For us, however, who do not look upon the Mahabharata with the eyes of believing Hindus, but as critical historians of literature it is everything but a work of art; and in any case we cannot regard it as the work of one author, or even of a clever collector and compiler.
The Mahabharata as a whole is a literary monster. Never has the hand of an artist attempted the well-nigh impossible task of combining the conflicting elements into one unified poem. It is only unpoetical theologians and commentators and clumsy copyists who have succeeded in conglomerating into a heterogeneous mass parts which are actually incompatible, and which date from different centuries. But in this jungle of poetry, which scholarship has only just begun to clear, there shoots forth much true and genuine poetry, hidden by the wild undergrowth. Out of the unshapely mass shine out the most precious blossoms of immortal poetic art and profound wisdom.
The very fact that the Mahabharata represents a whole literature rather than one single and unified work, and contains so many and so than any other book, to afford us an insight into the deepest depths of the soul of the Indian people.
* Winternitz Maurice. A History of Indian Literature Vol. I. 2nd ed. New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal, 1977, p.326-327. ·ÕèÁÒ : ÇÒÃÊÒÃÀÒÉÒáÅÐÇÃó¤´Õä·Â »Õ·Õè 17 ¸Ñ¹ÇÒ¤Á 2543, ˹éÒ 10-11.
