________________
282
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ NOVEMBER, 1918
“While the rishi Maudgalya thus played with Indrasenâ, many years elapsed and the rishi became weary (vyarajyata) of sensual pleasures. He therefore resolved to abandon this luxurious course of life and to practise austerities (tapas) in a retired place. On this resolve being announced to Indrasena, she fell down on the earth and earnestly besought the rishi not to leave her as her desire for sensual pleasures (kama-devana) was still unsatisfied. The rishi grew wroth at this bold and impudent request and uttered a curse that she should be born as the daughter of Drupada, the king of the Pafchâlas, and have five husbands.
"Grieving at this curse, and with her craving for sensual pleasure unsatisfied, Indrasena, too, repaired to a forest and practised austerities in order to please Siva. That god, being pleased at the austerities, showed himself to Indrasenâ and conferred a boon on her that she would in her next birth, have five husbands."
The story, I may observe, is not peculiar to the South Indian text, but is found in some of the editions of the Northern text also, though not in all. Here, too these editions have the form Narayani instead of Naldyani. It should be noted that the wording of the textDamayantyde cha matus ad visesham adhikam yayau-informs us in an unmistakable way that Indrasena, who is described as Nalâyani and as the wife of Maudgalya, was the daughter of Damayanti.
This story is very interesting and confirms the correctness of Geldner's interpretation of RV. X. 102 in several respects :
1. Thus, it is clear from the above story that Indrasena, mentioned in stanza 2, is the same as the Mudgalani mentioned in st. 2 and 6, and that she is the wife of the Mudgala mentioned in st. 5 and 9 and not his daughter-in-law as Mr. Pargiter would believe.
Mr. Pargiter seems to have been misled here by the use of the word Mudgala instead of the more correct form Maudgalya. Such negligence however, in the matter of adding patronymic suffixes is fairly common not only in the epics and Puranas, but in the Rigveda also. See, for example, ZDMG., 42, p. 204ff. where Oldenberg has shown that the word Vasishtha is used in the Rigveda to denote not only the original Vasishtha but his descendant as well.
As regards the word Mudgala itself, we have already seen above that the Mahabharata in one place (III.114.24) uses that word to denote Mudgala's son (who, in I. 212. 213 is called Maudgalya). Similarly, it relates in the Vanaparvan (Ch. 261) the story of a Mudgala (whether the same as Indrasena's husband or a different person, there is no means of saying) who was offered, because of his zeal in giving gifts, the privilege of going to heaven in his mortal body (sasarira-svarga) but refused to avail himself of it. In this story, the hero is called Mudgala (in III. 260. 38 ; III, 261. 3, 11, 14, eto.) and Maudgalya (in III. 261. 6, 14. 25, 33, etc.) indifferently. And in the Bhagavata, X. 21. 34 the word Mudgala is used of the father of Divodása, i.e., to denote Vadhryasva, the grandson of the original Mudgala.
There is thus no doubt that the Mudgala mentioned in st. 5 and 9 of RV.X. 102 is identical with the Mudgala of the Mahabharata, DII. 114.24, with the Maudgalya of the
The text, I may here note, calle Maudgalya's wife as Mahendrasend in one place-I. 212. 17.
