The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s3.71

c8.s3.71

A chronological conclusion based on the occurrence of certain words or names in the great epics is not likely to be so safe. Though a Mahâbhârata existed before Pânini and Âsvalâyana, it is highly questionable whether our present text is the same as that which existed in their times. On the contrary, the probability is that the work has been added to from time to time; and the text itself has undergone such corruption that no one can be positively certain that a particular word was not foisted into it in comparatively modern times. The text of the Râmâyana also has become corrupt, though additions do not seem to have been made to it. Still the Bengali rescension of the poem like the Bengali rescensions of more recent works does contain additions. The text prevalent in this part of the country and in the south is more reliable; and though innumerable differences of reading exist in the different manuscripts even on this side, still there is hardly any material difference. But the date of the Râmâyaṇa is uncertain; the present Hindu belief based on the Purâṇas is that Râma's incarnation is older than Krishna's, and consequently the Râmâyaṇa older than the Mahâbhârata; but it is not a little curious that while there is an allusion to Vâsudeva and Arjuna and to Yudhishthira in Pâṇini, and Patañjali frequently brings in Mahâbhârata characters in his illustrations and examples, there is not one allusion to Râma or his brothers or their father Daśaratha in the works of those grammarians. Even a much later author, Amarasimha the lexicographer, in his list of the synonyms of Vishnu, gives a good many names derived from the Krishna incarnation; but the name of Râma, the son of Daśaratha, does not occur, though Râma or Balabhadra, the brother of Krishna, is mentioned. Still, whatever chronological value may be attached to the circumstance, the occurrence of the names of places in the Dekkan contained in those epics I have already to some extent noticed. Sahadeva is represented to have subdued the Pâṇḍyas, Draviḍas, Uḍras, Keralas, and Andhras,¹ and also to have visited Kishkindhâ, which was probably situated somewhere near Hampi, the site of the Pampâ lake or river, where Râma met Sugrîva the monkey chief, though the country Kaishkindha is placed by the Purâṇas among those near the Vindhyas. He went also to Sûrparaka, the modern Supârâ near Bassein, Daṇḍaka, the same as Daṇḍakâraṇya but not mentioned as a forest, Karahâṭaka the modern Karhâḍa on the confluence of the Krishṇâ and the Koiṇâ, and to others. The countries mentioned in the passage in the Râmâyaṇa, alluded to above, as lying to the south are Utkala, probably the modern Ganjam, Kalinga, Daśârṇa, Avantî, Vidarbha, and others. The district near Bhilsâ must have been called Daśârṇa in ancient times; for its capital was Vidiśâ, which was situated, as stated by Kâlidâsa in the Meghadûta, on the Vetravatî or Betvâ, and is thus to be identified with the modern Bhilsâ. All these are thus in the vicinity of the Vindhya or nearly in the same line with it farther east. But between these and the southernmost countries of the Cholas, Pâṇḍyas, and Keralas, the Râmâyaṇa mentions no other place or country but Daṇḍakâraṇya. This condition of the country, as observed before, is to be considered as previous to the Âryan settlements in the Dekkan, while that represented by the Mahâbhârata in the place indicated seems subsequent; and herein we may see a reason for believing that the Râmâyaṇa is the older of the two epics. The name Mahârâshṭra does not occur in either of them.