Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c8: Chapter III. Contents of the Earliest Puranas

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c8

Language
English

Chapter III. Contents of the Earliest Puranas

c8.2

It has been explained in the last chapter how the original Purana was compiled. The materials used were ākhyānas, upākhyānas, gāthās and kalpa-jóktis (and the equivalent kalpa-vākya). Similar materials would appear to have gone to make up the Itihāsa.

c8.3

The term kalpa in a precise sense means a vast cosmic period, but this seems to have been a later application of it, when the scheme of cosmological time was developed. It is not seldom used in a simpler and unspecialized way to mean ‘a period of time’, ‘an age’, and this seems to have been its earlier signification, as where it is said, wise men knew the old tales of the old time.⁹ In this way kalpa is often used loosely;¹⁰ and so also purā-kalpa,¹¹ as where it is declared that purā-kalpa-vids knew a particular vrata,¹² and proclaim songs sung by king Ambariṣa.¹ Accordingly *kalpa* must have this general sense when it is used in the above words *kalpa-jókti* and *kalpa-vākya*.

c8.4

⁹ Mat 53, 63, 73 :— purātanasya kalpasya purāṇāni vidur budhāḥ.

c8.5

¹⁰ e.g. Mat 57, 26 ; 58, 55 ; 62, 36. Pad v, 82, 45.

c8.6

¹¹ e.g. Pad i, 41, 1 : ii, 1, 11 ; 28, 54 : v, 23, 65. Vā 59, 137, professes to explain it. Cf. also MBh v, 36, 1352 : ix, 48, 2732.

c8.7

¹² Mat 63, 1. Pad v, 22, 105.

c8.8

¹ MBh xiv, 31, 876.

c8.9

*Purāṇa* and *itihāsa*, apart from their application to compilations, are applied to single stories.² *Purāṇa* means any ‘old tale’, or ‘ancient lore’ generally,³ and *itihāsa* would seem properly to denote a story of fact in accordance with its derivation *iti ha āsa*, which rather denotes actual traditional history.⁴ But the line between fact and fable was hardly definite and gradually became blurred, especially where the historical sense was lacking, and so no clear distinction was made, particularly in brahmanic additions to the Puranas. Hence both words tended to become indefinite. The Vedārthadīpikā calls all the old stories it cites *itihāsas*, and never uses the word *Purāṇa*, I believe, except once, and then of a quotation from ‘the Puranas’, which agrees with the Mahābhārata.⁵ *Purana* is applied to a single story, whether quasi-historical⁶ or mythological⁷ or instructive;⁸ and so also an *itihāsa* may be an ordinary tale⁹ or quasi-historical,¹⁰ fanciful,¹¹ mythological¹² or even didactic.¹³ In later additions to the Puranas any kind of tale is called an *itihāsa*, and spurious antiquity was ascribed to stories, fables, and other matters that are manifestly late by adding the epithet purātana.¹ Moreover no strong distinction was made in later times between these terms and ākhyāna, and they are not seldom treated as synonymous.²

c8.10

² See fifth note above. Mat 181, 5; 247, 5. MBh i, 175, 6650. Also the following references.

c8.11

³ Mat 53, 64.

c8.12

⁴ So Yāska uses *aitihāsika* for those who interpreted the Veda with reference to traditional history (*Vedic Index* i, 122. Cf. opening verses in chap. I). It shows that *itihāsa* as traditional history was well understood, and therefore that *itihāsas* must have been commonly current. *Itihāsas* according to Sāyaṇa are cosmological myths or accounts, such as ‘In the beginning this universe was nothing but water’, &c.; so SBE xliv, p. 98: but this is very doubtful, because (1) *itihāsa* is, I believe, very rarely found applied to such accounts, (2) the definition of *itihāsa* and the references to it in the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra (which will be noticed in chap. IV) distinctly negative it, and (3) so also does Yāska’s use of the word *aitihāsika*.

c8.13

⁵ Its notice of Rigv i, 65. MBh xii, 351, 13642-3.

c8.14

⁶ MBh i, 122, 4718: xii, 150, 5595.

c8.15

⁷ Mat 247, 5, 8. Pad v, 37, 110. Cf. MBh xii, 341, 12983; 349, 13457, 13528: where spurious antiquity is given.

c8.16

⁸ Mat 181, 5. Vā 46, 3.

c8.17

⁹ Pad ii, 47, 63: iii, 14, 14 f.

c8.18

¹⁰ MBh i, 95, 3840; 104, 4178. Pad ii, 85, 15 f. : v, 28, 47.

c8.19

¹¹ Var 53, 26. Pad iv, 113, 203/13.

c8.20

¹² Vā 55, 2. Pad vi, 19, 144; 98, 4; 108, 1.

c8.21

¹³ Br 240, 5. Pad v, 59, 2.

c8.22

¹ Mat 72, 6-10. Pad vi, 77, 30; 243, 3: and often. So in the Anugītā, which is a late brahmanical production, e.g. MBh xiv, 20; 21; &c.

c8.23

² Vā 54, 1-3, 115. Br 131, 2. Pad v, 32, 8-9: vi, 29, 1-3; 192, 16 with 193, 90-1.

c8.24

As collective terms Itihāsa and Purāṇa are often mentioned as distinct,³ and yet are sometimes treated as much the same; thus the Vāyu calls itself both a Purana and an Itihāsa,⁴ and so also the Brahmāṇḍa.⁵ The Brahma calls itself a Purana and an Ākhyāna.⁶ The Mahābhārata calls itself by all these terms.⁷

c8.25

³ e.g. Mat 69, 55. Br 161, 27; 234, 4. See quotations from Kauṭilya at end of chap. IV.

c8.26

⁴ Vā 103, 48, 51, 55-8. Cf. 1, 8.

c8.27

⁵ Bḍ iv, 4, 47, 50, 54-8.

c8.28

⁶ Br 245, 27, 30.

c8.29

⁷ Itihāsa, i, 2, 648; 60, 2229; &c. Purāṇa, i, 1, 17; 62, 2298. Ākhyāna, i, 1, 18; 2, 649-52. Upākhyāna, i, 2, 647.

c8.30

The word Purana occurs often in the singular. In various passages it means the Puranas collectively,⁸ and in some places it is doubtful whether the singular or plural is intended;⁹ but in others¹⁰ it means ‘the Purana’ and refers apparently to the original Purana, and this seems specially clear where its locative is used in connexion with ancient tenets.¹¹

c8.31

⁸ e.g. Vā 83, 53. Br 121, 10; and 173, 35 in connexion with the Godāvarī, where the original Purana cannot be meant. Also MBh i, 31, 1438-9; 51, 2020.

c8.32

⁹ e.g. Vā 50, 189. Bḍ ii, 21, 137. Mat 52, 11. Br 3, 50.

c8.33

¹⁰ Probably MBh i, 4, 852; 5, 863.

c8.34

¹¹ Purāṇe niścayaṃ gatam, Vā 56, 90; 101, 21: Bḍ ii, 28, 96; iv, 2, 19: Mat 141, 81. Similarly Viṣ i, 7, 6: MBh xii, 208, 7571. Doubtful, MBh xii, 166, 6205. Perhaps Purāṇe kīrtita, Br 5, 21: Hv 7, 427.

c8.35

The Purana as so framed was entrusted to the sūta Romaharṣaṇa in virtue of the duties that appertained to sūtas (p. 21), and it is there said that the matters with which sūtas were concerned were displayed in itihāsas and purāṇas, itihāsa-purāṇeṣu diṣṭā. It makes no real difference whether we understand these words as meaning that those matters ‘were displayed in tales and ancient stories’ or as meaning that they ‘are displayed in the Itihāsas and Puranas’; for in the former case those tales and ancient stories would have been comprised among the materials used, and the latter construction would say definitely that they had been incorporated in the Itihāsas and Puranas. It is clear then that the original Purana dealt with ancient traditions about gods, rishis and kings, their genealogies and famous deeds. Itihāsas appear to have remained distinct for some time, and Liṅga i, 26, 28 mentions the Śaiva as one; but afterwards they would seem to have become absorbed into the Puranas.¹

c8.36

¹ Cf. Matsya Sāmmada near the end of chap. IV; and also the use of itihāsa in Vedārth ante.

c8.37

Genealogies and the deeds of famous kings and rishis constituted two subjects. Traditions about gods and (to some extent) the most ancient rishis and kings would divide themselves into the three subjects of creation, its obvious end and dissolution, and the Manvantaras. The matters then with which the Purana would have dealt were these five subjects, and the truth of the old verse about the five subjects that every Purana should treat of becomes manifest, namely, original creation, dissolution and re-creation, the Manvantaras, ancient genealogies and accounts of persons mentioned in the genealogies.² These gave rise to the term pañca-lakṣaṇa, as a special epithet of the ‘Purana’. This term manifestly could not have been coined after the Puranas substantially took their present composition, comprising great quantities of other matters, especially brahmanic doctrine and ritual, dharma of all kinds, and the merits of tīrthas, which are often expounded with emphatic prominence. It belongs to a time before these matters were incorporated into the Puranas. It is therefore ancient, characterizes the earliest Puranas, and shows what their contents were.

c8.38

² Sargaś ca pratisargaś ca vaṁśo manvantarāṇi ca vaṁśyānucaritam caiva Purāṇam pañca-lakṣaṇam. Quoted in Bd i, 1, 37-8: Vā 4, 10-11: Mat 53, 65: Kūr i, 1, 12: Śiv v, 1, 37: Gar i, 215, 14: Bhav i, 2, 4-5: Var 2, 4. Differently expressed in Viṣ iii, 6, 25: Ag 1, 14. Wrongly in Bhāg xii, 7, 8-10. Cf. Viṣ vi, 8, 2, 13.

c8.39

Dharma in all its branches bulks very large in the present Puranas, but is not alluded to nor even implied in any of those five subjects. Hence it was no ingredient of the earliest Puranas, except probably such simple lessons as might be conveyed incidentally in those five subjects.³ It has been explained how the original Purana was soon developed into four separate versions (p. 23), and thenceforward the Puranic brahmans developed the Puranas. The multifarious other matters now found were thus later additions, such augmentations gradually nullified the ancient fivefold division, and it was then possible that Puranas could be composed which diverged from that character, *pañca-lakṣaṇa*. The Puranas naturally lent themselves to augmentation, and the Puranic brahmans used their opportunities to the full, partly with further genuine traditions, but mostly with additions of brahmanic stories and fables and doctrinal and ritual matter.

c8.40

³ Such as are found interspersed in Homer.

c8.41

The Matsya implies this, for, after describing the eighteen Puranas and the characteristic subjects of a Purana (53, 10–59), it adds (66–9) that the five-subject Purana treats also of the māhātmya of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, the sun, Rudra and the earth; and that dharma, wealth, love and final emancipation from existence and what is repugnant thereto are treated of in all the Puranas. The Vāyu, which states the five characteristic subjects, describes the eighteen Puranas briefly (104, 2–11), and adds (11–17), that they give instruction about many dharmas belonging to all classes and āśramas, about rivers, sacrifices, austerities and gifts, about yoga, faith, and knowledge, about the cults of Brahmā, Śiva, Viṣṇu, the sun, the śaktis and the Ārhatas¹ and many other matters. Some of these matters, if not most, were certainly not ancient, and very few of them could by any stretch of terms be reckoned within the five characteristic subjects. Hence clearly all these matters were later additions, additions manifestly made by the Puranic brahmans.

c8.42

¹ That is, apparently both Jains and Buddhists.

c8.43

The compilation of the original Purana and even of the four versions into which it developed does not mean that all the traditions existing at that time were collected therein, and in fact it would have been impossible to condense them all into the 4,000 verses of which those collections consisted. There must have been much other tradition surviving about ancient times; just as there were traditions about later kings (which were not admitted into the Puranas because they belonged to later times), as indeed Kālidāsa testifies when he alludes to old villagers who were well acquainted with the stories about king Udayana.² Such outstanding traditions about ancient times were no doubt taken up and incorporated and so contributed to the augmentation of the Puranas. As specimens of such may probably be reckoned the story about Bhīṣma and Ugrāyudha,¹ Sagara’s campaign in west India,² the genealogy of a branch of kings descended from the Yādava Lomapāda,³ which appear in single passages only. The Mahābhārata also incorporated many such traditions, which are introduced as extraneous vehicles of instruction; such as the stories of Lopāmudrā and Agastya,⁴ of Marutta and Saṃvarta,⁵ and of Nala.⁶

c8.44

² Meghadūta i, 31.

c8.45

¹ Hv 20, 1085–1112.

c8.46

² Bḍ iii, 49.

c8.47

³ Kūr i, 24, 6–10.

c8.48

⁴ MBh iii, 96, 8561 f. : noticed in chap. XIV.

c8.49

⁵ MBh xiv, 5, 99 f. : discussed in chap. XIII.

c8.50

⁶ MBh iii, 53 to 79.

c8.51

As regards traditional history there is generally little evidence to show whether particular stories about kings were in the original compilation, yet the character of certain tales suggests that they were there, such as (1) the natural and simple accounts of kings Satyavrata-Triśaṅku⁷ and Sagara⁸ narrated in the Ayodhyā genealogy, and (2) the frequent narration of and allusions to other tales in a historical setting, such as the legend of Purūravas and his queen Urvaśī,⁹ and that of the rishi Cyavana and his princess-wife Sukanyā.¹⁰ For instance, Purūravas and Urvaśī were according to tradition the progenitors of the great Aila race; hence their legend must have existed in the earliest times, and it is noteworthy that Sāyaṇa mentions it as a typical purāṇa.¹¹ It is found in the present Puranas. Obviously their legend must have existed through all the intervening ages, because, when oral tradition is the only means of perpetuation, things once forgotten are lost for ever. The fact that Purūravas and Urvaśī are mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda (x, 95) would not account for the legend that exists, because other persons who are far more prominent in the Veda are unknown to general tradition, as for instance, Vadhryaśva, Divodāsa and Sudās (p. 7). It is true that stories were fabricated in later times about ancient kings and rishis, but such stories betray their character in various ways that will be noticed in chapter V, and stand on a different footing. That hymn by itself is obscure, but was intelligible to those who knew the legend,¹ and therefore implies the existence of the legend when it was composed.²

c8.52

⁷ Vā 88, 78–116. Bḍ iii, 63, 77–114. Br 7, 97 to 8, 23. Hv 12, 717 to 13, 753. Lg i, 66, 3–10. Śiv vii, 60, 81 to 61, 19. JRAS, 1913, pp. 888 f.

c8.53

⁸ Vā 88, 122–43. Bḍ iii, 63, 120–41. Br 8, 29–51. Hv 13, 760 to 14, 784. Śiv vii, 61, 29–43. JRAS, 1919, pp. 353 f.

c8.54

⁹ Vā 91, 4–52. Bḍ iii, 66, 4–22. Br 10, 4–8. Hv 26, 1366–70. Mat 24, 24–34. Viṣ iv, 6, 20–42. Śatapatha Brāhm xi, 5, 1.

c8.55

¹⁰ MBh iii, 122 : and chap. XVII.

c8.56

¹¹ See SBE xliv, p. 98.

c8.57

¹ So Tennyson's *Dream of Fair Women* is intelligible only to those who know the stories.

c8.58

² The legend is also impliedly referred to in Rigv iv, 2, 18: see SBE xlvi, 318, 323-4.

c8.59

The first three subjects that Puranas should treat of are based on imagination, are wholly fanciful, and do not admit of any practical examination; hence it would be a vain pursuit to investigate them here. The fourth and fifth subjects however, genealogies and tales of ancient kings, profess to be historical tradition and do admit of chronological scrutiny; hence they are well worth considering. It is manifest from the Rigvedic hymns that there was real civilization in India, there were independent kings, and famous exploits were celebrated in song. Independent kings imply separate dynasties. Dynasties had genealogies, hence there were genealogies to be incorporated in the original Purana. The genealogies will be dealt with in chapters VIII and IX. Here may be noticed the fifth subject, and there is plenty of tradition to testify who were the ancient kings renowned for their deeds.

c8.60

The greatest kings were generally styled cakravartins,³ sovereigns who conquered surrounding kingdoms or brought them under their authority, and established a paramount position over more or less extensive regions around their own kingdoms. There is a list of sixteen celebrated monarchs and their doings, which is called the Ṣoḍaśa-rājika, and is given twice.⁴ They are these:—

c8.61

³ Their ideal characteristics are explained in Vā 57, 68-80; Bḍ ii, 29, 74-88. Cf. Mat 142, 63-73.

c8.62

⁴ MBh vii, 55, 2170 to 70; xii, 29, 910-1037: i, 1, 223-4 (6 verses) speak of 24.

c8.63

Marutta Āvīkṣita Suhotra Ātithina Bṛhadratha Vīra⁵ the Aṅga Sivi Auśīnara Bharata Dauṣyanti Rāma Dāśarathi Bhagīratha Dilīpa Ailavila Khaṭvāṅga

c8.64

⁵ Vīra may be an adjective. Probably Bṛhadratha of Magadha.

c8.65

Māndhātṛ Yauvanāśva Yayāti Nāhuṣa Ambarīṣa Nābhāgi Śaśabindu Caitraratha Gaya Āmūrtarayasa Rantideva Sāṅkṛti Sagara Aikṣvāku Pṛthu Vainya.

c8.66

Instead of Sagara the list in the Droṇa-parvan names Rāma Jāmadagnya; but he does not properly fall into this enumeration because he was not a king. Suhotra Ātithina is Suhotra, the descendant of Vitatha,¹ Bharata's successor, Ātithina being a variant of Vaitathina. All these were eminent kings and all will be found in the genealogies² except Pṛthu Vainya, whose lineage stands quite apart from the other genealogies and seems rather mythical.³ The list does not arrange the kings in any proper order. Māndhātṛ, Sagara, Bhagīratha, Ambariṣa,⁴ Dilīpa (Dilīpa II) and Rāma Dāśarathi belonged to the Ayodhyā dynasty; and Marutta to the Vaiśāla dynasty. Yayāti was of the Aila race; and among his descendants were Bharata, Suhotra, Rantideva and Bṛhadratha in the Paurava line, and Śaśabindu a Yādava and Śivi an Ānava. There were two kings named Gaya Āmūrtarayasa (son of Amūrtarayas), one who reigned at Gayā,⁵ and the other on the river Payoṣṇī⁶ (the modern Tapti); the former seems to be meant here.

c8.67

¹ Extolled as a very prosperous monarch, MBh i, 94, 3715-9.

c8.68

² The genealogies are discussed in chaps. VII to IX, and the main lines are set out fully in the Table in chap. XII.

c8.69

³ His story is given in Vā 1, 33-36; 62, 103 f.; and 63: Bḍ ii, 36, 103 f.; and 37: Mat 10, 3-15: Br 2, 17-28; 4, 28 f.: Hv 2, 74-81; 4, 283 to 6, 405: Pad ii, 26 to 37; 123, 55 to 125, 6: v, 8, 3-34: Kūr i, 14, 7-21: Ag 18, 8-18.

c8.70

⁴ There was another Ambariṣa Nābhāgi, in the very earliest times, see the ‘Nābhāgas’ in chap. VIII.

c8.71

⁵ MBh iii, 95, 8518-20, 8528-39: ix, 39, 2205. He appears to have been a scion of the Kānyakubja dynasty, Bḍ iii, 66, 32: Vā 91, 62: Gar i, 139, 5: Bhāg ix, 15, 4: Hv 27, 1425: Br 10, 23.

c8.72

⁶ MBh iii, 121, 10293-304. It was this latter apparently who is meant when it is said Māndhātṛ vanquished Gaya, MBh vii, 62, 2281: xii, 29, 981.

c8.73

Another list⁷ names certain kings who gained the title samrāj,⁸ ‘paramount sovereign’, four of the foregoing, Yauvanāśvi (Māndhātṛ),⁹

c8.74

⁷ MBh ii, 14, 649-50.

c8.75

⁸ He who conquers the whole of Bhārata-varṣa is celebrated as a samrāj; Vā 45, 86.

c8.76

⁹ Often celebrated. Of him an old verse was sung—‘As far as the sun rises and as far as he sets, all that is called Yauvanāśva Māndhātṛ’s territory’: MBh vii, 62, 2282-3; xii, 29, 983: Vā 88, 68: Bḍ iii, 63, 69-70: Viṣ iv, 2, 18: Bhāg ix, 6, 37. Celebrated in MBh iii, 126, 10423-68, which describes his birth in an absurd brahmanical fable, noticed in id. vii, 62 and xii, 29, 974-9. Cakravartin, id. xiii, 14, 860.

c8.77

Bhagīratha,¹ Bharata,² and Marutta,³ and a fifth, Kārtavīrya, that is, Arjuna Kārtavīrya of the Haihaya line, who was a very famous monarch and is called both a samrāj and a cakravartin.⁴ Other lists name as kings of wide sway,⁵ Dilīpa, Nṛga,⁶ Nahuṣa, Ambarīṣa and Māndhātṛ: as kings of high renown,⁷ Pṛthu Vainya, Ikṣvāku, Yayāti,⁸ Ambarīṣa, Śivi Uśīnara,⁹ Ṛṣabha Aila, Nṛga, Kuśika, Gādhi,¹⁰ Somaka¹¹ and Dilipa: and as kings of great magnificence,¹² Rantideva,¹³ Nābhāga (Ambarīṣa), Yauvanāśva (Māndhātṛ), Pṛthu Vainya, Bhagīratha, Yayāti, Nahuṣa and Hariścandra.¹⁴

c8.78

¹ After him the Ganges was named Bhagīrathī. The story is told, MBh iii, 107, 9918 to 109, 9965: &c.

c8.79

² Famous in Vedic literature also. A cakravartin and sārvabhauma, MBh i, 69, 2814; 74, 3121: iii, 90, 8379.

c8.80

³ Praised in MBh xii, 20, 613; Mārk 130 (Translation 129), 2–18. His story, ibid., and MBh xiv, 4, 86 f.

c8.81

⁴ Vā 94, 9, 23. Bḍ iii, 69, 9, 23. Br 13, 166, 174. Hv 33, 1857, 1865. Mat 43, 17–18, 26. Pad v, 12, 120–2. Viṣ iv, 11, 3. Ag 274, 5.

c8.82

⁵ MBh xii, 8, 238.

c8.83

⁶ MBh iii, 88, 8329–32; 121, 10291–2: xiii, 2, 121.

c8.84

⁷ MBh vi, 9, 314–16.

c8.85

⁸ Extolled for nobleness, MBh iii, 195, 13256–60; 293, 16675.

c8.86

⁹ Extolled for piety and truthfulness, MBh iii, 197, 13319–30; 293, 16674; xii, 143, 5461. The fable of the hawk and pigeon is applied to him in MBh iii, 196, 13274–300; 207, 13808: xiii, 67, 3384: xiv, 90, 2790: but to his father Uśīnara, 130, 10557 to 131, 10596: confusedly to Uśīnara Vṛṣadarbha, king of Kāśi, xiii, 32.

c8.87

¹⁰ Kuśika and Gādhi were kings of Kānyakubja.

c8.88

¹¹ Probably Sahadeva’s son, king of North Pañcāla: praised, MBh iii, 125, 10422. A story about him in 127, 10471 f.

c8.89

¹² MBh ii, 52, 1929–31.

c8.90

¹³ Praised for liberality, MBh iii, 82, 4096; 207, 13809; 293, 16674: xiii, 66, 3365; 112, 5544; 150, 7129: xiv, 90, 2787.

c8.91

¹⁴ Praised, MBh ii, 12, 488–98; xii, 20, 614. His story is fully discussed, JRAS, 1917, 40 f.

c8.92

A list is given of kings who gained fame by their gifts of cattle,¹⁵ Bhagīratha, Māndhātṛ Yauvanāśva, Bharata, Rāma Dāśarathi, Dilīpa, Purūravas, Uśīnara, Mucukunda,¹⁶ Nṛga, and Somaka, and others of less note. Another list, given twice,¹⁷ names kings who gained great merit by liberality or devotion to brahmans, namely, Rantideva Sāṅkṛtya, Śivi Auśīnara, Pratardana king of Kāśī, Ambarīṣa, Yuvanāśva,¹ Rāma Dāśarathi, Karandhama’s grandson Marutta,² Bhagīratha, Devāvṛdha, Janamejaya, Vṛṣādarbhi, Brahmadatta, Mitrasaha,³ Bhūmanyu, Śatadyumna, Lomapāda,⁴ Satyasandha, Nimi of Vidarbha, Manu’s son Sudyumna, Sahasrajit and Prasenajit,⁵ and others.

c8.93

¹⁵ MBh xiii, 76, 3688–91; 81, 3806.

c8.94

¹⁶ Son of Māndhātṛ, Vā 88, 71–2; Bḍ iii, 63, 72; Mat 12, 35; Hv 12, 714; Br 7, 95; &c. Fables are told about him, Br 196, 18–26: Hv 115, 6464–89: Viṣ v, 23, 17–23. Also MBh xii, 74.

c8.95

¹⁷ MBh xii, 234, 8590–8610: xiii, 137, 6247–71.

c8.96

¹ Māndhātṛ’s father, who was a great king; so Vā 88, 65; Bḍ iii, 63, 66; Hv 12, 711; Śiv vii, 60, 75–6; Br 7, 92.

c8.97

² That is, Avīkṣita, mentioned above.

c8.98

³ Called Kalmāṣapāda, of Ayodhyā. A story about him in chap. XVIII.

c8.99

⁴ Daśaratha’s friend, king of Aṅga, in Rām.

c8.100

⁵ Most of these kings will be found in the Table of Genealogies in chap. XII. Consult also the Index.

c8.101

Other lists are found,⁶ but it is unnecessary to quote more. They contain most of the foregoing names and new names also, but the compilers were no experts, for the names are generally jumbled together without dynastic, genealogical or chronological order. A very few lists do aim at chronological order, and the longest is one that describes the descent of the sword of justice,⁷ thus—Manu, Kṣupa, Ikṣvāku, Purūravas, Āyus, Nahuṣa, Yayāti, Pūru, &c.; but the order after Pūru is worthless, thus it places Ailavila (Dilīpa II) before Dhundhumāra, Mucukunda and Yuvanāśva, though he was long posterior to them in the Ayodhyā line. This list is in the Śānti-parvan and is a brahmanical compilation with the usual brahmanical lack of the historical sense, yet it shows who were remembered as righteous rulers even by brahmans.

c8.102

⁶ Very long lists in MBh i, 1, 223–32: ii, 8, 319–33: xiii, 115, 5661–9; 165, 7674–85. Similar lists occur in brahmanical books, e. g. Maitrāyaṇa-Brāhmaṇa-Upaniṣad i, 4. Short lists in MBh iv, 56, 1768–9: v, 89, 3146: vi, 9, 313–6; &c.

c8.103

⁷ MBh xii, 166, 6191–201.

c8.104

These lists have been set out, in order that there should be no lack of names of notable kings for comparison. They show that the really famous kings occur repeatedly and were well established in tradition; and that there were many others less celebrated but yet well known. It is very remarkable, as pointed out before (p. 7), how widely these kings differ from those extolled in the Rigveda and Vedic literature, even when the lists are brahmanical. Rigvedic kings are practically non-existent here, and eulogies of kings in all that literature hardly count in the compilation of these lists. This fact shows how entirely apart from general popular thought stood Vedic literature in this matter. The popular scale of values was totally different from that of Vedic brahmans. Hence it is clear how little Vedic brahmans were in touch with public life and interests,¹ and of what small importance Vedic literature is as regards historical matters.

c8.105

¹ This is further discussed in chap. V.

c8.106

These divergencies and also the fact that the Puranas sometimes contain statements that differ from those in brahmanic literature show that the Puranic stream of tradition flowed independently of the Vedic stream. The former sometimes incorporated brahmanical doctrines and tales, and Vedic literature sometimes borrowed from Puranic and Itihāsic sources.² The divergence however is substantial and shows that the Puranic brahmans must have received the different account when they took over the Puranas, and that they preserved it, notwithstanding the disagreements, as being genuine tradition.

c8.107

² Śatapatha Brāhm xiii, 5, 4. Vedārth passim.

c8.108

Now may be noticed the matters that Āpastamba³ quotes from Puranas, viz., three doctrines from a Purana, and one from the Bhaviṣyat Purana, as bearing on the contents of the Puranas in his time.

c8.109

³ Bühler’s 2nd edition, Bombay, 1892.

c8.110

The first passage is translated thus by Bühler⁴—‘Now they quote also in a Purâna the following two verses: “The Lord of creatures has declared, that food offered unasked and brought by the giver himself, may be eaten, though (the giver be) a sinner, provided the gift has not been announced beforehand. The manes of the ancestors of that man who spurns such food, do not eat (his oblations) for fifteen years, nor does the fire carry his offerings (to the gods)”.’ These verses occur in Manu iv, 248-9, as Bühler notes, with some variations. I have not so far found them in any Purana, but they are probably somewhere there.

c8.111

⁴ I, 6, 19, 13. SBE ii, 70.

c8.112

The second passage is this⁵—A Purana says, ‘No guilt⁶ attaches to him who smites (or kills)⁷ an assailant that intends to injure him; (it is,) wrath indeed touches wrath’. This is in prose, and apparently Āpastamba has not quoted literally but has summarized the dictum of the Purana. His citation is fully supported by the Matsya, which says¹—‘One may indeed unhesitatingly smite (or kill) a guru or a boy or an old man or a brahman very learned in the Vedas, who advances as an *ātatāyin* against one: the smiter (or killer) incurs no guilt whatever in killing an *ātatāyin*; (it is,) wrath meets that wrath’. The agreement in phraseology shows that this is evidently the passage that Āpastamba had in mind. The Padma has a similar passage about the *ātatāyin*, though differently expressed.²

c8.113

⁵ I, 10, 29, 7—Yo hiṁsārtham abhikrāntaṁ hanti manyur eva manyuṁ spṛśati na tasmin doṣa iti Purāṇe. SBE ii, p. 90.

c8.114

⁶ Doṣa means ‘guilt’ rather than ‘sin’.

c8.115

⁷ The root han means ‘to strike even as far as to kill’. ‘Smite’ is the nearest equivalent.

c8.116

¹ Mat 227, 115–7.

c8.117

² Pad v, 45, 54–6.

c8.118

*Ātatāyin* meant originally ‘having one’s bow drawn (ready for shooting)’ and so ‘prepared to take another’s life’. Then it was applied to cases of murderous assault as in the Matsya and Padma passages, which lay down that it was no offence to kill an *ātatāyin* outright. This was evidently a maxim of popular justice, because Āpastamba cites as his authority, not a law-book, but a Purana. His phraseology shows he was quoting the doctrine as expressed in the Matsya, and Manu afterwards copied the very words of that version (viii, 350–1). *Ātatāyin* was afterwards extended in its scope and applied as a legal term to include other heinous offenders, such as incendiaries, poisoners, robbers, &c., and is so defined in those two Puranas,³ and similarly in law-books.⁴ The word thus came to include one who was actuated by injurious or malign intent,⁵ and Āpastamba’s expression *himsārtham*, ‘in order to injure,’ rather suggests that it had acquired its wider meaning before his time.⁶

c8.119

³ Mat 227, 117–9. Pad v, 45, 56–8.

c8.120

⁴ Baudhāyana i, 10, 18, 13. Vasiṣṭha iii, 15–18. Viṣṇu-smṛti v, 189–92. Bṛhaspati ii, 15–16.

c8.121

⁵ A king was of course bound to punish an *ātatāyin*, but an attempt was made to exempt brahmans and nobles, Lg ii, 50, 9–10. Cf. Bṛhaspati ii, 17.

c8.122

⁶ *Ātatāyin*; MBh iii, 36, 1420; 41, 1695: Viṣ vi, 6, 24.

c8.123

The third passage⁷ is translated thus by Bühler⁸—‘Now they quote (the following) two verses from a Purâna: Those eighty thousand sages who desired offspring passed to the south by Aryaman’s road and obtained burial-grounds. Those eighty thousand sages who desired no offspring passed by Aryaman’s road to the north and obtained immortality’. I have not found the precise verses cited by him in any Purana, but the same statements expressed in very similar language are found in the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya and Viṣṇu, with fuller descriptions.¹ Āpastamba quotes a conciser version.

c8.124

⁷ ii, 9, 23, 3–5.

c8.125

⁸ SBE ii, 156–7.

c8.126

¹ The chief passages are Vā 50, 214-22; Bḍ ii, 21, 164-75; Mat 124, 102-110; Viṣ ii, 8, 84, 87-9. Cf. also Vā 8, 194; 61, 99-102, 122-3: Bḍ ii, 7, 180; 35, 110-3, 146-7.

c8.127

The passage² which cites the Bhaviṣyat Purana runs thus, as translated by Bühler³—‘“These (sons) who live, fulfilling the rites taught (in the Veda), increase the fame and heavenly bliss of their departed ancestors. In this manner each succeeding (generation increases the fame and heavenly bliss) of the preceding ones. They (the ancestors) live in heaven until the (next) general destruction of created things. (After the destruction of the world, they stay) again in heaven, being the seed (of the new creation)”. That has been declared in the Bhaviṣyatpurāṇa’. This is expressed in concise prose, and it is clear that Āpastamba has summarized herein the doctrine of the Bhaviṣyat Purana, and has even severely condensed it. He does not name the ancestors as pitṛs, but it is obvious that he has ranked them as Pitṛs, as of course they are.

c8.128

² ii, 9, 24, 3-6.

c8.129

³ SBE ii. 158.

c8.130

The present Bhaviṣya appears to be the modern presentation of the ancient Bhaviṣyat. There is nothing in the difference of name. The Matsya says (53, 31-2) that the Bhaviṣya specially extols the sun and concerns itself chiefly with ‘future’ events or events in ‘the future’;⁴ and again, in describing the Sāmba (or Śāmba) Upapurana, it appears to say that the story of Sāmba or Śāmba (the name is written both ways) is the first part of the Bhaviṣyat and constitutes the whole of that Upapurana.⁵ The present Bhaviṣya, after a preface (manifestly an addition) expounding dharma, worship of various kinds and other matters, extols and inculcates the majesty of the sun (i, 48 f.), and in connexion therewith tells the story of Kṛṣṇa’s son Sāmba.⁶ The Varāha (177, 34, 51) says the Bhaviṣyat Purana deals with Sāmba. Thus the two names Bhaviṣya and Bhaviṣyat are given to the present Purana,⁷ and there is no difference in name between the ancient Purana and the present one. There is no definite statement what the ancient Bhaviṣyat contained, yet its general purport was expressed in its name, as will be noticed in the next chapter. It is highly improbable that the present Bhaviṣya can be a totally different work from the ancient Bhaviṣyat. It was easier and more natural to tamper with and revise an existing work of acknowledged importance so as to bring it into accordance with later notions than to compose a wholly new work and supersede the earlier authority completely: and it is notorious that the Bhaviṣya¹ has been unblushingly tampered with, as evidenced by its historical account of the Kali age.

c8.131

⁴ This expression is explained in the next chapter.

c8.132

⁵ Mat 53, 62 where Bhaviṣyati must, for the verse describes a work already in existence, be the locative of Bhaviṣyat. Cf. Var 177, 34, 49-51.

c8.133

⁶ In i, 48, 2, and especially 66 f.

c8.134

⁷ So Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, p. 302.

c8.135

¹ As presented in the Śrī-Veṅkaṭeśvara edition.

c8.136

But whether the existing Bhaviṣya is the ancient Bhaviṣyat or not is not a question of any consequence in the matter under consideration. It says very little about cosmogony and the ages, and that little is clearly the presentation of later ideas. It is practically worthless as regards all ancient beliefs. To expect to find in it the doctrine that Āpastamba quoted from the Bhaviṣyat is futile, because that became obsolete. If we wish to discover that doctrine in the Puranas, we must look at those which have best preserved the ancient ideas about the Pitṛs, and there we do find it. The fullest account is in the Vāyu² and Brahmāṇḍa,³ which are practically identical. The Harivaṃśa⁴ agrees closely therewith, so far as its shorter version goes; and a similar but brief account is given in the Matsya⁵ and Padma,⁶ which are almost alike. Similar accounts are found elsewhere.⁷

c8.137

² Passim in 56, 13–19, 61–73, 88–92; 71, 8–78; 72, 1; 73, 49–60; 75, 53.

c8.138

³ Passim in ii, 28: iii, 9, 6–75; 10, 1, 99–107; 11, 90.

c8.139

⁴ Passim in 16, 836–77; 17, 918, 928; 18, 932–1009.

c8.140

⁵ In 13, 2–5; 15, 29, 30; 141, 12–20, 57–65, 79–81.

c8.141

⁶ In v, 9, 2–5, 56, 58.

c8.142

⁷ e. g. Var 13, 16–31.

c8.143

These texts say this.⁸ There were various classes of Pitṛs, of different origins, forms, grades and abodes. One broad distinction is into Pitṛs who were divine and Pitṛs who were deceased men.⁹

c8.144

⁸ Where several texts are cited for a statement, they should be collated.

c8.145

⁹ The divine are called devāḥ pitaraḥ, Mat 141, 57; Vā 56, 61; Bḍ ii, 28, 66. Deceased ancestors are called manuṣyāḥ (or mānuṣāḥ) pitaraḥ, Mat 141, 65; Vā 56, 73; Bḍ ii, 28, 78; or laukikāḥ pitaraḥ, Mat 141,

c8.146

Also some dwelt in heaven and some in the underworld.¹ The former who dwelt in heaven were as gods,² and they and the gods were reciprocally gods and pitṛs.³ They were the most primeval deities,⁴ and were indeed from everlasting,⁵ and never cease to exist.⁶ But the Pitṛs who were human ancestors (comprising the father, grandfather and great grandfather⁷) attained to and became one with the divine Pitṛs through righteousness⁸ and dwelt blissfully in heaven with them.⁹ At the end of every thousand yugas they are reborn,¹⁰ they revive the worlds, and from them are produced all the Manus and all progeny at the new creations.¹¹

c8.147

¹ Vā 71, 9; Bḍ iii, 9, 8. Cf. Hv 16, 847. Mārk 96 and 97, and Gar i, 89 vary.

c8.148

² Vā 71, 8: Bḍ iii, 9, 6: Hv 16, 837 (and 871). Cf. Vā 71, 12, 52; 83, 108: Bḍ iii, 9, 11, 52: Hv 16, 851: Mat 13, 4: Pad v, 9, 4: Mārk 96, 13; 97, 4, 7: Gar i, 89, 13, 52.

c8.149

³ Vā 71, 34: Bḍ iii, 9, 35: Hv 17, 928: Mat 141, 79. Repeated in Vā 56, 88; 75, 53; 83, 122: Bḍ ii, 28, 94; iii, 11, 90. Cf. Var 13, 18.

c8.150

⁴ Vā 71, 54 and Bḍ iii, 9, 54 say ādi-devāḥ. Hv 16, 877 similarly. Cf. Mārk 96, 39: Gar i, 89, 39: Mat 15, 42.

c8.151

⁵ Vā 56, 92: Bḍ ii, 28, 98.

c8.152

⁶ Vā 71, 78: Bḍ iii, 9, 75. Cf. Bḍ iii, 10, 105; 20, 8: Vā 73, 58 (ending corrupted); 83, 115: Hv 18, 1009.

c8.153

⁷ See seventh note above.

c8.154

⁸ Mat 141, 60, where for smṛtāḥ read probably śritāḥ (cf. verses 58–9; and first passages in p. 45 note ¹). Similarly Bḍ ii, 28, 73–4: Vā 56, 68. Cf. Br 220, 92.

c8.155

⁹ Mat 141, 63: Vā 56, 70–1: Bḍ ii, 28, 76–7—where Pitṛmant is Soma ‘the moon’, which is so called in Vā 56, 31; 75, 56: Bḍ ii, 28, 33: Mat 141, 29.

c8.156

¹⁰ Vā 71, 60–1: Bḍ iii, 9, 60–1. Similarly Hv 18, 937. Mat 13, 4–5 and Pad v, 9, 4–5 equivalently. Cf. also Vā 61, 128–9; 71, 15: Bḍ iii, 9, 13.

c8.157

¹¹ Mat 15, 29: Pad v, 9, 56. Cf. Vā 71, 57: Bḍ iii, 9, 57–8.

c8.158

These Puranas thus declare that the manuṣya pitṛs attain to the same condition and position as the divine Pitṛs, dwell in heaven and reproduce the world in the next creation—that is, they are the ‘seed’ which generates fresh life in the next creation.¹² Such is precisely the doctrine which Āpastamba quotes from the Bhaviṣyat. This is corroborated by certain further statements. The Pitṛs are classed with the gods, seven rishis and Manus, and all these are

c8.159

¹² Lokānām akṣayārthin, Vā 83, 121; Bḍ iii, 20, 15.

c8.160

60; Vā 56, 64; Bḍ ii, 28, 69. Mat 141, 80; Vā 56, 65–6, 89; and Bḍ ii, 28, 70–1, 95 define them as father, grandfather and great grandfather.

c8.161

declared to be the sādhakas of each new manvantara.¹ Moreover the Pitṛs were a comprehensive body of beings, for the seven chief ṛṣigaṇas are also called Pitṛs;² and the restoration of humankind at the beginning of a new age is assigned to the seven rishis also,³ and they are referred to in this function by the words santaty-artha and santanārtha,⁴ and santāna-kara,⁵ which are synonymous with the word bījārtha that Āpastamba uses. The word bījārtha itself occurs in similar connexions, namely, in the restoration of population in the Kṛta age after this Kali age. Thus it is applied to Devāpi the Paurava and Maru⁶ the Aikṣvāku, who will revive the brahma-kṣatras then;⁷ and also to the renewal of the castes then.⁸ The word thus has precisely the meaning which Āpastamba gives it, and his application of it to the Pitṛs sums up correctly the function assigned them as shown above.

c8.162

¹ Vā 61, 134, 150-5, 173. Bḍ ii, 35, 177-82, 201-2.

c8.163

² Vā 65, 49, 50. Bḍ iii, 1, 50-51.

c8.164

³ Vā 65, 11, 47-8. Bḍ iii, 1, 10.

c8.165

⁴ Vā 61, 158, 161. Bḍ ii, 35, 185, 189. Mat 273, 62.

c8.166

⁵ Vā 65, 48. Bḍ iii, 1, 47. Mat 145, 35.

c8.167

⁶ Corrupted to Mata in Vā 99, 437 and Mat 273, 56. He was a king of Ayodhyā.

c8.168

⁷ Vā 99, 443: Bḍ iii, 74, 256: Mat 273, 61: where the plural is used for the dual, Prakrit-wise. As these Puranas avowedly borrowed their account of the kings of the Kali age from the Bhaviṣya (see next chapter), it seems probable they borrowed this portion also from it, though the present Bhaviṣya has not either. Cf. Viṣ iv, 24, 46, 48.

c8.169

⁸ Vā 58, 104-110; Bḍ ii, 31, 104-111. Less correctly Mat 144, 94.

c8.170

These Puranas also declare that they repeat the doctrine concerning the Pitṛs, which was expounded in ‘a Purana’ or more probably in ‘the Purana’,⁹ so that it was the ancient belief. ‘The Purana’ would obviously mean the original Purana. ‘A Purana’ might very appropriately mean the Bhaviṣyat, because the Bhaviṣyat would naturally treat of such future matters. From whatever Purana then they quoted this doctrine, they manifestly repeat the ancient belief that would have been expounded in the Bhaviṣyat in Āpastamba’s time.

c8.171

⁹ Mat 141, 81 and 16. Vā 56, 90. Bḍ ii, 28, 96.

c8.172

It has been pointed out above, that dharma was no ingredient of the earliest Puranas except probably such simple lessons as might be conveyed incidentally in the five special subjects of those Puranas; and these four doctrines cited by Āpastamba support that view. The third and fourth are not matters of dharma but of ancient cosmogony. The second is not dharma properly speaking, for it deals with criminal guilt and not sin, and merely declared a rule of common-sense jurisprudence. The first alone comes within the description of dharma. Only one then of the matters which Āpastamba quotes from Puranas belongs to dharma, and this fact is no proof that dharma was a subject dealt with in the earliest Puranas, because his book was concerned with dharma and he naturally cited only points of dharma.¹ The true inference therefrom would be that the Puranic brahmans had already begun to incorporate some dharma in the Puranas in his time.

c8.173

¹ One might as well argue that, because Maine in *Ancient Law* (chap. v) quotes some verses from the *Odyssey* about certain ancient legal conditions, therefore the *Odyssey* dealt with law.

Linked texts (27)