1. अभिजित्स्पर्धमाना तु रोहिण्याः कन्यसी स्वसा
इच्छन्ती ज्येष्ठतां देवी तपस्तप्तं वनं गता.
Dr. Vartak has translated this correctly. I would say,
‘Daughterlike (younger) sister of rohini, DEVI, contesting with abhijit for seniority has gone to water heated by hot season.’
Tapas also means hot season and that is appropriate here instead of penance. Vana = water is very rarely used but fits nicely here.
2. तत्र मूढोस्मि भद्रं ते नक्षत्रं गगनाच्च्युतम्
कालंत्विमं परं स्कंद ब्रह्मणासह चिन्तय
‘Here I am confused, bless you, (also) Nakshatra has fallen (or moved) from sky
Skanda, please think of this time (event) along with Brahma (discuss with him)’
3. धनिष्ठादिस्तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिनिर्मितः
रोहिण्याद्यः अभवत्पूर्वम् एवम् संख्या समाभवत्
‘Bhrahma had then created time beginning from Dhanishtha. Earlier, beginning from Rohini also happened. This is the available information.’
(I am not able to give any meaning other than what Dr. Vartak has given for the phrase – एवम् संख्या समाभवत् – It appears appropriate)
4. एवमुक्ते तु शक्रेण त्रिदिवं कृत्तिकागताः
नक्षत्रं शकटाकारं भाति तद्वन्हिदैवतम्
‘ On Shakra (Indra) saying this, Krittikas came to heaven (आगताः)
The nakshatra having Agni as devata and of chariot shape shines.’
It would be necessary to check how the last word in first line is written in the original text.
कृत्तिका गताः (two words) does not make sense. Is it a single word कृत्तिकागताः ? I have read it as कृत्तिकाः आगताः with sandhi and therefore preferred ‘came’ rather than ‘went’ used by Dr. Vartak.
The shlokas say a lot in few words as per style of Sanskrit shlokas and one has to read between words and lines. After the third shloka, nothing is said about what Brahma decided about Chyuta nakshatra or about change if any in start of year from Dhanishtha. Fourth shloka simply gives end result that krittikas came (or went) to heaven and (now) it shines. It says nothing about Abhijit’s fall or moving from sky or its being dropped from list of Nakshatras.
Now I will move on to my understanding of the events. Before that, however, I must acknowledge my debt to Dr. Vartak and Sri. Oak, as my interest in this matter is entirely on account of Shri. Oak’s book. I had not noticed these shlokas, leave aside trying to interpret them, when I read Mahabharat. From Shri. Oak’s book, it is seen that eminent scholars like C. V. Vaidya were puzzled by this reference and others had ignored it. (So I may be excused!) I noticed something from Iyengar’s writing quoted by Oak which I will refer in my comments. Dr. Vartak translated the shlokas mostly correctly. His spotting the rarely used meaning ‘water’ for ‘vana’ is commendable. His interpretation of Chyuta Nakshatra, or fall of Abhijit as its progressive movement ‘towards’ CNP is not correct in my view and leads to giving excessive antiquity to the event.
Shri. Oak, in spite of having access to Dr. vartak’s correct translation, has taken liberties with the shlokas! He assumes that it was Abhijit which went to Vana for Tapa. His entire effort to build a timeframe for the event described in the shlokas is therefore vitiated and is meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment