Madhuvidya

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

Page 506

contradictions I have no hesitation in accepting this as one of them instead of trying to resolve it by impossible assumptions.
I have already admitted that in the second narration we do not get information on two points : how Mädri died and how the two bodies were kept in tolerably good order until they were brought to Hastinapura. As regards the first point it is easy to assume that Madri died of a serious shock since it was in her arms that Pandu died. Since in the first narration it has been stated that Mädri committed sati, the redactor responsible for the combination of the two versions could not retain the stanza in the second narration informing us that Mădri died a natural death. Hence I had said in my Marathi article that this part of the narration is lost, and I still favour that view although Prof.Dange has tried to make fun of it. As regards the second point, I would say that either the tāpasas living on the Himālayas knew some method of preserving the dead bodies, or that here some element of supernatural is involved since the sages who brought the bodies appear to be siddhas since they are said to have disappeared (kşanenäntarhitāḥ sarve .... tatraivāntarhitam punaḥ/rși-siddhaganaṁ drstvā vismayaṁ te paraṁ yayuḥ 1.117.3233) after handing over the two bodies to the Kauravas.
So much for the objection raised by Prof. Dange and his thesis that in the two accounts of the Mbh. no contradiction is invovled.
I now return to my own thesis and present the evidence -- internal and external -- to show that the narration in which Mädri is represented as not having committed sati is likely to be the original one.
As regards internal evidence I wish to point out that no woman, other than Mädri, from the Kuru family is reported to have committed sati. Many Kaurava heroes fell in the battle. But none of their wives or of the families like the Pāñcālas and the Matsyas committed sati. Hence it is almost certain that Mādri did not commit sati. It is true that some of the Yādava women committed sati after the death of Vasudeva and Kịşņa. This only shows that the custom had stared raising its ugly head in the family of the Yādavas who were located in western India. But on that single evidence we need not assume that the custom of sati had obtained acceptance in other families and in the other parts of India. The external evidence is offered by two independent texts - (1) The Kadambari of Bāṇabhasta (7th century A.D.) and (2) The writing of the Greek Historian Diodorous (1st Century B.C.).
While trying to dissuade Mahāśvetā from her resolve to die following the death of Pundarika, Candràpida tells her that it is futile to give up life at the death of one's father, brother, friend or husband. If on such occassions the breaths do not leave the body themselves, they should not be made to leave (svayaṁ cen na jahati na parityäjyäh, Nirnayasägaredn.p.364). In order to strengthen his contention Candrāpida then cites the examples of Rati, Kunti, Uttară and Duhsalā who did not give up their lives at the death
Madhu Vidyā/481