Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Cosmography and Geography in Early Indian Literature c5.s2: 2. Geographical Ideas

Cosmography and Geography in Early Indian Literature c5.s2

Language
English

2. Geographical Ideas

c5.s2.1

The *Ṛgveda* generally mentions tribes or clans and not geographical areas particularly. But the expression Sapta Sindhavaḥ, literally meaning ‘the Seven Rivers’, is also used, in one instance at least, as the designation of a definite country no doubt comprising the valleys of the rivers in question.⁴⁶ The seven rivers are often taken to be the five Punjab streams (viz. the Jhelam, Chenab, Ravi, Satlaj and Beas) together with the Indus and the Sarasvatī, though some scholars are inclined to substitute the Sarasvatī by the Kabul or the Oxus, there being also a view that no importance need be attached to ‘seven’ which was a favourite conventional number both in the *Rgveda* and in later works.⁴⁷ A hymn of the latest stratum of the *Rgveda* seems to exhibit the knowledge of the eastern and the western sea, i.e. the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.48

c5.s2.2

⁴⁶ viii. 24 ; cf. i. 32. 12 ; 34. 8 ; etc. Hillebrandt’s attempt to trace certain Iranian tribes and rivers in the *Ṛgveda* has not convinced scholars while Raychaudhuri’s reference to *praīn-aukas* in *RV*, x. 30. 9 is meaningless since it does not mean ‘the original home’ of the Aryans outside India (cf. *Stud. Ind. Ant.*, pp. 53ff). Even the tradition about Indra bringing the Yadu and Turvaśa from a distant land is of little importance in this connection since the Gandhāri and Bālhika were also distant peoples according to the later Saṃhitās. We do not attach any importance to H. K. Deb’s philological speculations, viz. Asita-Dhānva=Esarhaddon, Matsyasāmmada=Mesesimordakos, and Tārkṣya=Tearkon. See *JRASB*, Letters, Vol. xiv, 1948, pp. 121-43 ; Vol. xv, 1949, pp. 125 ff. It may be pointed out here that Phoenician trade with South India has been traced from the fact that peacocks brought by Hiram’s ships to Solomon are called *tuki* derived from Tamil *togai*. It is said that the trade between Egypt and Yemen began about 2300 B.C. and between Yemen and India about 1000 B.C. Indian teak wood is believed to have been found in Babylonian

c5.s2.3

⁴⁷ *Ved. Ind.*, Vol. ii, p. 424.
48. x. 136. 5
49. i. 7. 3. 8.
50. xi. 4. 1. 1 ; cf. *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa*, i. 3. 6.

c5.s2.4

A division of the country into zones, i.e. one in the central area and the others on its borders in the different directions, developed in the later Vedic ages. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*49 mentions the Prācyas or the peoples of the eastern country and also the Bāhīkas as the people of the west. The same work further refers to the Udīcya Brāhmaṇas (i.e. the Brāhmaṇas of Uttarāpatha or the North).50 Post-Vedic literature applies the name Bāhīka to the tribes of the Punjab called Pañcanada in the *Mahābhārata*.⁵¹ The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*52 mentions the Madhyamā Diś, ‘the Central or Middle Region’, as well as the regions in the east (Prācya), south (Dakṣiṇa), west (Pratīcya) and north (Udīcya). Amongst the peoples of the outer zones, mention is made of the Sātvats ruled by kings styled Bhoja in the south (probably in the Berar region) and of the Uttara-Kurus and Uttara-Madras beyond the Himavat in the north. More interesting is the reference to the central zone.

c5.s2.5

⁵¹ Sircar, *Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind.*, pp. 184 ff.
52. viii 14.
53. viii. 14. 3.

c5.s2.6

The geographical name Madhyadeśa is post-Vedic; but the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*53 indicates the same name by the expression *dhruvā madhyamā pratiṣṭhā diś*, ‘the firmly established Middle Region’, and the Kurus (probably of the tract comprising the Ambala, Delhi and Meerut regions), the Pañcālas (probably of the region comprising the Bareilly and Farrukhabad areas), the Vaśas and the Uśīnaras

c5.s2.7

remains of the 3rd millennium B.C. The form of the Indian oblong sarcophagi is said to be similar to that of similar objects at Gahrarch near Bagdad. The custom of urn-burial of the whole body (not merely of the cremated ashes) in large jars has been traced at places from Sind to Tiruelveli and similar jars occur in Babylonia. Hall thinks of the possibility of the Sumerian civilization being developed in India. See Taylor, *Alphabet*, Vol. ii, pp. 313, 315 ; Hall, *Hist. N. East*, 7th ed., pp. 171, 173-74 ; *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. v, p. 255 ; *JBORS*, Vol. vi, p. 194 ; etc. But we are concerned here with geographical knowledge as revealed by Indian literature and not with India’s contact with the outside world as suggested by archaeological evidence. See also below.

c5.s2.8

are mentioned as inhabiting the said tract. This Middle Land seems to have been regarded as bounded in the east by the countries of the Kośalas and the Videhas and in the west by the desert, i. e. the Maru or Marwar region or the present Rajputana desert. Among the later Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas which are believed by scholars to have been composed in the said region, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁵⁴ alludes to the Aryanisation of the Kośala-Videha territory from the Kuru-Pañcāla country, while both the Śatapatha⁵⁵ and the Aitareya⁵⁶ mention the tribes of the western region with disapproval. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra⁵⁷ mentions the same Middle Region as Āryāvarta (the land primarily inhabited by the Aryans and dominated by Aryan culture) and defines it as the territory lying to the east of Adarśana (Vinaśana where the Sarasvatī lost herself in the sands near Kurukṣetra),⁵⁸ to the west of Kālaka-vana (probably near Allahabad), to the south of the Himavat (Himālaya) and to the north of the Pāriyātra or Pāripātra (the western Vindhyas with the Aravali range). According to a different view quoted in the same work,⁵⁹ Āryāvarta lay between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā while, in the same context, the Bhāllavins are said to have regarded the holy land lying between the region of the sunrise and the Sindhu as well as the Visaraṇi (or Vidhāvanī, etc.) as Brahmavarcasa.⁶⁰ It is interesting to note that Āryāvarta of the Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra later became famous as Madhyadeśa, ‘the Middle Country’, the Manusmṛti⁶¹ defining it as the land betwen the Himavat in the north and the Vindhya in the south and between Vinaśana in the west and Prayāga (Allahabad) in the east. In their eagerness to include the land of the Buddha’s birth and activities in the holy territory of the Madhyadeśa, some Buddhist writers give its boundaries as Kajaṅgala (near modern Rajmahal) in the east, the river Śarāvatī in the south-east, the town of Śvetakarṇika in the south, the town and district of Sthūṇa in the west and Mount Uśīradhvaja in the north,⁶² while others would make them Puṇḍravardhana (modern Mahasthan in the Bogra District) in the east, the river Śarāvatī in the south, the Brāhmaṇa villages Sthūṇa and Upasthūṇa in the west and the Uśīragiri in the north.⁶³ But medieval works like Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṃsā state that the countries of the East (Pūrva-deśa), South (Dakṣiṇāpatha), West (Paścād-deśa), and North (Uttarāpatha) lay respectively beyond Vārāṇasī, Māhiṣamatī (on the Narmadā), Devasabhā (modern Dewas) and Pṛthūdaka (modern Pehoa), all lying on the borders of Madhyadeśa.⁶⁴

c5.s2.9

⁵⁴ i. 4. 1.

c5.s2.10

⁵⁵ ix. 3. 1. 8.

c5.s2.11

⁵⁶ iii. 44. 3.

c5.s2.12

⁵⁷ i. 1 .2. 9ff. This work regards the Avanti, Aṅga, Magadha, Surāṣṭra, Dakṣiṇāpatha, Upāvṛt, Sindhu and Sauvira, who apparently lived on the borders of Āryāvarta, as saṅkīrṇa-yoni, i.e. exhibiting an admixture of Aryan and Non-Aryan blood and culture (i. 2. 14-16). The same section prescribes purification by the performance of Punastoma or Sarvapṛṣṭhā for people visiting the lands of the Āraṭṭa, Kāraskara, Puṇḍra, Sauvira, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga and Prāṇūna. A gāthā, further quoted in the work, also disapproves visit to the Kaliṅga country. Cf. Sircar, Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind., pp. 172, 178.

c5.s2.13

⁵⁸ Vinaśana is mentioned in the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa (xxv. 10. 6), Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa (iv. 26) and some other works of later Vedic literature. The Mahābhārata (iii. 82. 111) applies the name Vinaśana to the place where the Sarasvatī disappears while medieval lexicons identify Vinaśana, the western boundary of Āryāvarta according to the Manusmṛti, with Kurukṣetra. The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (viii. 21. 12) mentions the maru (deserts) as the utkara (i.e. mound of earth thrown up from the excavation of an altar) of Kurukṣetra.

c5.s2.14

⁵⁹ i. 1.2. 10. (Vasiṣṭha, i. 12). For the Tantric conception of Āryāvarta covering only the eastern Districts of U. P., see Sircar, Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind., p. 99.

c5.s2.15

⁶⁰ i. 1. 2. 11-12 (Vasiṣṭha, i. 14-15). According to Śaṅkhalikhita, Brahmavarcasa lay to the east of Sindhu and Sauvīra, to the south of the Himavat, to the west of Kāmpilya and to the north of the Pāriyātra, while Paiṭhinasi seems to refer to the same holy land as stretching as far as the Himavat, the Kumārī, the Sindhu and Vaitaraṇī (i.e. Visaraṇī, etc.) and the land of the sun-rise (Sircar, op. cit., p. 172, note 3).

c5.s2.16

⁶¹ ii. 21. The same work further says that the holy Brahmarṣi-deśa was the name of the land comprising Kurukṣetra and the territories of the Matsyas, Pañcālas and Śūrasenakas, while the tract called Brahmāvarta is defined by it as the holiest area lying between the rivers Sarasvatī and Dṛṣadvatī (ii. 17 and 19). The said four tracts are said to have produced the best warriors (vii. 193). The Brāhmaṇas of the Kuru-Pañcāla country are famous in the Upaniṣads (Ved. Ind., Vol. i, p. 165) and those of Kānyakubja, Śrāvasti and Kolāñca (Kroḍāñca) enjoyed high social prestige in Eastern India during the early medieval period (Sircar, Stud. Soc. Ad. Anc. Med. Ind., pp. 12ff).

c5.s2.17

⁶² Cf. Mahāvagga, v. 12. 13.

c5.s2.18

⁶³ Divyāvadāna, ed. Cowell and Neil, p. 22.

c5.s2.19

⁶⁴ G.O.S. ed., pp. 93-94. See below.

c5.s2.20

The mention of a river called Śarāvatī at the eastern or south-eastern boundary of the Madhyadeśa reminds us of the well-known tradition according to which Northern India was divided by the Śarāvatī into two parts, viz. Prācya to its south-east and Udīcya to its north-west. This division was apparently known to Pāṇini and the later grammarians, while the Amarakosa gives it in clear terms. Medieval lexicons like Yādavaprakāśa’s Vaijayantī also say the same thing, but add that the Madhya-deśa stood between Prācya and Udīcya, even though the two statements are conflicting. That the identity of the Śarāvatī was gradually forgotten is clear from Sarvānanda’s commentary on the Amarakosa, according to which it ran from the North-Eastern Bhārata-varṣa to the Western Ocean (Arabian Sea). There is really no such river in India.⁶⁵

c5.s2.21

⁶⁵ See Sircar, Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind., pp. 209ff. ; Pāṇini, 4. 1. 157, etc., and 4. 1, 17, etc. Amara (ii. 1. 6-7) has—Śarāvatyās=tu yo’=vadheḥ | deśaḥ Prāg-dakṣiṇaḥ Prācya Udīcyaḥ paścim-ottaraḥ || The Vaijayantī (Bhūmi, iii. 22) says—prāg-dakṣiṇaḥ Śarāvatyāḥ Prācyo’=syāḥ paścim-ottaraḥ | Udīcyo Madhyadeśas=tu deśo yo madhyamas=tayoḥ ||

c5.s2.22

An interesting geographical name is Kurukṣetra or the field of the Kuru people. It is mentioned in the later Vedic texts as a particularly sacred territory.⁶⁶ It was the country watered by the Sarasvatī, Dṛṣadvatī and Āpayā and probably by another stream called Pastyā. There was in Kurukṣetra the Śaraṇyāvat which was probably a lake like the Anyataḥplakṣa known from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. According to the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, Kurukṣetra was bounded by the Khāṇḍava on the south, the Tūrghṇa on the north and the Parīṇaḥ on the west. It corresponded roughly with modern Sirhind or the Karnal-Ambala region of the Eastern Punjab.⁶⁷ Like the kṣetra of the Kurus, a plain called Varṣiṣṭhīya, on which Śibi Auśīnara performed sacrifices, is mentioned in the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra.⁶⁸

c5.s2.23

⁶⁶ Ved. Ind., Vol. i, p. 169. According to the epico-Puranic tradition, the Paurava or Bhārata king Kuru, son of Saṃvaraṇa, cultivated the field and settled therein, so that it became famous as king Kuru’s field. But this tradition appears to be opposed to the evidence of the Vedic literature.

c5.s2.24

⁶⁷ Cf. ibid., p. 170.

c5.s2.25

⁶⁸ xxi. 104. 3.

c5.s2.26

The conception regarding the divine character of the Sarasvatī and the holiness of Kurukṣetra leads us to the question of tīrtha-yātrā or pilgrimage to holy places for the sake of religious merit. We have elsewhere suggested that tīrtha-yātrā was a Nonaryan religious institution which took some time in being fully approved by the Brahmanical society.⁶⁹ The Nirukta (12. 19) of Yāska, who is assigned to a date between 500 and 700 B.C., while explaining the Ṛgvedic passage tredhā nidadhe padam, quotes an earlier authority named Aurnavābha as saying that Viṣṇu plants his foot at Samārohaṇa, Viṣṇupada and Gayaśiras, the last of the three holy spots being no doubt identical with modern Gayā in Bihar. We have seen above how the Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra prescribes expiation for visit to the lands of the Āraṭṭa, Kāraskara, Puṇḍra, Sauvīra, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga and Prāṇūna peoples. Another traditional verse apparently of a later date, however, says that punaḥ-saṃskāra is not required if one visits the Aṅga, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga, Saurāṣṭra and Magadha countries for the purpose of pilgrimage.⁷⁰ This would refer to a date earlier than the Manusmṛti which, as we have seen, includes most of the said territories in Āryāvarta. A khila verse placed in the Ṛgveda (x. 75) mentions Prayāga, i.e. the holy confluence of rivers which was often selected for the performance of sacrifice (prayāga), the Gaṅgā-Yamunā-saṅgama near Allahabad being regarded as the most celebrated among such confluences in the later days.

c5.s2.27

⁶⁹ Sircar, Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind., p. 229.

c5.s2.28

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 178, note.

c5.s2.29

The conception of the Cakravarti-kṣetra, i.e. the sphere of influence of an Indian Cakravartin or emperor, fully developed in the post-Vedic age apparently after the growth of the first historical empire of India under the Bimbisarians, the Śaiśunāgas, the Nandas and the Mauryas.⁷¹ This sphere was regarded as co-extensive with the whole land bounded by the Himalayan region in the north and the seas on the other three sides and was often mentioned as ‘the whole earth.’⁷² The germ of the conception can, however, be traced in the later Vedic literature since the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁷³ quotes a gāthā to the effect that king Bharata, who was the son of Duṣyanta and is represented in the Mahābhārata⁷⁴ as a Cakravartin and Sārvabhauma (universal monarch), celebrated more than a thousand Aśvamedha sacrifices ‘after having conquered the whole earth’. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa⁷⁵ has a similar statement in respect of Janamejaya, son of Parikṣit. In the inscriptions of Aśoka, the Maurya king of the third century B. C. sometimes refers to his empire as pṛthivī (the earth) or as Jambu-dvīpa which later came to be a name of India or the earth.⁷⁶ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa speaking of Samrāṭs in the eastern country, apparently referring to monarchs enjoying a higher political status than the Rājan and also overlordship over the Rājans,⁷⁷ probably gave rise to the epico-Puranic story of king Jarāsandha of Magadha represented as the emperor of Eastern India.⁷⁸ But the Aitareya also refers to the possibility for a king to attain supremacy over all kings, to possess the entire earth bounded by the ocean—from one end to the other, and to become the Ekarāṭ (sole monarch), and there may be an echo, in the passage, of the expansion of the kingdom of Magadha in Eastern India, under king Śiśunāga (c. 414-396 B.C.) for the first time, over the whole land between the Bay of Bengal in the east and the Arabian Sea in the west.⁷⁹

c5.s2.30

⁷¹ In the present state of our knowledge, it is not possible to believe in the historicity of an earlier Magadha empire under Jarāsandha many centuries before the beginning of Magadhan expansion in the age of the Buddha (566-486 B.C.) under Bimbisāra and Ajātaśatru.

c5.s2.31

⁷² Cf. Sircar, Stud. Geog. Anc. Med. Ind., pp. 2ff.

c5.s2.32

⁷³ xiii. 5. 4. 13—para-sahasrān=Indrāy=aśvān=medhyān=ya āharad=vijitya pṛthivīm sarvām.

c5.s2.33

⁷⁴ i. 73. 129.

c5.s2.34

⁷⁵ viii. 21—samantaṃ sarvataḥ pṛthivīṃ jayan pariyāy=āśvena ca medhyen=eje. Cf. also viii. 23 for a similar statement regarding the Pañcāla king Durmukha.

c5.s2.35

⁷⁶ See Select Inscriptions, 2nd ed. p. 23 (note 6) and p. 48.

c5.s2.36

⁷⁷ The Aitareya (viii. 14) says, “Whatever kings there are of the eastern peoples, they are anointed for overlordship (sāmrājya).” The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (v. 1. 1. 12-1) also says how rājya (office of a Rājan) is lower than sāmrājya (office of a Samrāṭ) and how one who has been a Rājan by offering rājasūya wants to become a Samrāṭ by offering vājapeya. The Samrāṭ enjoying a higher status than the Rājan is also known from the Ṛgveda (Ved. Ind., Vol. ii, p. 433).

c5.s2.37

⁷⁸ Cf. Mahābhārata, ii. 19 (cf. verses 10-11). The description of Jarāsandha in the Mahābhārata reminds us of the summary account of Mahāpadma Nanda in the Purāṇas (Pargiter, The Purāṇa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age, p. 25). It has to be noticed that Jarāsandha is conspicuous by his non-mention in the Vedic literature.

c5.s2.38

⁷⁹ See Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, viii. 15 : sa ya icched=evamvit kṣatriyam=ayaṃ sarvā jitīr=jayet=ayaṃ sarvāṃ=llokān vindet=āyaṃ sarveṣāṃ rājñām śraiṣṭhyam=atiṣṭhāṃ paramatāṃ gaccheta sāmrājyam bhaujyam svārājyam vairājyam pārameṣṭhyam rājyam māhārājyam=ādhipatyam=ayaṃ samanta-paryāyī syāt Sārvabhaumaḥ sarv-āyuṣa ā=ntād=ā

Linked texts (19)