Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s2.t2.8

c7.s2.t2.8

While the connection between the two stanzas is patent and indeed unquestionable, the discovery of the prototype leaves, unfortunately, most of our real difficulties unsolved. The reading which agrees closest with that of the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza is that of the vulgate text and is found only in the MSS. of Nīlakaṇṭha. These latter have Vāyu-Chandra-Surya (lacking Śakra or Śukra altogether) like Soma-Sūrya-Vāyu of the Bhīṣmaparvan. Is the Nīlakaṇṭha reading then the *original* reading? As I have pointed out elsewhere, we are apt to prefer, at first sight, the readings of the vulgate, which appear to be better than those of the critical text ; but that is only because the text of the vulgate has been arrived at by the purging of the original by the continuous emendations of scholars for centuries.¹ It seems to me that there is a long history behind the reading of the vulgate in the present case also. Nīlakaṇṭha had evidently arrived at it by an emendation, by collation with the prototype, because there is no indication of there being any MSS. before him which could have contained that particular combination. This fact may, perhaps, supply us with a clue to the labyrinth of the readings recorded in the critical notes for the line in question. An important factor is that Śukra (or Śakra), which persistently occurs in all the various categories of our MSS. and which must, therefore, be regarded as an essential feature of our stanza, is entirely lacking in the later stanza. This proves irrefutably that the combination of the former was not *identical*, in every respect, with that of the latter originally. That is an important point to remember. WINTERNITZ is emphatic in asserting that *yadā Vāyuḥ* of the original was changed in S into the usual *yadāśrauṣam*. This assumption does not seem to me to be at all well founded, because the very next stanza (130) begins *yadā Droṇo vividhān astramārgān*, and here no attempt has been made in S (or anywhere else) to change the beginning into *yadāśrauṣam*. There are a few more stanzas (133, 140, 145) in [174] this series which do not begin with the oft-repeated formula. It seems to me much more likely, therefore, that Vāyu was introduced into our passage, secondarily, by some early Northern redactor who knew the prototype and had noticed the omission of one of the elements in the prior stanza; precisely as Nīlakaṇṭha, much later, appears to have further altered the line by changing the difficult Śakra (or Śukra) to Candra, thus equating the combination to that of the prototype. I therefore adhere to my original choice, explaining the genesis of the variants as follows. The stanza in question, which was suggested to the author of the *yadāśrauṣam* section by the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza but was composed from a vague recollection of the original, began like the other stanzas of the series, and contained, moreover, an allusion to an astrological situation. Some Northern redactor (who had known the Bhīṣmaparvan stanza and noticed that the first stanza did not contain Vāyu) then deleted (*a*)śrauṣam and substituted for it the missing Vāyu, retaining, however, the original feature Śukra. The corruption of Śukra into Śakra must be judged as easy and even natural (in juxtaposition with Sūrya), in view of the famous episode of the Mahābhārata which narrates how Indra, disguised as a mendicant Brahman, begs for the miraculous ear-rings and the armour which had been Karṇa's from his birth and which had made him invincible. The emendatory activity of the early Northern redactor was continued by Nīlakaṇṭha, who expunged the Śakra (or Śukra) which he found in his MSS. (and perhaps did not fully understand) and substituted for it Candra, thus equating the two combinations.