Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c14.s2: Kāśi Dynasty

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c14.s2

Language
English

Kāśi Dynasty

c14.s2.1

Two origins are alleged for the Kāśi (Benares) dynasty also. It was descended from Āyu's son Kṣatravṛddha according to seven Puranas,³ which give the first four kings as Kṣatravṛddha, Sunahotra (or Suhotra), Kāśa (or Kāśya) and Dīrghatapas. But the Brahma and Harivaṃśa give another account also, identifying Sunahotra or Suhotra with Suhotra of the Paurava line, whom they place as son of Vitatha (really son of Bṛhatkṣatra and great-grandson of Vitatha), and so, deriving this dynasty from Suhotra Paurava, give the early kings thus—Vitatha, Suhotra, Kāśika and Dīrghatapas. They thus inconsistently give both origins for the dynasty. The Agni follows this version, though confusedly and faultily.⁴ Both versions agree on the whole in their lists of the kings, except that the second has various omissions. The list is not a long one and reaches down only to king Bharga, but at what stage in the chronology he is to be placed is wholly uncertain. The kings in the Pāṇḍavas' time were Subāhu and Abhibhū.⁵

c14.s2.2

³ Bḍ iii, 67, 1-79. Vā 92, 1-75 (text corrupt). Br 11, 32-61. Hv 29, 1518-98. Viṣ iv, 8, 1-9. Gar i, 139, 8-14. Bhāg ix, 17, 2-10.

c14.s2.3

⁴ Br 13, 63-79. Hv 32, 1733-54. Ag 277, 9-14.

c14.s2.4

⁵ MBh ii, 29, 1080: and vii, 95, 3528; viii, 6, 173. Cf. v, 197, 7650.

c14.s2.5

The former version is clearly right and the latter is wrong, because Divodāsa and Pratardana of this dynasty, as will be seen from the discussion about the synchronisms in chapter XIII, were contemporaries of the Haihaya kings and lived anterior to Vitatha and Suhotra of the Paurava line. The origin of the error here is not so easily conjecturable as of that in the Kānyakubja genealogy, yet it appears to have arisen from confusing Kṣatravṛddha and his successor Sunahotra or Suhotra here with Bṛhatkṣatra and his successor Suhotra of the Paurava dynasty.

c14.s2.6

*The Haihayas.*

c14.s2.7

The genealogy of the Haihaya branch of the Yādavas is given by twelve Puranas.¹ They all agree generally, except that there are differences and some uncertainty in the account of Tālajaṅgha’s offspring, and there the best texts collated say this—Tālajaṅgha had many sons, called the Tālajaṅghas, of whom the eldest was king Vītihotra: the Haihayas comprised five families, the Vītihotras, Śāryātas,² Bhojas, Avantis and Tuṇḍikeras, who were all Tālajaṅghas:³ Vītihotra’s son was king Ananta, and his son was Durjaya Amitrakarśana. The Brahma and Harivaṃśa give, instead of the last two lines, six other lines,⁴ but these seem doubtful inasmuch as they assign to this branch persons and families who apparently belonged to the other branch.

c14.s2.8

¹ Bḍ iii, 69, 3-55. Vā 94, 3-54. Br 13, 154-207. Hv 33, 1844-98. Mat 43, 7-49. Pad v, 12, 110-49. Lg i, 68, 3-20. Kūr i, 22, 13-21; 23, 1-4, 45. Viṣ iv, 11, 3-7. Ag 274, 1-11. Gar i, 139, 19-24. Bhāg ix, 23, 21-30.

c14.s2.9

² So Mat, which appears to be right; all the other authorities corrupt the name. They were the remnant of the Śāryātas (*ante*). This appears to be the explanation of the incorrect statement in MBh xiii, 30, 1945-6, that Haihaya and Tālajaṅgha were descended from Śaryāti.

c14.s2.10

³ This seems to be the meaning, for the Vītihotras were certainly Tālajaṅghas.

c14.s2.11

⁴ Lg has five of them and Kūr three.

c14.s2.12

*The Yādavas.*

c14.s2.13

The genealogy of the other branch descended from Yadu’s son Kroṣṭu and known as the Yādavas proper may be conveniently noticed in two parts, the first from Kroṣṭu to Sātvata and the second the remainder.

c14.s2.14

The first part is given by twelve Puranas.⁵ They all agree generally, though with considerable variations in some of the names, down to Parāvṛt’s sons. Then they leave the further descent of the senior line from his eldest son, and follow the line of his younger son Jyāmagha, who (or whose son Vidarbha) carved out the kingdom of Vidarbha. This line soon divided into three sub-lines, the senior of which apparently continued there for a time, while the second descended from Kaiśika (who is often miscalled Kauśika) established itself in Cedi, and the third from Lomapāda reigned elsewhere. All the authorities agree in the main about these developments, and the Kūrma (i, 24, 6-10) gives Lomapāda’s sub-line for thirteen descents. The genealogies then follow the senior line of Vidarbha from Kratha, whom the Brahma and Harivaṃśa call Bhīma,¹ and all are in general agreement down to Devakṣatra, though with variations in some of the names. Then occur differences down to Sātvata, and the texts collated suggest the names set out in the Table of genealogies in chapter XII.

c14.s2.15

⁵ Bḍ iii, 70, 14-48. Vā 95, 14-47. Br 15, 1-30. Hv 37, 1969-99. Mat 44, 14-47. Pad v, 13, 1-30. Lg i, 68, 21-49. Kūr i, 24, 1-32. Viṣ iv, 12. Ag 274, 12-23. Gar i, 139, 25-35. Bhāg ix, 23, 30 to 24, 6. Partially, MBh xiii, 147, 6833-4; Hv 117, 6588-92.

c14.s2.16

¹ The same descendants are given to both.

c14.s2.17

Lomapāda’s sub-line is given thus—Lomapāda, Babhru, Āhṛti,² Śveta, Viśvasaha, Kauśika, Sumanta, Anala, Śveni, Dyutimant, Vapuṣmant, Bṛhanmedhas, Śrīdeva, and Vītaratha. Where they reigned is not stated.

c14.s2.18

² Much variation in these two names.

c14.s2.19

The second part begins with Sātvata’s sons, Bhajamāna, Devāvṛdha, Andhaka and Vṛṣṇi,³ and comprises the various families that developed from them. It is given by the same twelve Puranas, but the accounts are not all clear, for several reasons. Some of the pedigrees have become confused in some Puranas through mistakes in names, partly at least due to misreadings of old scripts; as where the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu misread Andhakāt as Satyakāt in giving Andhaka’s descendants; and the Brahma and Harivaṃśa misread Vṛṣṇer as Kroṣṭor in giving Vṛṣṇi’s descendants, and then seemingly regard him as Yadu’s son Kroṣṭu, so mentioning some of the lines of descent twice. Moreover some passages seem to have become misarranged, and lines have sometimes been lost. Some uncertainty was caused by the fact that there were several persons with the same names in these families, and thus it seems that Vṛṣṇi’s eldest son by one wife was Sumitra known also as Anamitra, and his youngest son by another wife was Anamitra too; while Vṛṣṇi was a favourite name. The difficulties can only be cleared up by collating the various passages in those Puranas, which are based on the same original metrical text more or less accurately.¹ That being done, the results are shown in the pedigrees set out infra.

c14.s2.20

³ The best texts, Bḍ iii, 71, 1-2; Vā 96, 1-2; Br 15, 30-31; Hv 38, 1999-2000; Mat 44, 47-8; Pad v, 13, 31-2; and Lg i, 69, 1-2; collated give this reading:— Sātvatāt sattva-sampannān Kausalyā suṣuve sutān bhajinam Bhajamānaṃ tu divyaṃ Devāvṛdhaṃ nṛpam Andhakaṃ ca mahā-Bhojaṃ Vṛṣṇiṃ ca Yadu-nandanam teṣāṃ hi sargāś catvāraḥ— Viṣ, Ag, and Bhāg multiply them by treating their epithets as separate names. Kūr is defective.

c14.s2.21

¹ Viṣ iv, 13, 1 f. Ag 274, 24 f. Gar i, 139, 36 f., and Bhāg ix, 24, 6 f. have recast the account and show much confusion, especially the last three, but are useful for comparison.

c14.s2.22

There is no difficulty about Bhajamāna, for only his sons are mentioned, and the texts, though partially corrupt, yet when collated make the account clear.²

c14.s2.23

² Bd iii, 71, 3–6a. Vā 96, 3–6a. Br 15, 32–4. Hv 38, 2001–3. Mat 44, 49–50. Pad v, 13, 33–35a. Lg i, 69, 3 and Kūr i, 24, 37 are incomplete. Cf. Viṣ iv, 13, 2: Ag 274, 25a: Gar i, 139, 37: Bhāg ix, 24, 7b–8.

c14.s2.24

Nor is there any difficulty about Devāvṛdha, because only his son Babhru is named, and the texts³ collated say his lineage were the Bhojas of Mārttikāvata as stated in the concluding half verse.⁴

c14.s2.25

³ Bd iii, 71, 6b–18a. Vā 96, 6b–17a. Br 15, 35–45a. Hv 38, 2004–14a. Mat 44, 51–60. Pad v, 13, 35b–45a. Lg i, 69, 4–9. Kūr i, 24, 35–6, 38a. Cf. Viṣ iv, 13, 3–6; Ag 274, 25b–27a; Gar i, 139, 38a; Bhāg ix, 24, 9–11.

c14.s2.26

⁴ It should run thus, but Mat, Pad and Kūr corrupt it and Lg varies it:—

c14.s2.27

The real difficulties occur with regard to Andhaka's and Vṛṣṇi's descendants, and these are elucidated in detail.

c14.s2.28

Andhaka had four sons, but only two are important, Kukura and Bhajamāna. From Kukura were descended the Kukuras,⁵ and Bhajamāna's descendants were specially styled the Andhakas.⁶ The genealogy of both as elucidated by collating the texts is given in the table opposite.

c14.s2.29

⁵ Bd iii, 71, 116–35a and Vā 96, 115–34, which misread the first word Andhakāt as Satyakāt. Br 15, 45b–62. Hv 38, 2014b–31. Mat 44, 61–76. Pad v, 13, 45b–62. Lg i, 69, 32–42. Kūr i, 24, 46b–65 has only the first five lines and then varies. The opening words should be Andhakāt Kāśya-duhitā. Cf. Viṣ iv, 14, 3–5; Ag 274, 27b–33; Gar i, 139, 43b–48a; Bhāg ix, 24, 19–25.

c14.s2.30

⁶ Bd iii, 71, 136b–44. Vā 96, 135–42. Br 16, 1–8. Hv 39, 2032–9. Mat 44, 77–85. Pad v, 13, 63–72a. Kūr i, 24, 66–7 is different. Lg nil. There is much variation in the unimportant names. Kūr wrongly makes Kṛṣṇa's father Vasudeva grandson of Kṛtavarman. Cf. Viṣ iv, 14, 6–7; Ag 274, 34–38a; Gar i, 139, 48b–50; Bhāg ix, 24, 26–27a.

c14.s2.31

Vṛṣṇi's progeny present the most difficulty, because he had at least four sons, two with the same name, and from them were descended various families, and because the accounts are not always compact.

c14.s2.32

tasyānvavāyaḥ sumahān Bhojā ye Mārttikāvatāḥ.

Linked texts (13)