any centuries a tradition not
faded from the national memory;--but the _Ramayana_ is more a
structural unity; it bears the marks of coming from one creative
mind: even western criticism accepts Valmiki (whoever he may
have been) as its author. To him it is credited in Indian
tradition; which ascribes the authorship of the _Mahabharata_
to Vyasa, the reputed compiler of the _Vedas;_--and this last is
manifestly not to be taken literally; for it is certain that a
great age elapsed between the _Vedas_ and the Epics. So I think
that the _Mahabharata_ grew up in the centuries, many or few,
that followed the Great War,--or, say, during the second
millennium B.C.; that in that millennium, during some great
'day' of literary creation, it was redacted into a single poem;--
and that, the epic habit having thus been started, a single poet,
Valmiki, in some succeeding 'day,' was prompted to make another
epic, on the other great traditional saga-cycle, the story of
Rama. But since that time, and all down through the centuries,
both poems have been growing _ad lib._

This is an endeavor to take a bird's-eye view of the whole
subject; not to look at the evidence through a microscope, in
the modern critical way. It is very unorthodox, but I believe it
is the best way: the bird's eye sees most; the microscope sees
least; the former takes in whole landscapes in proportion;
the latter gets confused with details that seem, under that
exaggeration, too highly important,--but which might be negatived
altogether could you see the whole thing at once. A telescope
for that kind of seeing is not forthcoming; but the methods of
thought that H. P. Blavatsky taught us supply at least the first
indications of what it may be like: they give us the first
lenses. As our perceptions grow under their influence, doubtless
new revelations will be made; and we shall see more, and
further. All we can do now is to retire from the confusion
brought about by searching these far stars with a microscope; to
look less at the results of such searching, than at the old
traditions themselves, making out what we can of them through
what Theosophic lenses we have. We need not be misled by the
ridiculous idea that civilization is a new thing. It is only the
bias of the age; the next age will count it foolishness.--But to
return to our epics.--

First to the _Mahabharata._ It is, as it comes down to us,
not one poem, but a large literature. Mr. Dutt