The Story of Arjuna Kartavirya without Reconstruction

The Story of Arjuna Kartavirya without Reconstruction [pathanirdharanam vina kartaviryarjunakhyana vivecanam] / By Dr. Madeleine Biardeau ; Directeur D'etudes Ecole Pratigue des Hautes Etudes. Sorbonne, Paris / 286-303

[ nibandhe'smin mahabharatagranthasya vanaparvani santiparvani ca proktasya karttaviryarjunopakhyanadvayasya visaye vyakhyanatmikam samanvaya- tmikam ca prakriyam pradarsya citrasalapresamudritasya paramparagatapathayuktasya mahabharatapracalita samskaranasya bhandarakara pracyasodha samsthanaprakasitasya samsodhitapathavato mahabharata samskaranasya ca etadakhyanasambandhinamam- sanam tulanam krtva nibandhakarya mahodayaya pratipaditam yat citrasala- presa samskaranasya mahabharatasya vanaparvarina 115 adhyaye proktasya karttavi- ryarjunopakhyanasya 11-17 slokanam bhandarakara samsodhita samskarane'graha- nat srasya akhyanasya vanaparvani santiparvani ca proktayorubhayoh patha- saranyostatra samsodhita samskarane samgatih pralupta, arthaduruhata ca samjata | parantu citrasalapresa samskarane ubhayatra prasyopakhyanasya yah patho varttate tena- syobhayoramsayoh samgatih sukara pratiyate | kasyacidapi pauranikakhyanasya sarvasam pathaparamparagam samanvayo bhavitum sakyate | kalakramena desa- kramena ca mahabharatadigranyanam pathesu yo bhedo vyatikramo va nisargatah samjayate tena etadrsanam prayega maukhikapaddhatya loke pracaritanam puratanagranthanam vibhinnah pathaparampara avasyambhavinyah | | parantu pathadrstya bhinna api ta srarthadrstaya parasparam purikah samgatasca bhavanti, sratah tasam madhye kacid pathaparamparaiva pramanika samsodhitapathe grahya ca, aparasca srapramanika sragrahyasceti vaktum na paryate - iti nibandha- karya matam | ] In the last issue of Purana ( Jan. 1970 ) I have announced a more developed reply to V. M. Bedekar's article that was itself a reply to a previous article of mine¹. My aim here is to give an example, not of what a critical edition should be, but of the 1. See my "Some more considerations about textual criticism", Purana X-2, July 1968, and V.M. Bedekar's "Principles of Mahabharata textual criticism: the need for a restatement", id. XI -2, July 1969.

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 287 kind of interpretational work that could most fruitfully be applied to epic and puranic texts. I must admit that I started from the wrong end when I criticized the principles governing the so-called critical editions of those texts without mentioning the use that can be made of the different versions of the same story. However, I have to say one more word about textual criticism, in order to justify my choice of Arjuna Kartavirya's story included One of the in the legend of Parasurama for my present purpose. main difficulties of a critical edition is that it cannot easily succeed in eliminating all discrepancies between different versions of the same story, because, sometimes, we find utterly irreconcilable versions inside the same recension of the text and possibly in the very same manuscript. The temptation could be very great to try to harmonise the texts by choosing the one variant reading which will make them at least comparable if not identical. If one believes that only one text should be accepted as correct at anyone time, it becomes even more impossible to accept a contradiction between two accounts of what appears to be fundamentally the same story. Kartavirya's story seems to offer just such a conflict and it is interesting to know whether one version should simply be discarded as absurd or whether some coherent meaning could be arrived at by facing the contradiction. Since the contradiction appears most clearly in the Citrasala Press edition of the Mahabharata, we shall use that text and come later on to the emended text of the critical edition. In the MhBh, the story of Rama Jamadagnya is narrated twice: one version is found in Vanaparvan ch. 115-117, whereas the second one is given in Santiparvan ch. 49. Broadly speaking, the two versions are in agreement, even though the order of the But on one point there different parts of the story is not the same. seems to be a clear contradiction, and that is in the description of the king Arjuna Kartavirya. The relevant passages are given here below in parallels: 2. As a matter of fact, judging from the soaring prices for it in the booksellers' catalogues, the Citrasala Press edition seems to be still very much in demand and has not been superseded even among scholars by the critical edition, though it will be very soon as fur costly, if not more, as the latter.

288 puranam - PURANA Vanaparvan 115 11-14, 16b-17 [Vol. XII, No. 2 Santiparvan 4935-47 ramena carjuno nama haihayadhipatirhatah | | etasminneva kale tu krtaviryatmano bali | tasya bahusatanyasamstrini sapta ca pandava || arjuno nama tejasvi ksatriyo haihayadhipah || dattatreyaprasadena vimanam kancanam tatha | aisvaryam sarvabhutesu prthivyam prthivipate || avyahatagatiscaiva rathastasya mahatmanah | rathena tena tu sada varadanena viryavan || mamarda devan yaksamsca rsimscaiva samantatah | bhutamscaiva sa sarvamsta pidayamasa sarvatah | vimanena ca divyena haihayadhipatih prabhuh | sacisahayam kridantam dharsayamasa vasavam || 0019220 tatastu bhagavan devah sakrena sahitastada| kartaviryavinasartham mantrayamasa bharata || 116. 19-21 kadacitta tathaivasya viniskrantah sutah prabho| athanupapatirvirah kartaviryo 'bhyavartata || tamasramapadam praptam rserbharya samarcayat| sa yuddhamadasammatto nabhyanandattatharcanam || pramathya casramattasmaddhomadhenostatha balat | nahara vatsam krosantya babhanja ca mahadruman || adoshicul to 19hical lan oniog photo gul toolbo Svi 976 box gift mi ti noi Belance biff mor od of scoot oliban mine ghote movs bahabi gus ined ton as eg floor riot of food | dattatreyaprasadena raja bahusahasravan | cakravarti mahateja vipranamasvamedhike || dadau sa prthivim sarvam saptadvisam saparvatam | svabahustrabalenajau jitva paramadharmavit || trsitena ca kaunteya bhiksitascitrabhanuna | sahasrabahuvikrantah pradad bhiksamathagnaye || graman purani rastrani ghosamscaiva ta viryavan | jajvala tasya banagraccitrabhanurdidhaksaya || sa tasya purusendrasya prabhavena mahaujasah | dadaha kartaviryasya sailanatha vanaspatin || | || sa sunyamasramam ramyamapavasya mahatmanah | dadaha pavaneneddhascitrabhanuh sahaihayah || apavastam tato rosacchsaparjunamacyuta | dagdhe srame mahabaho kartaviryena viryavan || svaya na varjitam yasmanmamedam hi mahadvanam | dagdham tasmadrane ramo bahuste chetsyate'rjuna || arjunastu mahateja bali nityam samatmakah | brahmanyasca saranyasca data surasca bharata | nacintayattada sasam tena dattam mahatmana | tasya putrastu balinah sapenasan piturvaghe || nimittadavalipta vai nrsamsascaiva sarvada | jamadagnidhenvaste vatsamaninyurbharatarsabha | ajnatam karttaviryena haihayendrena dhimata | tannimittamabhudyuddham jamadagnermahatmanah || |

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 289 In the Vanaparvan version, the meaning is obvious at once: Arjuna Kartavirya is one of those innumerable princes of the epic legends who, after acquiring too much might, misuse it against all the rules of dharma: he harasses the devas and the rsis with his wonderful chariot and finally dares to disturb Indra, the king of the gods, when he is sporting with his wife. This brings about Visnu's decision to incarnate himself on earth to relieve the gods and all creatures of the permanent threat. This is only in the way of a preamble, the celestial part of the drama, which gives its meaning to Arjuna's behaviour later on in Jamadagni's asrama: whether he harasses the gods or steals the brahman's Homadhenu, his character is the same. In short, Arjuna is a bad king, a great sinner; similarly, the Renukamahatmya considers him as the asura Madhu incarnate. alesIt is not only Arjuna's wicked nature which is thus symbolically described the result of his misbehaviour towards the gods as well as Jamadagni is also to be understood symbolically. In heaven, the climax is reached when the intimacy between Indra and his wife is disturbed. Indra being the king of the gods, his wife, Saci, Symbolises both the Earth and the prosperity of our world that the dharmic relationship between gods and men only can bring about*. When Indra stays with his wife in a loving mood, things must be in order in our human world. To come and disturb this happy occasion is a dreadful act in itself, as well as having dire consequences. Our text does not even mention Indra's anger, and that would certainly not be a sufficient symbol of the meaning of Arjuna's boldness and arrogance in fact, it means that heaven and earth are so deeply affected by Arjuna's doings that their normal and peaceful relationship has been destroyed and life is no more possible. That is why Visnu himself has to step in at this point and decide Arjuna's death. The scene has been set ready for an avatara to be born on this earth. As a matter of fact, the story goes on to tell us of Jamadagni's birth from the brahman Rcika's marriage with the princess Satya- 3. Actually our text only says that Visnu deliberates with Indra in order to kill Arjuna. moja 4. Cf. in MhBh, Krsna Draupadi, the wife of the five Pandavas, is said to be an incarnation of Sri or Laksmi (I 197 30, 35), but also an incarnation of Saci as well (I 67 157), in which latter case Rukmini, the wife of Krsna, is an incarnation of Sri (ibid. 156).

290 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 vati and of the exchange of the ritual caru between Satyavati and her mother, which will be an instrument secretly used by Visnu to fulfil his purpose: Jamadagni's son by his wife Renuka-another princes-will be a brahman endowed with the virtues of a perfect ksatriya. Parasurama, whom the puranic literature explicitly gives as Visnu's avatara is thus prepared to meet the danger coming to brahmans from greedy ksatriyas. At this point, Arjuna Kartavirya comes to the fore: he arrives at Jamadagni's hermitage in the forest when the rsi's sons are away. Though Renuka receives him suitably, he is not pleased with her welcome, being yuddhamadasammattah. He takes away the calf of Homadhenu, Jamadagni's cow. Here our text is very brief. But some puranic accounts of the same story (for example the Renukamahatmya of the Skandapurana) make Arjuna envious of the brahmanic power as incarnated in Kamadhenu, another name for Jamadagni's cow. He steals the cow or its calf in a bid to conquer the brahman, which he finds superior to his ksatra. That he ultimately kills Jamadagni does not add anything more to the meaning but is the direct consequence of first act when he tries to rob the brahman of the source of his power-the cow from which he gets milk for sacrifices and food for his guests-, he destroys the normal order of things, the dharma, in A which the brahman and the ksatra should be kept separate. brahman without his cow can no longer perform his ritual duties, which is as much as to say that he is no more a brahman or that he is dead. But this means at the same time the destruction of the source of all prosperity on earth and peace in heaven. The gods are no longer fed on sacrificial offerings and they cease to take care of this earth by sending rains, etc In other words, what Arjuna is now doing in Jamadagni's asrama is the symbolic repetition of what he had done in heaven when he had disturbed Indra and his wife. The king's wickedness consists in his misbehaving towards the gods and the brahmans and thus transgressing the dharmic order of the world. When Parasurama kills him, that can be seen only as a just punishment for his sins. sm 5. We shall omit here the episode of the Renuka beheading by Parasurama (Vana° 116 5-14), which is not relevant to the story of Arjuna Kartavirya. 6. Though it must be remembered that this is not the end of the story: when all the ksatriyas have been killed by Rama, the Earth cannot

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 291 This interpretation tallies also with the epic account of a discussion that takes place between Vayu and Arjuna Kartavirya (MhBh XIII. 152 sq.), in which the latter stresses the lordship of the princes, whereas Vayu gives him a lengthy demonstration of the spiritual superiority of the brahmans. In all these occurrences, Arjuna is a mighty ksatriya who does not accept the spiritual supremacy of the brahmans over himself either he claims to be superior to them or he tries to snatch their spiritual power to add it to his own worldly power. power. In both cases, the result is of the worst kind: if the king fails to fulfil his duties and goes against the dharmic order of things instead of protecting it, the world cannot live long and is destined to an early disaster. That is precisely what the story of Ram Jamadagnya has to tell us. In contrast to this bad king, one may look at Visvamitra, the counterpart of Parasurama, who, though he was born a ksatriya, discarded his ksatra in order to possess the brahman after admitting that the latter was superior. His choice, which goes also against the set order of the world and is not without danger for the world, at least does not result into an utter confusion -sankara-, since he first gives up the ksatra and then take to tapas in order to reach brahmanhood. His ready acceptance of the superiority of the brahmans can be understood in a way as submissiveness to the dharmic order of the world. Though he becomes a brahman of a special type, not identical to the purest type as represented by Vasistha, his behaviour does not go against the set order that requires a strict separation of the brahman and at ksatra. It is even more interesting to compare Arjuna to Parasurama in this very context of Vanaparvan 115-117. Though Parasurama is a typical example of the dreaded varnasankara and is thus in himself the foreboding of a terrible event for this world, the story shows that he does not take advantage of his nature to snatch both his powers, brahman and ksatra, for his own benefit, but uses ksatriya might for the sake of the brahmans and, after fulfilling his purpose by destroying all ksatriyas on earth, gives away the earth to brahmans as a daksina (III. 117. 11). The result for the earth will be disastrous but Parasurama's birth had been decided 12 live because she is deprived of a ruler. The dharma will be restored only when virtuous ksatriyas are born and rule the Earth according to dharma. Cf. here below.

292 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 by Visnu in order to provoke that disaster, and he has acted in conformity with his own dharma for the ultimate benefit of all creatures. Let us now consider the second version of the story of Kartavirya as it is given in Santiparvan 49 (Citrasala Press ed.). At first sight, the description of Arjuna's character contrasts strikingly with that in the version already examined. Arjuna is the same powerful prince, whose thousand arms have been given him as a boon by Dattatreya. But, far from being intoxicated with pride, he is now called paramadharmavid (v. 37) and later on, in spite of Vasistha's curse, he is still said to be samatmaka, brahmanya, saranya, dat! (v. 44). In fact, he is so virtuous that he is not very much disturbed by Vasistha's curse (v. 45) in his own eyes he does not see anything to be cursed for. As a matter of fact he seems to be a very pious king, respectful of brahmans and full of compassion for those who come and ask for his protection. What more could be required for a king to be dharmic? But, at the same time, we are at a loss to explain how his present character is going to lead him into the same trouble as his wickedness in the Vanaparvan story. Therefore, we have to interpret his present behaviour in the light of these two facts, namely that he is a dharmic and nonetheless initiates a major disaster for himself, for all the ksatriyas and ultimately for the whole earth. Our edition of the text describes two separate acts of his, without clearly stating the link between them on the one hand, being a cakravartin, that is, the lord of the whole earth, he offers an asvamedha sacrifice, at the end of which he gives the totality of his kingdom to brahmans, presumably to the officiating priests in the way of daksina. On the other hand, Agni (also called Citrabhanu) comes and begs from him some alms to quench his thirst : probably the word trsita here means "greedy" or "hungry" in general rather than "thirsty". A pious king cannot refuse a bhika to anybody, least of all to Agni, the sacrificial Fire. But his way of giving satisfaction to Agni's request is in itself strange : he leads Citrabhanu everywhere on the earth for him to burn and consume everything, as if cities, villages, forests, in fact the whole world, had become a sacrificial offering. And the Fire seems to burn these "alms" with the help of Arjuna's arrows :" The mighty Citrabhanu, desirous of burning (everything), turned

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 293 to flames villages, cities, kingdoms, cattle-pens from the tip of his (Arjuna's) arrows (v. 39)". But we know that arrows and flames can symbolise each other quite easily. Here it means only-and that in itself is mysterious-that Agni requires the king's help. In the universal fire Vasistha's hermitage is burnt down. Vasistha manages to escape. His anger and his curse are the beginning of Arjuna's troubles". The way in which these two acts of the king are juxtaposed suggests that we should look for some connection between them, and possibly for a cause and effect relationship: Arjuna's pietyor should we rather say excess of piety ?-may be the cause of Agni's greediness and ultimately of the universal fire. As our text sheds very little light on this point, we may look for some similar stories where the symbolic meaning would be made more explicit. What appears to many people as an unmanageable overgrowth of myths in epics and puranas is actually an invaluable source of information for a better understanding of each of them. The gift of the whole earth as daksina to officiating priests is a theme already known to the Brahmanas, since we find it in the Aitareya Br. (VIII 21) and the Satapatha Br. (XIII 7.1.15). We quote here the Aitareya version and Muir's translation 8: " etena ha va aindrena mahabhisekena kasyapo visvakarmanam bhauvanamabhisiseca | tasmad u visvakarma bhauvanah samantam sarvatah prthivim nayan pariyayasvena ca medhyeneje | bhumirha jagavityudaharanti "na ma martyah kascana datumarhati visvakarman bhauvana mam didasitha | nimanksye'ham salilasya madhye moghasta esa kasyapayasa sangara ityu With this great inauguration like that of Indra did Kasyapa consecrete Visvakarman Bhauvana, who in consequence went round the Earth in all directions, conquering it; and offered an asvamedha sacrifice. They relate that the Earth then recited this verse: 7. We shall not here ponder over the name that is given to Vasistha: Apava, though it has also a special significance in this context. We may only venture to say that, by remaining alive, he marks the limits of Agni's fire just as the deluge puts an end to the cosmic fire during pralaya. 8. Cf. J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts I p. 456.

294 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 "Me may no mortal give away ; but thou, oh king, dost so essay ; deep will I plunge beneath the main; thy pledge to Kasyapa is vain". Here the context is exactly the same as in our myth: King Visvakarman Bhauvana, after conquering the Earth, offers an asvamedha and the Earth's threat to disappear in the ocean suggests that he, just like Kartavirya, wanted to give the whole Farth as daksina to the officiating priest. In the Satapathabr. the same intention of the same king-the priest still being Kasyapa-and the same reaction of the Earth occur in the context of the sarvamedha: giving the whole Earth to the officiating priest in such a total sacrifice is understandable, the more so as it puts an end to one's life as a householder. But it does not seem to be more acceptable to the Earth: if the Earth is given to brahmans, it means that she has no more ksatriya ruler to protect her and dharma. This would result in a state of chaos, which ultimately would bring a pralaya of some This meaning of the Earth's threat is clearly expressed in the Parasurama story, in the very same context of the Santiparvan that gives our present version of Arjuna's myth (XII 49 64,68-73a) : trih saptakrtvah prthivim krtva nihksatriyam prabhuh | daksinamasvamedhante kasyapayadadat tatah || kasyapastam maharaja pratigrhya vasumdharam | krtva brahmanasamstham vai pravistah sort. sumahadvanam || tatah sudrasca vaisyasca yatha svairapracarinah | avartanta dvinagryanam daresu bharatarsabha || || arajake jivaloke durbala balavattaraih | pidyante na hi vipresu prabhutvam kasyacit tada || tatah kalena prthivi pidyamana duratmabhih | viparyayena tenasu pravivesa rasatalam || araksyamana vidhivatksatriyairdharmaraksibhih | tam drstva dravatim tatra samtrasatsa mahamanah || uruna dharayamasa kasyapah prthivim tatah ||

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 295 Kasyapa, being a Prajapati, stands for all the brahmans. When he is given the Earth as a daksina, he bestows her on the brahmans, Parasurama having destroyed all ksatriyas. Then Kasyapa retires into a forest, which means the beginning of the end. Soon after, the Earth, deprived of a king, sinks into the ocean; there she meets the same Kasyapa who arrests her flight. She will ask him for a king (v. 74b). We can now be sure of the meaning of Arjuna Kartavirya's gift of the Earth to the priests at the end of his asvamedha: it is the foreboding of a disaster. But what is the reason for this awful gift? We are not told that Kartavirya wants to retire from the world and take to ascetic life in the forest. But we know that he is very pious, brahmanya, saranya and paramadharmavid. The only reason then that can be invoked for this act of his is precisely an excess of piety: he is so generous to the brahmans on the occasion of sacrifices, that he gives away all his possessions. Generosity to brahmans is the very definition of a good king whose piety brings prosperity to his kingdom. But obviously, there must be some limit to a king's generosity. If he gives away everything, he cannot perform any more sacrifices, since he has no more wealth to spend. Thus he can no longer be a dharmic king and he has destroyed his kingdom's prosperity. What is even worse, the wealth, which should primarily belong to the king, has become the property of the brahmans, though these are not fit to rule over the Earth: we have reached a situation that is not without similarity with that in the previous version of the myth, a state of utter confusion where brahman and ksatriya have not been kept separate and which announces the end of the present world. That is why Agni has become "thirsty" and, with the help of the king, burns everything around. It is quite normal to see the destruction of the world beginning with fire and ending in water, as we have just seen with the meeting of the Earth and Kasyapa at the bottom of the ocean. The events in between (Arjuna's sons killing Jamadagni, Parasurama killing the ksatriyas) establish the disappearance of the ksatra as a direct consequence of Arjuna's behaviour and Vasistha's curse. To support this interpretation we have also an incident taken from MhBh Adiparvan: the burning of the Khandava forest by

296 puranam - PURANA be [Vol. XII, No. 2 Agni. Everybody knows the story and it is too long to quoted here (ch. 222-227). But we may recall particularly meaningful details, which will shed some more light on Kartavirya's story. Agni comes to Arjuna and Krsna 10 under the guise of a brahman ascetic and begs for their help to consume the Khandava forest. He is very weak and hungry and wants to eat up the forest with all its inhabitants. But the forest, being the abode of Indra's friend, the snake Taksaka is protected by the king of the gods who pours rains over the forest and extinguishes Agni's fire. Whatever may be the meaning of the whole myth in its own context, it is here interesting to know the reason why Agni is so hungry, as it is given by Vaisampayana (I. 223). King Svetaki was a very dharmic king of old: yajva danapatir dhiman yatha nanyo'sti kascana | ije ca sa mahayajnaih kratubhiscaptadaksinaih (223. 18). Everyday he was busy offering sacrifices with generous daksina, so much so that the priests had become exhausted and their eyesight had been blurred by the smoke of the sacrificial fire. They finally refused to perform any more sacrifice. Obviously at this point the king had gone beyond the limits of his duty, since the brahmans, because of him, had been made unable to fulfil their own duty. He nonetheless did not understand the meaning of this omen, and being as eager as ever to act as yajamana, he followed the advice of the wearied and angry brahmans and performed tapas to obtain Rudra's help, asking him to perform a sacrifice for him. But Rudra asked him first to live for twelve years as a brahmacarin, and during that period to pour oblations of clarified butter continuously into the fire, that is, to act as a rtvij and not as a yajamana. Here again the royal the priestly functions have not been kept separate. The and 9. Let us note here that, mysteriously the brahmans who divide the Earth between themselves after Parasurama's gift to them in the Vanaparvan version of the myth are called Khandavayana (III. 117 13). Immediately after this, Parasurama is said to retire into the forest, the Earth being deprived of her rulers. 10. We shall notice only by the way that in both fires, an Arjuna is Agni's helper. In the Khandavadaha, the Pandava Arjuna is accompanied by the avatara Krsna and they act together, whereas in our myth, Arjuna Kartavirya's feat determines Parasurama's interference.

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 297 brahmans refuse to act as priests and the king performs oblations like a priest. After twelve years, Rudra informed Svetaki that he himself, not being a brahman, could not perform a sacrifice for the king, but he sent him to his earthly incarnation, the brahman Durvasas. Durvasas performed a sacrifice in due form, which seemed to be nothing but the conclusion of the twelve years oblation. At the end, Agni has been so much overfed that he cannot drink clarified butter any longer and feels weaker and weaker. Brahma advises him to go and burn the Khandava forest in order to regain his vitality. Obviously this wild food, which is not medhya, will help him to recover from the excess of sacrificial food. So we have here the same logical connection between the king's overpious behaviour, the confusion of functions and the fire. The narrative details are different but the meaning of the sequence is obviously the same. The interference of Rudra and Durvasas cannot but add a note of bad omen: the sacrifice that Svetaki performs with Durvasas as his priest gives off a whiff of pralaya. Rudra is Kalagni, he is the Destroyer at the end of a cosmic period¹¹. Now, to come back to our Santiparvan myth of Kartavirya, the meaning and the result of the pious behaviour of the king are ultimately so similar to the Vanaparvan version that Arjuna's sons, if not he himself, have to be made arrogant and cruel. The father's character in the previous version has now become that of the sons. This allows the rest of the story to follow the same pattern in both versions. Once it has become clear that the king has trespassed the limits of dharma just because he was too dharmic, nothing seems illogical in the story; no detail is out of place. What is more, in the perspective of our present enquiry into the merits of critical editions, we have no reason to believe that one version is more 11. We shall not insist here on Arjuna's and Krsna's role nor on the absence of Taksaka from his dwelling-place when the forest is burning. Arjuna is the antithesis of Arjuna Kartavirya. His close association with the avatara Krsna warns us that the destruction of the forest aims at a re-creation of a world of dharma where brahmans and kings will each play their proper part. Taksaka is the symbol of the creator who will "give shape" to everything again. That is why he will escape from the fire.

298 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 genuine or more original than other; nor that, inside one version, one detail is more authentic than another. The only question to be decided is whether the two accounts of the Kartavirya story, which are obviously the same story, can be equated with each other as wholes and element by element. Any other question seems to be irrelevant. As the following table will show, the two versions do correspond in the essential significance of their component parts. Vanaparvan I-A Arjuna, intoxicated with pride, harasses brahmans and gods I-B Ultimately he disturbs Indra and his wife Santiparvan I-A Arjuna, after conquering the Earth, bestows her daksina to brahmans as I-B With the help of Arjuna, Agni burns everything on the Earth, including Vasistha's asrama II Visnu decides to have Arjuna killed II Arjuna is cursed by Vasistha III Arjuna steals the calf of Jamadagni's cow and breaks trees in J.'s asrama III Arjuna's sons, who are arrogant and cruel, take away the calf of Jamadagni's cow etc. The correspondence between the two versions is perfect, at least for this part of the story, which is only an episode in the myth of Parasurama. With the help of the chart, we can even complete our analysis by noticing that the burning of Vasistha's asrama expresses the same climax in the king's misbehaviour as the assault on Indra and his wife in the other version; also that in one version Visnu himself decides Arjuna's death, whereas in the other, Vasistha's curse is sufficient. Visnu the pure God, Visnu who is Sacrifice in person, can be aptly represented on earth by the pure brahman Vasistha. This does not mean that the correspondence is or should be always perfect when we have different versions of a myth. One part in one version may for instance correspond to

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 299 two sub-parts in another. Any kind of variation is possible, provided the intended significance of the whole remains clear¹². If we now turn to the critical edition of our texts. we find, for the Vanaparvan version, that only III. 116. 19-21 has been printed in the main text (BORI III 116. 19-21, the reference being the same in both editions) and is substantially identical with our edition, whereas III. 115. 11-17 has been rejected into an Appendix (which incidentally is found in the second volume of the Aranyakaparvan, whereas our text is in the first one). The episode of Arjuna Kartavirya begins at III. 119, with no mention of his thousand arms, his character and his misbehaviour towards the gods, nor of Visnu's interference. In terms of the above chart, only § III has been retained by the editor as authentic. It is indeed a fact that the passage corresponding to the heavenly part of the drama (Citrasala ed. III. 115. 9-19) does not occur in all mss. But is this But is this passage really less 'authentic" than the rest and on what grounds? The description of the king's boldness may seem exaggerated to a modern mind, but we have seen that its significance is clear and not out of place. Why not rather consider that this was an "authentic" part of some versions, or, say, of a particular line of tradition? This idea is not incongruous, provided we stop looking for some historical value in the MhBh and take it as primarily didactic in purpose 13. As to the Santi Parvan version of the BORI edition, it is at first sight closer to our Vulgate. The text differs substantially only in one passage at the beginning, which runs thus: etasminneva kale tu arjuno nama tejasvi krtaviryatmano bali | ksatriyo haihayanvayah || 12. This does not mean that this significance has remained clear throughout centuries to all Hindus upto the present days. The contrary seems to come nearer to truth. That is why nowadays a truly scientific investigation is necessary to restore the lost meaning of so many epic and puranic stories. The obvious superiority of the Hindus in this kind of scientific work is that they still know a great many stories from their childhood and have not to discover them painstakingly one by one as we have to do it as Westerners. 13. This in itself is open to question, but we shall not touch upon this problem here, because any Indian mind is ready to accept that the MhBh wants to express certain abstract ideas through stories. That is also what I believe basically. 13

300 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 dadaha prthivim sarvam saptadvipam sapattanam | svabahastrabalenani dharmena paramena ca || trsitena sa kauravya bhiksitascitrabhanuna | sahasrabahurvikramtah pradad bhiksamathagnaye || (BORI ed. XII. 49. 30-32). the This passage corresponds to XII. 49. 35, 37-38 of the Vulgate ; v. 36, which mentions the asvamedha and brahmans as recipients of the Earth (as well as the boon of a thousand arms given by Dattatreya) has been dropped and quoted in a foot-note as belonging more particularly to the so-called "composite Devanagari version". V. 37 has been altered accordingly dadau, which would then stand without anybody to receive the gift, has been replaced by dadaha. This verb, to make things worse, is underlined as doubtful. The result of this procedure is that no reason whatsoever appears for the king to burn the whole earth. The only explanation that could be suggested by the context would be along the lines of a continuation of the war up to the total destruction of the world, but that does not tally with the dharmic character of the king. Moreover, the king burns the earth and gives it as alms to the begging Agni. But this also has become quite unintelligible. No reason is given for Agni's thirst. If we now try to draw up a chart of the two critically edited versions of the story, as we did above with the Vulgate, we come to this result: II I Vanaparvan III Arjuna, intoxicated with pride, steals the calf of Jamadagni's cow and breaks trees in J.'s asrama Santiparvan I Arjuna "burns" (?) the whole world in a dharmic war and gives it as alms to Agni II Arjuna is cursed by Vasistha III Arjuna's sons, who are arrogant and cruel, take away the calf of Jamadagni's cow.

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 301 The comparison between the two versions of the story leads us nowhere. Nothing can be understood from it and the two stories appear just as two different stories, which may be juxtaposed but have no comparable significance. I fail to see what has been gained by critically editing these texts. They have lost their intrinsic intelligibility and the mutual relationship that was so clear in the Vulgate has disappeared. Consequently the whole story of Parasurama, in which this passage is inserted in both versions, has lost much of its meaning on both sides. One may argue that Parasurama is not explicitly mentioned here as Visnu's avatara and that we should not look in the MhBh for a fully developed legend as in the puranas. To my mind, this should not deter us from looking for the significance of the Parasurama story, and its pattern points to an interpretation of the hero as an avatara who has come to rescue the brahmans from the ksatriya oppressors. As all avataras, his duty is to destroy in order to prepare the ground for a new and dharmic creation, a golden age as is described in MhBh Adiparvan 64. That is why it is important that the Arjuna Kartavirya episode should have its clear significance as a part of the Parasurama story. Seen in this light, the text retained in the critical edition seems to me, not only a shorter one, but an altered one; it has suffered a loss of meaning, which is equal to a loss of authenticity. If now we consider the plot of the MhBh and its overall pattern, we can easily conceive of different recensions and different versions inside those recensions, which have all the same thing to say though they may say it somewhat differently, owing to the variation of local traditions. Even if we want to infer a common source to all recensions, this common source will forever remain and we may be sure that, as soon as it was recited all over Bharatavarsa, it was bound to undergo some changes here and there. So much so that, at any time after this, there was never a single recension and no reason to take any particular one as more authentic. The regional variants are all authentic as long as the overall significance of the epic remains. There may be mistakes, nonsensical verses or obviously corrupt readings, owing to some defects in the transmission, but the major variations in the text are likely each to have its own significance fitting into the whole.

302 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XII, No. 2 That is why it would be more fruitful to search out the meaning of each and every part of all versions rather than to try to reconstruct one text out of the existing many. Although the rules of textual criticism elaborated by Sukthankar and applied in the BORI edition are in themselves excellent, and a vast amount of work has been devoted to the preparation of the critical edition, I think that these efforts have missed their aim. Meaningful interpretation of the MhBh requires, as I have tried to show, a quite different approach.14 ADDITIONAL NOTE I am very grateful to Shri A. S. Gupta to have taken so much trouble as to clearly express what seems to him a major doubt regarding the interpretational approach that I have explained in the above paper. I shall here quote part of his letter and it will give me one more opportunity to clarify my points: "The text III. 115. 9-19 of the Mahabharata (Citrasala Press ed.) does not occur in a number of MSS. of different versions (Sarada, Telugu, Malayalam etc.) and in several MSS. of the Kashmirian and Devanagari versions. If this omission is also genuine and authentic in those MSS. (and there is no sound reason to regard otherwise), then in the light of this omission how will you explain your chart given on p. 10 of the typed copy of your article; for these MSS., which also represent a certain textual tradition of their own, retain only Sec. III of your chart like the critical edition of the Mahabharata?" 14. Actually, if we refer to V. S. Sukthankar's position, it is not quite so simple. It may even be that the learned author of the Introduction to the critical edition of the MhBh had changed his mind in course of time: in his lectures on the MhBh (published long after his death but delivered on the very year of his death in 1942), his belief in the historical value of the epics had grown dim. No doubt the story was still something of the hoary past, but of an idealized past, so much so that the events were not so important as their "inner" meaning. The problem would then be whether he still believed that the MhBh text had to be edited along the same lines. There is an interesting fact about this, which has been noted down by the editor of his lectures (On the meaning af the Mahabharata, The Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1957) in his introductory note in these lectures, Dr. Sukthankar relied on the Bombay edition of the MhBh and not on the critical edition....

July, 1970] STORY OF ARJUNA KARTAVIRYA 303 There can be no doubt that the textual tradition represented by the Sarada, Telugu, Malayalam and some MSS, of the Kashmirian and Devanagari versions is as genuine as the Vulgate version. Actually any version must be considered as genuine even if we some times feel that one is more explicit and meaningful than others and if we suspect that the bard has not always been fully aware of the meaning of the text. But quite often, if we compare the existing versions, there are elements that remain quite unintelligible until we come across one version; which happily gives us one new detail or one more element, thus suddenly shedding light on the obscure points of the other versions. The new detail or element may not have been so essential to the understanding of the story by the former listeners, but it has become essential for us. Who have lost the capacity of immediately understanding the meaning of the epic and puranic stories. Naturally we may expect to find the extra element that will help us in more developed versions. But it does not mean that one and the same version of the whole epic is more helpful than the others for any particular story. The superiority of the Vulgate that I have tried to show on one example does not mean that the Vulgate should be taken as the standard version as a whole, but only that it cannot be so easily discarded. I should probably have to say the same thing for regional version, and its superiority could be shown by taking other stories as examples. That is the very reason why the diversity of versions has to be maintained carefully if we are to reach a better understanding of the epic, and rather than reconstruct a single authentic text we had better published all regional versions. One more remark: on the one hand, it may be assumed that a story that has taken in more elements than others will be more explicit. On the other hand, in the present state of epic tradition, it would certainly be wrong to think that a longer version is necessarily a more recent one. As long as the text was orally transmitted, it would be either lengthened or shortened (possibly according to the fees to be expected). Thus there is no reason to prefer a shorter version just because it is shorter. E I hope I have answered Shri Gupta's question and I thank him for the opportunity he has given me to publish this and the above paper in Purana.