Madhuvidya

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

Page 510

484
ABORI: Amslamahotsava Voluinc
sting it, putting it in proper place ( saj) % Hence there is nothing wrong in describing that Damayanti released the garland on Nala's shoulders as there is nothing wrong in saying that Kunti stuck the garland on Pāņdu's shoulder (Cal. edn 1. 4418 cited by Insler ). The author of the Mbi, stanza 3. 54.26 also could have used asajat as found elsewhere, but since that was metrically not possible he chose to say asrjat which was quite suited to the context. But to say that the original asajat was entended to aspjat by some one in the line of transmission just because there was an r sound in the following word ( srajam) is suggesting something which is extremely unlikely. We may ask . if some one in the line of transmission changed asajat to asrjat due to rin srajam, why did he not change avasaktah (Mbh. 1. 37. 3 cited by Insler) to avasts!ah when there was ! ( not just r) to preceda (mrgayām ) as well as to follow ( msia! )?
Insler gets his idea to change asrjat of the Mbh. 3. 54.26 to asajal on the basis of the two Mbi. passages, viz, 3. 264.33 and Cal. edn. 1.4418. But he neglects the fact that for the citation from the Cal, edn. we have a variant samāspjat (Cri.cdn. 1,1131") for samūsajat. Of the two, Insler picks up the latter simply because that suits his purpose, although th: former is more widely attested.
(2)
Insicr also fects that the original stanza had vastrantam (acc.), which was later changed to rastränto ( 102.). His search for the motivation of this change leads him to skandhadleś (loc.). In accepting this solution Insler assumics too much ignorance on the part of the person allegedly responsible for the change. If this person knew enough Sanskrit to recognize skandhadesc to be loc, sg. he certainly know that vastrāntain, if it cxisted in thic text before him, was to be construed with jagrāla, and therefore could not . think of changing it to vastrante to bring it in line with skandhadese.
Insler interprets rastränta as ni vi end knot by which a woman's lower garinent is secured' and says that Damayanti grasped it to signify her sexual submission to Nala. This mians Damayanti grasped her nivi in the presence of all those that had gathered for th: srayarnvara to indicatc that she would be always ready to loosen it whenever Nala so desired. This is ridiculous. No princess would dream of doing such an act, least of all Damayant) who
This is reflected in the use of the two terms avüsriut (Insler's asrjat to be so corrected ) and avasuklah used in the stanzas Mbl. 1. 46, 10 and 1. 37. 3 in describing the sanic 'incident (cited by Insler p. 578).
Madhu Vidyā/485