Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s3.74

c7.s3.74

The matter is not simple as WINTERNITZ imagines. Of course, with the reading *yaṃ*, any one can see that the relative may be construed with *ratham* in 8. We then get two sentences: “Which (scil. chariot of Arjuna) was fashioned by Bhauvana....by (the power of) his austerities,” and “whose beauty was like that of the sun.” But the reading *yat* is actually found in Ś₁K (except K₀) V₁G (except G₁); i.e. in the Kaśmīrī version (except K₀), agreeing with the Grantha version (except G₁), plus the Maithilī MS. How is it that so many MSS. give what WINTERNITZ considers, an “impossible” reading? The reading is, in fact, not impossible at all; only the construction is a little involved and difficult to understand. By reading *yat* we actually get better sense. Construe: *yasya, raver iva, yat anirdeśyaṃ rūpaṃ, (tat) Bhauvanaḥ....svatapasā sasarja*, “whose indefinable (or incomparable) loveliness (or splendour), like that of the Sun, Bhauvana had fashioned by (the power of) his austerities.” This construction avoids the two disjointed and halting sentences *yaṃ anirdeśyaṃ Bhauvanaḥ....svatapasā sasarja*, and *yasya rūpaṃ raver iva* (or *yaṃ Bhauvanaḥ....svatapasā sasarja*, and *yasya anirdeśyaṃ rūpaṃ raver iva*), which result from the wrong reading *yaṃ* for [112] *yat*, *yat* is almost a perfect example of the *lectio difficilior*, and a regular trap for unwary editors.