Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9: Abbreviations

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9

Language: English

c9.s1 Section I. Foreword — 2 parts
c9.s2 Section II. Sources — 62 parts
c9.s3 Section I. The Age of the Parikshitas — 236 parts
c9.s4 Section II. The Age of the Great Janaka — 281 parts
c9.s5 Section III. The Later Vaidehas of Mithila: Nimi and Karāla — 28 parts
c9.s6 Section IV. The Deccan in the Age of the Later Vaidehas — 78 parts
c9.s7 Section I. The Sixteen Mahājanapadas — 495 parts
c9.s8 Section II. An Epic Account of the Mahājanapadas — 14 parts
c9.s9 Section III. The Fall of Kāsi and the Ascendancy of Kosala — 29 parts
c9.s10 Section IV. Kingship — 183 parts

Abbreviations

c9.1

c9.3

Br. . . . Brāhmaṇa. Bṛih. S. . . . Bṛihat Saṁhitā. Bṛih. Up. . . . Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad. Bud. Ind. . . . Buddhist India. Ç. . . . Central. C. A. H. . . . Cambridge Ancient History. Cal. Rev. . . . Calcutta Review. Camb. Ed. . . . Cambridge Edition. Camb. Hist. (Ind.). . Cambridge History of India (C. H. I.) (Vol. I). Camb. Short Hist. . (The) Cambridge Shorter History of India. Carm. Lec. . . . Carmichael Lectures, 1918. Ch. } . . Chapter. Chap. } Chh. Up. . . . Chhāndogya Upanishad. C. I. C. A. I. . . . Catalogue of Indian Coins, Ancient India. C. I. I. } . . Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Corpus. } Com. Vol. . . . Commemoration Volume. Cunn. . . . Cunningham. D. . . . Dīgha Nikāya. Dialogues. . . Dialogues of the Buddha. D. P. P. N. . . Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (Malalasekera). D. K. A. . . . Dynasties of the Kali Age. D. U. . . . Dacca University. Ed. . . . Edition. E. H. D. . . . Early History of the Dekkan. E. H. I. . . . Early History of India. E. H. V. S. . . Early History of the Vaishṇava Sect. Ep. Ind. . . . Epigraphia Indica. Gandhāra (Foucher) . Notes on the Ancient Geography of Gandhāra. Gaz. . . . Gazetteer.

c9.4

c9.5

c9.6

c9.7

From the Accession of Parikshit to the Coronation of Bimbisāra

c9.8

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Section I. Foreword

c9.s1.1

No Thucydides or Tacitus has left for posterity a genuine history of Ancient India. But the patient investigations of numerous scholars and archæologists have opened up rich stores of material for the reconstruction of the ancient history of our country. The first notable attempt to "sort and arrange the accumulated and ever-growing stores of knowledge" was made by Dr. Vincent Smith. But the excellent historian, failing to find sober history in bardic tales, ignored the period immediately succeeding "the famous war waged on the banks of the Jumna, between the sons of Kuru and the sons of Pāṇḍu," and took as his starting point the middle of the seventh century B.C. The aim of the present writer has been to sketch in outline the dynastic history of Ancient India including the neglected period. He takes as his starting point the accession of Parikshit which, according to Epic and Purāṇic tradition, took place shortly after the Bhārata War.

c9.s1.2

Valuable information regarding the Pārikshita and the post-Pārikshita periods has been given by eminent scholars like Weber, Lassen, Eggeling, Caland, Oldenberg, Jacobi, Hopkins, Macdonell, Keith, Rhys Davids, Fick, Pargiter, Bhandarkar and others. But the attempt to frame an outline of political history from Parikshit to Bimbisāra out of materials supplied by Brāhmaṇic as well as non-Brāhmaṇic literature is, I believe, made for the first time in the following pages.

Section II. Sources

c9.s2.1

No inscription or coin has unfortunately been discovered which can be referred, with any amount of certainty, to the post-Pārikshita-pre-Bimbisārian period. The South Indian plates purporting to belong to the reign of Janamejaya¹ have been proved to be spurious. Our chief reliance must, therefore, be placed upon literary evidence. Unfortunately this evidence is, in the main, Indian, and is not supplemented to any considerable extent by those foreign notices which have "done more than any archæological discovery to render possible the remarkable resuscitation" of the history of the post-Bimbisārian epoch. The discoveries at Mahenjo-Daro and Harappa no doubt constitute a welcome addition to the purely literary evidence regarding the ancient history of India. But the civilisation disclosed is possibly that of Sauvīra or Sovīra (Sophir, Ophir)² in the pre-Pārikshita period. And the monuments exhumed "offer little direct contribution to the materials for political history," particularly of the *Madhya-deśa* or the Upper Ganges valley.

c9.s2.2

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, VII, App., pp. 162-63; IA, III, 268; IV, 333.

c9.s2.3

² *Cf. IA*, XIII. 228; I. *Kings*. 9, 28; 10, 11.

c9.s2.4

Indian literature useful for the purpose of the historian of the post-Pārikshita-pre-Bimbisārian age may be divided into five classes, *viz.*:—

c9.s2.5

I. Brāhmaṇical literature of the post-Pārikshita-pre-Bimbisārian period. This class of literature naturally contributes the most valuable information regarding the history of the earliest dynasties and comprises :

c9.s2.6

(*a*) The last book of the *Atharva Veda*.

c9.s2.7

(*b*) The *Aitareya*, *Śatapatha*, *Pañchaviṁśa* and other ancient *Brāhmaṇas*.¹

c9.s2.8

¹ Of special importance are the gāthās or songs in the thirteenth kāṇḍa of the *Sat. Br.* and the eighth pañchikā of the *Aitareya*.

c9.s2.9

(*c*) The major part of the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka*, the *Chhāndogya* and other classical *Upanishads*.

c9.s2.10

That these works belong to the post-Pārikshita period is proved by repeated references to Parikshit, to his son Janamejaya, to Janamejaya's successor Abhipratārin, and to Janaka of Videha at whose court the fate of the Pārikshitas was discussed by the assembled sages. That these works are in the main pre-Buddhistic and, therefore, pre-Bimbisārian, has been proved by competent critics like Dr. Rājendralāl Mitra,² Professor Macdonell³ and others.

c9.s2.11

² Translation of the *Chhāndogya Upanishad*, pp. 23-24.

c9.s2.12

³ *History of Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 189, 202-03, 226.

c9.s2.13

II. The second class comprises Brāhmaṇical works to which no definite date can be assigned, but large portions of which, in the opinion of scholars, belong to the post-Bimbisārian period. To this class belong the *Rāmāyaṇa*, the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas*. The present *Rāmāyaṇa* consists of 24,000 *ślokas* or verses.⁴ But even in the first or second century A.D. the epic seems to have contained only 12,000 *ślokas*⁵ as the evidence of the Buddhist *Mahā-vibhāshā*, a commentary on the *Jñānaprasthāna* of Kātyāyanīputra, suggsets. It not only mentions Buddha Tathāgata,⁶ but distinctly refers to the struggles of the Hindus with mixed hordes of Yavanas (Greeks) and Śakas (Scythians), *Śakān* *Yavana-miśritān*.¹ In the *Kishkindhyā Kāṇḍa*,² Sugrīva places the country of the Yavanas and the cities of the Śakas between the country of the Kurus and the Madras, and the Himālayas. This shows that the Græco-Scythians at that time occupied parts of the Pañjāb. The *Laṅkā Kāṇḍa*³ apparently refers to the Purāṇic episode of the uplifting of Mount Mandara, or of Govardhana, *Parigṛihya giriṁ dorbhyāṁ vapur Vishṇor viḍambayan*.⁴

c9.s2.14

⁴ I. 4. 2—*Chaturviṁśa-sahasrāṇi ślokānām uktavān ṛishiḥ*.

c9.s2.15

⁵ J. R. A. S., 1907, pp. 99 ff. *Cf.* Bunyiu Nanjio's *Catalogue*, No. 1263.

c9.s2.16

⁶ II. 109. 34.

c9.s2.17

¹ I. 54. 21.

c9.s2.18

² IV. 43. 11-12. Note also the references to Vaijayantapura in the Deccan (II. 9. 12), the Drāviḍas (ibid, 10. 37), Malaya and Darddūra (*ibid*, 91. 24) Murachī-pattana (Muziris, Cranganore, IV. 42. 3), practices of the people of the Deccan (II. 93. 13), “the seven flourishing realms” of Yavadvīpa (Java), Suvarṇadvīpa (Sumatra) in IV. 40. 30. and Karkaṭaka lagna (II. 15. 3).

c9.s2.19

³ 69. 32; *cf*. Matsya, 249, 53; Bhāgavata, X. 25, Mbh. III. 101. 15.

c9.s2.20

⁴ For some other Purāṇic allusions see *Calcutta Review*, March, 1922, pp. 500-02. For references to suttee see Hopkins, J.A.O.S., 13, 173. For ‘empire’ Rām II. 10. 36.

c9.s2.21

As regards the present *Mahābhārata*, Hopkins says⁵ : “Buddhist supremacy already decadent is implied by passages which allude contemptuously to the eḍūkas or Buddhistic monuments as having ousted the temples of the gods. Thus in III. 190. 65 ‘They will revere eḍūkas, they will neglect the gods’; *ib*. 67 ‘the earth shall be piled with eḍūkas, not adorned with godhouses.’ With such expressions may be compared the thoroughly Buddhistic epithet, Cāturmahārājika in XII. 339. 40 and Buddhistic philosophy as expounded in the same book.”

c9.s2.22

⁵ *The Great Epic of India*, pp. 391-93.

c9.s2.23

“The Greeks are described as a western people and their overthrow is alluded to……The Romans, Romakas, are mentioned but once, in a formal list of all possible peoples, II. 51.17, and stand thus in marked contrast to Greeks and Persians, Pahlavas, who are mentioned very often……The distinct prophecy that ‘Scythians, Greeks and Bactrians will rule unrighteously in the evil age to come' which occurs in III. 188.35 is too clear a statement to be ignored or explained away."

c9.s2.24

The *Ādiparva*¹ refers to king Aśoka who is represented as an incarnation of a *Mahāsura* or great demon,² and, is described as *mahāvīryo'parājitaḥ*, of great prowess and invincible. We have also a reference³ to a Greek overlord, *Yavanādhipaḥ* of Sauvīra and his compatriot Dattāmitra (Demetrios ?). The *Śāntiparva* presupposes the inclusion of the city of Mālinī, in the land of the Aṅgas, within the realm of Magadha.⁴ It mentions Yāska, the author of the *Nirukta*,⁵ Vārshagaṇya,⁶ the Sāṁkhya philosopher who probably flourished in the fourth or fifth century after Christ⁷ and Kāmandaka,⁸ the authority, on *Dharma* (sacred law) and *Artha* (polity) who is probably to be identified with the famous disciple of Kauṭilya.

c9.s2.25

¹ I. 67.13-14. Cf. also XII. 5.7 where Aśoka is mentioned with Śatadhanvan.

c9.s2.26

² It is interesting to note in this connection that in the *Devīmāhātmya* of the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (88.5) Maurya is the name of a class of Asuras or demons :—

c9.s2.27

⁴ 5 1-6.

c9.s2.28

⁵ 342. 73.

c9.s2.29

⁶ 318. 59.

c9.s2.30

⁷ *J. R. A. S.*, 1905, pp. 47-51 ; Keith, *Sāṁkhya System*, pp. 62, 63, 69.

c9.s2.31

⁸ *Śānti*, 123. 11.

c9.s2.32

The eighteen *Purāṇas* were certainly known to Alberuni⁹ (A.D. 1000), Rājaśekhara (A.D. 900), and the

c9.s2.33

⁹ *Cf.* Alberuni, Ch. XII ; *Prachaṇḍa-Pāṇḍava* *ed.* by Carl Cappeller, p. 5 ‘*ashṭādaśa-purāṇa-sāra-saṁgraha-kārin*) ; *Mbh.* XVIII. 6. 97; *Harshacharita*, III (p. 86 of Parab's ed., 1918), Pavamāna-prokta Purāṇa, *i. e.*, Vāyu Purāṇa ; *Cf. Sakala-purāṇa-rājarshi charitābhijñaḥ* (III. 87) and *Hareriva Vṛishavirodhinī Bālacharitāni* (II. 77) ; *EHVS*, second ed., pp. 17, 70, 150. The fact that the collection of the essence (*sāra-saṁgraha*) of all the eighteen Purāṇas is attributed to a very ancient sage by Rājaśekhara proves that the Purāṇas themselves were believed by him to have been composed long before the ninth century A. D. The existence of some of the texts in the sixth century A. D. is hinted at by the Nerūr inscription of Maṅgaleśa (IA, VII. 161—*Mānava-Purāṇa-Rāmāyaṇa-Bhārat-etihāsa-kuśalaḥ...Vallabhaḥ*, i. e., Pulikeśi I). The reference in the *Matsya Purāṇa*, which is regarded as one of the earliest among the Purāṇic works, to week days (70 46; 56; 72, 27, etc.) is of value in determining the upper limit.

c9.s2.34

*Kālakā Daurhṛitā Mauryāḥ Kālakeyāstathāsurāḥ*
*yuddhāya sajjā niryāntu ājñayā tvaritā mama*

c9.s2.35

"Let the Kālaka, the Daurhṛita, the Maurya and the Kālakeya Asuras, hastening at my command, march forth ready for battle." Note also the expression *suradvishām* (of the enemies of the gods, *i.e.*, *Asuras*, used by the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* (1.³.24) in reference to people "deluded" by the Buddha.

c9.s2.36

³ *Mbh.*, I 139.21-23.

c9.s2.37

latest compiler of the *Mahābhārata* who flourished before A.D. 500. Some of the Purāṇic chronicles are mentioned by Bāṇa (A.D. 600) and earlier writers. But the extant texts which contain lists of kings of the *Kali Age* cannot be placed earlier than the third or fourth century A.D., because they refer to the so-called Andhra kings and even to the post-Andhras.

c9.s2.38

It is clear from what has been stated above that the Epics and the *Purāṇas*, in their present shape, are late works which are no better suited to serve as the foundation of the history of the pre-Bimbisārian age than are the tales of the *Mahāvaṁśa* and the *Aśokāvadāna* adapted to form the bases of chronicles of the doings of the great Mauryas. At the same time we shall not be justified in rejecting their evidence wholesale because much of it is undoubtedly old and valuable. The warning to handle critically, which Dr. Smith considered necessary with regard to the Pali chronicles of Ceylon, is also applicable to the Sanskrit Epics and *Purāṇas*.

c9.s2.39

In a recent work Dr. Keith shows scepticism about the historical value of these texts, and wonders at the "naïve credulity" of those who believe in the historicity of any event not explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, *e.g.*, "a great *Bhāratan* war." It cannot be denied that the Epics and the *Purāṇas*, in their present shape, contain a good deal of what is untrustworthy; but it has been rightly said that "It is absurd to suppose that fiction completely ousted the truth." The epigraphic or numismatic records of the *Sātavāhanas*, *Ābhīras*, *Vākāṭakas*, *Nāgas*, *Guptas* and many other dynasties fully bear out the observation of Dr. Smith that "modern European writers have been inclined to disparage unduly the authority of the *Purāṇic* lists, but closer study finds in them much genuine and valuable historical tradition." As to the "*great Bhārata war*" we have indeed no epigraphic corroboration, because contemporary inscriptions are lacking. But, as will be pointed out in a subsequent chapter, Vedic literature contains many hints that the story of the great conflict is not wholly fictitious. Many of the figures in the *Kurukshetra* story, *e.g.*, Bālhīka Prātipeya¹ (Balhika Prātipīya), Dhṛitarāshṭra Vaichitravīrya, Kṛishṇa Devakīputra and perhaps Śikhaṇḍin Yājñasena, are mentioned in some of the early Vedic texts,² and we have a distinct allusion in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* to the unfriendly feeling between the first of these, a prince of the Kurus, and the Sṛiñjayas³. It will be remembered that the great war described in the epic often takes the shape of a trial of strength between these two peoples (*Kurūṇāṁ Sṛiñjayānāṁ cha jigīshūnāṁ parasparam*)⁴. In the *Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa*⁵ Kurus reproach the Dālbhyas, a clan closely connected with the Pañchālas who appear to have been among the principal antagonists of the Kuru leaders in the Bhārata War. The *Chhāndogya Upanishad*, as is well-known, contains a *gāthā* which eulogises the mare that comes to the rescue of the Kurus. Battle-songs describing the struggle of the Kurus against the Sṛiñjayas and associate tribes or clans must have been current at least as yearly as the fifth century B. C., because Vaiśampāyana and his version of the *Mahābhārata* are well-known to Āśvalāyana and Pāṇini. If, as suggested by Vedic evidence discussed in the following pages, the "great *Bhāratan* war" really took place in or about the ninth century B.C., the broad outlines of the story about the conflict dating from a period not later than the fifth century B.C., cannot be dismissed as wholly unworthy of credence.

c9.s2.40

¹ Mbh., V. 23.9.

c9.s2.41

² *Cf.* also Arjuna identified with Indra in the *Sat. Br.*, V. 4. 3. 7 and Pārtha in the *Āśvalāyana Srauta Sūtra*, XII. 10 (*Vedic Index*, I. 522.).

c9.s2.42

³ *Vedic Index*, II,. p. 63, *Sat. Br.*, XII, 9. 3.

c9.s2.43

⁴ *Mbh.*, VI. 45.2.

c9.s2.44

⁵ I. 38. 1 (xii, 4).

c9.s2.45

Pargiter, unlike Keith, is inclined to give more weight to Purāṇic tradition than to Vedic evidence, and his conclusions have apparently been accepted by Dr. Barnett.¹ It has eloquently been urged by the former² that Vedic literature "*lacks* the historical sense" and "*is not always to be trusted*." But do the *Purāṇas* which represent Śākya as one individual, include Abhimanyu and Siddhārtha in lists of kings, make Prasenajit the immediate lineal successor of Rāhula, place Pradyota several generations before Bimbisāra, dismiss Aśoka with one sentence, make no mention of the dynastic name Sātavāhana, and omit from the list of the so-called "Andhras," princes like Siri-Kubha (Śrī-Kumbha) Sātakaṇi whose existence is proved by the incontestable evidence of coins³, possess the historical sense in a remarkable degree, and are "*always to be trusted*"? Pargiter himself, not unoften, rejects Epic and Purāṇic evidence⁴ when it is opposed to certain theories. In this connection it will not be quite out of place to quote the following observations of Mr. V. Gordon Childe.⁵ "*The Kṣatriya tradition (i.e., Epic and Purāṇic tradition)......is hardly an unpolluted source of history. The orthodox view is not really based on the priestly tradition, as embodied in* epexegetical works, but rather on the internal evidence of the Veda itself. The latter carries conviction precisely because the historical and geographical references in the hymns are introduced only incidentally and in a thoroughly ingenuous manner...The same cannot be said of Kṣatriya tradition, which in its recorded form dates from an age (perhaps as late as 200 A.D.) when myth-making had had many centuries to work in, and which might serve dynastic ends." Priority of date and comparative freedom from textual corruption are two strong points in favour of Vedic literature.

c9.s2.46

¹ *Calcutta Review*, Feb., 1924, p. 249.

c9.s2.47

² *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition*, pp. 9 ff.

c9.s2.48

³ Mirashi in the *Journal of the Numismatic Society of India*, Vol. II.

c9.s2.49

⁴ *Cf. A.I. H. T.*, pp. 173, n. 1; 299, n. 7.

c9.s2.50

⁵ *The Aryans*, p. 32.

c9.s2.51

III. The third class of literature comprises Brāhmaṇical works of the post-Bimbisārian period to which a date in a definite epoch may be assigned, *e.g.*, the *Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra* assignable to the period 249 B. C. to c. 100 A.D.¹, the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali between

c9.s2.52

¹ The work was known not only to Bāṇa, the author of the *Kādambarī* who flourished in the seventh century A D., but to the *Nandisūtra* and *Paiṇṇas* of the Jainas which may have existed in the early centuries A. D. and probably also to the *Nyāya-Bhāshya* of Vātsyāyana, which is criticised by Dignāga and perhaps by Vasubandhu too (I. A. 1915, p. 82, 1918, p. 103). According to some scholars the *Arthaśāstra* literature is later than the Dharmaśāstras, and dates only from about the third century A. D. But the prevalence of the study of *Arthavidyā* in a much earlier epoch is proved by the Junāgadh Rock Inscription of Rudradāman I and the existence of treatises on *Arthaśāstra* is rendered probable by the mention of technical terms like "*Praṇaya*," "*Vishti*," etc. It is interesting to note that the *Kauṭilīya*, which purports to be a compendium of pre-existing *Arthaśāstras*, does not quote the views of previous Achāryas or teachers in the chapter on "*Praṇaya*" (Bk. V. Ch. 2) It is, therefore, not unlikely that Rudradāman I, who claims to have studied the *Arthabidyā* learnt the use of the term from the *Kauṭilīya* itself and not from a pre-Kauṭilyan treatise. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Junāgaḍh epigraphs show a special acquaintance with the *Arthaśāstra* literature. The Junāgaḍh Inscription of Skanda Gupta for instance, refers to the testing of officials by *upadhās—sarv-opadhābhīścha viśuddhabuddhiḥ*, "possessed of a mind that (has been tried and) is (found to be) pure by all the tests of honesty." The verse

c9.s2.53

*Nyāy-ārjane-rthasyacha kaḥ samarthaḥ*
*syād arjitasy āpy-atha rakshaṇe cha*
*gopāyitasy-āpi cha vriddhi-hetau*
*vriddhasya pātra-pratipādanāya*

c9.s2.54

c. 150 B.C. and 100 A.D.),¹ etc. The value of these important works can hardly be overestimated. They form "sheet anchors in the troubled sea of Indian chronology." Their evidence with regard to the pre-Bimbisārian age is certainly inferior to that of the Brāhmaṇas and the Upanishads, but the very fact that such information as they contain, comes from persons assignable to a known epoch, makes it more valuable than the Epic and Purāṇic tradition, the antiquity and authenticity of which can always be called in question.

c9.s2.55

¹ For recent discussions about the date of Patañjali see *Indian Culture*, III, 1ff. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress*, Third Session, pp. 510-11.

c9.s2.56

"Who is capable both in the lawful acquisition of wealth, and also in the preservation of it, when acquired, and further in causing the increase of it, when protected, (and able) to dispense it on worthy objects, when it has been increased" (Fleet),

c9.s2.57

reminds us of Kauṭ., 1.1— *Daṇḍanītiḥ; alabdhā-lābhārthā labdha-parīrakshaṇī, rakshita-vivardhanī, vṛiddhasya tīrtheshu pratipādanī cha.* "The science of government, it is a means to make acquisitions, to preserve what is acquired, to increase what is protected and to distribute among the worthy what has been increased,"

c9.s2.58

Johnston (J. R. A. S., 1929, 1 January, p. 77. ff.) points out that the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* is not separated by a great interval from Aśvaghosha, and is distinctly earlier than the *Jātakamālā* of Āryaśūra (who flourished before 434 A. D. Winternitz *Ind. Lit.*, Vol. II. 276). An early date is also suggested by the absence of any reference to the Denarius in Book II. Chs. 12 and 19. But the mention of Chīnabhūmi and Chīnapaṭṭa in Bk. II, Ch. 11, precludes the possibility of a date earlier than the middle of the third century B. C. The reference must be to the great country of the Far East (Cf. "China which produces silk," Kosmas Indikopleustes, McCrindle's *Ancient India*, p. 162), and not to any obscure tribe on the outskirts of India. China silk looms large in the pages of classical Sanskrit writers. The great silk-producing country (as well as Kambu, Kauṭ, II. 13) clearly lay outside the horizon of the early Mauryas. The name 'Chīna' applied to the famous land can hardly be anterior to the first emperor of the Ch'in Dynasty (249-210 B.C., Mogi and Redman, *The Problem of the Far East*, p. 15). A post-Chandraguptan date for the Arthaśāstra is also suggested by (*a*) the reference to parapets of brick instead of wooden ramparts (II. 3), in connection with the royal seat, and (*b*) the use of Sanskrit at the Secretariat (II. 10). The imperial title *Chakravarti* (IX. 1) is not met with in inscriptions before Khāravela. The official designations *Samāhartṛi* and *Sannidhātṛi* find mention in epigraphs of a still later age.

c9.s2.59

IV. To the fourth class belong the Buddhist *Suttas*, *Vinaya* texts and the *Jātakas*. Several works of the Buddhist canon are noticed in votive inscriptions at Bharhut and Sāñchī assigned to the second and first centuries B. C. Many of the reliefs found on the railings and gateways of *Stūpas* of the age depict stories taken from the *Jātakas*. The texts of the Pali canon are said to have been committed to writing in the first century B.C. They furnish a good deal of useful information regarding the period which immediately preceded the accession of Bimbisāra. They have also the merit of preserving Buddhist versions of ancient stories, and vouchsafe light when the light from Brāhmaṇical sources begins to fail.

c9.s2.60

V. To the fifth class belong the sacred texts of the Jainas. Some of the works may go back to a period earlier than the second century A.D. But the canon as a whole was probably reduced to writing in the fifth or sixth century A.D.¹ It gives interesting information regarding many kings who lived during the pre-Bimbisārian Age. But its comparatively late date makes its evidence not always reliable.

c9.s2.61

¹ Jacobi, *Pariśishṭa parvan*, p. vii; S. B. E., Vol. XXII. p. xxxvii; XLV, p. xl. *Cf.* Winternitz, *A History of Indian Literature*, Eng. trans., Vol. II, p. 432.

c9.s2.62

CHAPTER II. KURUS AND VIDEHAS.

Section I. The Age of the Parikshitas

c9.s3.1

*Janaḥ sa bhadramedhati*
*rāshtre rājñaḥ Parikshitaḥ*
—*Atharva Veda.*

c9.s3.2

We have taken as our starting point the reign of Parikshit whose accession, according to tradition, took place shortly after the *Bhārata* War.

c9.s3.3

Was there really a king named Parikshit? True, he is mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas*. But the mere mention of a king in this kind of literature is no sure proof of his historical existence unless we have corroborative evidence from external sources.

c9.s3.4

Parikshit appears in a famous laud of the Twentieth Book of the *Atharva Veda Saṁhitā*¹ as a king of the Kurus (*Kauravya*) whose kingdom (*rāshtra*) flowed with milk and honey. The passage runs as follows :—

c9.s3.5

¹ *A. V.*, XX. 127. 7-10.

c9.s3.6

"*Rājño viśvajanīnasya yo devomartyāṁ ati*
*vaiśvānarasya sushṭutimā sunotā Parikshitaḥ*
*parichchhinnaḥ kshemamakarot tama āsanamācharan*
*kulāyan kṛiṇvan Kauravyaḥ patirvadati jāyayā*
*katarat ta ā harāṇi dadhi manthāṁ pari śrutam*
*jāyāḥ patiṁ vi prichchhati rāshṭre rājñaḥ Parikshitaḥ*
*abhīva svaḥ pra jihīte yavaḥ pakvaḥ patho bilam*
*janaḥ sa bhadramedhati rāshṭre rājñaḥ Parikshitaḥ.*"

c9.s3.7

"Listen ye to the high praise of the king who rules over all peoples, the god who is above mortals, who is thought of by all men², of Parikshit! Parikshit has

c9.s3.8

² For the meaning of *Vaiśvānara*, see *Bṛihaddevatā*, II. 66.

c9.s3.9

produced for us a secure dwelling when he, the most excellent one, went to his seat. (Thus) the husband in Kuru land, when he founds his household, converses with his wife.

c9.s3.10

."What may I bring to thee, curds, stirred drink or liquor? (Thus) the wife asks her husband in the kingdom of king Parikshit.

c9.s3.11

. "Like light the ripe barley runs over beyond the mouth (of the vessels). The people thrive merrily in the kingdom of king Parikshit."

c9.s3.12

Roth and Bloomfield regard Parikshit in the *Atharva Veda* as a divine being. But Zimmer and Oldenberg recognize him as a human king, a view supported by the fact that in the *Aitareya* and *Satapatha Brāhmaṇas* the famous king Janamejaya bears the patronymic *Pārikshita* (son of Parikshit). The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*,² for example, informs us that the priest Tura Kāvasheya "anointed Janamejaya Pārikshita with the great anointing of Indra" :

c9.s3.13

² VIII. 21.

c9.s3.14

"*Etena ha vā Aindreṇa mahābhishekeṇa Turaḥ Kāvasheyo Janamejayaṁ Pārikshitam abhishishecha.*"

c9.s3.15

Referring to king Parikshit, Macdonell and Keith observe³ : "The epic makes him grandfather of Pratiśravas and great-grandfather of Pratīpa." Now, the epic and the *Purāṇas* have really two Parikshits. Regarding the parentage of one there is no unanimity. He is variously represented as the son of Avīkshit, Anaśvā, or Kuru, and is further mentioned as an ancestor of Pratiśravas and Pratīpa. The other Parikshit was a descendant of Pratīpa and, according to a unanimous tradition, a son of Abhimanyu.¹ We shall call the former Parikshit I, and the latter Parikshit II. Was Parikshit I of the Epic and the *Purāṇas* identical with the Vedic Parikshit as suggested by the authors of the *Vedic Index*? In support of this view it may be urged that Indrota Daivāpa Śaunaka, priest of Janamejaya, son of the Vedic Parikshit, according to the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*,² is represented in several *Purāṇas*³ as chaplain of the son of Parikshit I who came before the Bhārata heroes: Indrota's son Dṛiti was a contemporary of Abhipratārin Kākshaseni,⁴ "son of Kakshasena," and the name of Kakshasena actually appears among the sons of Parikshit I in a genealogical list of the *Mahābhārata*.⁵ Further, like the Vedic Parikshit, Parikshit I had according to a Purāṇic passage, four sons, viz., Janamejaya, Śrutasena, Ugrasena, and Bhīmasena,⁶ and the eldest son had a quarrel with the Brāhmaṇas.

c9.s3.16

¹ Bloomfield, *Atharva Veda*, pp. 197-98, with slight emendations.

c9.s3.17

³ *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, p. 494.

c9.s3.18

¹ *Mahābhārata*, *Ādiparva*, 94. 52 and 95, 41. Regarding Parikshit I, the *Matsya Purāṇa* says, 50, 23:

c9.s3.19

² *Vedic Index*, i. 78.

c9.s3.20

³ Pargiter, AIHT, 114.

c9.s3.21

⁴ *Vedic Index*, i, 373.

c9.s3.22

⁵ *Mbh.* I. 94, 54.

c9.s3.23

⁶ *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, iv. 20. 1.

c9.s3.24

There are, however, other facts which point to an opposite conclusion. The Vedic Parikshit receives in the *Atharvan* laud the epithet *rājā viśvajanīna* (universal king) and is called "a *deva* (god) who is above mortals." In his days the designation *Kauravya* had ceased to be a mere royal patronymic and was applied to ordinary citizens in Kuru land. Kuru had become the eponymous ancestor of the entire race. And lastly, the people throve merrily (*janaḥ sa bhadramedhati*) in his realm. These particulars hardly apply to the shadowy Parikshit I of Epic and Purāṇic lists who is said to have been very near in time

c9.s3.25

*Kurostu dayitāḥ putrāḥ Sudhanvā Jahnureva cha*
*Parikshichcha mahātejāḥ pravaraś chārimardanaḥ*.

c9.s3.26

to Kuru himself.¹ On the other hand the Vedic laud corresponds wonderfully, both in content and phraseology with the famous *ākhyāna* (story) of Parikshit II, son of Abhimanyu, narrated in Chapters 16 to 18 of the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. We are told that this Parikshit undertook a *digvijaya*, conquest of all the quarters, in the course of which he subjugated all the sub-continents (*varshāṇi*). He is called the supreme *deva* who is not to be regarded as the equal of ordinary men (*na vai nṛibhirnaradevaṁ parākhyaṁ sammātum arhasi*). He is further styled *samrāṭ* (emperor) and under his protection people thrive and have nothing to fear (*vindanti bhadrāṇyakutobhayāḥ prajāḥ*).

c9.s3.27

¹ In the *Vāyu Purāṇa*, 93, 21 and the *Harivaṁśa*, XXX, 9, Parikshit I seems to be identified with Kuru himself as his son (*Pārikshita*) is called *Kuroḥ putraḥ*, son of Kuru.

c9.s3.28

Proof of the identity of this Parikshit (son of Abhimanyu) with his Vedic namesake is also furnished by a later passage of the same *Purāṇa*² which mentions Tura Kāvasheya as the priest of his son Janamejaya :

c9.s3.29

² Book IX, Ch. 22, Verses 25-37.

c9.s3.30

*Kāvasheyaṁ purodhāya Turaṁ turagamedharāṭ.*
*samantāt pṛithivīṁ sarvāṁ jitvā yakshyati chādhvaraiḥ.*

c9.s3.31

It will be remembered that the same sage appears as the priest of Janamejaya Pārikshita in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*.

c9.s3.32

The *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* is no doubt a late work. But its evidence does not stand alone. This will be made clear by an examination of the names of the sons of Parikshit given in the Vedic texts and the Epic respectively. The Vedic Parikshit, we are told, had four sons namely, Janamejaya, Ugrasena, Bhīmasena and Śrutasena.³ The Epic Parikshit I, on the other hand, had only one son (Bhīmasena) according to Chapter 95, verse 42 of the *Ādiparva* of the *Mahābhārata*, and seven sons (Janamejaya, Kakshasena, Ugrasena, Chitrasena, Indrasena, Sushena and Bhīmasena) according to Chapter 94, verses 54-55, and among these the nameof Śrutasena does not occur. Even Janamejaya is omitted in Chapter 95 and in the *Java* text.¹ There is no king of that name immediately after Parikshit I, also in the Kuru-Pāṇḍu genealogy given in the Chellur or Cocanada grant of Vīrachoḍa.² The Epic poet and the writer of the Choḍa inscription, which is much older than many extant manuscripts of the *Mahābhārata*, therefore, were not quite sure as to whether this Parikshit (I) was the father of Janamejaya and Śrutasena. On the other hand, according to the unanimous testimony of the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas*, Parikshit II had undoubtedly a son named Janamejaya who succeeded him on the throne. Thus the *Mahābhārata*, referring to Parikshit II, the son of Abhimanyu, says.³

c9.s3.33

³ *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, p. 520.

c9.s3.34

¹ *J. R. A., S.*, 1913, p. 6.

c9.s3.35

² Hultzsch, *S. I. I.*, Vol. I, p. 57.

c9.s3.36

³ I. 95. 85.

c9.s3.37

*Parikshit khalu Mādravatīṁ nāmopayeme, tvanmātaram. Tasyāṁ bhavān Janamejayaḥ.* “Parikshit married Mādravatī, your mother, and she gave birth to you, Janamejaya.”

c9.s3.38

The *Matsya Purāṇa*⁴ informs us that

c9.s3.39

⁴ 50, 57.

c9.s3.40

“*Abhimanyoḥ Parikshittu putraḥ parapurañjayaḥ*
*Janamejayaḥ Parikshitaḥ putraḥ paramadhārmikaḥ.*”
“Abhimanyu’s son was Parikshit, the conqueror of his enemy’s city. Parikshit’s son was Janamejaya who was very righteous.”

c9.s3.41

This Janamejaya had three brothers, namely, Śrutasena, Ugrasena and Bhīmasena:—“*Janamejayaḥ Pārikshitaḥ*

c9.s3.42

*saha bhrātṛibhiḥ Kurukshetre dīrgha-satram upāste; tasya bhrātarastrayaḥ Śrutasena Ugrasena Bhīmasena iti.*”¹

c9.s3.43

¹ *Mbh.* 1. 3. 1. In translating Epic passages use has been made of the renderings of Ray and Dutt. See also Purāṇic texts cited by Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, p. 4n⁴. The view that Śrutasena, Ugrasena and Bhīmasena were sons of Janamejaya (Pargiter, *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition*, p. 113 f.) is clearly opposed to the evidence of the Epic and several Purāṇas, as well as that of Harisvāmin. Speaking about Parikshit, son of Abhimanyu, the *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, for example, says (iv. 21. 1): “*Yo'yaṁ sāmpratam avanīpatiḥ tasyāpi Janamejaya-Śrutasena-Ugrasena-Bhīmasenāḥ putrās chatvāro bhavishyanti.*”

c9.s3.44

“Janamejaya, son of Parikshit, with his brothers, was attending a long sacrifice at Kurukshetra. His brothers were three, namely,—Śrutasena, Ugrasena and Bhīmasena.”

c9.s3.45

Particulars regarding the son and successor of the Vedic Parikshit agree well with what we know of the son and successor of the Epic and the Purāṇic Parikshit II. Janamejaya, the son of the Vedic Parikhsit, is mentioned in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* as a performer of the *Aśvamedha* or horse-sacrifice. The priest who performed the famous rite for him was Indrota Daivāpa Śaunaka. On the other hand, the *Aitareya Brāhamaṇa*, which also mentions his *Aśvamedha*, names Tura Kāvasheya as his priest. The statements of the *Śatapatha*, and *Aitareya Brāhmaṇas* are apparently conflicting, and can be reconciled if we surmise that either we are dealing with two different kings of the same name and parentage or the same Janamejaya performed two horse-sacrifices. Which Janamejaya actually did so? Curiously enough the Purāṇas give the information which is needed. The Matsya *Purāṇa* speaking of Janamejaya, the grandson of Abhimanyu, and the son of Parikshit II, says:

c9.s3.46

*Dvir aśvamedham āhṛtya mahāvājasaneyakaḥ*
*pravartayitvā taṁ sarvaṁ ṛshiṁ Vājasaneyakam*
*vivāde Brāhmaṇaiḥ sārddham abhiśapto vanaṁ yayau*.²

c9.s3.47

² 50, 63-64. *Cf.* N. K. Siddhanta, *The Heroic Age of India*, p. 42.

c9.s3.48

The quarrel with the Brāhmaṇas, alluded to in the last line, is also mentioned in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*.¹ According to that text Janamejaya's priestly opponents were the Kaśyapas. That designation hardly applies to the Gārgyas who quarrelled with the son of *Parikshit I*² because the *Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra*³ includes them in the Aṅgiras group. On the other hand Vaiśampāyana, who led the opponents of the son of *Parikshit II*, was undoubtedly a Kaśyapa.⁴

c9.s3.49

¹ VII. 27.

c9.s3.50

² Pargiter, *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition*, 114, *Vāyu*, 93, 22-25.

c9.s3.51

³ Vol. III, pp. 431 ff.

c9.s3.52

⁴ *Op. cit.*, p. 449.

c9.s3.53

Parikshit II has thus a better claim than Parikshit I to be regarded as identical with the Vedic Parikshit. It is, however, possible that Parikshit I and Parikshit II represent a bardic duplication of the same original individual regarding whose exact place in the Kuru genealogy no unanimous tradition had survived. The fact that not only the name Parikshit, but names of most of the sons (in the *Vishṇu* and *Brahma Purāṇas*⁵ the names of all the sons) are common to both, points to the same conclusion. In the case of the son and successor of each of the two Parikshits we have a strikingly similar story of quarrel with the Brāhmaṇas.⁶ It will further be remembered that while Tura Kāvasheya is mentioned in the Purāṇic literature as a *Purohita* of the son of Parikshit II, Indrota Daivāpa Saunaka is represented as the priest of the son of Parikshit I. But it is clear from the Vedic texts that both the royal chaplains served the same king *who was separated by five or six generations* from Janaka, the contemporary of Uddālaka Āruṇi, Yājñavalkya and Somaśushma. Doubts may thus be legitimately entertained about the existence of two Parikshits each of whom had sons and successors with identical names, the heroes of tales of a similar character. The probability is that there was really only one Parikshit in the Kuru royal family, father of the patron of both Tura and Indrota.

c9.s3.54

⁵ *Vishṇu*, IV. 20 .1; 21. 1; *Brahma*, XIII, 109. *Vāyu*, 93, 22-25; *Matsya*, 50, 63-64, etc.

c9.s3.55

Did he flourish *before* or *after* the Bhārata War? The necessity felt for offering an explanation of the name Parikshit given to Abhimanyu's son at the end of the Bhārata War, and the explanation itself, probably suggest that the tradition of an *earlier* Kuru king with the name of Parikshit had not yet come into existence when the tenth book of the *Mahābhārata* was written.¹ Parikshit I was possibly invented by genealogists to account for such anachronisms as the mention of *Indrota-Pārikshita-saṁvāda* as an old story by Bhīshma in the twelfth book (Chapter 151). The wide divergence of opinion in regard to the name of the father of the so-called Parikshit I, and his position in the list, is also to be noted in this connection. It shows the absence of a clear tradition. On the other hand there is absolute unanimity in regard to the parentage and dynastic position of the so-called Parikshit II.²

c9.s3.56

¹ *Mbh.* X. 16, 3. "While the Kuru line will become extinct (*parikshīṇeshu Kurushu*) a son will be born to you (= Uttarā, wife of Abhimanyu). The child will, for that reason, be named Parikshit."

c9.s3.57

² The identification of the Vedic Parikshit with the son of Abhimanyu who flourished after the Bhārata War does not seem probable to Dr. N. Dutt, the author of *The Aryanisation of India*, pp. 50 ff., because, in the first place, it goes against the findings of Macdonell, Keith and Pargiter who prefer to identify the Vedic Parikshit with an ancestor of the Pāṇḍus. As to this it may be pointed out that the existence of a Parikshit (father of Janamejaya) *before the Pāṇḍus*, rests mainly on the testimony of those very genealogies which are regarded by Keith as worthless and unreliable (cf. *RPVU* 21, 618). That the name of Janamejaya in this connection is an intrusion into the genealogical texts is evident from its omission from Chapter 95 of the *Mahābhārata*, the *Java* text, the Chellur grant, etc. Dr. Dutt next argues that the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* makes the four brothers Janamejaya, Śrutasena, etc., sons of Parikshit I. If he had only perused a subsequent passage (IV. 21. 1.) he would have seen that the *Purāṇa* makes the
(2) Discrepancy between the lists appended to the 10th and 14th books respectively of the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* in regard to the authorship of the work and ascription of the work to different teachers.
(3) Scant courtesy shown to an alleged teacher by his pupil. As to (1), the *Āchārya paramparā*, succession of teachers, is distinctly alluded to by the commentators. If they did not enter into a detailed explanation, it is because they considered it to be *sugamam*, *spashṭam*, easily intelligible plain.
(2) There is no *Vaṁśa* list at the close of the 14th book of the *Brāhmaṇa* proper excluding the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad*. There are no doubt lists of teachers at the end of the *Upanishad*. It is too much to expect that, in the various lists, the entire Brāhmaṇa as well as the Upanishad should be ascribed to the same traditional authority. The Brāhmaṇa and Upanishad text are not works of single individuals. The question of discrepancy therefore, does not arise. Reference to different traditions regarding the authorship of a particular work, or of particular portions of a work, does not necessarily vitiate any *Āchārya-paramparā* regarding which we have substantial agreement in the texts.
(3) It is too much to expect that in ancient, as in modern times, all pupils should be equally respectful to teachers. Was not Dhṛishṭadyumna a pupil of Droṇāchārya whom he killed?

c9.s3.58

The Vedic hymns throw little light on the domestic life or reign-period of Parikshit. From the epic we learn that he married a Madra princess (Mādravatī) and ruled

c9.s3.59

four brothers sons of "Parikshit II" as well and while this later statement finds corroboration in the *Mahābhārata*, (I. 3. 1.) the earlier does not.

c9.s3.60

Dr. Dutt next says that it is always risky to attempt identification of kings or the fixing of their dates from an examination of their teacher-priests' names. But why should it be risky if the names and order of succession be genuine? The real risk lies in the rejection of such evidence without sufficient examination. It should be remembered in this connection that the identification of the Vedic Pārikshita Janamejaya with his Epic namesake (descendant of Abhimanyu) does not depend mainly on the teacher-priests' names, but on the following facts, *viz.*, (1) absence of any cogent proof of the existence of an earlier Janamejaya Pārikshita in view of the omission of his name in the *Jāva* text, Choḍa inscriptions etc., and (2) agreement of particulars about the Vedic Parikshit and Janamejaya (*e. g.*, words describing the prosperity of the Kuru realm, the performance of two *Aśvamedhas*, quarrel with the Kaśyapas), with what we know of Parikshit and Janamejaya who were descendants of Abhimanyu. The question of the chronological relation between the Vedic Parikshit and the Vedic Janaka is entirely independent of this identification. This relation has been determined on the strength of two different lines of evidence. Materials for one have indeed been taken from the *Vaṁśa* list of the Brāhmaṇas. But the succession from Indrota to Somaśushma has been reconstructed from incidental notices in the Brāhmaṇa texts themselves which no critic has represented as late.

c9.s3.61

Dr. Dutt adds that identity of names does not neccessarily imply identity of persons. This is a truism which is not remembered only by those who identify Dhṛitarāshṭra Vaichitravīrya with Dhritarāshṭra of Kāśī. It has never been suggested in the *Political History* that the Vedic and Epic Parikshits and Janamejayas are identical merely because their names are identical.

c9.s3.62

As to Dr. Dutt's contention that there could not be want of motives in later times on the part of the authors belonging to rival families and schools to associate a certain teacher-priest with a famous king of old, etc., it is not clear which particular case he has in mind in making the statement. The association of Indrota and Tura with Janamejaya, and that of Uddālaka and Yājñavalkya with Janaka is found in the *Śatapatha* and *Aitareya Brāhmaṇas* and in the *Upanishads*. Is it suggested that such association is a deliberate concoction or fabrication? But no shred of evidence has been brought forward to prove such a charge. No doubt misrepresentations are met with in the Epics and the *Purāṇas* (as pointed out by Pargiter and others). But it would not be reasonable to argue that the Brāhmaṇas and the Upanishads are guilty of deliberate falsification because forsooth there is confusion in the *Purāṇas* which are undoubtedly of a later date.

c9.s3.63

Lastly the credibility of the *Vaṁśa* lists in the Vedic texts has been assailed on the following grounds, *viz.*,—

c9.s3.64

(1) Silence of Commentators.

c9.s3.65

for 24 years dying at the age of sixty.¹ Little credit, however, can be given to the bardic tales that cluster round his name. The only facts that can be accepted as historical are that he was a king of the Kurus, that the people lived prosperously under his rule, that he had many sons, and that the eldest, Janamejaya, succeeded him.

c9.s3.66

¹ Mbh. I. 49, 17-26 with commentary. We learn from the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* (III. 3. 1.) that the Pārikshita family was intimately known in the Madra country.

c9.s3.67

. It will not be quite out of place here to say a few words about the realm of the Kurus over which Parikshit ruled. The kingdom, according to epic tradition, stretched from the Sarasvatī to the Ganges. In the *Digvijaya-parva* it is taken to extend from the border of the land of the Kulindas (near the sources of the Sutlej, the Jumna and the Ganges) to that of the Sūrasenas and the Matsyas (in the Mathurā and Bairāṭ regions respectively), and from the frontier of Rohītaka (Rohtak in the Eastern Punjab) to that of the Pañchālas (of Rohilkhand). It was divided into three parts, Kurujāṅgala, the Kurus proper and Kurukshetra.¹ Kurujāṅgala, as its name implies, was probably the wild region of the Kuru realm that stretched from the Kāmyaka forest on the banks of the Sarasvatī to Khāṇḍava near (*samīpataḥ*) the Jumna.² But in certain passages it is used in a wider sense to designate the whole country (*deśa*, *rāshtra*³). The Kurus proper were probably located in the district around Hāstinapura (on the Ganges), identified with a place near Meerut.⁴ The boundaries of Kurukshetra are given in a passage of the *Taittirīya Āraṇyaka*⁵ as being Khāṇḍava on the south, the Tūrghna on the north, and the Parīṇah⁶ on the west (lit. hinder section, *jaghanārdha*). The *Mahābhārata*⁷ gives the following description of Kurukshetra: "South of the Sarasvatī, and north of the Dṛishadvatī, he who lives in Kurukshetra really dwells in heaven. The region that lies between Taruntuka and Marantuka or Arantuka, the lakes of Rāma and Machakruka⁸—this is Kurukshetra which is also called Sāmantapañchaka and the northern sacrificial altar (*uttara vedi*) of the grandsire (i.e., Brahmā)." Roughly speaking, the Kuru kingdom corresponded to modern Thanesar, Delhi and the greater part of the Upper Gangetic Doāb. Within the kingdom flowed the rivers Aruṇā (which joins the Sarasvatī near Pehoa), Aṁśumatī, Hiraṇvatī, Āpayā (Āpagā

c9.s3.68

¹ *Mbh.*. I. 109. 1; 149. 5-15; II. 26-32; III. 88. 204; Ptolemy. VII. i. 42.

c9.s3.69

² > *Tataḥ Sarasvatīkūle sameshu marudhanvasu*

c9.s3.70

³ *Cf.* Mbh., 1. 109 24; viii. 1. 17. xii, 37. 23.

c9.s3.71

⁴ Smith, *Oxford History* (1919), p. 31. *cf.* *Rām.* II. 68. 13: *Mbh.* 1. 128. 29ff; 133. 11; Pargiter *DKA*, 5; Patañjali, II. 1. 2. *anuGaṅgaṁ Hāstinapuram*.

c9.s3.72

⁵ *Vedic Index* 1. pp. 169-70.

c9.s3.73

⁶ *Cf.* the Parence of Arrian (Indika, iv), a tributary of the Indus.

c9.s3.74

⁷ 111, 83. 4; 9; 15; 25 40; 52; 200; 204-08.

c9.s3.75

⁸ Machakruka, Taruntuka and Marantuka are Yaksha *dvārapālas* guarding the boundaries of Kurukshetra.

c9.s3.76

*Kāmyakaṁ nāma dadṛiśur vanam munijanapriyam.*

c9.s3.77

"Then they saw before them the forest of Kāmyaka on the banks of the Sarasvatī on a level and wild plain, a favoured resort to anchorites." *Mbh.*. III. 5. 3. For the location of the Khāṇḍava forest see I. 222. 14; 223. 1.

c9.s3.78

or Oghavatī, a branch of the Chitang), Kauśikī (a branch of the Rakshī), as well as the Sarasvatī and the Dṛishadvatī or the Rakshī.¹ Here, too, was situated Saryaṇāvat, which the authors of the *Vedic Index* consider to have been a lake, like that known to the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* by the name of Anyataḥplakshā.

First 149 of 1,427 passages. Read on

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9: Abbreviations

Contents

Abbreviations

Section I. Foreword

Section II. Sources

Section I. The Age of the Parikshitas