Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s3: Section I. The Age of the Parikshitas
Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s3
- Language
- English
Contents
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.
c9.s3.79
¹ For the identification and location of some of the streams *see* Mbh. III. 83. 95, 151; V. 151. 78; Cunningham's *Arch-Rep*, for 1878-79 quoted in JRAS, 1883, 363n; Smith, *Oxford History*, 29; *Science and Culture*, 1943, pp. 468 ff.
c9.s3.80
The royal residence according to the Vedic texts was apparently Āsandīvat.² This city may have been identical with Nāgasāhvaya or Hāstinapura, the capital mentioned in the Epics and the *Purāṇas*. But it is more probably represented by the modern Asandh near the Chitang.³
c9.s3.81
² *Vedic Index*, Vol, I, p. 72.
c9.s3.82
³ See the map, Smith, *Oxford History*, p. 29, An Āsandī district is mentioned by Fleet in his *Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts* (Bombay Gazetteer, 1. 2, p. 492). But there is no reason for connecting it with the Kuru country.
c9.s3.83
According to epic tradition the kings of Kurukshetra belonged to the **Puru-Bharata** family. The *Paurava* connection of the Kurus is suggested by the *Ṛigvedic* hymn,⁴ which refers to "Kuru-śravaṇa" (lit. glory of the Kurus) as a descendant of Trasadasyu, a famous king of the Pūrus.⁵ The connection of the Bharatas with the Kuruland is also attested by Vedic evidence. A Rigvedic ode⁶ speaks of the two Bhāratas, Devaśravas and Devavāta, as sacrificing in the land on the Dṛishadvatī, the Āpayā and the Sarasvatī. Some famous *gāthās* of the *Brāhmaṇas*⁷ and the epic tell us that Bharata Dauḥshanti made offerings on the Jumna, the Ganges (*Yamunām anu Gaṅgāyām*) and the Sarasvatī. The territory indicated in these laudatory verses is exactly the region which is later on so highly celebrated as Kurukshetra.
c9.s3.84
⁴ X. 33, 4.
c9.s3.85
⁵ *Ṛigveda*, IV. 38. 1; VII. 19, 3.
c9.s3.86
⁶ *Rig.* iii. 23; Oldenberg, *Buddha*, pp. 409-10.
c9.s3.87
⁷ *Sat. Br.* xiii. 5, 4. 11; *Ait. Br.* viii. 23; Mbh. vii. 66. 8.
c9.s3.88
In the opinion of Oldenberg “the countless small stocks of the *Saṃhitā* age were fused together to form the greater peoples of the *Brāhmaṇa* period. The Bharatas found their place, probably together with their old enemies, the Pūrus, within the great complex of peoples now in process of formation, the Kurus; their sacred land now became Kurukshetra.”[’1]
c9.s3.89
Among those kings who are mentioned in the genealogical lists of the *Mahābhārata*² as ancestors and predecessors of Parikshit, the names of the following occur in the Vedic literature:—
c9.s3.90
¹ The absorption of the Bharatas by the Kurus is suggested by such passages as *Kuravo nāma Bhāratāḥ* (Mbh. XII. 349. 44). In the *Rām.* IV. 33. 11 Bharatas are still distinguished from the Kurus. It has been suggested by some scholars, e. *g.*, C. V. Vaidya (*History of Mediaeval Hindu India*, Vol. II, pp. 268 ff.) that the Bharata of Ṛigvedic tradition is not to be identified with Dauḥshanti Bharata, the traditional progenitor of the Kuru royal family, but rather with Bharata, the son of Ṛishabha, a descendant of the first Manu called Svāyambhuva. It should, however, be remembered that the story of Bharata, son of Ṛishabha, is distinctly late. The Bharata princes and people of Ṛigvedic tradition are clearly associated with the Kuru country watered by the Sarasvatī and the Dṛishadvatī and the names of their rulers, *e.g.*, Divodāsa and Sudās occur in Purāṇic lists of kings descended from the son or daughter of Manu Vaivasvata and not of Manu Svāyambhuva. The Bharata priests Vasishṭha and Viśvāmitra Kauśika are connected in early literature with the royal progeny of Manu Vaivasvata and his daughter, and not of Manu Svāyambhuva. For the association of Vasishṭha with the descendants of Bharata Dauḥshanti see the story of Saṁvaraṇa and Tapatī in the *Mahābhārata*, I. 94 and 171 f. Viśvāmitra Kauśika's association with the Pūru-Bharata family is, of course, well-known (Mbh. I. 94. 33). It may be argued that Bharata, ancestor of Viśvāmitra, who is called *Bharata-rishabha* in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, must be distinguished from the later Bharata, the son of Śakuntalā, daughter of Viśvāmitra. But there is no real ground for believing that the story of Viśvāmitra's connection with the nymphs is based on sober history. The Ṛigvedic Viśvāmitra belonged to the family of Kuśika. In the *Mahābhārata* (I. 94. 33) the Kuśikas are expressly mentioned as descendants of Bharata Dauḥshanti.
c9.s3.91
² *Adiparva*, Chapters 94 and 95.
c9.s3.92
Purū-ravas Aila,¹ Āyu,² Yayāti Nahushya,³ Pūru,⁴ Bharata Dauḥshanti Saudyumni,⁵ Ajamīḍha,⁶ Ṛiksha,⁷ Saṁvaraṇa,⁸ Kuru,⁹ Uchchaiḥśravas,¹⁰ Pratīpa Prātisatvana or Prātisutvana,¹¹ Balhika Prātipīya,¹² Saṁtanu,¹³ and Dhṛitarāshṭra Vaichitravīrya.¹⁴
c9.s3.93
¹ *Rig-Veda*, X. 95; *Sat.. Br.,* XI. 5. 1. 1.
c9.s3.94
² *Rig Veda* I. 53. 10; II. 14. 7. *etc.*
c9.s3.95
³ R. V., I. 31. 17; X. 63. 1.
c9.s3.96
⁴ R. V., VII. 8. 4; 18. 13.
c9.s3.97
⁵ *Sat. Br.,* XIII. 5. 4. 11-12; *Ait. Br.* viii, 23.
c9.s3.98
⁶ R. V., IV. 44. 6.
c9.s3.99
⁷ R. V. VIII. 68. 15.
c9.s3.100
⁸ R. V. VIII. 51. 1. (*Vedic Index*, II. 442).
c9.s3.101
⁹ Frequently mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa literature, *cf.* Kuru-śravaṇa, *Rig-Veda*, X. 33.4. see however, foot-note 15 below.
c9.s3.102
¹⁰ *Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa*, III. 29.1-3.
c9.s3.103
¹¹ *Atharva-Veda*, XX. 129. 2.
c9.s3.104
¹² *Sat. Br.*, XII. 9. 3. 3.
c9.s3.105
¹³ R. V., X. 98.
c9.s3.106
¹⁴ *Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā*, X. 6.
c9.s3.107
The occurrence of these names in Vedic texts probably proves their historicity,¹⁵ but it is difficult to say how far the epic account of their relationship with one another or with Parikshit, and the traditional order of succession, are reliable. Some of the kings may not have been connected with the Kurus at all. Others, *e.g.*, Uchchaiḥśravas Kaupayeya, Balhika Prātipīya and Saṁtanu, were undoubtedly of the same race (*Kauravya*) as Parikshit.¹⁶
c9.s3.108
¹⁵ It should. however, be noted that no indvidual king named Kuru is mentioned in Vedic literature. Kuru is the name of a people in the Vedic texts.
c9.s3.109
¹⁶ *Jaiminīya Up. Br.*, III. 29. 1; *Sat Br.*, XII. 9. 3; *Nirukta*, ed. by Kshemarāja Śrīkṛishṇa Dāsa Śreshṭhi, p. 130; *Bṛihaddevatā*, VII, 155-156; *Studies in Indian Antiquities.*, pp. 7-8.
c9.s3.110
Purū-ravas Aila, the first king in the above list, is represented in epic tales as the son of a ruler who migrated from Bāhli in Central Asia to Mid-India.¹⁷ It may be noted in this connection that the *Papañcha-sūdani* refers to the Kurus—the most important branch of the Ailas according to the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas*—as colonists from the trans-Himālayan region known as Uttara Kuru.¹ Bharata, another king mentioned in the epic list is described as a lineal descendant of Purū-ravas and of Pūru. But this is doubtful. He is, as we have seen, definitely associated in Brāhmanic and epic *gāthās* with the land on the Sarasvatī, the Ganges and the Jumna, and is credited with victory over the Satvats. The epic tradition that he was the progenitor of the Kuru royal family is in agreement with the Vedic evidence which connects him and his clansmen, Devaśravas and Deva-vāta, with the same territory which afterwards became famous as the land of the Kurus. Uchchaiśravas Kaupayeya had matrimonial relations with the royal family of the Pañchālas. But Balhika Prātipīya could ill conceal his jealousy of the ruler of the Sṛiñjayas, a people closely associated with the Pañchālas in epic tales. The word Balhika in the name Balhika Prātipīya seems to be a personal designation and there is no clear evidence that it is in any way connected with the Balhika tribe mentioned in the *Atharva Veda* and later texts. It may, however, point to the northern origin of the Kurus² of the "Middle country," a theory rendered probable by the association of the Kurus with the Mahāvṛishas³ and the fact that a section of the Kuru people dwelt beyond the Himālayas in the days of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*. The history of the Kuru royal line becomes more definite from the time of Saṁtanu who was fifth in the ascending line from Parikshit. Regarding the events of Parikshit’s reign we have little reliable information. We only know that the drought that threatened the Kuru realm in the time of Saṁtanu had passed away and the people “throve merrily in the kingdom of Parikshit.”
c9.s3.111
¹⁷ *Rām.*, VII. 103, 21-22. This Bāhli lay outside the *Madhyadeśa* and is associated with Kārddama kings. The reference is doubtless to Balkh or Bactria in the Oxus Valley. For a discussion about its identity see *IHQ.* 1933, 37-39. The *Matsya Purāṇa*, 12. 14 ff, distinctly mentions Ilāvṛita-Varsha (in Central Asia) as the realm of the parent of Purū-ravas. *Mbh.* III. 90. 22-25) however seems to locate the birth place of Purū-ravas on a hill near the source of the Ganges.
c9.s3.112
¹ Law, *Ancient Mid-Indian Kṣatriya Tribes*, p. 16. Note the association of the Kurus with the Mahāvṛisha, *Vedic Index*, II. 279n, and with the Bālhīkas, Mbh. II. 63. 2-7. In Mbh. III. 145. 18-19 the Uttara Kurus are apparently placed near Mount Kailāsa and Badarī. In other texts they are located much farther to the north. The Kurus of the *Madhya-deśa* are called *Dakshiṇa-Kurus* in Mbh. I. 109. 10
c9.s3.113
² Note the association of the Prātipeyas of the Kuru assembly with the Bālhīkas in Mbh. ii. 63. 2-7: *Prātipeyaḥ Śāṁtanavā Bhīmasenaḥ sa Bālhīkaḥ…… śṛiṇudhvaṁ Kāvyaṁ vāchaṁ saṁsadi Kauravāṇāṁ.*
c9.s3.114
³ *Vedic Index* II. 279n 5; *Śat Br.* (Kaṇva text); for Balhīkas and Mahāvṛishas see also *Atharva Veda*, V. 22. 4-8.
c9.s3.115
The date of Parikshit is a matter regarding which the Vedic texts give no direct information. In the Aihole Inscription of Ravikīrti, panegyrist of Pulakeśin II, dated Śaka 556 (expired) = A.D. 634-35, it is stated that at that time 3735 years had passed since the Bhārata War :—
c9.s3.116
*Triṁśatsu tri-sahasreshu Bhāratād āhavād itaḥ* *saptābda-śata-yukteshu gateshvabdeshu pañchasu*.¹
c9.s3.117
¹ Ep. Ind., VI, pp. 11, 12.
c9.s3.118
The date of the *Bhārata* war which almost synchronised with the birth of Parikshit, is, according to this calculation, and the testimony of Āryabhaṭa (A.D. 499), 3102 B.C. This is the starting point of the so-called *Kali-yuga* era. But, as pointed out by Fleet², the reckoning was not founded in Vedic times. It is an invented one, devised by Hindu astronomers and chronologists for the purposes of their calculations some thirty-five centuries after the initial point which they assigned to it. As a matter of fact another school of Hindu astronomers and historians, represented by Vṛiddha-Garga, Varāhamihira and Kalhaṇa, placed the heroes of the *Bhārata* war 653 years after the beginning of the Kali-yuga and 2526 years before the Śaka era, *i.e.*, in B.C. 2449.³ This last date is as much open to doubt as the one adopted by Āryabhaṭa and Ravikīrti. The literature that embodies the Vṛiddha-Garga tradition cannot claim any higher antiquity or reliability than the composition of the great astronomer of Kusumapura. The chronology to which it gives preference is not accepted by the Aihole inscription of Ravikīrti. A noted writer,¹ who accepts the dating of Vṛiddha-Garga and Varāha, cites only two late cases (op. cit. p. 401) to prove its currency in India, *viz.*, the commentary on the *Bhāgavatāmṛita* and certain modern Almanacs. His attempts to support this tradition by astronomical calculation based on certain *Mahābhārata* passages are beset with difficulties. For one thing there is a good deal of uncertainty regarding the starting point of what he calls the “Purāṇic” or “epic” Kaliyuga. He says (p. 399) “*most likely the Mahābhārata Kaliyuga truly began from the year* 2454 B.C. The year of the Bhārata battle according to his finding is however 2449 B.C. In other words the battle was fought *five years after the epic Kaliyuga had already begun*. But he himself points out (p. 393) that the battle was fought, according to the *Mahābhārata*, when it was the junction of (*antara*, really interval between) Kali and *Dvāpara*, and 36 years before the year of Krishna's expiry (p. 399) which was the true *beginning of the Kaliyuga*. Thus the dates assigned to the beginning of Kali do not agree. These discrepancies demonstrate the unstable character of the ground on which the chronological edifice is sought to be built. It may be remembered in this connection that Kalhaṇa, who places Gonarda I of Kashmir and the Bhārata War in 2449-8 B.C fixes a date for Aśoka much earlier than Gonarda III (1182 B.C.). This result is opposed to all genuine historical evidence and proves the unreliable character of the scheme of chronology which has for its basis a belief in 2449 B.C. as the date of the Bhārata War. Some writers¹ try to reconcile the conflicting views presented by the schools of Āryabhaṭa and Vṛiddha-Garga by suggesting that the *Śaka-kāla*, of Varāhamihira is really *Śākya-kāla*, *i.e.*, the era of the Buddha's Nirvāṇa. This conjecture is not only opposed to the evidence of Kalhaṇa, but is flatly contradicted by Bhaṭṭotpala who explains *Śaka-kāla* of the *Bṛihat Saṁhitā* passage as *Śaka-nṛipa-kāla*, era of the Śaka king.² Varāhamihira himself knew of no *Śaka-kāla* apart from the *Śakendrakāla* or *Śaka-bhūpa-kāla*, *i.e.*, the era of the Śaka *king*.³
c9.s3.119
² JRAS, 1911, pp. 479 ff., 675 ff.
c9.s3.120
³ *Āsan Maghāsu munayaḥ śāsati pṛithvīṁ Yudhishṭhire nṛipatau* *shad-dvika-pañcha-dviyutaḥ Sakakālastasya rājñaścha* *Bṛih. S.*, XIII. 3. *Cf. Rājataraṅgiṇī*, I. 48.-56.
c9.s3.121
¹ Mr. P. C. Sen Gupta, *Bhārata Battle Traditions*, *JRASB*. IV, 1938, No. 3 (Sept. 1939, pp. 393-413).
c9.s3.122
¹ *IHQ*, 1932, 85; *Mod. Rev.*, June, 1932, 650 ff.
c9.s3.123
² The *Brihat-Saṁhitā* by Varāhamihira with the commentary of Bhaṭṭotpala, edited by Sudhākara Dvivedi, p. 281
c9.s3.124
³ *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, VIII, 20-21.
c9.s3.125
A third tradition is recorded by the compilers of the *Purāṇas*. There is a remarkable verse, found with variants in the historical *Purāṇas*, which places the birth of Parikshit 1050 (or 1015, 1115, 1500 etc. according to some manuscripts), years before Mahāpadma, the first Nanda king of Magadha:
c9.s3.126
*Mahāpadm-ābhishekāt tu*
*yāvajjanma Parīkshitaḥ*
*evaṁ varshasahasraṁ tu*
*jñeyaṁ pañchāśaduttaram*.⁴
c9.s3.127
⁴ Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, .p. 58. From the account of Pargiter it appears that the reading *Pañcha-śatottaram*, finds no support in the *Vāyu* and *Brahmāṇḍa* texts. The variant *Satam pañchadaśottaram* occurs only in some Bhāgavata Mss. '*Pañchadaś-ottaram*' is however unknown to the *Matsya*. One *Matsya* Ms. has '*Sato trayam.*' The reading generally accepted by the scribes seems to have been *Pañchāśad-uttaram*. The biggest figure (1500) is probably obtained by the wrong inclusion within the Magadhan list of the Pradyotas of Avanti, and taking the period of Bārhadratha rule to cover 1000 instead of 723 years. 1000 (for the Bārhadrathas) + 152 (for the Pradyotas) + 360 (for the Śaiśunāgas) = 1512 years.
c9.s3.128
If the reading *Pañchāśaduttaram* be correct, the verse would seem to point to a date in the fourteenth or fifteenth century B. C. for the birth of Parikshit. It is, however, doubtful if even this tradition can be regarded as of great value. In the first place the divergent readings in the different Mss. take away from the value of the chronological datum. Secondly, the *Purāṇas* themselves in giving details about the dynasties that are supposed to have intervened between the Bhārata war and the coronation of Mahāpadma mention totals of reigns which when added together neither present a unanimous tradition nor correspond to the figure 1050, which alone finds general acceptance in the *Matsya*, the *Vāyu* and the *Brahmāṇḍa* manuscripts. The discrepancies may no doubt be partially explained by the well-known fact that the Purāṇic chroniclers often represent contemporaneous lines *e.g.* the Pradyotas and the Bimbisārids, as following one another in regular succession. But there is another point which deserves notice in this connection. The same passage which says that "from Mahāpadma's inauguration to the birth of Parikshit, this interval is indeed 1050 years," adds that "the interval which elapsed from the last Andhra king Pulomāvi to Mahāpadma was 836 years." As most of the *Purāṇas* agree in assigning a period of 100 years to Mahāpadma and his sons who were followed immediately by Chandragupta Maurya, the interval between Chandragupta and Pulomāvi, according to the *Purāṇic* chronology, will be 836—100—736 years. Now as Chandragupta could not have ascended the throne before 326 B.C., Pulomāvi, according to the calculation of the *Purāṇas*, cannot be placed earlier than 410 A.D. But this date can hardly be reconciled with what we know about the history of the Deccan in the first half of the fifth century A.D. Contemporary records show that the territory that had acknowledged the sway of Pulomāvi and his ancestors was at that time under the Vākāṭakas and other dynasties that rose on the ruins of the so-called "Andhra," or Sātavāhana empire. This emphasizes the need of caution in utilizing the chronological data of the Purāṇas.'
c9.s3.129
An attempt has been made in recent times to support the Purāṇic date for Parikshit and the Bhārata War which is taken to correspond to c. 1400 B.C.², by calculations based on the *Vaṁśa* lists of teachers and pupils preserved in the Vedic literature. The importance of these lists was emphasized in these very pages as early as 1923. But the data they yield have been made to square with the chronological scheme adumbrated in some of the Purāṇic Mss with the help of a number of assumptions for which no cogent proofs have been adduced. It has, for instance, been taken for granted that the *Vaṁśa* list given at the end of the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* is virtually contemporaneous with those found in the *Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa* and the *Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa*, and that all the lists "must be" dated "*not later than c.* 550 B.C." (*op. cit.* p. 70). A few pages further on (p. 77) the date of the *Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa* is stated to be "*c.* 550 B.C. (the words "not later than" being omitted). The mere fact that the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* and other works of the *Śruti* literature are generally regarded as Pre-Buddhist cannot be taken to prove that the entire lists of teachers and pupils appended to or inserted in all of them can claim equal antiquity. Scholars in assigning the period before 500 B.C. to the Vedic literature expressly exclude "its latest excrescences."³ Pāṇini⁴ draws a distinction between Vedic works which, to him, are *Purāṇaprokta* and those that he does not obviously regard as equally old. The date "c. 550 B.C." has even less justification than the vague words "not later than c. 550 B.C."
c9.s3.130
¹ See also Raychaudhuri. *The Early History of the Vaishṇava Sect*, second edition, pp. 62ff.
c9.s3.131
² Dr. Altekar, *Presidential Address to the Archaic Section of the Indian History Congress*, *Proceedings of the Third Session*, 1939. pp. 68-77
c9.s3.132
³ Winternitz, *A History of Indian Literature*, p. 27.
c9.s3.133
⁴ IV. 3. 105.
c9.s3.134
It has been stated further that the period separating the priests of Janamejaya from c. 550 B.C. is 800 years. This figure is obtained by accepting the round number 40 for the intervening generations and assigning to each generation in the *gurusishya paramparā* a period of 20 years. The probative value of this mode of calculation is impaired by the fact that the actual number of teachers of the period given in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* is 45 and not 40 (p. 70), and the true average length of a spiritual generation is, according to Jaina and Buddhist evidence, about 30 and not 20 years.¹ Moreover. it should not be forgotten that if the lists which form the basis of calculation are really to be dated 'not later than c. 550 B.C.,' c. 1350 B.C. (550+800) can only be regarded as a *terminus ad quem*. The *terminus a quo* still remains to be determined. The uncertainty regarding the date of the particular *Vaṁśa* lists, on which the whole chronological theory rests, lays even the lower limit open to objection.
c9.s3.135
¹ Jacobi, *Pariśishṭaparvan*, 2nd ed. xviii; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist. Suttas* Introduction, xlvii.
c9.s3.136
Tradition recorded in the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara* points to a date for the Pārikshitas which is much later than that assigned to them by Purāṇic chroniclers and astronomers of the Gupta Age². It refers to Udayana, king of Kauśāmbī (c. 500 B.C.), as fifth in lineal succession from Parikshit. The evidence is late but the text professes to embody tradition that goes back to Guṇāḍhya who is known to Bāṇa (c. 600 A.D.) and is assigned to the Sātavāhana period.
c9.s3.137
² *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*, IX, 6-7 ff, Penzer, I, 95
c9.s3.138
A comparatively late date, albeit not the date suggested by the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*, can also be inferred from certain passages in the later Vedic texts. We shall show in the next section that Parikshit’s son and successor Janamejaya was separated by five or six generations, of teachers from the time of Janaka of the Upanishads and his contemporary Uddālaka Āruṇi. At the end of the *Kaushītaki* or *Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka*¹ we find a *vaṁśa* or list of the teachers by whom the knowledge contained in that *Āraṇyaka* is supposed to have been handed down. The opening words of this list run thus:—
c9.s3.139
¹ *Adhāya* 15.
c9.s3.140
“Om ! Now follows the *vaṁśa*. Adoration to the Brahman ! Adoration to the teachers ! We have learnt this text from Guṇākhya Śāṅkhāyana, Guṇākhya Śāṅkhāyana from Kahola Kaushītaki, Kahola Kaushītaki from Uddālaka Āruṇi”.²
c9.s3.141
² *S.B.E.*, Vol. XXIX, p. 4.
c9.s3.142
The passage quoted above makes it clear that Guṇākhya Śāṅkhāyana was separated by two generations from the time of Uddālaka who was separated by five or six generations from the time of Janamejaya. Guṇākhya, therefore, lived seven or eight generations after Parikshit. He could not have flourished much later than Āśvalāyana because the latter, or preferably his pupil, honours his *guru* Kahola.³ It is to be noted that we have no personal name prefixed to Āśvalāyana as we have in the case of Śāṅkhāyana. This probably suggests that Vedic tradition knew only of one great teacher named Āśvalāyana. It is significant that both in Vedic and Buddhist literature this famous scholar is associated with one and the same locality, viz., Kosala, modern Oudh. The *Praśna Upanishad* tells us that Āśvalāyana was a *Kausalya*, i.e., an inhabitant of Kosala, and a contemporary of Kabandhī Kātyāyana. These facts enable us to identify him with Assalāyana of Sāvatthi (a city in Kosala) mentioned in the *Majjhima Nikāya* as a famous Vedic scholar,¹ and a contemporary of Gotama Buddha and, hence, of Kakuda² or Pakudha Kachchāyana. The reference to Gotama's contemporary as a master of *keṭubha*, *i.e.*, *kalpa* or ritual, makes it exceedingly probable that he is to be identified with the famous Āśvalāyana of the *Gṛihya Sūtras*. Consequently the latter must have lived in the sixth century B.C. Guṇākhya Śāṅkhāyana, whose teacher Kahola is honoured by the famous *Gṛihyasūtrā-kāra*, cannot be placed later than that century. That the upper limit of Guṇākhya's date is not far removed from the lower one is suggested in the first place by the reference in his *Āraṇyaka* to Paushkarasādi, Lauhitya and a teacher who is styled Magadhavāsī. The first two figure, in the *Ambaṭṭha* and *Lohichcha suttas*, among the contemporaries of the Buddha. The attitude of respect towards a Magadhan teacher in the *Āraṇyaka* points to an age later than that reflected in the *Śrauta Sūtras* which mention Brāhmaṇas hailing from the locality in question in a depreciatory tone as *Brahmabandhu Māgadha-deśīya*.⁴
c9.s3.143
³ *Āśvalāyana Gṛihya Sūtra*, III. 4. 4.
c9.s3.144
¹ II. 147, *et seq.*
c9.s3.145
² "*Tiṇṇaṁ Vedānaṁ pāragū sanighaṇḍu keṭubhānaṁ* "
c9.s3.146
³ As to the equation *kabandhī*=*kakuda*, see IHQ, 1932, 608 ff. *Kabandha* in the *Atharva Veda*, X. 2.3 means *ūru* (hips and thighs). According to Amara *kakudmatī* has substantially the same meaning.
c9.s3.147
⁴ *Vedic Index*, II. 116. Isolated references to Paushkarasādi and others may not be of much value. What we have to consider is the cumulative effect of the references in the *Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka* combined with the testimony of Pāṇini and Āpastamba.
c9.s3.148
Goldstücker points out⁵ that Pāṇini used the word *Āraṇyaka* only in the sense of 'a man living in the forest'. It is Kātyāyana (*c.* fourth century B.C.) who vouchsafes in a *Vārttika* the information that the same expression is also used in the sense of treatises ‘read in the forest’. The silence of Pāṇini in regard to this additional meaning of the term, when contrasted with the clear statement of the later grammarian, leaves little room for doubt that *Āraṇyaka* in the sense of a forest-treatise was well known to writers traditionally assigned to the fourth century B.C., but not to Pāṇini. It may be recalled in this connection that, unlike Kātyāyana again, Pāṇini does not include the works of Yājñavalkya, a contemporary of Kahola, the teacher of Guṇākhya, among the older (*Purāṇa-prokta*) *Brāhmaṇas*.¹ Śvetaketu, another contemporary of Kahola, teacher of Guṇākhya, is mentioned in the *Dharmasūtra* of Āpastamba² as an *avara* or modern authority. The reference to *Yavanānī* in the *sūtras*³ of Pāṇini and the tradition recorded in the *Kāvya-Mīmāṁsā*⁴ that he made his mark in the city of Pāṭaliputra (founded, as we know, after the death of the Buddha, *c.* 486 B.C., in the reign of Udāyin), clearly suggest that he could not have flourished before the sage of the Śākyas. Profound as his knowledge is in regard to Vedic literature, Pāṇini is unaware of the existence of Āraṇyakas as a class of forest-treatises. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that he could not have been considerably posterior to the great masters of the *Āraṇyakas* among whom Guṇākhya Śāṅkhāyana holds an honoured place. In other words, the upper limit of the date of this teacher almost coincides with the lower. With a date for him in the sixth century B.C. all the evidence accommodates itself.
c9.s3.149
⁵ *Pāṇini, His Place in Sanskrit Literature*, 1914, 99.
c9.s3.150
¹ IV. 3. 105 with commentary quoted on page 106*n* of Goldstücker's *Pāṇini*, *Yājñavalkyādayo hi na chira kālā ityākhyāneshu vārtā*.
c9.s3.151
² *Dharmasūtra*, 1. 2, 5, 4-6.
c9.s3.152
³ IV. I. 49.
c9.s3.153
⁴ P. 55.
c9.s3.154
We are now left with the task of attempting to measure the distance between Guṇākhya and Parikshit. Professor Rhys Davids in his *Buddhist Suttas* assigns 150 years to the five *Theras* from Upāli to Mahinda. Jacobi, too, informs us that the average length of a patriarchate may be estimated at about 30 years. We may, therefore, assign 240 or 270 years to the eight or nine generations from Parikshit to Guṇākhya Sāṅkhāyana, and place the former in the ninth century B.C.
c9.s3.155
Parikshit was succeeded on the Kuru throne by his eldest son **Janamejaya**. The *Mahābhārata* refers to a great snake-sacrifice performed by this king. In this connection it is stated that the king conquered Taxila.¹ It is clear from the *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa*² and the *Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra*³ that the epic account of the Kuru king's *Sarpa-satra* cannot be regarded as having any historical basis. There is hardly any doubt that the *Satra* mentioned in the Vedic texts is the prototype of the famous sacrifice described in the epic. The story seems to have undergone three stages of development. The original tale is concerned with a mythical rite performed by the serpents one of whom was named Janamejaya, who served as an *Adhvaryu* (priest). "Through this rite the serpents vanquished death." The next stage is reached in the *Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra*. Janamejaya appears among the kings and princes of the serpents assembled for sacrifice in human shape at Khāṇḍavaprastha (in the Kuru country) with the object of obtaining poison. In the epic the performer of the sacrifice is identified with the Kuru king; and the object of the sacrifice is not the acquisition of immortality for the serpents, or of poison, but the extinction of these reptiles. It is impossible to find in the doings of these venomous creatures a reference to an historic strife.¹
First 155 of 238 passages. Read on