________________
362
Annals BORI, LXIX (1988)
the original Sanskrit text and satisfy themselves about the veracity of the information they happen to come across in the Volumes.
In the first entry on Acchodā: we are told: "Acchodā was mind-born daughter of the Manes (pitrs). Once she saw the king Vasu Uparicara going with a nymph named Adrikā;... and followed them. As the manes had no body or form. she did not comprehend Vasu Uparicara : and thought him to be the pitr." The last sentence is pot intelligble since there can be no connection between pit!'s being body-less and Acchodā's not comprehending Vasu. The fact, however, is that since the manes had no bodily form, Acchodā, their mindborn daughter, did not know her fathers, and hence, when she saw Vasu she took him to be her father. The text is quite clear, and offers no difficulty for interpretation ) amurtatrāt pitrn svān sä na jānanti sucismitā tam Vasuni pitaran mene ... Skanda P. 2. (9), 7. 16). Further we read: “ The other manes cursed both of them ...” But who are the 'other' mapes ? The Purāọa text makes no scuh reservation and simply says: “The mapes cursed the two ( viz. Vasu apd Acchodā)” (tau tataḥ pitaraḥ sepuh st. 17). In the last sentence of the entry we are told that as a result of the curse Accboda would be born of Adrikā, a nymph, in her first form'. This also is not intelligible and becomes clear only when we know, from the text, that what is really meant is in her fish-form "(...matsyadehāyām adrikāpām jantşyase st. 25).
The second entry is on Adoption. Here we are told that a Brāhmaga (Bbaradvāja ) could be adopted by a Ksatriya (Bharata ). At the end of the entry we are told that Bharadvāja was given away by his Brahmaga father. But according to the story as narrated in the Matsya P. 49. 1777., to which the author refers, Bharadvaja was not given away by his father (Bphaspati) to Bharata - that was done by the Maruts. As far as one can make out Bphaspati, his father, did not know, or care to know, what happened to the child ( Bharadvāja ) tbat was deserted soon after its birth ( 49.25). Since Bharadvāja was not given by bis father to Bharata, there is further no question of his being given away on the condition that he will be the son of both' (i.e. the natural father and the one who adopted him). It is true the author does not specifically say that Bharadvāja was given away on this
1 It is not clear why the author does not give reference also to the Brabmanda P. 2. 10.
53–72 for his entry on Acchodā.
I e., apparebly 'manes'. 1 In this account we will beglect the expression "followed them" for which there is
nothing corresponding in the text. 4 first form' typing error for fisb-form'?
Madhu Vidyā/685
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
