Indian Antiquary Vol 27

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 84

80
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
MARCE, 1898.
The neuter y seems odd. But I prefer the Southern recension, when it omite vv, 1056-107a. This story of Vyasa's having composed special Samhitás for the gods, the Pitris, and the Gandharvas is probably an after thought suggested by vv. 107, 108a, relating merely that Narada recited the Mahabharata to the gods, Asita Devala to the Pitris, and Suka to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshas.
There is nothing in the Southern recension that would justify us in assuming that its compiler knew the legend of Ganesa. Even the editor of the Telugu edition of the Mahabharata gives the legend in brackets. If, in addition to this evidence, we remember that Kshemendra, in his Bharatamañjari, does not allude to the legend of Ganesa, we are, I believe, justified in suspecting this legend of a more recent origin than the rest of the introductory story of the Mahabharata.
It is true17 that the legend of Ganesa acting as a scribe for Vyasa mast have been known to Rajasekhara, ca. 900 A. D. For in his Prachandapándava Nataka this poet introduces Vyasa speaking to Valmiki about the progress of his great work, and telling him how he had succeeded in outwitting the god Ganeía and compelling him to act as his scribe. I give the passage according to the edition of the work in the Kávyamálá. (p. 5). Vyasa says:
विनायको यः शिवयोरपत्यमधैं पुमानधमिभश्च देवः ।
स वर्तते भारतसंहितायां वृतस्तपोभिर्मम लेखकोऽब ॥ तेन च छलयितुमहमुपक्रान्तः । यदुत बाढमहं ते लिपिकारः । किं पुनर्येन, रहसा लिखेयं तेन यदि न संदभसे तत्ते विनः स्यात् । ततो मयापि प्रतिच्छलितः । ओमित्यस्तु । किं पुनर्भवता भावयता लिखितम्यमिति । अतः काव्यकष्टे मिनिविष्टोअस्मि ।।
This is, no doubt, the same legend as that told in the Mahabhdrata (1. 1, 74-80), although there is no mention of Brahman, who according to the Mahábhárata advised Vyåsa to address himself to Ganesa, in the drama of Rajasekbara, who only says that Vyasa obtained Ganesa's help by means of austerities (tapobhih). On the other hand, the words of Vyasa om ity astu in the Prachandapandava look almost like a reminiscence of the phrase (used however of Gaņeśa) om ity uktvá in the Mahabharata, I. 1, 79.
But if Rajasekhara knew the legend of Ganesa -- even if there should be a slight verbal agreemeut between the two narratives - does this prove that he knew it from the Mahábhárata? Such a legend must have been current for a long time before it was inserted in the Mahabharata. Rajasekhara may have known it as an independent Itihasa, or he may have taken it from some Pauraộic source. It must be remembered that the story occurs not in the body of Rajasekhara's work, which is mainly an epitome of certain Parvans of the Mahabharata, but in an introductory scene - shewing us Valmiki, the renowned poet of the Rámáyana, and Vyâsa, the author of the Mahabharata, engaged in a pleasant conversation which is entirely
11 I am indebted to Dr. Bühler for drawing my attention to this fact. [Since this was written, Indian studies have suffered the severest loss that could have befallen them, by the untimely death of my revered Guru. It was at his request that I wrote some notes on the Gareša legend in the Mahabharata for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society - see April number 1898, pp. 880-84 - to which (as he wrote to me in his last letter) he intended to add a
afka' of his own in the next following number of the Journal. The Gareta legend discussed above had a peculiar interest for the departed scholar on account of its bearing on the history of writing in India, and I ought to that it was his opinion that Rajasekhara knew the Ganeša legend from the Devanågari version of the Mahabharata, as found in our editions. To the omission of the story in Kshemendra's Bharatamafjari he attached littlo import. ance." There are (he wrote to me) even more characteristic features of the Mahabharata which are omitted by Kehemendra, omissions which can easily be explained by his desire" to mensure the elephant with the closed fist."
No doubt in the world that the fika to my notes on Ganesa which the departed intended to give would have boen far more valuable than anything I have said on the subject. Alas, the history of the Mahabharata is one of the many points in the history of Indian literature on which Böbler's vast scholarship was likely to shed new and unexpected light and in this respect also the loss of our great Guru who was the most enthusiastie students well as the truest lover of India, is simply irreparable.]