Madhuvidya

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

Page 697

Reviews
351
206, 208; 53. 51; 2. 242; it calls the same text Mohabhārata in 1. 1. 10; 53. 32, 35; 56. 1, 30-32. Secondly, it makes no distinction between the story as narrated by Vyāsa and Vaišampāyana. The stanza 1. 1. 61 -- caturvimśātisāhasrin cakre bhāratasamhitām / upakhyanair vinā jāvad bharatam procyate budhaih 1l - has been erroneously interpreted to mean that Vaišam. pāyana originally composed the text of 24000 stanzas and that it was then free from upākhyānas. That is not the case. The stanza only means that the sage Vyåsa, after having composed the entire Bhāratasambitā ( which also contained the upākhyānas ), himself made (cakre ) a shorter version of it, having 24000 stanzas, omitting the upākhyānas. Some · learned mea' call this abridged versionBhārata', which, by implication, means that these learned men' call the upabridged Bhāratasambilā Maha. bhārata'. It is quite clearly in this sease that the Asvalāyana Gphyasūtra 3. 4. 4 refers to two texts -- the Bhārata and the Mahābhārata. But, as seen above, the Mahābhārata itself makes no such distinction. The epic is on record to point out the identity of the two titles by pointiòg out that the composition, besides being bharata, is mahat and hence is known as mahā. bhārata (mahattvāt bhāratatvács ca mahābhāratam ucyate 1. 1. 209 ). In fact if the epic statement is to be believed Vyāsa's text contained not only this upākhyānas, but also khilas like Harivamsa? and Bhavisyat, but that the Sūta parrated only the eighteen parvans in the Naimişa forest ( 1. 2.69, 233; 1. 2.71 ).
If then the epic recognizes only one title (maha)bhārata for the composition of Vyāsa and two reciters Vaišampāyana and Sūta Ugraśravas, it is difficult to see how Shri Yardi asserts that the epic gives evidence for Sū a Lomaharşağa also as one of its authors. It is true that the epic informs us that Sūta Lomaharşaņa told the story of Āstika to his son UgraŚravas ( 1. 13. 7).' But this gives no ground to assume that Ugra śravas
The Sūta also knows the shorter and the longer versions (1. 1. 23, 25 ) made by
Vyasa himself (1. 1. 49). 5 The critical edition accepts hesitatingly the reading bhāravatvāt. Dr. Sukthankar
defends this reading against Wioternitz who favours bhāratatont. But he admits that the manuscript evidence is almost evenly balanced ( A BORI 11. 179--180 ). For other etymologies of mahabhārata cf. 1. 56. 31, 93. 46, and App. I. 2.3-4. The term Harivamsa in these references quite clearly does not refer to the whole of Harivamsa, but to on: of its three parvans. It is curious that on both occasions where the khilas are named Visnu parvan is not mentioned. It is once mentioned in some Dorthen mss. 1. 2. 177*. Although there are clear statemeats to the effect that Vaišampāyana Darrated the story to Japaniejaya at the instance of Vyasa (1. 1. 18, 57-58; 1. 54. 21-23), there
are indications that Vyasa himself narrated the story (1. 1. 59-60; 1. 53. 31-33), 0 Ugrasravas had also heard from his father, who was versed in the Purānas (1. 5. 1).
the narration of the Bhrguvamsa 1. 5. 5.
Madhu Vidyā/672