Dear Arthur & list,

I had indeed remarked the difference in a footnote, reproduced here for convenience:

---
The last sentence summarizes a passage found solely in the vulgate
(Mbh 1.3.130b-132), which here exhibits a major discrepancy with respect to
the critical edition, to its own advantage, it might be judged, at least going
by textual considerations. Expunging the five-liner, whose gist is Indra's
coming to the succour of the helpless Uttaṅka, the critical edition has Uttaṅka
cleaving through the rift to the nāgaloka unaided. However, Indra's
intervention at this junction, besides being corroborated by version B, seems
all the more plausible in view of the donor/helper role manifoldly played by
him (albeit reluctantly on occasions) both in this same myth and elsewhere
(see below).
---

As for the reasons, I can only say that, for all the practical usefulness of the CE, and without entering into the merit of the soundness or otherwise of the editorial choices, in principle I share the misgivings once expressed by M. Biardeau (in the wake of S. Lévy)  about the whole philological enterprise (see e.g. M. Biardeau, “Some More Considerations about Text Criticism”, Purāṇa X, 2 (1968)).

Paolo Magnone

On 08/07/2016 12:07, Artur Karp wrote: