Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c13.s1.8

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.