Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 437

MEHENDALE : Mahābhārata Studies I
249
from the Indrasabha would lead to an internal incongruity and hence the tbird quarter of 2. 11.47 was allowed to stand as it is.18
(ii) Brhadratha's retirement to the forest.
Krşna, while narrating to Yudhişthira about Bịhadratha, the father of Jarāsandba, has the following to report : Bịhadratha went with his two wives to meet the sage Caydakauśika who once happened to take his residence on the outskirts of the king's capital. The king satisfied the sage with gifts of choice things. The sage thereupon asked the king to choose a boon. The king, who was feeling despondent due to lack of progeny, said to the sage : “ Revered Sir, having left the kingdom I have already started for the penance grove. What do I, an unfortunate person, need a boon for? What is the use of the kingdom 10 me who am without a progeny ? "19
This stapza is incongruous with what we read of the story before. Earlier there is no mention of the king's having left the kingdom (rājyam utssjya ).20 We have been certainly told that the king had become old, 21 but in the constituted text we are not told that he had abdicated the kingdom.
Once again we notice that this incongruity disappears if we admit into the constituted text the portion relegated to the footnote ( numbered 178 ) and which is found only in the Southern recension. It reads as : sa bhāryabliyāṁ saha tadā nirvedam agamad bhrśam / rajyam cāpi parityajya tapovanam athāśrayat / vāryamānah prakrtibhir nopabhaktyā visām pate/
It is in this portion that we are told of the king's abdication against the wishes of his subjects.
We have again with us two possibilities : (1) Either we assume that the account of Bfhadratha's abdication was there in the ur-text and hence also the stanza 2.16.26 which refers to it, and that this account was later dropped in the entire northern recension for some reason.23 The stanza 26, however, could not be dropped because it is related to the following stanza (2.16.27) which begins with etac chrutvā, and hence it must be preceded by
18 Only the Kasmiri version has made a clumsy attempt to remove the incongruity by
replacing uddesatas tu by vidyadharas tu. The Devanagari group allied to the Kašiniri version has not followed suit apparently because Vidyadharas too are not listed for the Indrasabha. bhagavan rājyam utsrjya prasthitasyo tapovanain/ kin varenalpabhāgyasya kiin rajyenáprajasya me // 2. 16. 26 van Buitenen seems to try to get over the incongruity by translating räjyam utsrjya as who will give up his kingdom', but that is hardly possible.
tasya yauvanam atyagāt 2. 16. 20. 21 Could it be that the account of abdication was dropped because it was considered
improper for a king to abdicate without appointing a suitable heir to the kingdom or making some other arrangement for the proper administration ? Cf. how Jarasamdha orders Sahadeva's anointment before he accepts the challenge posed to him by Krsga. 32 [ Annals BORI)
Madhu Vidya/412