Since this topic is about different versions, I would like to go a bit into the past and throw some light on how the epic -as we know today- has come to us.
Probably, many of you- while googling about Mahabharata -would have come already come across such information - but it doesn't hurt to read- or write-once again.
As we all know, the MB was handed down in the tradition of oral rendition. Given that it would have travelled through so many ears mouths and tongues, it is but natural that there were many changes, additions and omissions. As of today, it is nearly impossible to know what slokas were exactly written by Vyasa and to what extent did it get modified. Also local parables and fables got added on to.
What helped , as the epic travelled though centuries, were the commentaries written by various scholars along the way- which enabled the subsequent generations to weed out local parables from the main text.
By the mid fifteenth century several versions were in circulation- two amongst which deserve mention. One was popular in North India (I will come to this in a while) and the other in South India. The South Indian version (this was in Sanskrit- not Tamil) came to be known as the Southern Recension or Dakshinapatha.
There are several divergences b/w the two recensions but there seems no reason to claim that the Southern recension is any less credible than its Northern counterpart. Which means, the Southern recension is as likely to be closer to the one Vyasa wrote as the Northern recension.
Now, coming to the Northern recension- a landmark achievement took place in the second half of the 17th century. A Sanskrit scholar by the name Neelakantha Chaturdhara Sastri wrote a commentary on Mahabharata - entitled Bharata- bhava- dipa - which has remained as the most influential commentary on Mahabharata till today. Neelakanth himself acknowledges that he has used two older commentaries- Devabodha (Kashmir 11 century) and Arjunamishra (Bengal, 15 century).
But what Neelkanth unconsciously did was "fix" the epic in the form that was prevalent at that time. Because of his mammoth commentary, no significant changes have been incorporated and the till today the epic has more or less remain unchanged.
This is the version (the version on which Neelkant wrote his commentary) which K M Ganguli used for his translation. These days, because it is the only translation in English available freely over the internet, it has come to be regarded as the definitive version of the epic. One can find several references to Neelkanth by KMG in his translation. That does not however mean the other versions are any less authentic.
In recent years the Clay Sanskrit Library (now defunct and renamed after Narayan Murthy) attempted to translate the Neelkanth version but became insolvent before they could finish the project.
Now in the meanwhile, the Southern recension too was equally popular amongst scholars primarily for two reasons: one, the palm leaf manuscripts were found preserved in better condition and the Southern recension seemed to supply and fill several "missing gaps" to be found in the Northern Recension.
The ages of the Pandavas when they come to the Hastinapur court is clearly mentioned in the Southern Recension as is the name of Matsyagandha's father- both details which are missing in the Northern / Neelkanth / KMG version. Similarly Madari committing Sati is also not mentioned in the Southern recension.
I have recently come to know - yesterday, to be precise, that Swastik productions did get in touch with a Mahabharta expert to consciously incorporate elements from the Southern recension.
The Southern Recension was first edited by Dr PPS Sastri and the lively exchanges b/w him and Pratap Chandra Roy (KMG's publisher) are very interesting to read.
The online version of the Dakshinapath Southern recension can be read here http://www.dvaipayana.net/books/ppssastri-mbh/ppssastri-adiparva-part1.pdf
Edited by varaali - 11 years ago
Cricket
Current Affairs
