Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c12.s6: Section VI. Ajātaśatru's Successors—The Transfer of Capital and the Fall of Avanti

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c12.s6

Language
English

Section VI. Ajātaśatru's Successors—The Transfer of Capital and the Fall of Avanti

c12.s6.1

Ajātaśatru was succeeded according to the *Purāṇas* by Darśaka. Geiger considers the insertion of Darśaka after Ajātaśatru to be an error, because the Pāli Canon indubitably asserts that Udāyi-bhadda was the son of Ajātaśatru and probably also his successor. Jaina tradition recorded in the *Kathākośa*¹ and the *Pariśishṭaparvan*² also represents Udaya or Udāyin as the son of Kūṇika by his wife Padmāvatī,³ and his immediate successor.

c12.s6.2

¹ P. 177.

c12.s6.3

² P. 42.

c12.s6.4

³ Buddhist writers represent Vajirā, daughter of Prasenajit, as the mother of Udāyi.

c12.s6.5

Though the existence of Darśaka, as a ruler of Magadha and a contemporary of Udayana, is rendered probable by references in the *Svapna-Vāsavadatta* attributed to Bhāsa, yet in the face of Buddhist and Jaina evidence it cannot be confidently asserted that he was the immediate successor of Ajātaśatru on the imperial throne of Magadha. He may have been one of the *maṇḍalika rājās* like the father of Viśākha Pāñchālīputra. His inclusion among Magadhan suzerains is possibly paralleled by that of Śuddhodana in the main list of the Ikshvākuids. Certain writers identify him with Nāga-Dāsaka who is represented by the Ceylonese Chornicles as the last king of Bimbisāra's line.⁴ The *Divyāvadāna*,⁵ however, omits this name altogether from the list of the Bimbisārids. There was thus no unanimity even among Buddhists about the lineage and position of the king.

c12.s6.6

⁴ *E.g.*, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar. In this connection mention was made, in earlier editions, of a passage in the *Si-yu-ki*, (Beal's Trans, II. p. 102): "To the south-west of the old Saṅghārāma about 100 *li* is the Saṅghārāma of Ti-lo-shi-kia...It was built by the last descendant of Bimbisāra rāja." The name of the second Saṅghārāma was sought to be connected with that of Darśaka who was here represented as the last descendant of Bimbisāra. But I now think that the connection of the monastery with the name of Darśaka is extremely doubtful. See Watters II. p. 106f.

c12.s6.7

⁵ P. 369.

c12.s6.8

**Uḍyāin** : Before his accession to the throne Udāyin or Udāyi-bhadda, the son of Ajātaśatru, seems to have acted as his father's Viceroy at Champā.¹ The *Pariśishṭaparvan* informs us that he founded a new capital on the banks of the Ganges which came to be known as Pāṭaliputra.² This part of the Jaina tradition is confirmed by the testimony of the *Gārgī Samhitā*³ and the *Vāyu Purāṇa* according to which Udāyin built the city of Kusumapura (Pāṭaliputra) in the fourth year of his reign. The choice of the place was probably due to its position in the centre of the realm which now included North Bihār. Moreover, its situation at the confluence of two large rivers, the Ganges and the Śon and close to other streams, was important from the commercial as well as the strategic point of view. In this connection it is interesting to note that the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* recommends a site at the confluence of rivers for the capital of a kingdom.

c12.s6.9

¹ Jacobi, *Pariśishṭaparvan*, p. 42.

c12.s6.10

² VI. 34; 175-180.

c12.s6.11

³ Kern, *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, 36.

c12.s6.12

The *Pariśishṭaparvan*⁴ refers to the king of Avanti as the enemy of Udāyin. This does not seem to be improbable in view of the fact that his father had to fortify his capital in expectation of an attack about to be made by Pradyota, ruler of that country. The fall of Aṅga and Vaiśālī and the discomfiture of Kosala had left Avanti the only important rival of Magadha. This last kingdom had absorbed all the monarchies and republics of Eastern India. On the other hand, if the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara* and the *Āvaśyaka kathānakas*⁵ are to be believed, the kingdom of Kauśāmbī was at this time annexed to the realm of Pālaka of Avanti, the son of Pradyota and was governed by a prince belonging to his family. The two kingdoms, Magadha and Avanti, were brought face to face with each other. The war of nerves between the two for ascendancy probably began, as we have seen, in the reign of Ajātaśatru. It must have continued during the reign of Udāyin. The issue was finally decided in the time of Śiśunāga, or of Nanda as Jaina tradition seems to suggest.²

c12.s6.13

⁴ Pp. 45-46, Text VI, 191. *Abhūdasahanonityam Avantiśo' py-Udāyinaḥ.* See Supra sec. III. p. 204.

c12.s6.14

² *Ind. Ant.*, II. 362.

c12.s6.15

**Udāyin’s successors** in the Purāṇas are Nandivardhana and Mahānandin. According to the Jainas he left no heir.³ The Ceylonese chroniclers place after Udāyi the kings named Anuruddha, Muṇḍa and Nāga-Dāsaka. This tradition is partially confirmed by the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* which alludes to Muṇḍa,¹ King of Pāṭaliputrā. The *Divyāvadāna*, too, mentions Muṇḍa but omits the names of Anuruddha and Nāga-Dāsaka. The *Aṅguttara Nikāya* by mentioning Pāṭaliputra as the capital of Muṇḍa indirectly confirms the tradition regarding the transfer of the Magadhan metropolis from Rājagṛiha to Kusumapura or Pāṭaliputra before his reign.

c12.s6.16

¹ For a traditional account of the conflict between Udāyin and the king of Avanti, see IHQ, 1929, 399. In the opinion of Dr Jayaswal one of the famous “Patna Statues” which at the time of the controversy, stood in the Bhārhut Gallery of the Indian Museum (Ind. Ant., 1919, pp. 29ff.), is a portrait of Udāyin. According to him the statue bears the following words: *Bhage ACHO chhonidhīśe*. He identifies ACHO with king Aja mentioned in the *Bhāgavata* list of Saiśunāga kings, and with Udāyin of the *Matsya*, *Vāyu* and *Brahmāṇḍa* lists. Dr. Jayaswal’s reading and interpretation of the inscription have not, however, been accepted by several scholars including Dr. Barnett, Mr. Chanda and Dr. R. C. Majumdar. Dr. Smith, however, while unwilling to dogmatize, was of opinion that the statue was pre-Maurya. In the third edition of his *Aśoka* he considers Dr. Jayaswal’s theory as probable. The characters of the short inscription on the statue are so difficult to read that it is well-nigh impossible to come to a final decision. For the present the problem must be regarded as not yet definitely solved. Cunningham described the statue as that of a Yaksha. According to him the figure bore the words “Yakhe Achusanigika. Mr. Chanda’s reading is: *Bha (?) ga Achachha nivika* (the owner of inexhaustible capital. *i.e.*, Vaiśravaṇa). See *Indian Antiquary*, March, 1919. Dr. Majumdar reads: Gate (Yakhe?) Lechchhai (vi) 40. 4 (Ind. Ant., 1919).

c12.s6.17

³ *Pariśishṭaparvan*, VI. 236.

c12.s6.18

¹ *Aṅg.* III, 57. "The venerable Nârada dwelt near Pâṭaliputta in the Cock's Park. Now at that time Bhaddā, the dear and beloved queen of king Muṇḍa died." The king's grief was intense. The queen's body was placed in an oil vessel made of iron. A treasurer, Piyaka, is also mentioned. (*Gradual sayings*, III. 48).

c12.s6.19

The great Ceylonese chronicle avers that all the kings from Ajātaśatru to Nāga-Dāsaka were parricides.² The citizens drove out the family in anger and raised an *amātya* (official) to the throne.

c12.s6.20

² The violent death of Kūṇika (Ajātaśatru) is known to Jain tradition (Jacobi, *Pariśishṭaparvan*, 2nd ed. p. xiii).

c12.s6.21

**Susunāga** or **Śiśunāga**, the new king³ seems to have been acting as the Magadhan Viceroy at Benares. The employment of *amātyas* as provincial governors or district officers need not cause surprise. The custom continued as late as the time of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi and Rudradāman I. The *Purāṇas* tell us that "placing his son at Benares he will repair to (the stronghold of) Girivraja". He had a second royal residence at Vaiśālī which ultimately became his capital.⁴ "That monarch (Śiśunāga), not unmindful of his mother's origin,⁵ re-established the city of Vesālī (Vaiśālī) and fixed in it the royal residence. From that time Rājagaha (Rājagṛiha-Girivraja) lost her rank of royal city which she never afterwards recovered".

c12.s6.22

³ The question of the relative merits of Purāṇic and Ceylonese accounts of this king and his place in early Magadhan lists of kings have been discussed in Part I, pp. *supra*. 115 ff.

c12.s6.23

⁴ *SBE*, XI, p. xvi. If the *Dvātriṁśat puttalikā* is to be believed Vesālī (Vaiśālī) continued to be a secondary capital till the time of the Nandas.

c12.s6.24

⁵ Śiśunāga, according to the *Mahāvaṁsaṭīkā* (Turnour's, *Mahāvaṁsa* xxxvii). was the son of a Lichchhavi rājā of Vaiśālī. He was conceived by a nagara-śobhinī and brought up by an officer of State.

c12.s6.25

The most important achievement of Śiśunāga seems to have been the destruction of the ‘glory’ of the Pradyota dynasty of Avanti. Pradyota the first king of the line, had been succeeded, according to tradition, by his sons Gopāla and Pālaka after whom came Viśākha and Āryaka. The name of Gopāla is omitted in the *Purāṇas* with the possible exception of the *k* Viṣhṇu manuscript, where it finds mention instead of Pālaka.¹ The accession of the latter synchronised, according to Jaina accounts, with the passing away of Mahāvīra. He is reputed to have been a tyrant. Viśākha-bhūpa (i.e., king Viśākha-called Viśākha-yūpa in most Purāṇic texts) may have been a son of Pālaka.² The absence of any reference to this prince in non-Purāṇic accounts that have hitherto been available, may suggest that he ruled in some outlying district (Māhishmatī), or was set aside in favour of Āryaka who occupied the throne, as a result of a popular outbreak, almost immediately after the fall of Pālaka. The Purāṇas place after Āryaka or Ajaka a king named Nandivardhana, or Vartivardhana, and add that Śiśunāga will destroy the prestige of the Pradyotas and be king. Dr. Jayaswal identifies Ajaka and Nandivardhana of the Avanti list with Aja-Udāyin and Nandivardhana of the Pūrāṇic list of Saiśunāga kings. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, on the other hand, says that Āryaka or Ajaka was the son of Gopāla, the elder brother of Pālaka.¹ 'Nandivardhana' and 'Vartivardhana' are apparently corruptions of Avantivardhana, the name of a son of Pālaka according to the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*,² of Gopāla according to the Nepalese *Bṛihat-kathā*,³ or possibly identical with Avantisena, a grandson of Pālaka according to the *Āvaśyaka Kathānakas*.⁴ The Pradyota dynasty must have been humbled by Śiśunāga in the time of king Avantivardhana. The Magadhan victory was doubtless facilitated by the revolution that placed Āryaka, a ruler about whose origin there is hardly any unanimity, on the throne of Ujjain.

c12.s6.26

¹ Essay on Guṇāḍhya, 115; Gopāla and Pālaka find mention in the *Bṛihat Kathā*, *Svapna-Vāsavadatta*, *Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇa*, *Mṛichchhakaṭika* etc. A prince named Kumārasena is known to the *Harsha-charita*. According to the Nepalese Bṛihatkathā (cf. *Kathā-sarit-sāgara* XIX. 57) Gopāla succeeds Mahāsena (Pradyota but abdicates in favour of his brother Pālaka. Pālaka renounces the crown in favour of Avantivardhana, son of Gopāla. In the *Avaśyaka Kathānakas* (*Pariśishṭa* parvan, 2nd ed. xii) Avantisena is mentioned as a grandson of Pālaka.

c12.s6.27

² DKA., 19 n29. The *Kalki Purāṇa* (1. 3. 32f.) mentions a king named Viśākha-yūpa who ruled at Māhiśmatī near the southern frontier of ancient Avanti

c12.s6.28

¹ *Carm. Lec*, 1918, 64f. But J. Sen rightly points out (IHQ, 1930, 699) that in the *Mṛichchhhakaṭika* Āryaka is represented as a cow-boy who was raised to the throne after the overthrow of the tyrant Pālaka.

c12.s6.29

² Tawney's translation, II, 485 *Cf. Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I. 311.

c12.s6.30

³ *Essay on Guṇāḍhya*, 115.

c12.s6.31

⁴ *Pariśishṭa parvan*, 2nd ed. p. xii.

c12.s6.32

Śiśunāga⁵ was succeeded according to the *Purāṇas* by his son **Kākavarṇa**, and according to the Ceylonese chronicles by his son **Kālāśoka**. Jacobi, Geiger and Bhandarkar agree that Kālāśoka, "the black Aśoka" and Kākavarṇa, "the crow-coloured" are one and the same

c12.s6.33

⁵ The *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā* (3rd ed, p. 50) contains an interesting notice of this king and says that he prohibited the use of cerebrals in his barem.

c12.s6.35

TRADITIONAL GENEALOGY OF THE PRADYOTAS Puṇika (Anantanemi)

c12.s6.36

| . . . . .
| |

c12.s6.37

Chaṇḍa Pradyota Mahāsena Kumārasena

c12.s6.38

| | . . . . . |
| | | |

c12.s6.39

Gopāla Pālaka - Vāsavadattā = Udayana --------

c12.s6.40

| | . . . . .
| | | |

c12.s6.41

Āryaka (?) Avantivardhana (?) Viśākha (?) son (possibly king of Māhish- | only a matī . . . . . cow-boy) | | Avantisena Maṇiprabha king of Ujjain King of Kauśāmbī individual. The conclusion accords with the evidence of the *Aśokāvadāna* which places Kākavarṇin *after* Muṇḍa, and does not mention Kālāśoka.¹ The new king already served his apprenticeship in the art of government possibly at Benares and in the district of Gayā. The two most important events of his reign are the meeting of the second Buddhist Council at Vaiśālī, and the final transfer of the capital to Pāṭaliputra.

c12.s6.42

¹ *Divyāvadāna*, 369; Geiger, *Mahāvaṁsa*, p. xli.

c12.s6.43

Bāṇa in his *Harsha-charita*² gives a curious legend concerning his death. It is stated that Kākavarṇa Saiśunāgi had a dagger thrust into his throat in the vicinity of his city. The story about the tragic fate of this king is, as we shall see later on, confirmed by Greek evidence.

c12.s6.44

² K. P. Parab, 4th ed. 1918, p. 199.

c12.s6.45

The traditional successors of Kālāśoka were his ten sons who are supposed to have ruled simultaneously. Their names according to the *Mahābodhivaṁsa* were Bhadrasena, Koraṇḍavarṇa, Maṅgura, Sarvañjaba, Jālika, Ubhaka, Sañjaya, Koravya, Nandivardhana and Pañchamaka.³

c12.s6.46

³ The *Divyāvadāna* (p. 369) gives a *different* list of the successors of Kākavarṇin: Sahālin, Tulakuchi, Mahāmaṇḍala and Prasenajit. After Prasenajit the crown went to Nanda.

c12.s6.47

Only one of these names, *viz.*, that of Nandivardhana occurs in the Purāṇic lists.⁴ This prince attracted some attention in recent years. His name was read on a Patna statue⁵ and in the famous Hāthigumphā inscription of Khāravela. He was sought to be identified with Nandarāja of Khāravela's record on the strength of Kshemendra's reference to Pūrvananda (Nanda the Elder) who,

c12.s6.48

⁴ Bhandarkar, *Carm. Lec.*, 1918, 83.

c12.s6.49

⁵ Dr. Jayaswal opined that the headless "Patna statue" which stood, at the time when he wrote, in the Bhārhut Gallery of the Indian Museum, was a portrait of this king. According to him the inscription on the statue runs as follows:—

c12.s6.50

*Sapa* (or *Sava*) *khate Vaṭa Namdi*.

c12.s6.51

we are told, should be distinguished from the Navanandāḥ or New (Later) Nandas, and taken to answer to a ruler of the group represented by Nandivardhana and Mahānandin of the *Purāṇas*.¹ In the works of Kshemendra and Somadeva, however, Pūravananda (*singular*) is distinguished, not from the *Navanandāḥ*, but from Yogananda (Pseudo-Nanda), the re-animated corpse of

c12.s6.52

¹ Jayaswal (supported by R. D. Banerji); *The Oxford History of India*, Additions and Corrections; *JBORS*, 1918, 91.

c12.s6.53

He regarded *Vaṭa Naṁdi* as an abbreviation of Vartivardhana (the name of Nandivardhana in the *Vāyu* list) and Nandivardhana. Mr. R. D. Banerji in the June number of the *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society*, 1919, said that there cannot be two opinions about the reading *Vaṭa Naṁdi*. Mr. Chanda, however, regarded the statue in question as an image of a Yaksha and read the inscription which it bore as follows :—

c12.s6.54

*Yakkha sa (?) vvaṭa naṁdi*.

c12.s6.55

Dr. Majumdar said that the inscription might be read as follows :—

c12.s6.56

*Yakhe saṁ vajināṁ 70*.

c12.s6.57

He placed the inscription in the second century A. D., and supported the Yaksha theory propounded by Cunningham and upheld by Mr. Chanda. He did not agree with those scholars who concluded that the statue was a portrait of a Saiśunāga sovereign simply because there were some letters in the inscription under discussion which might be construed as a name of a Saiśunāga king. Referring to Dr. Jayaswal's suggestion that the form *Vaṭa Naṁdi* was composed of two variant proper names (Vartivardhana and Naṁdivardhana)—he said that Chandragupta II was also known as Devagupta, and Vigrahapāla had a second name Sūrapāla ; but who had ever heard of compound names like Chandra-Deva, or Deva-Chandra, and Sūra-Vigraha or Vigraha-Sūra ? (*Ind. Ant.*, 1919).

c12.s6.58

Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Sāstrī took *Vaṭa Naṁdi* to mean Vrātya Naṁdi and said that the statue had most of the articles of dress as given by Kātyāyana to the Vrātya Kshatriyas. In the *Purāṇas* the Siśunāga kings are mentioned as Kshattrabandhus, *i.e.*, Vrātya Kshatriyas. The Mahāmahopādhyāya thus inclined to the view of Dr. Jayaswal that the statue in question was a portrait of a Saiśunāga king (*JBORS.*, December, 1919).

c12.s6.59

Mr. Ordhendu Coomar Gangoly, on the other hand, regarded the statue as a Yaksha image, and drew our attention to the catalogue of Yakshas in the *Mahāmāyūrī* and the passage "*Nandi cha Vardhanas chaiva nagare Nandivardhane*" (*Modern Review*, October, 1919). Dr. Barnett was also not satisfied that the four syllables which might be read as *Vaṭa Naṁdi* mentioned the name of a Saiśunāga king. Dr. Smith, however, in the third edition of his *Asoka* admitted the possibility of Dr. Jayaswal's contention. We regard the problem as still unsolved. The data at our disposal are too scanty to warrant the conclusion that the inscription on the "Patna statue" mentions a Saiśunāga king. The script seems to be late.

c12.s6.60

king Nanda.¹ The Purāṇic as well as the Ceylonese; chroniclers know of the existence of only one Nanda line and agree with Jaina tradition in taking *nava* to mean *nine* (and *not new*).² They represent Nandivardhana as a king of the Śaiśunāga line—a dynasty which is sharply distinguished from the Nandas. The Purāṇas contain nothing to show that Nandivardhana had anything to do with Kaliṅga.³ On the contrary, we are distinctly told that when the Śaiśunāgas and their predecessors were reigning in Magadha 32 kings ruled in Kaliṅga synchronously. “It is not Nandivardhana but Mahāpadma Nanda who is said to have brought ‘all under his sole sway’ and ‘uprooted all *Kshatriyas*.’ So we should identify Naṁdarāja of the Hāthigumphā inscription who held possession of Kaliṅga either with the all-conquering Mahāpadma Nanda or one of his sons.”

c12.s6.61

¹ *Cf.* *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*, Durgāprasād and Parab's edition, p. 10.

c12.s6.62

² *Cf.* Jacobi, *Pariśishtaparva*, VIII. 3; App. p. 2; ‘*Naṁdavaṁse* Navamo Naṁdarāyā.

c12.s6.63

³ Chanda, *Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India*, No. 1, p. 11.

Linked texts (24)