Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s2: Section II. Sources
Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s2
- Language
- English
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.