History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.766.2

v4.c63.t2.766.2

If we once resort to these methods followed by these two learned writers, there is no knowing where one should stop. There are scholars who might with equal or greater plausibility claim that most of these astronomical references are either of very late date or are interpolations (vide Vaidya's 'Mahābhārata' p. 71). Similarly, if we once concede that we are at liberty to change readings to suit our theories even in the total absence of all manuscript evidence, then there is no sure foundation on which we can build. The Mahābhārata passages have a tradition of centuries behind them. We must, in the absence of good mss. evidence to the contrary, either accept them *all* and try to explain them or we must give up the job of reconciling them as a hopeless tangle and rely on other evidence to arrive at the date of the Bhārata war as best as we can. We saw above that Jyeṣṭhā was the nakṣatra on Kārtika amāvāsyā and, if the war began then, the nakṣatra on the 18th day from then would be Puṣya. Nīlakaṇṭha, following the Mīmāṁsā rules of interpretation, holds that the concluding passage (*upasaṁhāravākya*) is superior in strength to passages that occur at the beginning of a work, that the passage in Śalya 34. 6 is the dominant one and other conflicting passages must be either brushed aside or explained away in conformity with Śalya 34. 6 and gives an explanation of ‘Maghāviṣayagaḥ somaḥ’ which is quite unsatisfactory. Dr.