Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c3: Section I. Introduction

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c3

Language
English

Contents

Section I. Introduction

c3.1

WOULD REQ at there chronological framework, however essential it may be for hapter on political history, cannot be expected from such a class of as the *Jātakas*. However we do get here and there in the a number of clues, hints, indications or some data which may really luable in the resuscitation of loose facts of political history supplied tion. Thus this section will be based on such indicative data, aided nal corroboration wherever possible.

c3.2

h the help derived from the *Vedic*, the Epic and the *Paurāṇic* tradire have tried to work out a plan by which to arrange the loose but varied f traditional historical facts embodied in the *Jātakas*, in some sort of logical strata. "As Bacon said, Science is possible only on generalin a quest after the unknown, it is better to have an imperfect plan than at all. In Science, a hypothesis has always, even when false, the ade of suggesting researches and experiments, even though subsequently ed by these very researches and experiments. According to the inrealization of the legend of Ugolin, every good theory is a coagulum of thought and certain number of known facts."¹

c3.3

¹ A. Banerji Sastri, *J. B. O. R. S.*, XIV, pp. 390-91. We should not, however, be unmindful of the fact, that the dates of these literary arranged by those eminent scholars, as the celebrated American savant W. D. Whitney ears ago, "are only pins set up to be bowled down again." Winternitz, *History of Literature*, I, p. 25.

c3.4

arriving at the plan of this work as suggested above, we have necesplaced reliance upon other literary sources which preserve the names gs and their traditional accounts, and which supply us with somewhat atic and connected chronological strata based on generally accepted

c3.5

n analysis of the contents of the *Jātakas* as regards political data, this ould divide itself as follows :—

c3.6

| Probable date. | Period in History. |
| C. 2000-1400 .. .. .. .. | *Ancient Period*: (a) famous kings, some of whom are mentioned in the *Vedic* Literature, mentioned only in the *Gāthās*; (b) Ancient kings, who are treated in detail. |
| " 1400-1000 .. .. .. .. | *The Kuru Pañcāla Kings*. |
| B. C. 1200-1000 .. .. .. .. | *Videha and the lesser Kingdoms*. |
| " 1200- 800 .. .. .. .. | *The Mahājanapada Period*: |
| " 800- 600 .. .. .. .. | |

c3.7

(a)
(b) M
(c) Fa
(d) Assak

c3.8

In accordance with the above sketch, the present section contains four Chapters dealing with the kings and traditions assigned to the respective periods. We do not, however, commit ourselves to an admission of the historicity or the authenticity of the individual kings or their achievements herein given. We have stated the facts, compared them with others, and suggested the hints or clues which may prove true in future. This is the only thing possible, we believe, in the present state of our knowledge of ancient India, specially of the period just preceding the Buddha.

Chapter I. The Ancient Period

1. Famous Traditional Kings (2000-1400-B.C.)

c3.s1.t1.1

IT WOULD REQUIRE a great amount of courage, now, to deny the fact that there was a Kṣatriya tradition side by side, and distinct from the Brāhmaṇic one, after the problem has so fervently and ably been thrashed out by Pargiter.¹ And it would be possible, though not quite correct to say that the Jātakas preserve a third type of tradition, distinct from the other two, viz., the popular tradition—a tradition which was a common heritage of the simple folk, and which was utilised by different sectarian hands for their own purposes. It may not be regarded as quite pure and unbiassed, as it is handled by later Buddhist propagandists. But its essence, as here and there perceived, will be found to be clearly a popular one and hence interesting and valuable.

c3.s1.t1.2

¹ See his papers in J. R. A. S., p. 1908, 1910, 1913 and 1914. The question is thoroughly dealt with in his work Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, pp. 58-77; Keith's protestations against the theory in J. R. A. S., 1914, pp. 118 ff.; 1915, p. 799.

c3.s1.t1.3

The Purāṇas, over and above giving the regular genealogical lists, name some of the most famous ancient kings under various titles. Thus, some were Cakravartins and others Samrāṭs; others, again, were those who became famous by giving gifts to Brāhmaṇas, and so on. The names of these traditionnal kings have been compiled by Pargiter² as follows:— Māndhātṛ, Hariścandra, Sagara, Bhagīratha, Daśaratha and Rāma of Ayodhyā; Śaśabindu and Arjuna Kārtavīrya among the Yādavas; Duṣyanta, Bharata, Ajamīḍha, Kuru and Śantanu among the Pauravas; Jahnu and Gādhi of Kānyakubja; Divodāsa and Pratardana of Kāśī; Vasu Caidya of Cedi and Magadha; Marutta Āvikṣita and Tṛṇabindu of the Vaiśāla Kingdom; and Uśīnara and Śivi of the Panjab Ānvas.³

c3.s1.t1.4

² A. I. H. T., pp. 6-7; 39-42.

c3.s1.t1.5

³ Cf. specially, the Ṣoḍaśa-rājika list given twice in the Mahābhārata, VII, 55 ff; XII 29 ff; also I, 1,222-7; A. I. H. T., p. 39, where a notable inclusion is that of Rāma Jāmadagnya who is usually known as a great sage and not as a king.

c3.s1.t1.6

Further, we know, the Purāṇas have preserved traditional accounts of these and other kings and they, also, reproduce ‘eulogistic ballads’ as those in raise of Māndhātṛ, Arjuna Kārtavīrya and others, which were current in those days.⁴

c3.s1.t1.7

⁴ A. I. H. T., pp. 15-16; 25.

c3.s1.t1.8

Now let us see how many of these names are to be found in the Jātakas, and what kinship does the Jātaka tradition about them bear with the Vedic and the Paurāṇic traditions. The discussion about the relation between the two does not fall within the purview of this section, since it has been tackled by a host of eminent scholars, though without definite results, and the question of priority, origin, or sources of different versions remains as vexed and undecided as ever.

c3.s1.t1.9

The Nimi Jātaka,¹ has the following gāthās :—

c3.s1.t1.10

¹ J. VI, p. 99-Gg. 420-421.

c3.s1.t1.11

*Dudīpo Sāgaro Selo Mucalindo Bhagīraso*
*Usīnaro Aṭṭhako ca Assako ca Puthujjano*
*Ete c’aññe ca rājāno khattiyā Brāhmaṇā bahū*
*Puthuyaññaṃ yajitvāna Petaṃ te nātivattisun ;”*

c3.s1.t1.12

and the Mahānāradakassapa Jātaka² gives the following :—

c3.s1.t1.13

² J. VI, p. 251-G. 1122. It seems to us that the third line of the verse should be shifted up to the second to fill up the gap which seems to have been wrongly put in the printed text of Fousböll.

c3.s1.t1.14

*“Yathā ahu Dhataraṭṭho Vessāmitto ca Aṭṭhako*
*Yāmata (-da) ggi……*
*Usīnaro cāpi Sivi ca rājā*
*Parivārakā samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ*
*Ete c’aññe ca rājāno ye Sakkavisayaṃ gatā.”*

c3.s1.t1.15

Resembling in some respects,³ but differing in others⁴ from, the Paurāṇic ślokas, these gāthās stand as distinct forms of composition embodying a distinct tradition. The kings mentioned in the above gāthās are distinctly spoken of as belonging to bygone days (porāṇakarājāno), and cited as illustrations from past history (udāharaṇavasena). Though the names are jumbled up together without any regard paid to a dynastic, genealogical or even a chronological order,⁵ most of these are included in Pargiter’s list given above and can be arranged in some order in the light of Paurāṇic chronology as established by the same scholar.

c3.s1.t1.16

³ For instance, in the general naming of the kings and the neumonic phrase ‘Ete c’aññe’—these and others. Cf. MBH., I, 1,222.

c3.s1.t1.17

⁴ For instance, in the use of ‘Samaṇabrāhmaṇa’ and ‘the Peta and Sakka worlds,’ which have a Buddhistic tinge.

c3.s1.t1.18

⁵ So also in the Purāṇas : See A. I. H. T., p. 42.

c3.s1.t1.19

DUDĪPA or Dujīpa can be no other than the Paurāṇic Dilipa. But the Purāṇas know of at least three Dilīpas, viz.,

c3.s1.t1.20

(a) the father of Bhagīratha, (b) the father of Raghu and (c) the father of Pratīpa of the Paurava line.⁶ The most famous amongst these is, however, decidedly the ‘Second Dilīpa’ who is styled *Khaṭvāṅga* and who played a very important part in bringing Ayodhyā into prominence,⁷ and whose eulogy has been sung by the great poet Kālidāsa in his *Raghuvamśa*.⁸ We should therefore hesitate in identifying our Dujīpa with Dilipa II, the Ailavila Khaṭvāṅga of the Purāṇas. It is interesting to hear him praised in another place also, in a gāthā which runs as follows :

c3.s1.t1.21

⁶ See Pargiter’s Table of Royal genealogies in A. I. H. T., pp. 144-149.

c3.s1.t1.22

⁷ Ibid., pp. 39, 275.

c3.s1.t1.23

⁸ Raghuvamśa, I-II.

c3.s1.t1.24

*“Mahānubhāvo vassasahassajīvī*
*Yo pabbaji dassaneyyo ulāro*

c3.s1.t1.25

*hitvā apariyantaratham Sasenam*¹
*rājā Dujīpo pi jagāma Saggam.*²

c3.s1.t1.26

¹ Cf. for this phrase, the following *śloka* from the *Raghuvamśa* I, 19:

c3.s1.t1.27

² J., VI, p. 203-G. 875.

c3.s1.t1.28

SĀGARA is the famous Paurāṇic king Sagara, included in Pargiter's list given above. His eulogy as sung by a *gāthā* of the *Bhūridatta Jātaka*³ runs as follows:—

c3.s1.t1.29

³ J., VI, p. 203-G. 876; Cf. *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, XVIII, 34. The *Jātaka gāthā* also, in the Paurāṇic fashion, connects his name, Sagara with the ocean-sāgara. Cf. *Harivaṃśa*, XIV, 29; *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* (Wilson's translation), p. 379. But contrast *Ibid.*, p. 374.

c3.s1.t1.30

*“Yo Sāgarantam Sāgaro vijitvā*
*yūpaṃ subhaṃ soṇṇamayaṃ ulāraṃ,*
*ussesi Vessānaramādadāno,*
*Subhoga devaññataro ahosi.”*

c3.s1.t1.31

In a single *gāthā*, the unknown popular bard has so summarized the whole career of that mighty king as we read in the *Purāṇas*—his terrible inroads against the Haihayas and other foreign tribes, his zeal for Brāhmaṇic ceremonies and his horse sacrifice.⁴ He was an ancestor of Dilīpa II—Dudīpa—as the *Purāṇas* assert, and should therefore be placeed accordingly in our list.

c3.s1.t1.32

⁴ Pargiter, *J. R. A. S.* 1910, pp. 9. 10; 1914, pp. 280-1; 1919, pp. 353 ff; also A. I. H. T. pp. 270-2. Sagara is an ideal standard of comparison in the epigraphical records wherein the stock-phrase ‘*Bahubhirvasudhā bhuktā rājabhirsagarādibhiḥ*’ quite frequently occurs. See for instance Fleet, *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 96.

c3.s1.t1.33

SELA. No name corresponding exactly to this is to be found in the *Purāṇas*, as far as we can gather. But the *Mahābhārata* in one place,⁵ mentions indeed an ancient king by name Śailālaya, who is said to have attained, by his penance, to the region of Indra. He should, for aught we know, be identified with our Sela which is a *Pāli* rendering of the *Sanskṛta* Śaila. In the above-mentioned passage of the *Mahābhārata*, Śailālaya is stated to be the grandfather of one Bhagadatta who is elsewhere known to have been the king of Prāgjyotiṣa (N. E. Bengal) and to have taken part in the Great Bhārata battle.⁶ If this relation is to be credited at all, we shall have to bring down Sela much lower and nearer to the Bhārata battle. But this does not appear to be probable, looking to the pious remembrance of an ancient king.

c3.s1.t1.34

⁵ XV. 20, 10; Sörensen's *Index to the Mahābhārata*, p. 182.

c3.s1.t1.35

⁶ A. I. H. T., p. 291.

c3.s1.t1.36

A surer identification perhaps comes from another but less known direction. The Jaina *Nāyādhammakahā*,⁷ curiously enough, mentions a Selaa

c3.s1.t1.37

⁷ Chapter V; See *I. A.*, XIX, p. 68.

c3.s1.t1.38

*“Senā pariccahadastasya dvayamevārthasādhanam.*
*Śastreṣvakuṇṭhitā buddhirmaurvī dhanuṣi cātatā.”*

c3.s1.t1.39

(or Śailaka) who was a *rājarṣi*-sage-king.¹ We cannot, however, locate him definitely in our list.

c3.s1.t1.40

¹ Had ‘Sela’ anything to do with the Śailana school of teachers mentioned in the Vedic literature? See, *Ved. Ind.*, II, p. 288; II, p. 394. The fact of the difference as to one being a king and the other a Brāhmaṇa teacher should not alone frighten us much, as we have glaring examples of kings like Viśvāmitra and others having turned Brāhmaṇas. Even the phrase “Khattiyā Brāhmaṇā bahū” in our *gāthā*, itself seems to suggest that some of them were Brāhmaṇas. Cf., also Jaina epithet ‘*rājarṣi*’. Sela occurs as the name of a great Brāhmaṇa in the *Sela-Suttanta* of the *Majjhima Nikāya*, II, 5, 2.

c3.s1.t1.41

MUCALINDA or MUJALINDA. In another place in a *gāthā*² he is praised as a great sacrificer and as one who reached the divine Heaven:

c3.s1.t1.42

² J., VI, p. 202-G. 874.

c3.s1.t1.43

*Mahāsanaṃ devaṃ anomavaṇṇaṃ*
*Yo sappinā asakkhi jetuṃ Aggim*
*So yaññataṃ taṃ varato yajitvā*
*dibbaṃ gatiṃ Mujalind’ ajjhagañchi.*

c3.s1.t1.44

The name itself is indeed curious and at first sight seems to be irreconcilable. Mucukunda, the third son of the great Māndhātṛ Yauvanāśva, is a famous king in the *Purāṇas*, about whom fables had sprung up in course of time.³ It appears that we should equate Mucalinda with this Mucukunda. In doing this we are not quite without a base. There is nothing strange in the corruption or correction of the word Mucukunda into Mucalinda or vice versa. As a matter of fact, we find that if Mucukunda is the name of a lake,⁴ Mucalinda is so in our *Jātakas*.⁵ This similarity forces us, at least to suggest the proposed identification.

c3.s1.t1.45

³ A. I. H. T., pp. 41, 176, 262.

c3.s1.t1.46

⁴ De, *Geographical Dictionary*, p. 132. Mucalinda is, according to the same authority, a name of a tank. *Ibid.* It occurs also as the name of a tree.

c3.s1.t1.47

⁵ J., VI, pp. 519, 534-G. 585. Perhaps ‘linda’ and ‘Kunda’ mean a similar thing. I cannot decide it from Apte’s Dictionary. If they prove really to be so, we shall have a stronger proof for our identification. Mucalinda, in Pāli Literature, occurs also as a name of a mountain, a Nāga and a tree. See Kern, *Manual of Buddhism*, p. 21, note 6.

c3.s1.t1.48

BHAGĪRASA is obviously the great king Bhagīratha of the *Paurāṇic* fame, included in Pargiter’s list given above. He is also mentioned in the Vedic literature.⁶ Our *Jātakas* have nothing more to say about him. According to the *Paurāṇic* genealogy, he comes four steps below Sagara.⁷

c3.s1.t1.49

⁶ *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, IV, 6, 1, 2; Bhajeratha of the *Ṛgveda*, X. 60, 2; *Vedic Index*, II, pp. 93. 94.

c3.s1.t1.50

⁷ A. I. H. T., p. 147 Bhagīratha is an ideal king in the epigraphical records. See, for instance, *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 74.

c3.s1.t1.51

UŚĪNARA is mentioned in both the *gāthās* quoted above. He must be identified with his namesake mentioned in the *Purāṇas* and included in Pargiter’s list given above. A legendary story about him is given in the *Mahākaṇha Jātaka*.⁸ Sakka assumes the form of a hunter and, with Mātali made into a terrible hound, comes to Uśīnara’s kingdom to punish the irreligious and restore religion. At the end he reveals his character, declares the Law and strengthens the waning power of religion.⁹ The Epic legend about him is different. There he is depicted as rescuing and feeding the vulture¹ and giving away his flesh for the pegion.²

c3.s1.t1.52

⁸ J., IV, pp. 181-6.

c3.s1.t1.53

⁹ Are we to read here a faint recollection of some religious upheaval?

c3.s1.t1.54

¹ Cf. Sen, op. cit., p. 20—“The story of Uśīnara’s feeding of a vulture and that of Śivi’s presenting his two eyes to a Brahmin seem to have been amalgamated together to form the basis of the well-known Paurāṇic legend about Śivi Auśīnara.”

c3.s1.t1.55

² M.B.H. III, 130-131; Law, Ancient Mid-Indian Kṣatriya Tribes, I, pp. 157-8.

c3.s1.t1.56

AṬṬHAKA. A natural Sanskritized equivalent for this would be Aṣṭaka. And one Aṣṭaka is known to have been a famous king, both in the Vedic Literature³ and the Purāṇas,⁴ and is stated to be one of the sons of Viśvāmitra. His connection with Viśvāmitra is attested also by the Jātakas, in that he is associated with him in both the traditional gāthās reproduced above. According to the Purāṇas, he succeeded Viśvāmitra in the throne of Kānyakubja.⁵

c3.s1.t1.57

³ Ait. Brāhm., VII, 17; Śaṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, XV, 26; Ved. Ind. I, p. 45.

c3.s1.t1.58

⁴ Pargiter, A. I. H. T., pp. 142-3; 266-7.

c3.s1.t1.59

⁵ Ibid., his contemporariety with Śivi, Pratardana of Kāśī and Vasumanas of Ayodhyā is maintained by Pradhan, Chronology of Ancient India, pp. 23-5, but disputed by Pargiter, A. I. H. T., pp. 142-3.

c3.s1.t1.60

Aṭṭhaka is also mentioned in the prose and in the several gāthās of the Sarabhaṅga Jātaka⁶ as being contemporary with Bhīmaratha and Kāliṅga, all the three being stated, in the prose portion of the story, to be subordinates to King Daṇḍaki.⁷ Were these two then really one and the same? We do not think they were. As a matter of fact it seems to us, looking to the circumstances, that Aṭṭhaka of the Sarabhaṅga Jātaka must be a mistake for Assaka.

c3.s1.t1.61

⁶ J., V. pp. 135, 137-G. 50, 144-G. 85.

c3.s1.t1.62

⁷ Ibid.

c3.s1.t1.63

ASSAKA seems at first sight to be a generic name. Indeed the Jātakas themselves speak of several Assakas⁸ who must however be placed much later in time. But if the present gāthā really means him to be an ancient king like the others there mentioned, he should rather be identified with Aśmaka of the Purāṇas, the son of Kalmāṣapāda Saudāsa, who is said to have been a ‘rājarṣi’.⁹

c3.s1.t1.64

⁸ J., II, pp. 155, 157—GG. 112, 113; 158; III, pp. 3, 8.

c3.s1.t1.65

⁹ MBH. I, 179, 47 (Aśmako nāmarājarṣiḥ). See Pargiter, op. cit., pp. 91-2, 131-2, 148-150. etc., He may be however only an eponymous hero.

c3.s1.t1.66

PUTHUJJANO is very probably the same as the Paurāṇic Prithu Vainya¹⁰ and Prithi of the Ṛgveda and later Vedic Literature.¹¹ The Jātakas have nothing more to say about him. Both Pargiter¹² and the authors of the Vedic Index¹³ regard him as a mythical personage,¹⁴ but without any tangible grounds. He cannot, however, be arranged in any definite place in our list.

c3.s1.t1.67

¹⁰ Included in the Ṣoḍaśarājika group: A. I. H. T., pp. 39-41.

c3.s1.t1.68

¹¹ Vedic Index, II, pp. 16-17.

c3.s1.t1.69

¹² A. I. H. T., p. 40 and note where Paurāṇic references are given.

c3.s1.t1.70

¹³ II. pp. 16-17.

c3.s1.t1.71

¹⁴ See Buddhaghoṣa’s fanciful explanation of the word ‘Puthujjano’ in the Sumaṅgalavilāsini. (P. T. S.), p. 69; but Cf. Harṣacarita, ch. III; Manu, VII, 42; XI, 66-7. King Vena is mentioned as a great conqueror in the Khāravela Inscription, J. B. O. R. S., XIII, pp. 224-5. Cf. also Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, pp. 20-21.

c3.s1.t1.72

DHATARAṬṬHA is also a puzzling personage. Of course the name represents Dhṛtarāṣṭra. But identity of names does not necessarily imply identity of persons. We know that Dhṛtarāṣṭra, the son of Vicitravīrya and father of the Kauravas, is a well-known figure in the Great Epic, as also in the Purāṇas.¹ Again Vedic Literature knows of two Dhṛtarāṣṭras, sons of Vicitravīrya, both of whom however are taken to be identical with each other but different from the Epic and Paurāṇic one, by the authors of the Vedic Index.² Hopkins, on the other hand, seems to go to the length of saying that the Epic and Paurāṇic Dhṛtarāṣṭra is not a reality of the period, but only an irresponsible borrowing of the older Brāhmaṇic king.³ If the last view be taken as correct our Dhataraṭṭha must be identified with that of the Brāhmaṇas. The question however is difficult to be decided finally.

c3.s1.t1.73

¹ A. I. H. T., pp. 148, 282.

c3.s1.t1.74

² Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, X. 6; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, XIII, 5, 4, 22, where he is a king of Kāśi. Ved. Ind., I. p. 403.

c3.s1.t1.75

³ J. A. O. S., 13, pp. 65-6. Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 15, note. It may be mentioned in passing that Dhataraṭṭha, in the Jātakas, is also the name of a Nāga king. See J., III, p. 257; VI, p. 162. 163-G. 763; 186, 195--G 853; 196; 200-G. 867; 219-G. 945; Cf., Hopkins, Epic Mythology, pp. 24, 146.

c3.s1.t1.76

VESSĀMITTA is of course none other than the famous Viśvāmitra. He is a great celebrity both in the Vedic and the Paurāṇic literature. The Jātaka tradition, as read from the gāthā, may be taken to lend support to the Epic one in representing him as first a king, and then a Brāhmaṇa.⁴ It is true that, "there is no trace of his kingship in the Ṛgveda,⁵ but that he is there, only a ṛṣi to whom the third maṇḍala is attributed by tradition⁶ and is, in later Vedic literature, a mythical sage usually mentioned in connection with Jamadagni.⁷ But this in no way enables us to dismiss it as a 'mere legend' as the Vedic Index,⁸ tries to do. The unanimous Indian tradition knows him as first a king of Kānyakubja under the name of Viśvāmitra and then a great sage.⁹ The Paurāṇic genealogy places him a few degrees below Śivi Auśīnara.¹⁰

c3.s1.t1.77

⁴ Note the phrase 'ete c'aññe ca rājāno Khattiyā Brāhmaṇā bahū.'

c3.s1.t1.78

⁵ Vedic Index, I. p. 311.

c3.s1.t1.79

⁶ Ibid., p. 310.

c3.s1.t1.80

⁷ Vedic Index, p. 311. Cf. our gāthā, where also Yāmataggi occurs.

c3.s1.t1.81

⁸ II, p. 312 and note.

c3.s1.t1.82

⁹ Pargiter, A. I. H. T., pp. 18, 151, 205; Cf. Nirukta, II, 24; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, XXI, 12, 2; also Ait. Brāh., VII, 18, 9; Manu, VII, 42—"Brahmanyaṃ caiva Gādhiḥ."

c3.s1.t1.83

¹⁰ Pargiter, op. cit., pp. 144-5.

c3.s1.t1.84

YĀMATAGGI or YĀMADAGGI is evidently an equivalent of Jāmadagni who is so wellknown to the Epic and Paurāṇic tradition. According to this, he was the son of the Bhārgava Jamadagni by Reṇukā, the princess of Ayodhyā.¹¹ His grandmother Satyavatī, also, was a Kṣatriyāṇī, being the daughter of Gādhi, King of Kānyakubja, and sister of the great Viśvāmitra.¹² Thus he was more of a Kṣatriya than of a Brāhmaṇa.¹³ He should be placed just one or two degrees below Vessāmitta.

c3.s1.t1.85

¹¹ Ibid., p. 151.

c3.s1.t1.86

¹² Ibid.

c3.s1.t1.87

¹³ He is even included in the ṣoḍaśarājika list in one place; See Pargiter, op. cit., p. 39 and his remarks on the point, p. 40. For his glorious career see, Ibid., pp. 199, 205, etc. The Jāmadagnis are mentioned in the later Vedic literature: Ved. Ind., I, pp. 276, 284.

c3.s1.t1.88

SIVI must be identical with the famous *Paurāṇic* king mentioned in Pargiter's list given above and also included in the *ṣoḍaśa-rājika* group.¹ He is also mentioned in the *Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra*,² as a 'son of Uśīnara and protégé of Indra who sacrificed for him on the *Vārṣiṣṭhīya* plain and saved him from fear of foreign invasion.'³ From him the Sivi people are said to have originated.³

c3.s1.t1.89

¹ *A. I. H. T.*, p. 39.

c3.s1.t1.90

² XXI, 18; *Vedic Index*, II, p. 380; The *Anukramaṇi* of the *Ṛg-Veda* ascribes one hymn (X. 179) to him: *Ibid*, I, p. 103.

c3.s1.t1.91

³ Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, p. 264. They are the Sivas of the *Ṛgveda* VII, 18, 7, whom the *Vedic Index*, II, pp. 381-2, identifies with the Siboi of the Greeks, who dwelt between the Indus and the Akesines (Asikni) in Alexander's time.

c3.s1.t1.92

His piety and self-sacrifice are related in several *gāthās* of the *Sivi Jātaka*⁴ which relates the story of his giving away of his eyes to a Brāhmaṇa who begged for them.⁵ He was the son of Uśīnara.⁶

c3.s1.t1.93

⁴ J., IV, pp. 401 ff. *Cf.* his extollation in *MBH.*, III, 197.

c3.s1.t1.94

⁵ The *Mahābhārata*, III, 196, 207 etc., has a different fable: See *J. B. B. R. A. S.*, (N. S.) IV, p. 126, while in the *Rāmāyaṇa*, II, 14, 5, it is king Alarka, and not Sivi, who gives away his eyes to a Brāhmaṇa.

c3.s1.t1.95

⁶ Other Sivi kings are mentioned: J., V, pp. 210 ff; VI, pp. 480 ff.

c3.s1.t1.96

Our discussion about the 'famous traditional kings' included in the above two '*group-gāthās*', as we might call them, ends here. Now leaving these '*group-gāthās*', we search for the names of other ancient kings in the body of the *Jātakas*, and we find several of them, spoken of also in the *gāthās*, who should, if we accept the *Paurāṇic* chronology, be treated as belonging to this part of the Ancient Period.

c3.s1.t1.97

MANDHĀTṚ, who is included in Pargiter's list given before, is a famous Ancient king. The *Jātakas*, in two places⁷ give his descent in a genealogical table, from *Mahāsammata*—a name meaning a great personage chosen by the people and hence, a *biruda* not a proper name—who is said to have flourished at the dawn of history (*pathama Kappo*). The legendary table runs as follows:

c3.s1.t1.98

⁷ J., II, p. 311; III, p. 454; *Cf.* Hardy, *Manual of Buddhism*, 128-40 *ff*. Rockhill, *Life of Buddha*, pp. 7, 9.

c3.s1.t1.99

Mahāsammata

c3.s1.t1.100

Roja

c3.s1.t1.101

Vararoja

c3.s1.t1.102

Kalyāṇa

c3.s1.t1.103

Varakalyāṇa

c3.s1.t1.104

Uposatha

c3.s1.t1.105

Mandhātā

c3.s1.t1.106

Varamandhātā

c3.s1.t1.107

Cara

c3.s1.t1.108

Upacara The table, of course, has no historical value, since none of the names, except Mandhātṛ and Upacara, is known to the Purāṇas, or to Vedic Literature. The Mandhātu Jātaka¹ glorifies him in all the mysterious colours familiar to the Jātakas, only to bring him to an unhappy end, which was the result of his unsatiate greed ‘the root of all pains’. Leaving aside the mysterious career of his victories in heaven, this much impression we may keep with advantage, that he was remembered as a Cakkavatti, a king who had wide conquests to his credit. This is confirmed by the Paurāṇic evidence, which makes him the son of Yuvanāśva and the father of Mucukunda.² Moreover, we know that eulogistic ballads in praise of him were sung in those days and are preserved in the Purāṇas.³ Our Jātaka also, not unsurprizingly, shares the credit of preserving a verse of these ballads. The gāthā runs as follows :

c3.s1.t1.109

¹ J., II, pp. 311-313.

c3.s1.t1.110

² Viṣṇu P., IV, 2; Vāyu P., 88, 68; Pargiter, A. I. H. T., pp. 39-40. 261-2 “He was a very famous king, a Cakravartin and a Samrāṭ and extended his sway very widely, over Kānyakubja and the Pauravas right up to Gāndhāra.” He is also mentioned in the Ṛg-Veda and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa; Vedic Index, II. pp. 132-3. He is referred to also in many an epigraphic record as an ideal king: See for instance Gupta Inscriptions, pp. 146, 149.

c3.s1.t1.111

³ Pargiter, op. cit., p. 25. They were sung by the historians of those days—Purāṇajñas.

c3.s1.t1.112

*Yāvatā Candimasūriyā (pariharanti)*
*disā bhanti Visecamānā*
*Sabbe va dāsā Mandhātu*
*(ye) pāṇā paṭhavinissitā.*⁴

c3.s1.t1.113

⁴ J., II, p. 311-G. 22.

c3.s1.t1.114

The Paurāṇic parallel is :

c3.s1.t1.115

*“Yāvat sūryasya udayo*
*yāvadastamanaṃ bhavet*
*sarvaṃ tad yauvanāśvasya*
*Māndhātuḥ kṣtramucyate.”*⁵

c3.s1.t1.116

⁵ MBH., VII, 62; XII, 29; Vāyu P., 88, 68; Viṣṇu P., (Wilson’s tr.) p. 363 and note; A. I. H. T., p. 40 and note.

c3.s1.t1.117

We should place Mandhātṛ above Mucalinda, if our identification of the latter with Mucukunda of the Purāṇas be accepted as correct.

c3.s1.t1.118

AJJUNA. He is the great Paurāṇic king Arjuna Kārtavīrya, the greatest of the Haihayas. He is regarded as both a cakravartin and a samrāṭ.⁶ Evidently he was a great conqueror.⁷

c3.s1.t1.119

⁶ Pargiter, op. cit., p. 41.

c3.s1.t1.120

⁷ Ibid., p. 151-3; 265 ff.

c3.s1.t1.121

The Jātakas mention him in several places. The topic in connection with which he is mentioned is, in one place,⁸ the performance of sacrifices and the giving of gifts to the Brāhmaṇas—where he is extolled along with Sagara, Bhagiratha, Dilīpa and others—and elsewhere⁹ that of sinning against holy sages and consequent destruction—where on the other hand, he is associated with Kalābu, Nālikira and Daṇḍaki.

c3.s1.t1.122

⁸ J., VI, p. 201-G. 872; Cf. Harivaṃśa, ch. 33, 14-16; MBH., XII, 49.

c3.s1.t1.123

⁹ J., V, pp. 135; 143-G. 68, 71; 267-G. 94.

c3.s1.t1.124

Some of the epithets given to him in the gāthās deserve notice. As in the Purāṇas¹ so in the Jātaka gāthās, he is called “Sahassabāhu” or thousand-armed. Two of the gāthās try to give a rational interpretation for this term, viz., that he was so called because he had the power and strength to wield five-hundred bows together (vikāsitasa cāpa sataṁ pañca), or a single bow equal to them (mahissāso).² It seems much more conceivable, as Pargiter says, that he had the name Sahasrabāhu.³

c3.s1.t1.125

¹ Vāyu P., 94, 11, 15 etc. Matsya P., 43, 14 etc. A. I. H. T., p. 76.

c3.s1.t1.126

² Cf. the commentary on the gāthā in the Bhūridatta Jātaka, “Sahassabāhu ti na tassa bāhunam Sahassaṁ pañcannam pana dhanuggahasatānaṁ bāhusahassena ākaddhitabbena dhanuno ākaddhanam eva evaṁ vutto”—J., VI, p. 202; also .p 273. See MBH., XIII, 152.—“but he had ordinarily only two at home.” In J., V, p. 267, he is styled atikāyo and in J. VI, p. 201, Bhimaseno. This latter is very interesting in that it preserves the technical epithet from Bhīma, the Pāṇḍava hero, which still survives—strong like Bhīma.

c3.s1.t1.127

³ A. I. H. T., p. 76: “This was a name, so also Sahasrapād.” See Sorensen’s Index, s. v. Quite a novel interpretation was recently given by Mr. Karandikar of the Narmada-Valley-research fame, in a lecture he delivered at the Indian Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, in which he said that the 1000 arms were really 1000 boats given to him (Arjuna) as a present from Datta Atreya.

c3.s1.t1.128

Another point to which attention may be drawn is the epithet ‘Kekakādhipo’—the lord of the Kekakas—given to him in a gāthā of the Saṁkicca Jātaka.⁴ The Paurāṇic tradition is unanimous in describing him as the ruler of Māhiṣmatī which he wrested from the Karkoṭaka Nāgas and made his fortress-capital.⁵ This Māhiṣmatī was, undoubtedly, in the south, whichever identification we may accept.⁶ Thus the Jātakas would have us believe that the Kekakas or Kekayas lived in or around Māhiṣmatī. This is an important point which needs further orientation. We must hold, then, if we accept the statement of the Jātaka gāthā to be creditable, that the Kekayas who are generally connected with the Northern people like the Śivis, the Madras and others⁷ migrated, at some period of our history, to the south.⁸

c3.s1.t1.129

⁴ J., V. p. 267-G 94.

c3.s1.t1.130

⁵ Pargiter, op. cit., p. 153 156, 262, 266 etc.

c3.s1.t1.131

⁶ The identification of Māhiṣmatī has, uptil now, been a very vexed question. Several scholars have attempted to identify it with various places—Mandhātā, Maheśwara and others. It seems very likely, as Mr. Munshi has shown, that there were several Māhiṣmatīs which came into existence at different times at different places in more or less the same locality, i.e. around the Narmadā, and it appears wrong to equate them all. A Māhiṣmatī, said to have been built by Mucukunda, was, as Mr. Munshi says, different from that of the Karkoṭaka Nāgas and of Arjuna Kārtavīrya. This latter was destroyed by Rāma Jāmadagnya in his wrath. In the opinion of the above writer, Māhiṣmatī of Arjuna was somewhere near modern Broach. I.A. LI pp. 217-221; Mr. Karandikar in a paper reported to have been read at the 7th Oriental Conference held at Baroda, locates the city on a small island called Mandhātā in the Narmadā river. For some of the attempts at the identification see Pargiter, J. R. A. S., 1910, pp. 444-7, 867-9.

c3.s1.t1.132

⁷ Vedic Index, I, pp. 185-6; A. I. H. T., pp. 264, 276; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I. pp. 41-2; also J., VI, p. 280-G. 1228 where the Kekakas are mentioned together with the Pañcālas, Surasenas and the Maddas.

c3.s1.t1.133

⁸ Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 42.

c3.s1.t1.134

One thing more, in connection with Ajjuna. The Jātakas seem to preserve a traditional account of the end of Ajjuna Sahassabāhu. The cause of his destruction, they say, was that he sinned against, (*aparajjitvā* : *āsajja*) nay, killed outright (*heṭhayitvā*),¹ a holy sage Aṅgirasa, also named Gotama,² or more correctly, Aṅgirasa Gotama,³ who was so forgiving (*khantī*), austere (*tapassī*) and a life-long celibate (*cirabrahmacārī*).⁴ It seems illusive to try to discover a real personal name of the sage, for both Aṅgirasa and Gotama are either patronymic or *gotra* names.⁵ And moreover there are instancess of sages with personal names who were both Aṅgirasas and Gotamas.⁶ So that it is quite impossible for us to know from this *gotra*-medley which Aṅgirasa Gotama the *Jātaka-gāthā*-compiler meant.⁷

c3.s1.t1.135

¹ “*Heṭhayitvā*” means, according to the Commentator, piercing by a poisoned arrow. He gives a story. The king once went on a hunting, and stopped at a secluded place in search of a deer. Not very far, the sage was plucking up fruits from a tree for eating. Seeing him the deer did not venture to come near. The king was angry with the sage and shot at him a poisoned arrow which pierced the poor sage outright and felled him from the tree.” J., V, p. 145.

c3.s1.t1.136

² J., V, p. 135. *Ibid.*, p. 267-G. 94.

c3.s1.t1.137

³ *Ibid.*, pp., 143-4-G. 71.

c3.s1.t1.138

⁴ *Ibid.*

c3.s1.t1.139

⁵ That there were definite families which were both Aṅgirasa and Gotama, is clear from the Vedic and the *Paurāṇic* evidence, See for instance, *Vedic Index*, II, p. 235; Pargiter, *op. cit.*, pp. 157-161, 218 etc.

c3.s1.t1.140

⁶ For instance Rāhugaṇa the *purohita* of Māthava Videgha, mentioned in the *Ṛgveda*, I, 78, 5 and the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* I, 4, 1, 10 et seq. *Ved. Ind.*, I. p. 235; Pargiter, *op. cit.* p. 224. Dīrghatamas, also a Vedic singer, was both an Aṅgirasa and a Gotama : *Ved. Ind.* I. p. 366; Pargiter, *op. cit.*, pp. 157-9; 218 ff.

c3.s1.t1.141

⁷ *Cf.* for this *Gotra*-confusion in the *Purāṇas*, Pargiter, *op. cit.* p. 190.

c3.s1.t1.142

Be that as it may, our main purpose was to see whether there was any sameness in the *Jātaka* and *Paurāṇic* traditions as regards Arjuna Kārtavīrya’s end. The *Paurāṇic* tradition, as we know, says that he was killed by Rāma Jāmadagnya. The cause given is, sometimes,⁹ that Arjuna or his sons raided Jamadagni’s hermitage, ill-treated him and carried off his calf, but more often the authorities state as the cause the curse of a holy sage named Āpava Vasiṣṭha whose charming hermitage near the Himalayas Arjuna burnt and destroyed.¹⁰ And it is precisely here that we have to look for the much sought for agreement between the two traditions. It seems needless now to go further into details.¹¹ Suffice it to note that the *Jātakas* preserve a faint remembrance of Arjuna’s conflict with the Brāhmaṇas, be they Bhārgavas or others, and his consequent death at the hands of the terrible Paraśurāma—our Yāmadaggi named in the ‘group-*gāthās*’ cited above.¹² The curse cannot be taken in any other light than as a priestly or a moralist’s feat of imagination so familiar to Indian mind.

c3.s1.t1.143

⁹ *Ibid.*, p. 153; *Cf.* *Harṣacarita*, Ch. III.

c3.s1.t1.144

¹⁰ *Matsya P.*, 43, 41-3; *Harivaṃśa*, 33; MBH. XII, 49; Pargiter *op. cit.*, pp. 153, 206.

c3.s1.t1.145

¹¹ The misfortune is that here again Āpava Vasiṣṭha is not a personal name but a patronymic : *Cf.* Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 206.

c3.s1.t1.146

¹² Kauṭilya names Arjuna, among others, as one who perished for being so haughty as to despise all people: *Arthaśāstra*, I, 6.

2. Later Kings and Traditions About Them (1400-1200 B.C.)

c3.s1.t2.1

In the preceding part of this chapter on the Ancient Period, we spoke something about those traditional ancient kings who are mentioned in the *gāthās* alone, but, with two or three exceptions, are not treated separately in the prose portions of the *Jātakas*. This fact makes us believe in their higher antiquity, for by the time these verses were composed, say about the 6th or 5th century B. C. or even before, those mighty kings of yore had evidently been reduced to mere names. Nothing definite about them could then be remembered except of course some exaggerated tales.

c3.s1.t2.2

⁸ Pargiter, A. I. H. T., p. 267.

c3.s1.t2.3

Now we take up those kings and princes who are both mentioned in the gāthās and treated in details in the prose portions and who in point of time come later.

c3.s1.t2.4

Rāma Dāsarathi

c3.s1.t2.5

The first among these to be noticed is Rāma. His story is told in the Dasaratha Jātaka.¹ It agrees as far as it goes substantially with that given in the Rāmāyaṇa. But it also differs from the latter in some vital points.

c3.s1.t2.6

¹ J., IV, pp. 124-30.

c3.s1.t2.7

It is not possible, nor is it necessary for our purpose, to go into minute details about the two versions. But some of the more prominent points of difference may here be noticed.

c3.s1.t2.8

(a) According to our Jātaka, Daśaratha was a king of Benares and not of Ayodhyā. This may be explained as, perhaps, due to the general tendency of the Jātakas of showing special favour to that city.

c3.s1.t2.9

(b) By his eldest queen, whose name is not given, he had two sons, Rāma Paṇḍita and Lakkhana-Kumāra and a daughter named Sītādevī.

c3.s1.t2.10

(c) After the death of his eldest queen, the king took another wife (name not given), who bore him a son named Bharatakumāra.

c3.s1.t2.11

(d) The palace-intrigue is substantially the same, but here the king, fearing some mischief from the queen, asks his sons to go to a neighbouring kingdom or woodland and live there as long as he himself is alive (the period of 12 years is then settled by the soothsayers) and then return and take charge of the kingdom.

c3.s1.t2.12

(e) The exiled princes, Rāma and Lakkhana, together with their sister Sītā, go to the Himalayas, and not in the south, though, as we shall see in another place, a gāthā indicates its knowledge of the epic association of Rāma with the Daṇḍaka forest in the south.

c3.s1.t2.13

(f) Lakkhana and Sītā come back to Kāsī before the expiry of the full term (at the end of 9 years), Rāma remaining in the forest to complete it.

c3.s1.t2.14

(g) At the expiration of the full term Rāma returns, marries his sister Sītā and assumes the crown.

c3.s1.t2.15

These are some of the most divergent points in the Dasaratha Jātaka. Naturally, the question arises: why and how this difference? Does the Jātaka present an older form of the Rāma story, and if so, is it the source of the Rāmāyaṇa? This intricate problem has been agitating the minds of scholars who have been in the field, ever since the Jātaka was brought to light by D'Alwis in 1866.² The discussion resolved into three main theories, viz.

c3.s1.t2.16

² Referred to by Weber in his article "Ueber das Rāmāyaṇa", translated by Rev. D. C. Boyd, I. A., I, pp. 120 ff. The Jātaka was critically edited with an English translation by Fousböll in 1871.

c3.s1.t2.17

(a) The Dasaratha Jātaka is an older version and the source of the Rāmāyaṇa.

c3.s1.t2.18

(b) It is an older version but *not* the only source of the Rāmāyaṇa.

c3.s1.t2.19

(c) It is neither an older version *nor* a source of the Rāmāyaṇa.

c3.s1.t2.20

It was natural for those who attempted to solve this problem earlier, viz. D'Alwis,¹ Weber,² and Burnell,³ to see in the Jātaka an older version of the Rāmāyaṇa.

c3.s1.t2.21

¹ Ibid.

c3.s1.t2.22

² Ibid., pp. 120 ff.

c3.s1.t2.23

³ Ibid., pp. 57-8 while reviewing Fousböll's edition of the Jātakas.

c3.s1.t2.24

The first view has had no sufficient backing. Weber,⁴ who partly held the second view, said that an ancient Buddhist saga of the pious prince Rāma which glorified him as an ideal of Buddhist equanimity was, later on, cast into a different form by the skilful hand of Vālmīki. He was followed by Sen,⁵ and Grierson,⁶ who upheld the same view with the help of fresh material. But this view again has not been able to stand against the severe attacks from Jacobi,⁷ Luders⁸ Keith,⁹ and Utgikar,¹⁰ who hold the opposite view, viz., that the Jātaka prose version of the Rāma story presents a later and more confused form of the legend than the Rāmāyaṇa.¹¹ As regards the gāthās occuring in the Jātaka, Utgikar¹² has subjected them to a searching analysis and has shown that none of the four gāthās, which have any narrative application out of the total thirteen, seems to be the fore-runner of the Rāmāyaṇic śloka. Whether we accept this conclusion or not, the fact that some of the striking similarities,¹³ literal or otherwise, still remain unexplained, holds good. And after all has been said, our faith in the priority of the Jātaka version has not, we must admit, been shaken. On the whole, we may stand with Prof. Winternitz, who seems to hold a much sounder view¹⁴, viz., that at the time when the Tipiṭaka came into being (in the 4th and the 3rd cent. B.C.) there were ballads dealing with Rāma, perhaps a cycle of such ballads, but no Rāma Epic as yet which was only created later on by Vālmīki who utilised those very ballads.¹⁵

c3.s1.t2.25

⁴ Ibid., pp. 120 ff.

c3.s1.t2.26

⁵ The Bengal Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 7. ff.

c3.s1.t2.27

⁶ J. R. A. S., 1922, pp. 135 ff; while reviewing Sen's work.

c3.s1.t2.28

⁷ Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und Inhalt, Bonn. 1893, pp. 84 ff.

c3.s1.t2.29

⁸ N. G. G. W., 1897, 1, pp. 40 ff.

c3.s1.t2.30

⁹ J. R. A. S., 1915, p. 323.

c3.s1.t2.31

¹⁰ Ibid., Centenary Supplement, 1924, pp. 203 ff.

c3.s1.t2.32

¹¹ Is it not more probable, on the contrary, that the more confused the form, the more is it antiquated, and the more refined a work, the later is it in time?

c3.s1.t2.33

¹² Op. cit., pp. 207 ff.

c3.s1.t2.34

¹³ Besides the apparent agreement of the 5th and the last gāthās with the Rāmāyaṇic ślokas, I can read some sameness, may it not be literal, of other gāthās also. Thus G2nd—Rā.. II, 106, 2; 6th—Rā., II, 105, 19-24; 8th—Rā., II, 105, 28; 10th—Rā., II, 105, 27; 11th—Rā., II, 105, 38-39.

c3.s1.t2.35

¹⁴ History of Indian Literature, I, pp. 509-10.

c3.s1.t2.36

¹⁵ One more remark of a scholar may be noted: "It rather puzzles me that while the equally late and much tampered with Kāvya version of the really ancient Rāmāyaṇic tradition is passed by scholars, the Jātaka, a Buddhist version, which, from the standpoint of historical criticism, is a much sounder source, should be viewed with unmitigated scepticism." S. C. Sarkar, Some Aspects of the Earliest Social History of India. 1928, Intro., p. ix note.

c3.s1.t2.37

However, leaving aside this controversial matter, let us take the *Jātaka* material as a whole and see what it has to say about Rāma. Besides the *Dasaratha Jātaka* noticed above, there are two other allusions to Rāma, one in a *gāthā* of the *Jayaddisa Jātaka*,¹ and the other in a *gāthā* of the *Vessantara Jātaka*². The former says that Rāma's mother won salvation for her son who was absent in the Daṇḍaka forest:

c3.s1.t2.38

¹ J., V, p. 29-G. 80. It is put in the mouth of the Buddha, a fact which may be taken by some to lower its value in this connection.

c3.s1.t2.39

² J., VI, p. 557-G. 2224.

c3.s1.t2.40

“As Rāma's fair-limbed mother won
Salvation for her absent son,
When woods of Daṇḍaka he sought,
So for my child is freedom wrought.”

c3.s1.t2.41

The latter is spoken by Maddī, Vessantara's wife:—

c3.s1.t2.42

“I am a banisht prince's wife,
A prince of glory fame;
As Sītā did for Rāma
So I for my husband care.”

c3.s1.t2.43

Here the relation between Rāma and Sītā, even at the time of their exile, is clearly suggested as being that of husband and wife, and not that of brother and sister, though the Commentator, it is worthy of note, with a surprisingly uniformity, naively holds the latter view even here.³

c3.s1.t2.44

³ J., VI, p. 538.

c3.s1.t2.45

Such divergences in the body of the *Jātakas* themselves, puzzling as they are, make it really difficult for us to say ‘how much’, as a learned scholar remarked, ‘the uncertain drift of irresponsible tradition has to do with this process of distortion.’⁴

c3.s1.t2.46

⁴ See the bitter remarks of Mr. Bhatakrishna Ghosh, *I. H. Q.*, V, p. 158, while reviewing the jain *Padmapurāṇa*. Whether that is really distortion we cannot definitely say. The *Dasaratha Jātaka* has its resemblance in many a Far-Eastern version of the story, cf. Lévi, *Bulletin l'ecole Française d'Extréme Orient* III, p. 741; Hüber, *Ibid.*, IV, pp. 698 ff.

First 200 of 907 passages. Read on

Linked texts (35)