Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c6.44

c6.44

Connected with Śiva are the four gods, Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena. They are, however, regarded at present as only four different names of one and the same god, viz., Kārtikeya. The well-known two verses of the Amarakosha, which include these names, are taken as giving seventeen names of this deity. In ancient times, however, these four names denoted four different gods. Of course, the passage from Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya, which I have just referred to and which speaks of an image of Śiva made for worship, speaks also of Skanda and Viśākha in that connection. This indicates that images not only of Śiva but also of Skanda and Viśākha were made in Patañjali’s time for worship. Here both Skanda and Viśākha have been mentioned. Certainly, if these two names had denoted but a single deity, Patañjali would have mentioned only one, but as he has used two names, it is clear that Skanda and Viśākha must denote two different gods. But let us see what coins teach us on this point. Those of you who have studied the Kushana coinage need not be told that we have two types of Huvishka’s coins which are of great interest to us in this connection. One type bears on the reverse three gods who have been named Skanda, Kumāra and Viśākha, and another, four gods named Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena.¹ As all these names have each a figure corresponding to it, is it possible to doubt that Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena represent four different gods? The coins thus convey to us an important piece of mythological knowledge, which we do not yet know from any other source. Huviskha, most of you are aware, flourished in the second half of the second century A. D., and the Amarakosha is now-a-days being assigned to the 4th century A. D.¹ As the interval between the two is not very great, a doubt may naturally arise as to whether we are right in taking the two verses from the Amarakosha as giving us seventeen names of only one god, viz., Kārtikeya. The two verses in question consist of four lines, and strange to say, none of these lines mentions more than one of the four gods Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena. Thus the first line has Mahāsena, the second Skanda, the third Viśākha, and the fourth Kumāra only. Had we not rather take each line separately and say that it really intends setting forth the different names of each one of these four gods instead of saying as we have been doing up till now that all the four lines together give seventeen names of one and the same god?