Posted:
from fb
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.
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.
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Hollywood
Seher Hone Ko Hai
