Mbh. 4, 17, 14, trans. above p. 112.
23 Biardeau 1976: 206.
24 Mbh. 1, 114, 3, saṃyuktā sā hi dharmena yogamūrtidhareṇa ha / See also Biardeau 1976: 231; Dumézil, op. cit., I: 60.
25 See 5, 27, 1 fi; 70 1 fi; 14, 91, 12; 12, 9; 12, 17.
26 Even aunaka’s injunction (3, 2, 70) to Yudhiṣṭhira to act is modified by the influence of the renouncer’s values, because he is enjoined to act without desire, precisely the teaching of the Bhagavadgītā. Desire was anathema to the ascetic tradition.
27 Many of the events are attributed to the influence of daiva or Dhātṛ. See 2, 52, 14-14; 53, 14; 67, 3; 5, 31; 3, 32, 34-5.
28 Cf. Biardeau 1976: 170.
29 In the fifth book a striking tension is manifested between Yudhiṣṭhira’s desire to adhere to dharma – he will forgive everything but demands the return of the five villages – which in a dharmically based agreement were given to him – and his belief in ahiṃsā. An illustration of this tension is given in 5, 151, 20-21. Cf. also the perceptive remarks of Zaehner 1966: 115-116.
30 Cf. Zaehner, op. cit.: 108.
31 For details see my fortheoming book, The Mythology of Brahmā, (New Delhi, 1983), ch 2.
32 Loc. cit.
33 This is not a one to one correspondence. For example, desire (kāma) to achieve certain ends is a positive element in pṛavrttidharma whereas it is a pejorative element in karmayoga. Both converge in their countenance of a life of action in the triple-world.
34 Mbh. 14, 11-13.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Circulation et territoire dans le monde indien contemporain
Véronique Dupont et Frédéric Landy (dir.)
2010
Construire les savoirs dans l’action
Apprentissages et enjeux sociaux en Asie du Sud
Marie-Claude Mahias (dir.)
2011
Politique et religions en Asie du Sud
Le sécularisme dans tous ses états ?
Christophe Jaffrelot et Aminah Mohammad-Arif (dir.)
2012
L’Inde des Lumières
Discours, histoire, savoirs (XVIIe-XIXe siècle)
Marie Fourcade et Ines G. Županov (dir.)
2013
Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud
Sources, itinéraires, langues (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle)
Corinne Lefèvre, Ines G. Županov et Jorge Flores (dir.)
2015
L’Inde et l’Italie
Rencontres intellectuelles, politiques et artistiques
Tiziana Leucci, Claude Markovits et Marie Fourcade (dir.)
2018
