Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c15: Chapter X. General Credibility of the Genealogies

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c15

Language
English

Chapter X. General Credibility of the Genealogies

c15.2

The question naturally arises whether credence can be attached to the foregoing royal genealogies. Kingdoms and dynasties existed, as we know even from the Vedic literature, and their genealogies must have existed and would have been preserved as long as the dynasties endured. It is incredible that the students of ancient traditional lore, who existed continuously as pointed out in chapter II, discarded or lost those famous genealogies and preserved spurious substitutes. This does not mean that spurious genealogies were never fabricated, for some were devised as will be noticed; but fictitious pedigrees presuppose genuine pedigrees, and it is absurd to suppose that fiction completely ousted truth : so that, if any one maintains that these genealogies are worthless, the burden rests on him to produce, not mere doubts and suppositions, but substantial grounds and reasons for his assertion. Common sense thus shows that these genealogies cannot be fictitious, and the foregoing question is narrowed down to this, whether they can be accepted as substantially trustworthy. Their credibility can be tested in various ways.

c15.3

First, by contemporary corroboration, and here we have a signal instance in the large agreement between the genealogy of the North Pañcāla kings and the incidental references to many of them in the Rigveda.¹

c15.4

¹ Fully discussed in JRAS, 1918, pp. 229 f.

c15.5

Mudgala (called Bhārmyaśva by the Anukramaṇī) is mentioned in hymn x, 102, 5, 9; Indrasenā² in verse 2, and Vadhryaśva may be hinted at by the words *vadhriṇā yujā* in verse 12. Vadhryaśva is named in x, 69, 1 f., and in vi, 61, 1, which says Divodāsa was his son. Sṛñjaya is mentioned in iv, 15, 4. Cyavana is probably meant in x, 69, 5, 6,³ and his other name Pañcajana is no doubt a misreading of Pijavana. His son Sudāsa is named as Sudās Paijavana in vii, 18, 22, 23, and verse 25 says Sudās was son (i. e. descendant) of Divodāsa. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa vii, 34 says Sahadeva was descended from Sṛñjaya, and hymn iv, 15, 7–10 says Somaka was his son. Further, iii, 53, 9, 11, 12, 24 and vi, 16, 19 show that Divodāsa and Sudās were descendants of Bharata. In all these particulars the hymns agree with the genealogy, and they are too numerous and too closely interrelated to permit of any doubt that these Vedic kings were the North Pañcāla kings.

c15.6

² Also MBh iii, 113, 10093.

c15.7

³ Cyavano . . . *apratiratho* of the genealogy = *śūra iva dhṛṣṇuś Cyavanaḥ* of the hymn.

c15.8

Further, references to Vadhryaśva’s fire in x, 69, 2, 4, 9, 10 show that he and its reputed author, his descendant, Sumitra, exercised priestly functions; and so also as regards Divodāsa and his fire in viii, 103, 2. Hymn i, 130, 7, 10 proves that some of the descendants of Divodāsa *the warrior* were rishis and brahmans; and x, 133 is attributed to Sudās. These allusions confirm the statements in the genealogy that Mudgala’s descendants were ‘kṣatriyan brahmans’, as will be discussed in chapter XXIII.

c15.9

This is the only dynasty to which connected references occur in the Rigveda and that can be tested thereby. Those references entirely corroborate the genealogy; and the statements in the latter show that it could not have been framed therefrom but was independent. Its genuineness, accuracy and independence prove that it must have been contemporaneous with the dynasty and as old as the hymns themselves. This conclusion affords a very strong presumption that the other genealogies are also genuine and true; the want of evidence regarding them is wholly on the side of the Vedic literature, and its silence proves nothing adverse.

c15.10

Secondly, the genealogies are corroborated by the testimony of other works in their support. Of this we have a cogent instance in the Raghuvamśa and the Ayodhyā genealogy. The Puranas give one version of that genealogy and the Rāmāyaṇa another and absolutely incompatible version as already pointed out (chap. VIII), and those Puranas and the Rāmāyaṇa were in existence when Kālidāsa composed the Raghuvamśa; yet he followed the Puranic version in the portion of the genealogy that he gives which is common to both. Putting aside Dilīpa, because the comparison from him is uncertain, since the Rāmāyaṇa names only one Dilīpa while the Puranas mention two, and starting from Raghu about whom there is no doubt, he gives four kings, Raghu, Aja, Daśaratha and Rāma as in the Puranas, instead of the Rāmāyaṇa version of 14 or 15 kings; so that he virtually declares the Puranas are right and the Rāmāyaṇa wrong. His work also testifies that the Puranic version is no late composition, but was so well established as authoritative in his time that even the Rāmāyaṇa could not invalidate it; and proves that, as his entire list from Dilīpa II down to Agnivarṇa agrees substantially with the list in the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Brahma, Harivamśa and Viṣṇu, the Puranic list was the same substantially in his time as we have it now. If then the Puranic genealogy of Ayodhyā was held to be right then, in spite of the Rāmāyaṇa, that is strong evidence that it is ancient and trustworthy. It is reasonable to conclude that equal care has been bestowed on the other dynasties, and there is a strong presumption that they had been equally well preserved during the preceding centuries, that is, that they are the original genealogies and therefore genuine.

c15.11

Thirdly, the existence of spurious genealogies testifies in favour of these genealogies. They are of two kinds, first, the wrong derivation of true genealogies, and secondly, wholly spurious pedigrees. Of the former kind several have been noticed in chapter IX, and the plainest instance is the derivation of the Kānyakubja dynasty from Ajamīḍha of the Paurava line, which has been demonstrated there to be wrong. Of wholly spurious genealogies there are two kinds, first the brahman vamśas, which will be dealt with afterwards (chapters XVI f.) and are obviously late attempts to construct vamśas out of the information that was available; and secondly, imaginary genealogies, such as those connected with Dakṣa and creation, and that of the various kinds of Fires.¹ The difference between the royal genealogies and such genealogies is most striking, revealing the distinction between what is genuine and what is a fake.

c15.12

¹ MBh iii, 218 to 220. Vā 29, 1 f. Mat 51, 2 f. Viṣ i, 10, 14-17. &c.

c15.13

An excellent instance of a spurious genealogy is the account of the Yādavas in the Harivamśa (94, 5138 f.). It says Madhu, a king who reigned from Madhuvana on the river Jumna to Surāṣṭra and Ānarta (Gujarat), was descended from Yadu and Yayāti (5164). His daughter married Haryaśva, a scion of the Aikṣvāku race, and their son was Yadu, and from this Yadu were descended the Yādavas (5180, 5191). It thus makes Madhu both a Yādava and also grandfather of Yadu the ancestor of the Yādavas. It says the Yadu race thus issued from the Ikṣvāku race (5239), although it acknowledges that Madhu was already a Yādava, and introduces the further absurdity that this Yadu was like his ancestor Pūru (5176). Lastly, it styles Madhu a Daitya (5143) and a Dānava (5157),² although it acknowledges he was of the Lunar race (5165). The whole story is a mass of absurd confusion; and the confusion is carried on into the accounts of this Yadu's five sons (95, 5205 f.), except the short passage (5242-8) which appears to contain genuine tradition because it is corroborated elsewhere (see chapter XIV).

c15.14

² Hv 55, 3060-3110, which tells part of the same story, also calls Madhu a Dānava (3061), and his ‘son’ Lavaṇa a Dānava (3063) and a Daitya (3086).

c15.15

Fourthly, by the treatment of defects and mistakes. These were inevitable in the handing down of tradition, but there was a real endeavour to ascertain and preserve the genealogies correctly, because, as shown in chapter II, there were men who made a special study of ancient genealogies, and certain terms used, such as vamśavittama and icchanti, indicate that tradition was carefully examined and the best adopted. It was afterwards, when the brahmans obtained the custody of the Puranas, that questionable influences came into play.

c15.16

Still it was difficult to make material changes which would not be inconsistent with statements elsewhere, and as they lacked the historical sense they could hardly accomplish that, and so their errors can be detected. Many instances of defects and mistakes have been noticed in the preceding chapters, and only two need be cited here as illustrations. As regards defects, there is the gap in the Paurava pedigree between Taṃsu and Duṣyanta: the text in the oldest and best Puranas remains confused, and it is the later compositions that attempt to reconstruct the descent. As regards mistakes, the fact that the Rigveda, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra connect ‘Viśvāmitra’ with the Bharatas in no way disturbed the best Puranas in their derivation of the Kānyakubja dynasty from Āyu’s son Amāvasu; and the derivation of it from Bharata’s descendant Ajamīḍha was manifestly known to be doubtful, because the Brahma and Harivaṃśa, though they give it, give also the true version, and none of the other Puranas adopted it except the late Agni: so that mistaken post-Vedic interpretation was powerless to overthrow the kṣatriya tradition, and even the late brahmanical Bhāgavata was unmoved by it.

c15.17

Fifthly, by a comparison of these with brahman genealogies. The brahmans, and the Puranic brahmans as much as other brahmans, had a natural and obvious incentive to preserve and, if necessary, to fabricate brahman genealogies. The brahmans have constituted a priestly power unique in history; they aggrandized themselves in every way and their pretensions have been notorious; yet, as pointed out (chapter XVI), they have produced no real brahman genealogy. If then they did not construct their own genealogies, it is absurd to suppose they fabricated elaborate kṣatriya genealogies; and the only reasonable conclusion is that these genealogies are ancient and genuine kṣatriya tradition which was incorporated in the Purana. The internal evidence corroborates this, for these genealogies in the earliest Puranas are, on the whole, manifestly kṣatriya literature, as, for instance, the stories of Triśaṅku and Sagara, so often alluded to, show.

c15.18

Sixthly, the genealogies declare that from time to time members of royal families became brahmans as the Kāṇvas (chapter XIX), or became kṣatriyan brahmans, many of whom developed into true brahman gotras, as will be explained in chapter XXIII. Such statements cannot have originated with the brahmans, because it was not to the interest of any brahman gotra to allege such a beginning, and it is incredible that they, deeply interested as they were in exalting their own status, would have asserted that any brahman gotra sprang from kṣatriyas, except the Viśvāmitras, whose kṣatriya ancestry was notorious; and in fact their Vedic literature says nothing about such matters. These statements were too damaging to exclusive brahmanic pretensions. The brahmans then did not put them into the genealogies. The statements came from kṣatriya sources, and were notices which occurred naturally in the course of the royal genealogies. The Puranic brahmans found these notices therein and preserved them, although Vedic brahmans ignored such facts. The statements therefore were genuine ancient tradition and were known to be true beyond gainsaying; so the Viṣṇu, a late brahmanic Purana, acknowledges them freely, and even the Bhāgavata, later still and more avowedly brahmanic, though it ignores some of them, yet admits the most important cases. The statements must have originated with the incidents they describe, and therefore the genealogies which contain them were equally ancient and contemporaneous, and these considerations show that all was preserved with care.

c15.19

Seventhly, the genealogies give an account, how the Aryans dominated North India and the north-west of the Dekhan, and it is the only account to be found in the whole of Sanskrit literature of that great ethnological fact. They do not allude to that conquest except in very general terms,¹ yet those terms show they did know of it. They give no actual account of that, but the genealogies when co-ordinated show how the ‘Aila’ race extended its rule over precisely the very regions over which the Aryans established themselves. This subject will be fully dealt with hereafter (chapter XXV). This outcome was not the object of the genealogies, and they were not constructed to establish it; hence the fact that they do tacitly disclose how a great ethnological change took place is strong evidence that they are genuine and true.

c15.20

¹ As where it is said, the five races descended from Yayāti, namely, the Yādavas, Turvasus, Anavas, Druhyus and Pauravas, overspread the entire earth. Vā 93, 103; 99, 462. Bd iii, 68, 105-6. Hv 30, 1619-20. Lg i, 67, 26. Kūr i, 22, 11. Br 12, 20-1.

c15.21

Against the statements of the Puranas and Mahābhārata about matters of traditional history, arguments from Vedic literature are adduced of two kinds—arguments from statements and allusions, and arguments ex silentio. Both these have been discussed already in pages 10–12. Only a few remarks need be added here. As regards statements in that literature, *contemporary* references to historical matters are trustworthy, and they do not clash with kṣatriya historical tradition in the Puranas as far as I am aware; but references to prior traditional history have no such authority, though they may be of use. Arguments regarding historical matters drawn from the silence of that literature are particularly worthless. Thus it is a mistake to assert that, because the Rigveda makes no mention of the Aila (or Lunar) race, there was no such race.¹ One might argue with more force that, because the banyan, the most characteristic tree of India, is not mentioned in the Rigveda,² there were none in India when the hymns were composed.

c15.22

¹ JRAS, 1914, p. 735.

c15.23

² Macdonell, *Sansk. Lit.*, pp. 146–7.

c15.24

These considerations show that the genealogies have strong claims to acceptance. This does not mean that they are complete and altogether accurate, because no human testimony is free from defects and errors; and it has been shown in the preceding pages, and more will appear in the following pages, that there are defects, gaps and errors in them, especially when taken singly, but many of these blemishes can be corrected by collating the various texts, and others can be remedied by statements found elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that they are genuine accounts and are substantially trustworthy. They give us history as handed down in tradition by men whose business it was to preserve the past; and they are far superior to historical statements in the Vedic literature, composed by brahmans who lacked the historical sense and were little concerned with mundane affairs.

Linked texts (14)