Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s3.19

c7.s3.19

He has given the following examples: *prcchat*, *patan*, *cintayan*; *man-yadhvam*, *budhyetām*; *vyapagacchatām*; *adhyavasyan*, *avabudhyata*, *avatiṣṭhata*, *avekṣetām*, *avapadyanta*, *paryavasthāpayat*; *abhyupamantrayat*, *upatiṣṭhetām, upanṛtyanta; abhiṣṭuvan, abhidhāvetām, abhyarcayat; samuttiṣṭhan, utthāpayan, uccārayan; paripālayan, nivartayetām, nirjayat; saṃgṛhṇītām; svīkarot. The Critical Ed. has, besides nivasatām, the following: ṛdhyata 1. 58. 8, avabudhyata 120.11, avatiṣṭhat 189.11, avamaṃsthāḥ (no. v. 1. !) 189. 21, samabhidravat 218. 28. There are many others, less certain. A number of instances will be found in the Tentative Edition of the Virāṭaparvan by Mr. UTGIKAR; the Critical Edition of this parvan, I may add, will again contain quite a few instances of this particular solecism. How many examples are really needed before it is admitted that augmentless imperfect forms occur regularly in the Mbh., and we cease to talk of “correct” and “incorrect” forms? The augmentless forms are quite as “correct” as the other as far as the Mbh. is concerned. WINTERNITZ points out that the “correct” form “is given by the Kaśmīrian transcript K₁, by the Maithilī and Bengali MSS., by Arjunamiśra, and by some Southern MSS.,” and therefore he prefers it. It is a wonder that [96] it is not given by more MSS.; because the tendency is always to change an “incorrect” form into the “correct” one. We have here to look not to the MSS. which have the “correct” form, but to those which have not the “correct” form! Let us look at it in another way. If nivasatām be the original reading, then there are two ways of improving the text: (i) keep vasatām of the original and change the word to nyavasatām and thus make it “correct” (Central sub-recension and Malayālam, independently), or (ii) keep ni- intact, and change the word to the present nivasataḥ (“K” version); both are represented here. If, on the other hand, nyavasatām were the original reading, no one would think of changing it later to nivasatām; and nivasataḥ of K would also be quite unintelligible. The text reading nivasatām thus explains, to a certain extent, how the other readings may have arisen and has therefore been preferred. And I think there cannot be much doubt about its correctness and originality.