A History of Indian Literature v1.c9.s9: The Age and History of the Mahābhārata

A History of Indian Literature v1.c9.s9

Language: English

The Age and History of the Mahābhārata

v1.c9.s9.1

We have now given a survey of all that has come down to us as "Mahābhārata" in manuscripts and editions, and are now faced with the question: How and when did this gigantic work originate?

Already in the short account of the contents of the actual heroic poem (pp. 328-375) the reader must have noticed a contradiction, which is still more noticeable in the reading of the Mahābhārata itself. While the poem in its present form absolutely takes the part of the *Pāṇḍavas*, and describes the Pāṇḍavas as not only brave beyond measure, but also as noble and good, and on the other hand represents the *Kauravas* as treacherous and mischievous,—the poem, in remarkable self-contradiction, relates that all the heroes of the Kauravas fall through treachery or in unfair fight.[^2)

v1.c9.s9.3

[^1): Brahma-, Padma-, Viṣṇu-, Bhāgavata-, and especially Vāyu-Purāṇa. The Garuḍa-Purāṇa communicates the contents of the Mahābhārata *and of the Harivaṃśa* in extract. See A. *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata, IV, pp. 32, 35, 37 ff., 40, 42 ff., 47 ff., 56. [^2): See above, pp. 361 f.

v1.c9.s9.4

It is still more striking that all the treachery emanates from *Kṛṣṇa*, that *he* is always the instigator of all the deceit and defends the conduct of the Pāṇḍavas. And this is the same Kṛṣṇa who in many parts of the Mahābhārata and more especially in the Harivaṁśa, is praised and glorified as an incarnation of Viṣṇu, the highest god, and as the ideal and prototype of every virtue.

v1.c9.s9.5

How can these remarkable contradictions be explained? Upon this there can only be conjectures. First, there is probably justification for the supposition, although we have only the authority of the Mahābhārata itself for it, that a change of dynasty did actually once take place in the North-west of India as the result of a great war, and that these quasi-historical events form the foundation of the epic itself.¹ Starting out from this, we can well imagine that the original heroic songs dealing with the fight between the hostile cousins, were sung among the bards who were still near Duryodhana himself or the house of the Kauravas, but that, in the course of time, as the rule of the victorious Pāṇḍavas was more and more firmly established, these songs were transmitted to bards who were in the employ of the new ruling race. In the mouths of these bards those alterations were then undertaken which made the Pāṇḍavas appear in a favourable light and the Kauravas in an unfavourable one, without its being possible to eradicate completely the original tendency of the songs. In our Mahābhārata the nucleus of the epic, the description of the great battle, is placed in the mouth of Sañjaya, the charioteer of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, that is, in the mouth of the bard of the *Kauravas*. It is precisely in these battle-scenes that the Kauravas appear in the most favourable light. The whole Mahābhārata, on the other hand, is recited, according to the frame-story contained in Book I, by Vyāsa's pupil, Vaiśampāyana at the snake-sacrifice of Janamejaya. This Janamejaya, however, is regarded as a descendant of the *Pāṇḍava* Arjuna, which agrees well with the fact that, in the Mahābhārata as a whole, the Pāṇḍavas are preferred to the Kauravas.[^1)

v1.c9.s9.6

¹ Even those who find a *mythological* nucleus in the legend underlying the epic, admit that there are also historical elements in it. Thus A. *Ludwig* "Über das Verhältnis des mythischen Elementes zu der historischen Grundlage des Mahâbhârata." (Abhandlungen der k. böhmischen Ges d. Wissensch. VI, 12.) Prague, 1884. *Pargiter* and *Grierson* (JRAS., 1908, pp. 309 ff., 602 ff.) have expressed the opinion that, underlying the war between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas there may be the historical fact of a battle of nations (a fight between the nations of Madhyadeśa and the other nations of India) and at the same time a fight between a warrior party on the one side and a priestly party on the other. I do not consider that there is any justification of this historical construction. *Cf.* *Hopkins*, Cambridge History, I, p. 275.

v1.c9.s9.7

As regards Kṛṣṇa, the race of the Yādavas to which he belongs, is described in several places in the Mahābhārata as a cowherd-tribe of rough manners, and he himself is repeatedly scorned by hostile heroes as "cowherd" and "slave." In the ancient heroic poem, he was certainly nothing more than a prominent leader of that cowherd-tribe and had nothing divine about him. Even behind the Kṛṣṇa-legends of the Harivaṁśa there seems to be a foundation of older legends, in which Kṛṣṇa was not yet a god, but the hero of a rough tribe of cowherds. It is difficult to believe that *Kṛṣṇa*, the friend and counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas, *Kṛṣṇa*, the herald

v1.c9.s9.8

[^1): I do not think that there was a systematic remodelling (as is the view of *Holtzmann*), but that gradual changes were made. J. v. *Negelein* (OLZ. 1908, 336 f.) refutes this theory by observing that the ancient epic took no stock whatsoever of the moral point of view, that it portrayed both parties in almost equal light and shade, and that it merely rejoiced in the actual display of strength. A similar view is taken by *Oldenberg* (Das Mahābhārata, pp. 35 ff.) who, like *Hopkins* (Cambridge! History, I, 265) believes that the moral reflections cast on the conduct of the Pāṇḍavas belong to a more modern age, "when a finer morality had begun to temper the crude royal and military spirit." *Hertel* (WZKM. 24, 1910, 421) seeks to explain the contradiction of the treacherous behaviour of the Pāṇḍavas and the poet's siding with them, by saying that the Mahābhārata has the character of a nītiśāstra and that, according to the rules of politics, the king is justified in or even in duty bound to the utilisation of cunning. These scholars, however, forget that the speeches in which the Pāṇḍavas' manner of fighting is condemned as dishonourable, do not belong to the didactic additions to the epic, but are interwoven with the description of the fight itself, and do not in the least bear the stamp of later additions.

v1.c9.s9.9

of the doctrines of the Bhagavadgītā, *Kṛṣṇa*, the youthful hero and demon-slayer, *Kṛṣṇa*, the favourite and lover of the cowherdesses, and finally *Kṛṣṇa*, the incarnation of the exalted god Viṣṇu, can be one and the same person. It is far more likely that there were two or several traditional Kṛṣṇas, who were merged into *one* deity at a later time. Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī, is mentioned in the Chāndogya-Upaniṣad (III, 17) as a pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa, who expounds doctrines which at least in a few points coincide with those of the Bhagavadgītā. For this reason we can scarcely separate this old sage of the time of the Upaniṣads from the Kṛṣṇa of the Bhagavadgītā.¹ It is possible that this Kṛṣṇa was the founder of the Bhāgavata religion, and that like so many other founders of religions in India, he was made into an incarnation of the god worshipped by his adherents.² It is possible, moreover, that Kṛṣṇa did not figure at all in the original epic, and was introduced only later, perhaps with the express intention of justifying the actions of the Pāṇḍavas, which were shady from the moral point of view, by representing them as inspired by the "god" Kṛṣṇa.³ Much as has been written on the problem of Kṛṣṇa, we must admit, nevertheless, that no satisfactory solution has been found.⁴ In any case, it is a far cry from Kṛṣṇa the friend of the Pāṇḍavas, to the Kṛṣṇa of the Harivaṃśa and the exalted god Viṣṇu.

v1.c9.s9.10

¹ Cf. H. *Raychaudhuri*, Early History of the Vaishnava Sect, pp. 23, 30 f., 48 ff.

v1.c9.s9.11

² This view is advocated especially by *Garbe*, Die Bhagavadgītā, 2nd Ed., pp. 27 ff.

v1.c9.s9.12

³ Thus *Oldenberg*, Das Mahābhārata, pp. 37, 43. *Cf.* also *Jacobi*, ERE. VII, 195 f. and Sir Charles *Eliot*, Hinduism and Buddhism (London, 1921), II, 154, who emphasizes the point that Kṛṣṇa is not so essentially important in the story of the Mahābhārata as is Rāma in that of the Rāmāyaṇa. It seems to me, however, that the warrior Kṛṣṇa, not the god Kṛṣṇa, is too closely bound up with the main narrative for the epic to be imaginable entirely without him.

v1.c9.s9.13

⁴ Cf. *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata I, 132 ff.; A. *Weber*, Zur indischen Religionsgeschichte (Sonderabdruck aus "Deutsche Revue" 1899), pp. 28 f.; *L. J. Sedgwick*, JBRAS. 23, 1910, pp. 115 ff.; *Grierson*, ERE. II, 539 ff. *Jacobi*, ERE. VII, 193 ff. and *Streitberg-Festgabe*, p. 168; A. B. *Keith*, JRAS. 1915, 548 ff; R. G. *Bhandarkar*, Vaiṣṇavism, etc., pp. 3 f., 8 ff., 33 ff.; *Raychaudhuri*, l. c., pp. 18 ff. and passim; *Garbe*, l. c.; *Eliot*, Hinduism and Buddhism II, 152 ff.; *Hopkins* in Cambridge History I, 258; *Oldenberg*, Das Mahābhārata, pp. 37 ff.

v1.c9.s9.14

The political and religious development which is reflected in those songs of the Mahābhārata which refer to the great fight—the passing of the supremacy from the Kauravas to the Pāṇḍavas, and the deification of Kṛṣṇa—thus already presupposes a long period of time, and it is unthinkable that even these songs only, which form the nucleus of the work, should originate with one single poet. Such an assumption becomes still more impossible if we consider the countless *contradictions* which occur in the *details* of the principal narrative. I will recall only the narratives of the marriage of the Pāṇḍavas (see above, pp. 336 f.) and the adventures of Arjuna (p. 339). In Book IV we find a duplicate of the whole battle in the Kuru-field: Bhīṣma and all the other heroes of the Kauravas are put to flight by Arjuna almost in no time; which does not fit in well with the fact that later on it is only possible to overcome the Kauravas in eighteen days, and then only by the employment of guile on the part of the Pāṇḍavas. (There can scarcely be any doubt that the whole of Book IV (Virāṭa-parvan) is a later production¹) than the magnificent battle-descriptions in the following books. But even in those books which unquestionably contain the oldest parts of the epic, there are constantly to be found contradictions which cannot possibly be explained by the "ingenious carelessness" of *any one* poet.² Beside the most splendid descriptions full of raciness and vigour, there are also to be found long songs, in which the description of the eighteen-day battle is spun out as long as possible with dull monotony and continual repetitions.)

v1.c9.s9.15

¹ Thus already *Holtzmann*, Mahābhārata II, p. 98, and *Hopkins*, The Great Epic of India, pp. 382 f. *Cf.* N. B. *Utgikar*, The Virāṭaparvan of the Mahābhārata (Poona, 1923), pp. xx f. and my remarks in Ann. Bh. Inst. V, 1, p. 23.

v1.c9.s9.16

² *Cf.* above, notes on pp. 361, 362 f.; 366, 370 f.

v1.c9.s9.17

(Thus even what we can term the "actual epic," as it has come down to us, is certainly not the work of *one* poet. Even this "nucleus" of the Mahābhārata is no longer the old heroic poem; but the latter is *contained* in it, in a much diluted condition.)

v1.c9.s9.18

We have now seen that (around this nucleus an enormous mass of the most miscellaneous poems has accumulated; heroic songs from various cycles of legends, brahmanical myths and legend poetry, ascetic poetry and didactic poems of all kinds from the simplest moral maxims to extensive philosophical poems, formal law-books and complete Purāṇas.) Though J. Dahlmann has applied an enormous amount of erudition in an attempt to prove (that the Mahābhārata is one unified work which was composed by *one* poet in pre-Buddhist times both as an epic and a law-book,¹⁾ only few scholars) agree with him. Sylvain Lévi,²⁾ too, has recently attempted to explain the Mahābhārata as "a deliberate composition organically and artistically spread around a central fact and inspired by a dominant sentiment which penetrates and permeates it." He compares the Mahābhārata with the Vinaya, the code of discipline of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādin Buddhists, and is of opinion that the whole great epic "with all its exaggerations and episodes, with all its varied and luxuriant mass of detail" is based on nothing but "a code of Kṣatriya discipline as practised by the Bhāgavatas." Of course, if we take it that the nucleus of the epic is to be found in the Bhagavadgītā, Nārāyaṇīya and Harivaṃśa, such a point of view is justifiable. If, however, as I myself believe, (the real nucleus of the Mahābhārata is a heroic poem of the conflict between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas,) Lévi's interpretation is just as impossible as that of Dahlmann. (Those scholars who see in the Mahābhārata a "scripture of the warrior caste,"¹) forget that the Mahābhārata as we have it in our present-day text contains much which would be quite out of place in a work intended for warriors. The ascetic morality of ahiṃsā which is preached in so many passages in the didactic sections, of the love towards all creatures and complete resignation, is just as incompatible with the very sensual pleasures promised to the warrior in Indra's heaven, as with the eating of meat and the drinking of strong drinks in which the heroes and even their wives indulge, in many a vivid description of the warriors' life in the actual epic.²) Anyone who has really read the whole of the Mahābhārata and not only the most magnificent portions of it, is bound to admit that our present-day text of the epic contains not only much that is diverse in content, but also much that is diverse in value.) In truth, he who would believe with the orthodox Hindus and the above-mentioned Western scholars, that our Mahābhārata, in its present form, is the work of one single man, would be forced to the conclusion that this man was, *at one and the same time*, a great poet and a wretched scribbler, a sage and an idiot, a talented artist and a ridiculous pedant—apart from the fact that this marvellous person must have known and confessed the most antagonistic religious views, and the most contradictory philosophical doctrines.¹

v1.c9.s9.19

¹ In his book "Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch" (Berlin, 1895) (see above, p. 316, note 1), *Dahlmann*, it is true, only speaks of a "unified diaskeuasis" but yet he ascribes to the "diaskeuast" an activity which could certainly stamp him as a poet; and in conclusion (p. 302) he speaks of the Mahābhārata as the work of "one single poetical creative genius." In his book "Genesis des Mahābhārata" (Berlin, 1899) he says directly: "The poet was a diaskeuast, the diaskeuast a poet." It is noteworthy that even such a rather orthodox Indian as C. V. *Vaidya* (The Mahābhārata: A Criticism, Bombay, 1905), who speaks with reverence of Vyāsa, the contemporary of Kṛṣṇa, as the "poet" of the Mahābhārata (whom he places high above Homer, Milton and Shakespeare) and in all earnestness computes that Vyāsa and Kṛṣṇa might have lived at the time of the Mahābhārata war about 3101 B. C., yet frankly admits that the Mahābhārata in its present form is the extension of an originally much smaller work and contains numerous additions and interpolations.

v1.c9.s9.20

² Bhandarkar Com. Vol., pp. 99 ff. (English in Ann. Bh. Inst. I, 1, 13ff.)

v1.c9.s9.21

¹ *Eliot*, Hinduism and Buddhism I, pp. xc f. *Cf.* also *Hopkins* in Cambridge History I, p. 256.

v1.c9.s9.22

² See *Hopkins*, Great Epic, pp. 373, 376 ff.

v1.c9.s9.23

¹ *Oldenberg* (Das Mahābhārata, p. 32) calls it a “scientific monstrosity” to suppose that the Mahābhārata was a unified composition.

v1.c9.s9.24

(With regard to *language, style* and *metre*, too, the various parts of the Mahābhārata show absolutely no uniformity.) It is in only quite a general sense that one can speak of “epic Sanskrit” as the language of the popular epics.² In reality (the language of the epic is in some parts *more archaic*, *i. e.* more closely related to the Ancient Indian of the Vedic prose works, than in other parts.) And beside linguistic phenomena which recall the Pāli, and which can be called *popular*, (there are others which one is compelled to call *solecisms*, such as are often committed by uneducated and inferior authors like the Purāṇa composers.) (The style, too, can only in a general sense be said to be far removed from the so-called “Kāvya style” *i. e.* the style of the later ornate poetry, which is characterised by the *excessive* use of embellishments (Alaṃkāras).) (However, there is no lack of passages in the Mahābhārata which remind us of this Kāvya style.³) Beside these, we also find portions which retain the naïve style of the old Itihāsas, as they are related in the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, while again in numerous other portions the most negligent Purāṇa style prevails. (As regards the metre,⁴ the *Śloka* which originated in the old Anuṣṭubh is certainly the metre *par excellence*. But there are earlier and later forms of this Śloka, which are all represented in the Mahābhārata. Moreover our epic also contains old prose passages, in which the prose is occasionally rhythmical, and sometimes alternates with verses.¹ Also of the Triṣṭubh metre which is often used in the Mahābhārata, though the Śloka is about twenty times as frequent as the Triṣṭubh, we find the ancient form, still similar to the Vedic form, as well as later forms; and even the elaborate metres of classical Sanskrit poetry are already to be found in certain parts of the Mahābhārata.)

v1.c9.s9.25

² The epic language is treated by H. *Jacobi*, Das Rāmâyaṇa, pp. 112 ff. *Cf.* also above, p. 44, and *Hopkins*, The Great Epic, p. 262. A. *Ludwig*, Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, pp. 5 ff.; J. *Wackernagel*, Altindische Grammatik I, pp. xliv ff.; W. *Kirfel*, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Nominalkomposition in den Upaniṣads und im Epos, Bonn 1908; *Keith*, JRAS, 1906, pp. 2f; *Oldenberg*, l. c., pp. 129 ff., 145 ff.

v1.c9.s9.26

³ *Cf.* above, p. 364. But these passages are not numerous, at all events not nearly as numerous as in the Rāmāyaṇa.

v1.c9.s9.27

⁴ See *Hopkins*, Great Epic, pp. 191 ff.; J. *Zubatý*, ZDMG, 43, 1889, pp. 619 ff.; *Ludwig* l. c., p. 37; Jacobi in Gurupūjākaumadī, pp. 50 ff.; *Oldenberg*, l. c., pp. 137 ff.

v1.c9.s9.28

¹ *Cf.* Hopkins, Great Epic, pp. 266 ff. The view taken by *Oldenberg* (Das Mahābhārata, pp. 21 ff. and elsewhere) that these prose-poetry passages are the oldest portions of the Mahābhārata, is quite wrong in my opinion.

v1.c9.s9.29

Lastly, we must not forget that the opening sections of the Mahābhārata themselves give clear indications that the epic had not always its present form and extent. Even the tables of contents which we find in the first two adhyāyas, are not always in agreement with our text.² )

v1.c9.s9.30

² See above, p. 271; V. V. Iyer, Notes of a Study of the Preliminary Chapters of the Mahābhārata, pp. 17 ff. and passim; *Oldenberg*, l. c., pp. 33 ff., 43 ff. Though the division into 18 parvans is traditional, it is not certain that the division was originally the same as we find it in our text at the present day. Albērūnī mentions other titles of the 18 parvans, s. E. *Sachau*, Alberuni's India, I, pp. 132 f. The Southern Indian MSS. and the Javanese translation also have other titles. *Cf.* also *Brockhaus*, ZDMG. 6, 1862, pp. 528 ff.

v1.c9.s9.31

(Thus everything indicates that the Mahābhārata is not the work of one single author or of one time, but consists of earlier and later portions which belong to different centuries. Contents and form alike confirm the fact that some parts of the Mahābhārata reach back to the times of the Veda, while others must be synchronous with the late productions of the Purāṇa literature.)

v1.c9.s9.32

Now it has been assumed, especially by A. Holtzmann, that an ancient heroic poem of the Kauravas existed, which was the “original Mahābhārata,” that this later underwent a “revision with a tendency” in favour of the Pāṇḍavas; and that it was then on *several* consecutive occasions—first by Buddhists, then by Brahmans—"revised with a tendency." The "second Purāṇa-like revision" must have taken place, according to Holtzmann, about 900-1100 A. D., "after which followed, a few centuries later, the definite establishment and completion of the text."

v1.c9.s9.33

It is important to state at once that this last supposition, according to which the Mahābhārata received its present form only in the 15th or 16th century, is absolutely false. For it is *proved* by literary and inscriptional evidence, that already about 500 A. D. the Mahābhārata was no longer an actual epic, but a sacred text-book and religious discourse, and was, on the whole, not essentially different, in extent and contents, from the work as we have it at present. The philosopher *Kumārila* (about 700 A. D.) quotes numerous passages from almost all the books of the Mahābhārata, which to him was a great smṛti expounded by Vyāsa.³ The poets *Subandhu* and *Bāṇa* (about 600-650 A. D.) knew the Mahābhārata chiefly as a poem, indeed Bāṇa considered it as the culmination of all poetry. In his romance "*Kādambarī*," however, the latter also relates that the Queen Vilāsavatī was present at a recitation of the Mahābhārata on the occasion of a festival in a temple at Ujjein. Such public readings of the Mahābhārata still at the present day take place in India in temples on festive occasions—and naturally not only for entertainment, but also for edification and religious instruction.⁵ As early as about 600 A.D. an inscription from Cambodia testifies to similar public readings of the Mahābhārata, and this by utilising *manuscripts*, presented expressly for this purpose in this distant Indian colony in Further India. Finally, we also possess deeds of land grants from the 5th and 6th centuries, in which the sections of Book XIII (see above, p. 425), dealing with the morality of giving (dānadharma) are quoted as sacred texts; and in *one* inscription of this kind the Mahābhārata is already called the "collection of a hundred thousand verses." The number of a hundred thousand verses, however, is not even approached, unless Books XII and XIII and even part of the Harivaṃśa are included.¹ But if the Mahābhārata already in the 5th century received its unquestionably latest sections such as Book XIII and the Harivaṃśa,² if it was at that time already a religious text-book and discourse, and if, a hundred years later, manuscripts of the Mahābhārata had already reached Further India and were read in temples there, then we are justified in concluding that at least one or two centuries earlier, that is, in the 3rd or 4th century A.D., it must already have received that form which it still has to-day. On the other hand,¹ however, it can only have received this form after the origin and spread of Buddhism, to which it contains many references, indeed, only after Alexander's invasion of India, as the Yavanas, *i.e.* the Greeks (Ionians), are frequently mentioned. *According to this (the Mahābhārata cannot have received its present form earlier than the 4th century B.C. and not later than the 4th century A.D.²) The arguments in favour of this conclusion m put as :-*

v1.c9.s9.34

1) *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata, I, 194.

v1.c9.s9.35

2) See R. G. *Bhandarkar*, JBRAS. 10, 1871-2, pp. 81 ff.; K. T. *Telang*, SBE., Vol. 8, pp. 28 ff.; and especially G. *Bühler* and J. *Kirste*, Indian Studies II, SWA. 1892.

v1.c9.s9.36

³ See *Bühler*, l. c., pp. 5 ff.

v1.c9.s9.37

4) *Harṣacarita*, introductory verses 4-10. But from this passage it does not follow, as *Peterson* (Kādambarī, Introd., p. 68) thinks, that in Bāṇa's time the Mahābhārata "was as yet comparatively a fresh wonder in the world," but rather that its fame had already "penetrated the three worlds," as Bāṇa himself says. On the Mahābhārata in the works of Subandhu and Bāṇa s. W. *Cartellieri*, WZKM. 13, 1899, 57 ff.

v1.c9.s9.38

⁵ In another place in the "Kādambarī" (ed. *Peterson*, p. 209) we read that Kādambarī listens to a recitation of the Mahābhārata, Nārada's daughter reciting it "in a gentle singing voice," whilst a pair of Kinnaras seated behind her accompany the recitation on the flute.

v1.c9.s9.39

¹ In the Mahābhārata itself there is already mention made of its "hundred thousand" verses (I, 1, 107; XII, 343, 11; cf. above, p. 325 and *Hopkins*, l. c., p. 9). The 18 books of the Mahābhārata have, in the Calcutta edition, 90,092 verses, of which 13,935 fall to the share of Book XII and 7,759 to Book XIII. With the whole Harivaṃśa the number of verses is 106,466. If the Bhaviṣyaparvan (see above, p. 452) is omitted, there remain 101,154 verses, which number best agrees with the round number of "a hundred thousand." But the different recensions of the Mahābhārata, which often differ from each other in that the one recension omits a number of verses which are included in another, but, on the other hand, in another place inserts just as many verses which are missing in the latter, prove that the *contents* of the Mahābhārata could vary without the *extent* being changed.

v1.c9.s9.40

² We cannot form any definite conclusion as to the date of the Harivaṃśa ("about the third century of the Christian era," R. G. *Bhandarkar*, Vaiṣṇavism, etc., p. 36) on the basis of the occurrence of the word "dīnāra" = denarius. We may assume, however, that this appendix to the Mahābhārata did not come into existence very long before the 4th century A. D.; for though Roman gold coins were known in India as early as in the 1st century A. D. (s. E. J. *Rapson*, Indian Coins, Grundriss II, 3 B., pp. 4, 17 ff., 25, 35; R. *Sewell*, JRAS. 1904, 591 ff.), the Indian word dīnāra is only traceable from 400 A. D. onwards in Gupta inscriptions (*Sewell*, l. c., p. 616). Cf. B. C. *Mazumdar*, JRAS. 1907, pp. 408 f.; A. B. *Keith*, JRAS. 1907, pp. 681 ff.; 1915, pp. 504 f. If the Buddhist poet Aśvaghoṣa should really be the author of the Vajrasūcī which is ascribed to him, the Harivaṃśa would already have been a part of the Mahābhārata in the 2nd century A. D., for two verses from the Harivaṃśa (1292 f.) are quoted in the Vajrasūcī 3 (s. *Weber*, Indische Streifen I, p. 189) with the words "for it is written in the Bhārata."

v1.c9.s9.41

¹ See *Hopkins*, Great Epic, pp. 391 ff. If *Dio Chrysostomos'* statement that even the Indians sang Homer's poems and that they were well acquainted with the sufferings of Priam, etc., alluded to the Mahābhārata (as is the view of A. *Weber*, Ind. Stud. II, 161 ff.; *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata IV, 163; *Pischel*, KG, 195; H. G. *Rawlinson*, Inter-course between India and the Western World, Cambridge, 1916, pp. 140 f., 171), then this statement would constitute our earliest external evidence of the existence of the Mahā-bhārata in the 1st century A.D. It is possible, however (in fact, according to *Jacobi* in Festschrift Wackernagel, pp. 129 f., probable), that Dio's statement, which was repeated by Aelian, refers to an actual Indian translation of Homer. On various Greek words in the Mahābhārata s. *Hopkins*, l. c., p. 372; *Rawlinson*, l. c., p 172 note.

v1.c9.s9.42

² *Hopkins*, Epic Mythology (Grundriss III, 1 B 1915, p. 1) considered 300-100 B. C. to be the probable date of the Mahābhārata, but in Cambridge History I, p. 258, he also gives the limits 4th century B. C. to 4th century A. D. S. *Lévi* (JA. s. 11, t. V, 1915, p. 122) concludes from the agreement between the geography of the Buddhist Mahā-māyūrī with that of the Mahābhārata, that the latter received its final redaction in the first three or four centuries A. D.

v1.c9.s9.43

Therefore, a great re-modelling of the Mahābhārata, or even the addition only of one of the great Books, cannot have taken place after the 4th century A.D. In fact, I cannot consider the hypothesis of one or indeed several remodellings to be either at all necessary or probable.³ As in later periods the copyists deal rather arbitrarily with their text, so, in more ancient times, (the rhapsodists, among whom the heroic songs must have been transmitted orally during centuries, probably took every possible liberty in the presentation of their songs: they lengthened scenes which pleased their audiences, and abridged others which made less impression.) But the greatest alterations, by means of which the ancient heroic poem *gradually* became a compilation, which offered "much" and therefore offered "everyone something," can probably be explained by the fact that (the transmission and preservation of the ancient heroic songs passed from the original singers to other classes, that the songs themselves were transplanted to other regions, and adapted to other times and a changing public.) Already in very early times, as we have seen (the songs must have passed from the bards who were connected with the race of the Kurus to such as had relations with the race of the Pāṇḍavas. They spread from such districts where the Viṣṇu-cult prevailed to those where Śiva was worshipped as the highest god. The phases, too, through which the Kṛṣṇa-cult passed, left their traces in the epic poetry.) As with other peoples, so with the Indians (a time must have come when the creative poetic genius no longer manifested itself in works of heroic poetry, which latter ceased to be living poetry, and when only the *ancient* songs were still sung by the bards.¹ The old heroic time, too, came to an end, the time when the bards went forth into battle with the warriors as charioteers, so that after the victory was achieved, perhaps at a great sacrificial feast, they could sing of the glorious deeds of the heroes. The epigones of these bards were an inferior class of literary men—the same who also devoted themselves to the handing down of the Purāṇas. These people were probably neither proper warriors nor proper Brahmans;) it is not for nothing that the law-books describe the Sūtas as bastards, who were said to be descended from the intermarriage of warriors with Brahman women or of Brahmans with Kṣatriya women. This very thing constitutes the peculiarity of the Mahābhārata in its present form : (it is neither proper warrior-poetry nor proper religious poetry ; it is no longer an epic, but not yet a real Purāṇa.)

v1.c9.s9.44

³ But that does not say that separate parts, as for example, the Virāṭa-parvan, have not been remodelled. Cf. *Hopkins* in the JAOS. 24, 1903, p. 54.

v1.c9.s9.45

¹ *Cf.* H. Jacobi in GGA. 1892, p. 632.

v1.c9.s9.46

The Mahābhārata may not have received a final form of some kind until after centuries of oral tradition it was first *written down*. Probably only Brahmans, Paṇḍits, participated in this editing and writing-down. If, however, we have come to the conclusion that the Mahābhārata, even in the 4th century A.D. or still earlier, was *not essentially different, on the whole*, in extent and contents, from the work as we have it now, then the words "on the whole" and "not essentially" must be very strongly emphasized. For additions and alterations, and, in fact, additions not only of single verses, but also of whole songs (such as hymns to Durgā and so on) have been made even during later centuries,¹ and *a critically established text of the Mahābhārata does not exist at all*.

v1.c9.s9.47

¹ R. G. Bhandarkar (*JBRAS.* 20, 1900, p. 402) points out that interpolations were made in the Anuśāsanaparvan as late as at the Gupta period.

v1.c9.s9.48

When we speak of the "Mahābhārata," we usually mean the text as we have it in the two standard editions which were published in India and were arranged by Indian paṇḍits, *viz.* the "Calcutta Edition" of 1834-1839² and the "Bombay Edition" with Nīlakaṇṭha's commentary.³ These two editions differ but slightly, and may be regarded as good representatives of the text as commented by Nīlakaṇṭha.¹ The Bengali and especially the Southern Indian manuscripts, however, often deviate from the latter text.² A *critical edition of the Mahābhārata* made on the basis of all the various classes of manuscripts from all parts of India is one of the greatest desiderata of Indology, and we hope that this need may be supplied in the near future.³ Not until the publication of a critical edition of this nature will it be possible to sift out many a passage at present included in our texts of the Mahābhārata as being certainly or at least very probably interpolations.⁴ Moreover, apart from the manuscripts, it will be possible to distinguish with some degree of certainty between what is authentic and what is spurious.¹ For this purpose the older translations in the vernaculars, as well as the Javanese and Persian translations of the Mahābhārata will have to be taken into account.²

v1.c9.s9.49

² This edition was begun by the Committee of Public Education and completed under the auspices of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and contains also the text of the Harivaṁśa.

v1.c9.s9.50

³ It has appeared in several editions since 1862. See *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata, III, pp. 2 ff., 9 ff., on this and other Indian editions. The edition by Pratapa Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1882 ff.) is very handy, but is unfortunately spoiled by misprints. This edition is a work of true Indian piety and charity : it was printed by the aid of collections organised by the editor, for the purpose of free distribution, and 10,000 copies were given away gratis.

v1.c9.s9.51

¹ Nīlakaṇṭha, one of the latest commentators, worked on a text which already contained a strong admixture of interpolations (s. *Utgikar*, Virāṭaparvan, pp. xii f.). Arjunamiśra is earlier than Nīlakaṇṭha, and the commentary Viṣamapadavivaraṇa is still earlier. Editions of the Virāṭaparvan and Udyogaparvan with several commentaries have been published in Bombay, at the Gujarati Printing Press, 1915 and 1920.

v1.c9.s9.52

² Bengali MSS., though not only Bengali ones, were used for the "Burdwan Edition." On the Southern Indian MSS., *cf.* M. *Winternitz*, Ind. Ant. 27, 1898, 67 ff., 92 ff., 122 ff. and H. *Lüders*, "Über die Grantharecension des Mahābhārata," AGGW. 1901. Southern Indian MSS. were utilised for the "Kumbhakonam Edition"; this is by no means a critical edition of the Southern recension, but a mixed recension, containing the interpolations of the Northern as well as the Southern MSS. In the Sabhāparvan of the Southern recension there is a long inserted passage about Kṛṣṇa, a kind of Kṛṣṇa-epic, in which *Hopkins* (Festschrift Windisch, pp. 72 ff *cf.* Cambridge History I, p. 255) has traced many literal points of agreement with the Harivaṁśa.

v1.c9.s9.53

³ The preparation of a critical edition of the Mahābhārata was agreed upon in 1905 by the *International Association of Academies* (*cf.* Almanach der Wiener Akademie 54, 1904, 248f., 267ff., 55, 1905, 238ff.), but the preliminary work which had already been begun, was interrupted by the world war. A critical edition of the Mahābhārata is now in course of preparation by the *Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona*; s. A prospectus of a New and Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata undertaken by the Institute under the Auspices of Shrimant Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, B.A., Chief of Aundh, 1919; R. *Zimmermann* and C. V. *Vaidya* in JBRAS. 25, 1920, pp. 358 ff., N. B. *Utgikar* in Ann. Bh. Inst. II, 2, 1921, pp. 155 ff.; and the Virāṭaparvan of the Mahābhārata edited from original MSS. as a tentative work........Poona, 1923; M. *Winternitz*, Ann. Bh. Inst. IV. 2, 1923, pp. 145 ff.; V. 1, 1924, pp. 19 ff.

v1.c9.s9.54

⁴ Even now we can say with certainty, on the basis of the MSS., that, for instance, the story of Gaṇeśa, who writes down the Mahābhārata, in the Ādiparvan 1 (s. M. *Winternitz*, JRAS. 1898, pp. 380 ff. and *cf.* V. V. Iyer, Preliminary Chapters of the Mahābhārata, pp. 32 ff., 97 ff., 340 f.) and the Durgāstotra in the Virāṭaparvan 6 (s. *Utgikar*, The Virāṭaparvan Ed., p. xxii) are interpolations.

v1.c9.s9.55

¹ See above, notes to pp. 282, 305, 306, 310, 314, 319, 342 f.; and A. *Ludwig* on interpolations in the Rājasūya and Jarāsandha Parvans (Mahābh. II, 12 ff.) in OC xii, Paris, I, pp. 187 ff.

v1.c9.s9.56

² For vernacular versions of the Mahābhārata see *Holtzmann*, Das Mahābhārata, III, pp. 100 ff. On the Tamil translation said to belong to the 11th century A. D., s. V. V. Iyer, l. c., p. 97 ff. and passim. The old Javanic translation is dated 996 A. D., s. K. *Wulff*, Den old javanske Wirātaparva, Kopenhagen, 1917; D. van Hinloopen *Labberton*, *JRAS.* 1913, pp. 1 ff.; and H. *Kern*, Verspreide Geschriften, 1920, Vol. ix, pp. 39 ff., 215 ff. On the Mahābhārata on the island of Bali, s. R. *Friederich*, *JRAS.* 1876, pp. 176 f., 179 ff. On the Persian translation s. *Holtzmann*, l. c., III, p. 110, and A. *Ludwig*, Das Mahâbhârata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, pp. 66 ff., 93 ff.

v1.c9.s9.57

As long as there is no such critical edition of the text of the Mahābhārata available, the date of each section, nay sometimes of each single verse of the Mahābhārata must be determined separately, and there is very little meaning in, and no sort of justification for, saying, as it is so frequently said, that a certain name or subject "*already*" occurs in the Mahābhārata. So much the less justification is there for connecting definite dates with the Mahābhārata as a whole, as not only were later insertions made in decidedly "early" parts, but also, just as frequently, very ancient passages are found in the "later" portions. Thus the whole of Book I of the Mahābhārata is certainly not "ancient"; but that does not prevent many of the myths, legends and genealogical verses occurring in it from being very old.³ Even in the Harivaṃśa, which was certainly only added late, we find very old verses and legends. But the expressions "early" and "late" with reference to whole books and large portions of the Mahābhārata, must always be used with caution and reserve.

v1.c9.s9.58

³ The Yayāti legend, for instance, is surely at least as early as Patañjali, who teaches the formation of the word Yāyatika "he who knows the Yayāti legend" in the Mahābhāṣya (4, 2, 60). F. *Lacôte* (Essai sur Guṇāḍhya, p. 138 f.) is most probably right in assuming that in olden times the episodes of the great epics were recited as independent poems, and I should like to add that this was most likely the case long before they were inserted into the epic.

v1.c9.s9.59

This leads us to the most difficult question: What do we mean when we speak of "old" and "oldest" parts of the Mahābhārata? In other words: [To what time do the beginnings of the Mahābhārata reach back?]

v1.c9.s9.60

Let us keep to facts. {In the whole of *Vedic* literature there is no mention of a Mahābhārata, though in Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads there is frequent talk of Ākhyāna, Itihāsa, Purāṇa and Gāthā Nārāśaṁsī (see above, p. 314). Even of the great, and probably historical, event which constitutes the central point of the epic, the bloody battle in the Kuru field, the Veda says not a word, though in the Brāhmaṇas this very Kuru field is so often mentioned as a place where gods and mortals celebrated great sacrificial feasts, that this event, if it had already taken place, would most certainly have been mentioned.¹ It is true that Janamejaya, the son of Parikṣit, and Bharata, the son of Duḥṣanta and of Śakuntalā, already appear in the Brāhmaṇas; and already in a Kuntāpa-song of the Atharvaveda Parikṣit is praised as a peace-loving king under whose rule the land of the Kurus prospered. In the works belonging to the Yajurveda there is frequent mention of Kurus and Pañcālas or Kurupañcālas; and in connection with a sacrificial feast of the Kurupañcālas an anecdote is told in the Kāṭhaka (X, 6) of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, the son of Vicitravīrya. On the other hand, nowhere in the whole Veda is the name of Pāṇḍu or of his sons, the Pāṇḍavas, to be found, nowhere do such names as Duryodhana, Duḥśāsana, Karṇa, etc., appear. The name Arjuna does, it is true, occur in a Brāhmaṇa, but as a secret name of the god Indra. The Sāṅkhāyana-Śrautasūtra (XV, 16) is the first place where we find mention of a war in Kurukṣetra which was disastrous for the Kauravas.¹ In the Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra,² "Bhārata and Mahābhārata" are mentioned in a list of teachers and sacred books which are honoured by libations at the end of the study of the Veda. Pāṇini³ teaches the formation of the names "Yudhiṣṭhira," "Bhīma" and "Vidura," and the accent of the compound word "Mahābhārata." Patañjali, however, is the first to make definite allusions to the story of the battle between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas.

v1.c9.s9.61

¹ See A. *Ludwig*, Über das Verhältnis des mythischen Elementes zu der historischen Grundlage des Mahâbhârata, p. 6.

v1.c9.s9.62

¹ *Cf.* E. *Leumann*, ZDMG. 48, 1894, 80 ff.; *Ludwig*, Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, pp. 77 ff.; *Hopkins* in Cambridge History I, 252 f. B. C. *Mazumdar* (JRAS. 1906, 225 f.) suggests that the author of the Mahābhārata grafted the Kuru-Pāṇḍava story upon an older story of a war between Kurus and Pañcālas.

v1.c9.s9.63

² III, 4, 4. This passage has been much discussed. *Cf.* *Hopkins*, Great Epic, pp. 389 f.; *Dahlmann*, Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, pp. 152 ff.; *Winternitz*, WZKM. 14, 1900, pp. 55 f.; *Utgikar* in Proc. I OC, Vol. II, pp. 46 ff.; *Oldenberg*, Das Mahābhārata, pp. 18, 33. Utgikar is right in explaining the mention of the Mahābhārata in the Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (and not in other Gṛhyasūtras) by the fact that Āśvalāyana counts as the pupil of Śaunaka, and, according to the frame-story of the Mahābh., Ugraśravas relates the Mahābhārata to Śaunaka. The date of the Āśv.-Gṛhyas is, however, entirely unknown, and lists of this nature could easily have been enlarged at any time in Āśvalāyana's school. For this reason we are not justified in drawing a chronological conclusion from this passage.

v1.c9.s9.64

³ VIII, 3, 95, III, 2, 162; 4, 74; VI, 2, 38 But these scanty references do not admit of our drawing any conclusion as to the contents and extents of the epic known to Pāṇini.

v1.c9.s9.65

What of *Buddhist* literature? In the Tripiṭaka, the Pāli-canon of the Buddhists, the Mahābhārata is not mentioned. On the other hand, we find, in the oldest texts of the Tripiṭaka, poems after the style of the Ākhyānas with which we became acquainted in the Brāhmaṇas as a preliminary step to the epic.⁴ The Jātakas, whose metrical portions (the Gāthās) belong to the Tripiṭaka, betray an acquaintance with the Kṛṣṇa-legend, but not with the Harivaṃśa and the Mausalaparvan of the Mahābhārata.¹ The names occurring in the Jātaka-book, Pāṇḍava, Dhanañjaya (in the Mahābhārata an ordinary epithet of Arjuna), Yudhiṭṭhila (Pali form of Yudhiṣṭhira), Dhataraṭṭha (Pāli form of Dhṛtarāṣṭra), Vidhura or Vidhūra (the Vidura of the Mahābhārata), and even the narrative, appearing in this work, of the self-choice of a husband and the five-husband marriage of Draupadī, bear testimony only to slight acquaintance with the Mahābhārata. For Pāṇḍava occurs in the Jātaka as the name of a horse,² Dhṛtarāṣṭra as the name of various kings,³ Dhanañjaya and Yudhiṣṭhira are only mentioned as Kuru kings who dwelt in Indraprastha, and Vidura is a wise man, who appears now as domestic priest, and now as a minister of the court of Dhanañjaya or of Yudhiṣṭhira.⁴ Draupadī, however, one of the most magnificent female characters of the epic, appears in the Jātaka as an example of feminine depravity, as she is not content with her five husbands, but also commits adultery with a hunchbacked servant.⁵

v1.c9.s9.66

⁴ See above, p. 311. E. *Windisch*, Māra und Buddha (ASGW., Vol. XV, Leipzig, 1895), pp. 222 ff., and T. W. *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist India, London, 1903, pp. 180 ff. Recitations of Ākhyānas are mentioned in the Brahmajlālasutta, as well as conversations and exhibitions which the monk is to avoid (Dialogues of the Buddha, translated from the Pāli by T. W. *Rhys Davids*, London, 1899, p. 8). If, as the commentator says, recitations of the Mahābhārata and of the Rāmāyaṇa were to be understood by this, the author would surely have mentioned them by name.

v1.c9.s9.67

¹ The legend of Kṛṣṇa (Kaṇha) is told in the Ghaṭajātaka (No. 454), allusions to it are found also in Jātakas No. 512 and No. 530 (gāthā 20). See *Lüders* in ZDMG., 58, 1904, pp. 687 ff., also *E. Hardy* in ZDMG., 53, 1899, pp. 25 ff. The Jainas have already in the third or second century B. C. made the Kṛṣṇa cult part of their religion, s. *Jacobi* in OC VII, Vienna 1886, pp. 75 ff. and ZDMG, 42, 1888, pp. 493 ff.

v1.c9.s9.68

² Jātaka No. 185.

v1.c9.s9.69

³ Dhataraṭṭha is a king of the gods in Jāt. No. 382, a king of the Nāgas in Jāt. No. 543, a king of the flamingoes in Jāt. Nos. 502, 533, 534. In Jāt. No. 544 he heads a list of righteous kings. In the Mahāvastu Dhṛtarāṣṭra is the name of a Buddha, and once the name of a palace, s. *E. Windisch*, Buddhas Geburt (ASGW., 1908), pp. 101, 168.

v1.c9.s9.70

⁴ In Jātaka No. 413 Dhanañjaya is a Kuru king residing in the city of Indapatta (Indraprastha) of the family of Yudhiṭṭhila (Yudhiṭṭhilagotta), and Vidhūra is his purohita. In Jāt. No. 515 Dhanañjaya Korabya is a pious Kuru king, called Yudhiṭṭhila in the Gāthās, while the sage Vidhura is living at Benares. In the Vidhurapaṇḍita-Jātaka (No. 545, already mentioned in the second century B. C. with the title "Vitura-Punakiya jātakam" in a Bharhut inscription, s. *E. Hultzsch*, Ind. Ant, 1892, p. 234) Vidhura s a minister of the Kuru king Dhanañjaya who (like Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata) is fond of playing at dice. But there is no allusion at all to the story of the Mahābhārata. In Jāt. No. 329 Dhanañjaya is a king of Benares. Vidhura also occurs as the name of a wise monk in the Therīgāthā 1188 and in the Majjhimanikāya 50.

v1.c9.s9.71

⁵ Jātaka No. 536 (gāthā 288). *Cf. Winternitz*, JRAS., 1897, pp. 752 ff.

v1.c9.s9.72

From these facts we must conclude that, before the conclusion of the Veda, there could *not* have existed an epic Mahābhārata, *i. e.* an epic poem which dealt with the war with the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas and the battle on the Kuru field, and bore the title "Bhārata" or "Mahābhārata"; but that, on the other hand, such a poem must have existed already in the 4th century B. C., as the Sūtra works of Śāṅkhāyana, Āśvalāyana and Pāṇini can scarcely be later. Now as the Pāli-canon of the Buddhists, which originated in the 4th and 3rd centuries B. C., betrays only quite a superficial knowledge of the Mahābhārata, it was probably at that time still little known in the *east* of India, where Buddhist literature originated.

v1.c9.s9.73

We have seen, however, that some elements of our present Mahābhārata reach back into the Vedic period, and that much, especially in the didactic sections, is drawn from a *literary common property*, from which also Buddhists and Jainas (probably already in the 5th century B. C.) have drawn.¹

v1.c9.s9.74

¹ Verses Mahābh. XI, 7, 23 ff., which H. Raychaudhuri (JASB., N. S., 18, 1922, pp. 269 ff.) believes to be quoted in the Besnagar inscription, also belong to this literary common property. See above, pp. 314, 409 f., 415, 417. On the Ṛṣyaśṛṅga-legend in the Jātaka *cf.* above, pp. 399 ff. and H. Lüders in the treatise there cited. Another legend which the Mahābhārata (I, 107 f.) has in common with the Jātaka (No. 444) is that of Māṇḍavya, who, as a punishment for having in his childhood impaled a fly on a thorn, was taken for a robber and impaled. (*Cf.* L. Scherman, Materialien zur Geschichte der indischen Visionslitteratur, Leipzig, 1892, pp. 53 f., and N. B Utgikar in Proc. II OC 1922, pp. 221 ff. In the Jātaka this Māṇḍavya is a friend of Kaṇhadīpāyana, *i.e.* of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa).

v1.c9.s9.75

Finally, it must still be mentioned, that not only the events described in the epic, but also the innumerable names of kings and royal races, however historical some of the events and many names may appear, do not belong to Indian *history* in the true sense of the word. It is true that the Indians set the reign of Yudhiṣṭhira and the great war of the Mahābhārata at the beginning of the Kaliyuga, or Iron Age, *i. e.* 3102 B. C.; but this date for the beginning of the Kaliyuga is based upon the artificial calculation of Indian astronomers, and the association of this date with the conflict of the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas is, of course, quite arbitrary.¹ The political history of India commences with the Śiśunāga kings Bimbisāra and Ajātasattu of Magadha, who are known to us as contemporaries of the Buddha, and we may also ascribe historical character to the kings of the Śiśunāga and Nanda dynasties mentioned in the Purāṇas.² With the great King Candragupta (321 B. C.), the founder of the Maurya dynasty, we step on to firm historical ground in India. Of all these historical personalities there is no trace to be found in the Mahābhārata.³ This "prehistoric" character of the narrative and of the heroes certainly indicates the great antiquity of the epic.

Cites (27)

Mahābhārata — Sanskrit
Śāṅkhāyanaśrautasūtra — Śāṅkhāyana, Sanskrit
Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Padmapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Jātaka — Pāli
Bhāgavatapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Brahmapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Garuḍapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vāyupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mahāvastu — Sanskrit
Therīgāthā — Pāli
Nārāyaṇīya — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Āśvalāyanagṛhyasūtra — Āśvalāyana, Sanskrit
Brahmajālasutta — Pāli
Kādambarī — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
Kāṭhakabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Harivaṃśa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli
Mahāmāyūrī — Sanskrit
Purāṇa — Sanskrit
Viṣṇupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
*Āśvalāyanasūtra — Sanskrit
Vajrasūci (Siddhācārya Ghoshapāda) — Siddhācārya Ghoshapāda, Sanskrit