Who was Vyasa?

© Sean Froyd

Who was Vyasa?

The Mahabharata is an epic of great length and complexity, focusing on a terrible war between two sides of the same family. It focuses on the Pandavas and their eventual victory over the Kurus. Many people reading the Mahabharata would focus on Yudhishthira, or Duryodhana, or perhaps on a wider view the five sons of Pandu. There is another that is often overlooked, but when examined can lead to a greater appreciation of the Mahabharata: Vyasa.

Vyasa, the sage to whom the Mahabharata is attributed, is a figure of intrigue. He is supposed to be the author of the poem, but appears as a character as well. Vyasa in relation to the Mahabharata doesn’t become understood as until he is seen as both a real poet and character, and through Jungian terms as a symbol of an archetype of the human mind. The complete picture of Vyasa becomes elucidated by looking at him in tripartite: as historical person, as character, and as Poet.

There is a necessity to look at Vyasa as Poet aside from Vyasa as person. We have very little information in regards to a historical person, and while there may be the “unity of theme” as covered in the third class lecture, there are still arguments about who he is. That is why when looking at him as poet, we are concentrating more on his relationship both to the archetype’s symbol in the poem, and to his function in writing the Mahabharata as a whole. Vyasa is an enigma, and by looking at the three aspects he represents we can understand him better.

Vyasa As Person

The historical Vyasa is given to us as the prime compiler of the Mahabharata. There is argument as to whether or not Vyasa was a singular person, and there always will be. There is information given about Vyasa included before the translation of both William Buck’s version, and another translated by C.C. Narasimhan included in Norton’s Anthology of World Literature.

Vyasa compiled the core story of the Mahabharata around 400 BCE, and since then things were added to the core. In its present form, it totals eight times the length of the Odyssey and Iliad combined. This size is important in relation to the person of Vyasa, and in conjunction with a concept brought up in lecture. This concept was highlighted in a quote from Woods, stating that “despite its enormous bulk and diversity, the Mahabharata does indeed constitute a single literary design with unity of purpose and continuity of meaning”(Lecture on December 14th). That “unity of purpose” and “continuity of meaning” points to the massive influence of the original author, Vyasa.

This idea bears scrutiny to emphasize Vyasa’s impact over the centuries. If a poem was added to over the next 800 years after the original version, as is asserted in the introductions in both Buck and the Norton’s Anthology, Vyasa must have had the skill to cement the central aspects of the story. These aspects are what make the Mahabharata so important, and they are preserved even with the inclusions of other poets. Vyasa, whether or not a real person, or many real persons, was very skilled in story telling. This skill kept the unity of the work intact.

We also know that Vyasa means ‘gatherer’(Norton’s Anthology, p 954). This does not detract from our understanding of Vyasa as author of this text, nor does it detract of what kind of poet he was. It would take a great deal of skill in order to put something together from disparate stories and have it be so important that others following would not meddle with the core of the work.

What does looking at Vyasa as a person tell us? Vyasa was a skilled poet, someone who knew how to construct a poem that has impressed people for the next twenty four centuries. That is the surface of who wrote the Mahabharata. There lie more clues, however, to who Vyasa was. These clues are the character Vyasa in the poem itself.

Vyasa as a Character in the Mahabharata

Vyasa was the progenitor of the Pandavas and the Kurus in the Mahabharata. This circumstance is shown in the poem, as well as Vyasa’s actions throughout the poem. Vyasa in the poem is a great sage and storyteller; one who was able to summon the god Ganesh and though many other works of writing were being produced, compelled the god to stay and write it all down. Vyasa, as pointed out in the lectures, appears in the Mahabharata a total of 41 times. There is an important distinction to be made between Vyasa the character and Vyasa the person.

In the Mahabharata Vyasa the character never is seen telling the tale. As pointed out above, Vyasa must have involved himself in the telling of the tale to pass it on, or to write it down in history. In the Mahabharata, however, the tale is always being told by someone else. Vyasa takes an active participation throughout the poem, but never tells the tale. This distinction is what separates the person from the character.

Vyasa the character is imbued with special powers as a sage. In the Mahabharata as translated by Narasimhan, Vyasa was given the attribute never to lie, as he tells Ghandari, “I have never uttered a lie even in jest”(960). In the same section, Vyasa is able to organize the rites that will give Ghandari her 100 sons, a boon that Vyasa gave to her earlier. He then goes to the mountains to perform penance. Vyasa, after the war is over, is able to speak to Ghandari and talk her out of cursing the Pandavas. Vyasa convinces Yudhishthira of fate when Yudhishthira is about to starve himself after the war. As Vyasa says “You should not, O king, grieve so. I shall repeat what I have once said. All this is Destiny”(1001). The character who is Vyasa is a wise sage and esteemed patriarch to the ruling clans of the Bharatas.

That is who he is, on the surface. The roles that the Vyasa character plays in the Mahabharata are puzzling, as he is the only living able patriarch of the clans who does not join in the fighting, even though, as covered in the lecture, he is primarily interested in the education of Yudhishthira as the perfect Dharma King. If Yudhishthira’s education was his primary goal, then it would have made sense for Vyasa to join in the fighting. This is not the case however, and in order to understand Vyasa as a character, the lens of Jung’s psychology is needed.

Jung’s ideas about archetypes and symbols is very appropriate for looking at Vyasa the character, and his role in the Mahabharata. Josef Goldbrunner, in his book Individuation, says it best, “Myths are the language of archetypes”(107). Vyasa both as character in the mythology of the Mahabharata and as the poet that is accredited as the author, is more completely understood as symbol and archetype.

The symbol that Vyasa personifies is that of the ‘wise old man.’ M.L. von Franz states about the wise old man in “The Process of Individuation”: “the representation of the “wise old man,” [is] a typical personification of the Self”(196). The wise old man is often seen as guiding the ego at the center of the conscious mind to the more complete Self. Vyasa appears throughout the Mahabharata as the guide.

Vyasa as the symbol of the wise old man is even more fitting when we take into account a perspective of the Mahabharata that was covered in the lecture. The poem can be seen as the individuation process of Yudhishthira. Vyasa, as claimed above, is concerned mainly with the education of the eldest son of Kunti. This process of individuation parallels the education of Yudhishthira throughout the Mahabharata.

It helps to make things more clear when we see Yudhishthira and Duryodhana as persona and shadow. Vyasa guides the king through the process until Yudhishthira has overcome both Duryodhana and his own misgivings at the end. Jolande Jacobi points out in Complex/Archetype/Symbol when the hero “is in a desperate situation and for outward and inward reasons cannot accomplish a self-cure, the necessary insight appears, compensating for his deficiency, in the form of a personified idea, the ‘wise old man,’ who brings help and counsel”(71). The symbol is similar to Vyasa, and the likeness goes even deeper. Vyasa also resembles closely the archetype behind the symbol.

The power of the archetype that Vyasa represents is explained best by Frieda Fordham in her book An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology:

“The archetype represents a serious danger to personality, for when it is awakened a man may easily come to believe that he really possesses the ‘mana’, the seemingly magic power and wisdom that it holds”(60).

And that “…the one possessed by it feels endowed with great(perhaps esoteric) wisdom, prophetic powers, the gift of healing, and so on”(60). Some of these attributes are acquired when another character is possessed by the power of Vyasa. Take note of Sanjaya’s possession of Vyasa’s power in Buck.
Vyasa gives his power to Sanjaya, saying “I will give heavenly sight to
Sanjaya[…] he will meet no harm…”(251), and following this gift comes this description: “…the soot fell and Sanjaya thought: the words of Vyasa are always true – and the last illusion left his quiet eyes”(251).

This description mirrors what happens when the power of the archetype is possessed by someone, they believe they gain powers beyond that of mortal ken, and are given wisdom. What of Yudhishthira then, whom Vyasa is interested in educating? Our answer is the same in both Jungian ideas and in the Mahabharata. First the Jungian explanation:

“If however, a man can quietly ‘listen’ to the voice of the unconscious and understand that the power works through him – he is not in control – then he is on the way to genuine development of the personality”(Fordham, 60).

The Mahabharata shows Yudhishthira taking Vyasa’s advice in the end when Vyasa convinces him away from starvation and death. Yudhishthira achieves individuation by listening to the ‘wise old man’ that is Vyasa.

Now we know what Vyasa the character represents, but can that be reconciled with Vyasa as a person? That question is answered when we look at Jung’s psychology of the artist. Vyasa as the archetype and Vyasa as the person intersect when looking at Vyasa as Poet.

Vyasa as Poet

Jung, in his book Modern Man In Search of a Soul, says this about art:

“Art is an innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purposes through him”(169).

The “art” or drive within Vyasa is what creates the poem and character, and when taking that into account with Vyasa as person, we come to Vyasa as poet.

Jung has two modes of artistic creation, termed psychological and visionary. In the psychological mode, “The poet’s work is an interpretation and illumination on the contents of consciousness, of the ineluctable experiences of human life with its eternally recurrent sorrow and joy”(155-6). Vyasa exhibits this in the telling of the Mahabharata about the war, the problems with the killing of family, and the consequences of fighting. All these themes show that it is a creation under the psychological mode. The Mahabharata exhibits a creation from more than just that mode, however, as Vyasa creates the poem also in Jung’s visionary mode.

Jung says about the visionary mode of creation “the experience that furnishes the material for artistic expression is no longer familiar”(156). The Mahabharata deals with demons, gods, nagas, heavens and hells, none of which is a human experience or familiar. Vyasa the poet is writing from this mode too, especially when writing Vyasa the character. The poet makes the character silent about the telling of the tale throughout the book. The character is as unfamiliar to the person as the fantastic elements of the Mahabharata are unfamiliar to the real world.

These two modes are not mutually exclusive to each other, as explained by Morris Philipson in his book Outline of a Jungian Aesthetics: “As with any psychological typology, the contrast established here between the two literary modes is not to be mistaken for a division between two water tight compartments”(109) Philipson also quotes Jung in regards to the poet in relation to their work.

Jung is also quoted saying about the psychological mode that “the poet is simply identical with the creative process”(108), supporting Vyasa’s inclusion as character. Jung explains the relationship of the poet to the work in the visionary mode as well, quoted by Philipson:

“[the poet] is not identical with the process of creative formation; he is himself conscious of the fact that he stands as it were underneath his work, or at all events beside it, as though he were another person who had fallen within the magic circle of an alien will”(108).

This view explains why Vyasa the character, while in the work, is never seen telling the story that is attributed to him. The poem is greater than the poet.

Vyasa the poet has written using both Jungian modes of creation. Vyasa writes himself into the poem, but also uses the unfamiliar when his character does not reflect reality. Vyasa the poet shows his skill in combining in the Mahabharata the person and the character. Which of these three could be called the ‘real’ Vyasa?

Vyasa the writer of the Mahabharata

Vyasa as poet is the combination of Vyasa as archetype and Vyasa as person. Vyasa in writing the Mahabharata used the psychological mode of creation to write or collect what he knew about events and people(including himself), but in the visionary mode he was taken by the drive to write the unfamiliar as well. The writer of the Mahabharata is a combination of all three: person, archetypal symbol, and poet.

Why not attribute the writing of the Mahabharata to Vyasa the person? We simply do not have enough information. What solid information we do have is included in the writing of the Mahabharata as the character Vyasa This also explains why we can’t simply say Vyasa the character was the author behind the Mahabharata, for without the real person, and without the knowledge of Vyasa the poet, we are left with a symbol like that of many other myths which cannot be attributed to an author. Why not then give the duties to Vyasa the poet? Again, to try and look at the poet without the person and the character, we are left with assumptions.

These assumptions about one aspect of Vyasa or another are useless. When a piece of art is looked at, it will not tell about the complete creator, and the same can be said about Vyasa the poet writing the Mahabharata. The archetype, to understand it better, we can return to Goldbrunner who says about archetypes “they are therefore both creatures of fantasy and natural reality”(116). The archetype as a combination of reality and fantasy is unable to tell the entire story about the author of the Mahabharata.

Vyasa, now seen through three aspects can be likened to the Self. The ego is Vyasa the person, the Unconscious is Vyasa the Poet, and as mediator between the two we have Vyasa the character. Vyasa in this likeness can best be summed up from Goldbrunner who quoted Jung as saying:

“The self is not only the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of the conscious mind”(64).

The author of the Mahabharata using the great skill of the poet, combined the unfamiliar territory of the artistic drive with the familiar of the author’s real world experience. It is only by combining all three aspects that we can see the complete author of the Mahabharata: Vyasa as self.

Works Cited

Buck, William. Mahabharata. Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1981.

Fordham, Frieda. An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin,
1986.

von Franz, M.-L. “The Process of Individuation.”Man and his Symbols. Ed. Carl G.
Jung. London: Aldus, 1964. 158-229.

Goldbrunner, Josef. Individuation A study of the Depth Psychology of Carl Gustav Jung. Trans. Stanley Godman. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1964.

Jacobi, Jolande. Complex/Archetype/Symbol In the Psychology of C.G. Jung. Trans.
Ralph Manheim. New York: Pantheon, 1959.

Jung, C.G. Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes. New
York: HBJ, [c. 1954?].

Mahaffey, Patrick. “Characters Personifying Aspects of the Psyche in the Mahabharata.” Hindu Traditions, 2nd Class Session. Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpenteria. 2 Nov. 2004.

---. “Vyasa as the ‘Author’ of the Text and Textual Devises.” Hindu
Traditions, 3rd Class Session. Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpenteria. 14 Dec.
2004.

Philipson, Morris. Outline of a Jungian Aesthetics. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1963.

Vyasa, Krsna Dvaipayana. Mahabharata. Trans. C. V. Narasimhan. The Norton
Anthology of World Literature Vol. A. Ed. Sarah Lawall, et al. 2nd ed. New York,
Norton, 2002. 953-1001.

Posted by john at April 20, 2005 11:19 AM