Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s2.t2.63

c7.s2.t2.63

Since many of the intermediate links are missing in the MS. evidence, it is not possible to reconstruct the history of this portion of the text fully and satisfactorily; but that it must be reconstructed on the lines sketched above, I have no doubt. Accordingly the successive stages in the development of the reading of the vulgate (which is the reading preferred by WINTERNITZ) I would arrange in a scheme like the following, in which the innovations have been printed in black type. [185] It will show among other things that the *vistaram* of the text and of the Southern recension is not "a remnant of *vis-tarārtham*" of the vulgate; on the contrary, in the latter the first line was filled up with *uttamam* when the original *vistara* was used in the interpolated stanza. The view of WINTERNITZ that at least *Āstikam* must remain in the text is quite untenable; because if the stanza had *Āstikam* there is no reason why it should not have *Pauṣyam* as well. On the other hand, if *Pauṣyam* is not indispensable, then *Āstikam* could go with it as well.