Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c13.s1: Ayodhyā Dynasty

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c13.s1

Language
English

Ayodhyā Dynasty

c13.s1.1

The genealogy of the kings of Ayodhyā, to whom were especially applied the titles, the ‘Solar race’, the Ikṣvākus, Aikṣvākus or Aikṣvākas, is given by many authorities. Thirteen Puranas give the whole list of kings more or less completely.² The Rāmāyaṇa gives the list down to Rāma twice.³ The Mahābhārata mentions the early part as far as Dṛḍhāśva,⁴ and other small portions elsewhere.¹ The Raghuvamśa has much of the latter half, from Dilīpa II to Agnivarṇa.² All these authorities are on the whole in general agreement, so far as they extend, except the Rāmāyaṇa. Its two lists are practically the same, but differ widely from the others. Most of its names occur in the other lists, but they are arranged in such absolutely different order that its lists cannot be reconciled with the others. There are thus two wholly distinct genealogies, and it is necessary to examine which is more probably right.

c13.s1.2

² Bḍ iii, 63, 8-214. Vā 88, 8-213. Br 7, 44 to 8, 94. Hv 11, 660 to 15, 832. Mat 12, 25-57. Pad v, 8, 130-62. Śiv vii, 60, 33 to 61, 73. Lg i, 65, 31 to 66, 45. Kūr i, 20, 10 to 21, 60. Viṣ iv, 2, 3 to 4, 49. Ag 272, 18-39. Gar i, 138, 17-44. Bhāg ix, 6. 4 to 12, 9. Also Saura Upapurana, 30, 32-73.

c13.s1.3

³ Rām i, 70, 21-44: ii, 110, 6-35.

c13.s1.4

⁴ MBh iii, 201, 13515-19; 203, 13614-22.

c13.s1.5

¹ Bāhu to Bhagīratha, MBh iii, 107, 9912–18: Br 78, 3–11, 40–7: VN 7 and 8: Bḍ iii, 47, 74 to 56, 32. ² Dilīpa II to Atithi in chap. I–XVII; Niṣadha to Sudarśana in XVIII; and Agnivarṇa in XIX. ³ iii, 98, 8606–8. ⁴ Aitar Brāhm vii, 3, 1 f. Śāṅkhāy Śr Sūtra xv, 17–25. ⁵ MBh iii, 70, 2766. ⁶ MBh xiii, 6, 326: xiv, 56, 1656: read with i, 176 to 177. ⁷ MBh i, 177, 6791.

c13.s1.6

The Rāmāyaṇa genealogy is open to great doubt, when considered as a whole or examined in detail. It contains only some 35 kings down to Rāma, whereas the Puranas name some 63 kings in that period, and it will be seen from a comparison of the other dynasties exhibited in the table of genealogies (chapter XII) that its list is manifestly defective in length. It is very improbable that the Rāmāyaṇa alone should be right and all the other authorities wrong; even the late Raghuvamśa accepting the latter and rejecting the former.

c13.s1.7

This conclusion is confirmed when the lists are examined in detail. We may first notice what are undoubted omissions in the Rāmāyaṇa list. It omits Purukutsa and his son Trasadasyu, but they were kings of this line as the Mahābhārata knows.³ It omits Hariścandra and his son Rohita, yet brahmanical books testify to both.⁴ Again it omits Ṛtuparṇa, though he is mentioned in the story of Nala.⁵ Also it omits Sudāsa, yet admits his existence by calling Kalmāṣapāda Saudāsa in its second list, and contradicts itself by saying Kalmāṣapāda was son of Raghu; and the Mahābhārata declares he was son of Sudāsa.⁶ It omits Aśmaka, who according to that epic was Kalmāṣapāda’s son.⁷ As regards all these kings the Puranas name them and are corroborated by the other authorities mentioned above.

c13.s1.8

Next as regards the relationships and positions of kings. The Rāmāyaṇa places Ambariṣa three steps above Nābhāga, but he was Nābhāga’s son, for Ambariṣa son of Nābhāga is praised in the epic.¹ It tells, moreover, the well-known story of Hariścandra² as a story of Ambariṣa,³ and Ambariṣa may have been another name of Hariścandra;⁴ but if so, it is wrong in making his son Nahuṣa instead of Rohita. The Puranas say there were two Dilīpas, one father of Bhagīratha and the other father or grandfather of Raghu, but the Rāmāyaṇa mentions only one Dilīpa as father of Bhagīratha and great grandfather of Raghu. One Dilīpa was certainly father of Bhagīratha,⁵ and the Raghuvamśa⁶ supports the Puranas that Raghu was son of a Dilīpa, who was necessarily a second Dilīpa. Further the Rāmāyaṇa makes Raghu father of Kalmāṣapāda and places Aja twelve generations below Raghu, while the Puranas make Aja son of Raghu. Now Kalmāṣapāda was son of Sudāsa, even according to the Rāmāyaṇa as shown above, and not son of Raghu, and the Raghuvamśa (v, 35–6) corroborates the Puranas that Raghu’s son was Aja. Again, the Rāmāyaṇa says Kalmāṣapāda’s son was Śaṅkhaṇa, but his son was Aśmaka according to some Puranas⁷ or Sarvakarman according to others.⁸ The Mahābhārata corroborates the former of these statements in one passage and the latter in another,⁹ thus contradicting the Rāmāyaṇa in either case; and the Raghuvamśa (xviii, 21–2) confirms the contradiction by saying that Śaṅkhaṇa was son of Vajranābha as the Puranas state.

c13.s1.9

¹ MBh iii, 129, 10514; vii, 64, 2303–18; xii, 29, 993–7. There was another Ambariṣa, son of Manu’s son Nābhāga (see infra), but the Ambariṣa extolled in MBh was apparently the Ayodhyā king.

c13.s1.10

² Aitar Brāhm vii, 3, 1 f. : Śāṅkhāy Śr Sūtra xv, 17–25 : &c. See JRAS, 1917, 44 f., where the whole story is discussed.

c13.s1.11

³ Rām i, 61 and 62.

c13.s1.12

⁴ Lg ii, 5, 6.

c13.s1.13

⁵ MBh iii, 107, 9916–18.

c13.s1.14

⁶ Raghuv iii, 13–21. Not every archaeological statement in the Raghuv is correct, for it refers to Puṣpapura (i. e. Pāṭaliputra) as existing (vi, 24) in Aja’s time; and speaks of the Śūrasena king as a Nīpa (vi, 45–6), whereas the ‘Śūrasena’ kingdom did not apparently exist then, and its king could hardly have been a Nīpa (see S. Pañcāla).

c13.s1.15

⁷ Vā 88, 177. Bḍ iii, 63, 176–7. Viṣ iv, 4, 38 : &c.

c13.s1.16

⁸ Mat 12, 46. Br 8, 82. Hv 15, 816–17 : &c.

c13.s1.17

⁹ MBh i, 177, 6787–91 : xii, 49, 1792–3.

c13.s1.18

Further, the Rāmāyaṇa makes Kakutstha son of Bhagīratha and grandson of Dilīpa, but the Puranas say he was son of Śaśāda, and was the third earliest king. The Mahābhārata corroborates them,¹⁰ and the Raghuvamśa supports them in saying (vi, 71-4) that from his time the kings had borne the title Kākutstha and that Dilīpa was his descendant. The Rāmāyaṇa and the Puranas have a group of five kings, Sudarśana, Agnivarṇa, Śīghra, Maru and Prasuśruta, and the Rāmāyaṇa makes them anterior to Rāma, while the Puranas put them long after him. Similarly it places three others, Śaṅkhaṇa, Dhruvasandhi and Susandhi, before Rāma, while the Puranas make them his descendants. As regards these last three and Sudarśana and Agnivarṇa the Raghuvamśa¹ corroborates the Puranas that they were long after Rāma, and so also as regards the three others in that it does not notice them, because it closes its account with Agnivarṇa and they succeeded him.

c13.s1.19

¹⁰ MBh iii, 201, 13515–16.

c13.s1.20

¹ Raghuv xviii and xix.

c13.s1.21

It thus appears that wherever it is possible to check the Rāmāyaṇa and Puranic lists of the Ayodhyā dynasty by other authorities those authorities corroborate the Puranas and contradict the Rāmāyaṇa. Hence the Rāmāyaṇa genealogy must be put aside as erroneous, and the Puranic genealogy accepted. This is not surprising, because the Rāmāyaṇa is a brahmanical poem, and the brahmans notoriously lacked the historical sense.

c13.s1.22

The Purana lists all agree fairly down to Māndhātṛ, though with much variation in some names; and here the Mahābhārata list also agrees. With Māndhātṛ there is some variation. He had three well-known sons, Purukutsa, Ambarīṣa and Mucukunda.² From Ambarīṣa came the Hārita brahmans (chapter XXIII). Mucukunda was a famous king,³ and of him the fable is told that he went to sleep in a cave and slept on till awakened by Kālayavana, who had pursued Kṛṣṇa into it; then he killed Kāla, and marvelled at the degeneracy of mankind.⁴ Purukutsa’s son was Trasadasyu⁵ who continued the main line. All then fairly agree, subject to some omissions, down to Saudāsa Kalmāṣapāda, but between him and Dilīpa II Khaṭvāṅga⁶ two different versions occur, where the names are all different: thus the Brahma, Harivaṃśa, Matsya, Padma, Śiva and Agni generally insert five kings, Sarvakarman, Anaraṇya, Nighna, Anamitra with a Raghu, and Duliduha; but the seven other Puranas name six, Aśmaka, Mūlaka, Śataratha, Iḍaviḍa (with variations), Vṛddhaśarman and Viśvasaha. It is not material which version we adopt, because their number is practically the same and none were important, but the latter group is supported by the better texts and is preferable.¹ From Dilīpa II Khaṭvāṅga to Daśaratha there is general agreement subject to some divergences; and here the better texts make Dīrghabāhu ‘father of Raghu’ instead of an epithet of Raghu, though the Raghuvaṃśa omits him. From Daśaratha to Ahīnagu there is general agreement.

c13.s1.23

² Mat and Pad add a fourth son.

c13.s1.24

³ MBh v, 131, 4467-9: and pp. 41, 42. Also Hv 115, 6464: Viṣ v, 23, 18 f.: Br 196; 197: Pad vi, 273, 51-60.

c13.s1.25

⁴ Hv 115, 6464-88. Pad vi, 189, 73; 273, 51-70. Viṣ v, 23, 26 to 24, 5; Br 196, 16 to 197, 5.

c13.s1.26

⁵ Mat calls him Vasuda (for Trasada). Pad errs further.

c13.s1.27

⁶ Br and Hv wrongly call Dilīpa I Khaṭvāṅga.

c13.s1.28

¹ An explanation of this discrepancy is suggested in chap. XXIV.

c13.s1.29

After Ahīnagu most of the Puranas give a list of some twenty kings Pāripātra (or Sudhanvan) to Bṛhadbala who was killed by Abhimanyu in the Bhārata battle,² agreeing generally in their names, though some of the lists are incomplete towards the end. Thus the Brahma stops at Nala (= Śaṅkhaṇa); the Harivaṃśa at Maru except that it mentions the last king Bṛhadbala; and the Garuḍa at Prasuśruta, where by the loss of some verses closing this dynasty and introducing the Videha line it runs the two together making Prasuśruta father of Udāvasu of that line. But six Puranas, the Matsya, Padma, Liṅga, Kūrma, Śiva and Agni, differ completely, and all except the Śiva name, instead of those twenty, six other kings, Sahasrāśva, Candrāvaloka, Tārāpīḍa, Candragiri, Bhānuścandra (with variations) and Śrutāyus. The Śiva names only the first. The Liṅga identifies Śrutāyus with Bṛhadbala, the last in the former list. The former list is certainly preferable for several reasons. The table of royal genealogies (chapter XII) shows that there must have been many more kings than six and quite as many as twenty. The Raghuvaṃśa corroborates it as far as Agnivarṇa. Some of the kings in the long list are named elsewhere, and even in the Matsya which gives the short list; thus, it mentions Hiraṇyanābhin Kausalya as teacher of king Kṛta of Dvimīḍha’s line,³ and Maru as one who with Devāpi the Paurava will restore the kṣatriyas at the end of this Kali age.⁴ Further Pāripātra and his successors appear from a comparison of their names to be meant by the Mahābhārata story of Parikṣit and his sons.¹ On the other hand there is nothing, as far as I know, to support the short list. The longer list of twenty kings must therefore be accepted.

c13.s1.30

² MBh vii, 47, 1864–83.

c13.s1.31

³ Mat 49, 75. Vā 99, 190. Hv 20, 1081. Viṣ iv, 19, 13. This is dealt with in chap. XIV.

c13.s1.32

⁴ Mat 273, 56, and Vā 99, 437, where read Maruḥ for Mataḥ. Vā 32, 39 (read Maruḥ). Bḍ iii, 74, 250. Viṣ iv, 24, 45, 48.

c13.s1.33

¹ MBh iii, 192, 13145–78, 13198. Vyuṣitāśva of this list is different from Vyuṣitāśva of MBh i, 121, 4686, who was a Paurava.

Linked texts (18)