Kalplata Vivek

Author(s): Murari Lal Nagar, Harishankar Shastry
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 73

64 and this would be all the more possible when Vatsa was arrested and committed to Ujjayini. That would result in danger to the King (svami), the prime constituent (praklli) of the kingdom, for enemies always wait for a weak point and never fail to avail themselves of it, cnce they spot it. (iii) Before the capture of Vatsa, a battle was inevitable and if so, it was difficult to elimivate the possibility of serious personal danger to the King himself. (iv) There was no guarantee that Mabasena would not subsequently change his mind; it was on the contrary, possible that once he had Vatsa in his power he would change bis mird. (v) It is obviously worse than puerile for Vatsa not to realise the difference between a real elephant and one made of leather. The respective replies to these objections are discussed as follows (p. 43, 1. 8 f): (i) King Pradyota offered his daughter Vasavadatta in marriage to Vatsaraja. But Vatsa did not approve of the suit as Pradyota was a mere quiver-bearer, whereas he was the scion of the lunar race. Yaugandharayana and others did not want to offend the powerful Pradyota. On the contrary they were eager for an alliance with him hence they reposed trust in Pradyota and conspired with him under a bonafide belief that when the gallant Vatsa saw the lovely Vasa vadatta he would definitely fall in love with her. (ii) (p. 43, 1. 13) Vatsa had shifted the onus of the State on the able shoulders of his ministers.' His presence in or absence from the state was, therefore of little moment. If on the contrary Pradyota were offended. the Kingdom of Vatsa would be indefensible against the concerted attack of Pradyota and Aruni. (iii) (p. 43, 1. 23) The soldiers who staged a sham attack on Vatsaraja were his own attendants therefore would not hurt him. (iv) (p. 43, 1. 26) Pradyota was the maternal uncle of Vatsa. It was improbable, therefore, that he should mean any harm to the latter especially in view of the fact that Pradyota's loving nature was tested by Sankrtyayapi, whose loyalty to Vatsaraja was unquestionable. 1. Viveka (P. 43, 1. 15) remarks that this is accounted for in FAFITTIJU; again (P, 43, 1. 21) points out that yard has accounted even for the objection that the soldiers might kill him in the skirmish. This अपि (एतदपि) suggests that उन्मत्तयौगन्धरायण was the work of gry. We do not know who this yard is. Perhaps he is the one referred to by Saradatanaya in his Bhavaprakasana. We also do not know whether this gary is the author of Vasavadatta.