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.s1.t2: 2. Later Kings and Traditions About Them (1400-1200 B.C.)

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c3.s1.t2

Language
English

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.

c3.s1.t2.47

Lomapāda

c3.s1.t2.48

Lomapāda, the *Paurāṇic* King of Aṅga, is mentioned in a *Gāthā* of the *Bhūridatta Jātaka*⁵ which says of him as follows:

c3.s1.t2.49

⁵ J., VI, p. 203-G. 877.

c3.s1.t2.50

“*Yassānubhāvena Subhoga Gaṅgā*
*Pavattatha dadhisaññaṃ samuddam*
*sa Loampādo paricariya-m-aggim*
*Aṅgo sahassakkhapurajjhagañchi.*”

c3.s1.t2.51

By whose power the Ganges swelled to the curd-like ocean, he, Lomapāda, the Aṅga,¹ giving offerings to the fire went to the world of Sahasrākṣa i. e., Indra.

c3.s1.t2.52

¹ Cowell and Rouse, perhaps by following the commentator, wrongly translate this as 'Aṅga, Kāśi's lord': Cambridge edition, J. VI, p. 108. The Commentator seems generally prone to describe Kāśi as the kingdom to whatever king he may come across whose identity is otherwise not given in the original.

c3.s1.t2.53

Lomapāda is a familiar personage in the Epics,² and the Purāṇas,³ all of which agree that he was the king of Aṅga. As to his being a contemporary with Daśaratha of Ayodhyā, Rāmāyaṇa,⁴ is quite clear, while the Purāṇas,⁵ at least suggest it. It is this testimony that lead us to place Lomapāda side by side with Rāma. The connection of Lomapāda with Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, the sage, is not brought out in the Jātakas, though they know the sage quite intimately as seen from the Alambusā,⁶ and Nalinikā Jātakas.⁷

c3.s1.t2.54

² Rāmāyaṇa, I, 9-11; MBH., III, 110-113.

c3.s1.t2.55

³ e.g., Viṣṇu P., IV, 18.

c3.s1.t2.56

⁴ 1, 11 3.

c3.s1.t2.57

⁵ Cf. Wilson, Viṣṇu P., p. 445 and note. Out of the confusion with regard to the relation of Śāntā, they wrongly equate Daśaratha and Lomapāda.

c3.s1.t2.58

⁶ J., V. pp. 152 ff. His epithet 'Kassapa' is known—Ibid., pp. 157-G. 118; 159-G. 129.

c3.s1.t2.59

⁷ J. V, pp. 193 ff. H. Lüders, N. G G. W., 1897, pp 1 ff. 1901, pp. 1 ff. has analysed the Ṛṣyaśṛṅga story as occurring in these two Jātakas and compared it with its different versions in India Literature. His conclusion is that the Jātakas preserve a more ancient form of the story, because in the Buddhist story, it was the Princess, and not the courtesans as stated in the epic, that seduced and brought over the sage from the forest, this being, as Lüders thinks, the orignal trait of the story.

c3.s1.t2.60

Cecca Upacara-Apacara

c3.s1.t2.61

The Cetiya Jātaka,⁸ after giving the legendary dynastic list of kings who preceded Upacara or Apacara of Ceti (Cedi),⁹ goes on to relate his story in detail. The prose portion in the beginning speaks of him in a mythical strain, as is naturally to be expected. The story then has it that Upacara had a Brāhmaṇa purohita named Kapila, whose younger brother Korakalambaka was his class-mate. While a prince, Upacara had made a promise to his class-mate that he would make him his purohita when he would ascend to the throne of Ceti. But he could not keep his promise as he was not able to remove the old purohita Kapila. Kapila, afterwards, turned out an ascetic and managed to place his own son in his office. The king however tried to fulfill his promise by telling a lie, despite the oft-repeated warnings of the old ascetic Kapila, with the result that he had to go to the Avici hell. And so this ancient gāthā:—

c3.s1.t2.62

⁸ J., III, pp. 454-61.

c3.s1.t2.63

⁹ Supra.

c3.s1.t2.64

"Cursed by a sage, Cecca,
Who once, could tread the air, they say,
Was lost and swallowed
By the earth on his appointed day."¹⁰

c3.s1.t2.65

¹⁰ J., III, p. 460-G. 58; repeated at J., V. p. 267-G. 98.

c3.s1.t2.66

We may dismiss the foregoing story as a fabrication on the part of the story-teller. But in the above gāthā, old as it seems to be, and in the prose passage that follows, we have to look for something traditionally historical.

c3.s1.t2.67

The identity of this Cecca Upacara with the *Paurāṇic* Caidya Uparicara Vasu has long since been recognised.¹ That Upacara ruled at Soṭṭhivatinagara is in full agreement with the *Mahābhārata*,² which names Vasu's capital as Sūktimatī or Sūktisāhvaya. This latter stood on the river of the same name identified by Pargiter,³ with the modern Ken, thus locating itself in the neighbourhood of Banda.⁴

c3.s1.t2.68

¹ Raychaudhury, *P. H. A. I.*, pp. 91-2; Pradhan, *Chronology of Ancient India*, pp. 63 ff; Law, *Ancient Mid-Indian Kṣatriya Tribes*, 1 p. 96. Some are inclined to identify him with Kaśu Caidya of the *Ṛgveda*, VIII, 5, 37 : Rapson in *C. H. I.*, I, p. 309 note.

c3.s1.t2.69

² I, 63; III, 22; XIV, 83 : Cf., De, *Geographical Dictionary*, p. 196

c3.s1.t2.70

³ *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 359.

c3.s1.t2.71

⁴ *Ibid.*

c3.s1.t2.72

The *Jātaka* statement that Cecca could tread the air is only in keeping with the latter-day misunderstanding of the title "Caidyoparicara" which means simply, as rightly pointed out by Pargiter,⁵ "the overcomer of the Caidyas," and which he obtained after conquering the kingdom of Cedi which belonged to the Yādavas.

c3.s1.t2.73

⁵ *A. I. H. T.*, p. 118. See the Epic and Paurāṇic references to this misunderstood idea of treading the air—'antalikkacaro pure' given in the footnote by Pargiter, *Ibid.*

c3.s1.t2.74

Further, the *Mahābhārata*,⁶ admirably supports our *Jātaka* in stating that Vasu Uparicara sank down into *Rasātala* by telling a lie, meaning thereby that he met an unhappy end.

c3.s1.t2.75

⁶ XII, 338.

c3.s1.t2.76

Let us turn finally to the last prose passage in the *Jātaka*. It informs us that the five sons of King Upacara founded five different kingdoms on the advice of the same old Kapila.⁷ This fact is corroborated by the evidence furnished by the *Mahābhārata*,⁸ and the *Purāṇas*,⁹ which also give the names of those five sons not remembered by the *Jātaka*. They were Bṛhadratha, Pratyagraha, Kuśāmba surnamed Maṇivāhana, Yadu or Lalittha or Matsya and Māvella.¹⁰ According to the *Jātaka*, the five sons founded respectively the five cities, viz., Hatthipura in the East, Assapura in the South, Sihapura in the West, Uttarapañcāla in the North and Daddarapura in the North-West. We cannot ascertain how much truth there is in the account. It is also difficult to identify correctly the places mentioned. Hatthipura may however be taken to represent Hastināpura traditionally identified with an old town in Mawāṇā tahsil, Meerut.¹¹ Sihapura may represent the Seng-ho-pu-lo or Singhapura of Yuan Chwang, situated at 117 miles to the east of Taxila.¹² Assapura, again, may possibly be the same as mentioned in the *Majjhima Nikāya*¹³ and the *Mahābhārata*.¹ Uttarapañcāla is of course well-known, corresponding roughly to Bareilly, Budaon, Farrukhābād and the adjoining districts of the United Provinces.² Daddarapura may be taken to represent a place somewhere in the present Dārdistān as we have tried to show elsewhere.³ If these identifications be correct, they would seem to refer to the kingdoms of Kuru, Gandhāra, Aṅga, Pañcāla and Nāga kingdom,⁴ respectively. According to the Paurāṇic account, Bṛhadratha took Magadha, and founded the famous Bṛhadratha dynasty, Kuśāmba had Kauśāmbī, Pratyagraha may have taken Cedi, and Yādava Karūṣa while the fifth kingdom was probably Matsya.⁵ Whatever the difference, due credit must be paid to the *Jātaka* for preserving, though in a mythical garb, faint traces of traditional recollection about Vasu Caidya Uparicara and the founding of different kingdoms by his sons. Its ignorance of real fact may only prove the antiquity of the happenings of the remote past.

c3.s1.t2.77

⁷ *J.*, III, pp. 460-1.

c3.s1.t2.78

⁸ I, 62.

c3.s1.t2.79

⁹ *Viṣṇu P.*, for instance, IV, 19.

c3.s1.t2.80

¹⁰ Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, p. 118; Pradhan, op. cit., pp. 63-4.

c3.s1.t2.81

¹¹ Law, *Geography of Early Buddhism*, p. 24.

c3.s1.t2.82

¹² *Ibid.*, A Singhapura is identified by Jayaswal, *History of India, 150-350 A.D.*, pp. 89 ff, with Jalandhara.

c3.s1.t2.83

¹³ I, 4, 9-10. Here it is a city in the country of Aṅga.

c3.s1.t2.84

¹ II, 27, 20. In later period it was a seat of a feudatory dynasty of the Vākāṭakas: See Jayaswal, *History of India*, 150-350 A. D., pp. 89 *ff*.

c3.s1.t2.85

² Raychaudhury, *op. cit.*, p. 47.

c3.s1.t2.86

³ See Infra, under Geographical Lexicon.

c3.s1.t2.87

⁴ See J., III, pp. 16-7, where the Daddara Nāgas are mentioned.

c3.s1.t2.88

⁵ Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 118.

c3.s1.t2.89

After Upacara, the Ceti country seems to have sunk into unimportance, since with Bṛhadratha, the eldest son of Vasu, according to the *Purāṇas*, Magadha takes a prominent place in traditional history.⁶ Subsequently as will be shown, Ceti underwent a constitutional change when it became a republic.⁷

c3.s1.t2.90

⁶ Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 282.

c3.s1.t2.91

⁷ See J., VI, pp. 480 *ff*; where we hear of *Cetirājāno*—the kings of Ceti, evidently meaning an oligarchical state.

c3.s1.t2.92

The Pāṇḍavas

c3.s1.t2.93

The text of the *Kuṇāla Jātaka*,⁸ the only *Jātaka* which gives us a version of the Pāṇḍava story, is quite unsatisfactory. It is almost impossible, in many places, to distinguish between the various portions of the *Jātaka*. We cannot ascertain which portions belong to the ‘*atītavatthu*’ proper and which to the commentary or the ‘*paccuppannavatthu*’. Both the *gāthā*, which names the five Pāṇḍavas, and the prose portion which relates the story in detail are, in Fousböll’s edition, printed in smaller types, which fact, according to the general method followed in that edition, would assign these passages to the commentarial portions. But looking minutely into the context, a distinction might possibly be made. Thus the *gāthā* which is preceded by the phrase: ‘*bhavati ca pan uttaretha vākyam*’—‘here too we have a further verse—: should be taken, as we believe, to have been a part of the ‘*atītavatthu*’ proper. While the prose portion which relates the story in detail should be relegated to the commentarial portion, since it only repeats at length, that is comments upon, that which has already been said before. This latter procedure has been resorted to also in respect to other stories of the same type occurring in the same *Jātaka*, viz., those of Saccatapāvī, Kākātī and Kuraṅgavī.¹ This however does not take away the value that attaches to the novel version of the story before us.

c3.s1.t2.94

⁸ J., V. pp. 412 *ff*.

c3.s1.t2.95

¹ J., V, pp. 427-30.

c3.s1.t2.96

Let us then examine the story as it is. The Gāthā says :—

c3.s1.t2.97

*Ath Ajjuno Nakulo Bhīmaseno*
*Yudhiṭṭhilo Sahadevo ca rājā*
*ete patī pañca-m-aticca nārī*
*Akāsi khujjavāmanena pāpam ti”.²*

c3.s1.t2.98

² Ibid., p. 424-G. 288.

c3.s1.t2.99

The lady, named Kaṇhā just above the gāthā,³ says the gāthā, not content with the five husbands sinned with a hunchbacked man. This incident is then further explained in the prose portion. Kaṇhā was the posthumous daughter of a king of Kosala who had been killed in a battle and whose pregnant queen had been carried away by a certain Brahmadatta of Kāsī. They arranged a svayamvara or choice marraige for her in Benares. Just at that time the five sons of King Pāṇḍu, Ajjuna, Nakula, Bhīmasena, Yudhiṭṭhila and Sahadeva, who had completed their education at Takkasilā and who were now travelling about the country, came to Benares. They attended the Svayamvara and Kaṇhā chose all of them as her husbands. Now, sometime after she fell in love with her hunchbacked servant. This unchasteness, disloyalty and depravity of hers were exposed by the eldest prince Ajjuna, whereupon the five brothers in sheer disgust renounced the world to pass their remaining lives in the Himālayas.

c3.s1.t2.100

³ The Jātaka knows and uses this original and real name of the lady—Kaṇhā-Kṛṣṇā—but does not know her by the famous epithet Draupadi, daughetr of King Drupada or Pāñcālī, the woman of Pañcāla. Kṛṣṇā is the real name in the Epic also.

c3.s1.t2.101

This is, in short, the life-history of the Pāṇḍavas according to the Jātaka. It is in singular contrast with the story as given in the Mahābhārata, or for the matter of that, in the whole range of Hindu Literature and tradition.

c3.s1.t2.102

As we said above, this detailed story appears to be a fabrication, or, may be, a corruption of the original, by the commentator of the 5th or the 6th century A. D. The principal aim of the story teller is here to show the feminine depravity. It is true. But why and how did he fall upon this particular instance—this Kaṇhā who is one of the most magnificent characters in the whole of the Epic and later literature—is utterly inexplicable.⁴ That she was married to the five Pāṇḍavas may be taken to be a fait accompli, in as much as it is in perfect agreement with the Epic and Tradition. But there is, at least as far as we can see, not an inkling, or even a concealed suggestion of her unchastity in the whole range of Hindu Tradition. Had she really been so, as the Jātaka depicts her, the fact would, anyhow, have leaked out, try however the Epic writers might to conceal it. The libel is really malicious, may be an outcome of blissful ignorance of facts.

c3.s1.t2.103

⁴ The reason, to our imagination, seems to have been this. The Jātaka compiler in the 4th or 5th century A.D. in his enthusiasm, misguided though, to hurl down his wrath against womankind, caught hold of Kaṇhā, thinking that a woman who had married five husbands could never in the world be chaste or loyal. He had evidently no genuine recollection of facts and was influenced by later day explanations and Buddhist morality. And he created the hunchbacked servant.

c3.s1.t2.104

Two other glaring discrepancies are: (a) the education of the five Pāṇḍavas at Takkasilā and (b) the Kāsī-Kosala incident and the consequent double parentage (dvepetikā) of Kaṇhā. Both of these can be accounted for as due to the general tendency of the Jātakas to bring in, wherever they like, Takkasilā and Benares—traits which were common for the Mahājanapada Period that preceded the Buddha and which produced these stories.

c3.s1.t2.105

The fact that the gāthā makes Ajjuna the eldest brother may have some significance.¹ It may not have been a fact. But the early heroic bard, most probably, considered Ajjuna as a type of hero and had, therefore, given him the first place he deserved. The same idea was perhaps taken up in the gāthā.

c3.s1.t2.106

¹ Siddhanta, The Heroic Age of India, p. 66 note.

c3.s1.t2.107

The most valuable support that the Jātaka gives to the Epic account is in stating that Kaṇhā married the five Pāṇḍavas. It was a fact, though the Jātaka may try in its own way to justify it as does the Epic itself.² It seems futile and sentimental weakness now to try to deny or justify and explain the simple fact of an ancient family custom of polyandry. That the Pāṇḍavas belonged to a different family, or rather a tribe, at a level of culture lower than that of the Kurus or the Pañcālas is a fact difficult to deny.³ It would be much wiser in the interests of Truth to face and recognise the fact.

c3.s1.t2.108

² Cf. Winternitz, History of Indian Literature, I. pp. 337-8 and note.

c3.s1.t2.109

³ See Hopkins, J. A. O. S., 13, pp. 64-6; Great Epic of India, pp. 376-397; Religions of India, pp. 388, 466-7; Siddhanta, op. cit., 24-27, 122, 320 etc. "The shadowy figure of Pāṇḍu, the birth in the forest, the unknown parentage, the custom of polyandry—all these would go to suggest the foreign origin of the Pāṇḍus." Ibid. Dr. Raychaudhury's attempt to justify his opposition does not carry much weight. That Patañjali calls the Pāṇḍus as Kurus or that Niyoga is known to be an ancient Hindu custom and is not far from Polyandry, are weak arguments: See P. H. A. I., pp. 25-6; Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect, pp. 26-7. Pāṇḍava occurs in a Jātaka II, 98-99-G. 65, as the name of a horse. Does it signify anything?

c3.s1.t2.110

Finally, the Jātaka does not make any reference to the Great War or to the connection of the Pāṇḍavas with Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa or to the death of Jarāsandha.⁴

c3.s1.t2.111

⁴ Whether Kṛṣṇa was really connected with the Pāṇḍavas, in any way, is doubtful. See Winternitz, History of Indian Literature, I, p. 457 and note. But the story of Heracles and Pāṇḍus narrated by Greek writers undoubtedly proves the antiquity of the tradition regarding this connection. Cf. Raychaudhury, Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect, p. 45.

c3.s1.t2.112

Vāsudeva Kaṇha and Kamsa

c3.s1.t2.113

There is nothing in the Jātakas themselves, it is true, that can support us in our attempt to speak of Kaṇhā and Kamsa just after the Pāṇḍavas. Our attempt is due to an inclination to accept the Paurāṇic traditional genealogy as worked out by Pargiter⁵ to be plausible, if not absolutely correct.

c3.s1.t2.114

⁵ A. I. H. T., pp. 148, 166, 282-4. About the relation between Kṛṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas-Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., I, p. 457 note: "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." See also S. L. Katre "Kṛṣṇa and Jarāsandha," I. H. Q., VIII, p. 500.

c3.s1.t2.115

Our source here of the history of Kaṇha and Kaṃsa is chiefly the Ghaṭa Jātaka.¹ The main purpose of the Jātaka as related here is assuredly to show the uselessness of wailing after death. It is quite natural, therefore, that at the end of the story it should, as it really does, come to a point where this sentiment is exemplified. And the major prose portion of the story, thus, devotes itself to the main theme—the legend of Kṛṣṇa and Kaṃsa—while it is only towards the end that the gāthās embodying the above sentiment are introduced. These gāthās, though they may have otherwise some significance, have no direct bearing upon the main story told before, and are practically of no use to us to glean something historical or traditional from them. So that we are left solely to the prose portion to extract whatever material we can for our purpose. This may, however, appear to discount the value of our results, but, as we shall presently see, on comparing it with other data, it would appear to preserve, substantially, a correct version of the tratition about Kṛṣṇa and Kaṃsa. Let us then turn to the story itself.

c3.s1.t2.116

¹ J., IV, pp. 79-89. The Kṛṣṇa story as reflected here has been examined with a view to compare it with other sources by Jacobi, Z. D. M. G. 42 pp. 493 ff ; Hardy, ibid., 53, pp. 25-50, Lüders ibid, 58, pp. 6 87 ff. and Winternitz, op. cit., I, pp. 471-2 and note, to all of whom our best respects are due.

c3.s1.t2.117

King Mahākaṃsa, who ruled in the city of Asitañjanā in the Kaṃsa district (Kaṃsabhoga) in the Uttarāpatha, had two sons named Kaṃsa and Upakaṃsa and a daughter Devagabbhā. After his death, he was succeeded by Kaṃsa, Upakaṃsa becoming the viceroy. When Devagabbhā was born it was prophesised that a son born of her would destroy the Kaṃsa line together with the Kaṃsa country. Mahākaṃsa, her father, could not put her to death out of affection for her and when Kaṃsa came to the throne, he too could not think of doing so for fear of a general outcry of condemnation from the people. So having resolved not to give her in marriage to anyone, the two brothers put her in a solitary tower built for the purpose. She was given two attendants—Nandagopā and her husband Andhakaveṇhu. At that very time, after the decease of King Mahāsāgara of Uttara Madhurā, his elder son Sāgara succeeded him, the younger Upasāgara becoming the viceroy. This Upasāgara fled from his brother's Kingdom where he had intrigued in the harem, and came to his old friend Upakaṃsa. There, in Asitañjanā, he again began to pay stealthy visits to Devagabbhā in her solitary prison. The lady was easily won over by him. By and by it became known that she was big with child and Nandagopā was compelled to relate the whole story before the two brothers who then thought, that if she gave birth to a son, they would at once put him to death, and if it was a daughter she should be spared. With this decision they married Devagabbhā to Upasāgara, ‘the discredited young prince from Madhurā’. A daughter was born to them and was named Añjanā. The two brothers now allotted to the pair an estate—a village (bhogagāma) named Govaddhamāna where they settled. In course of time Devagabbhā bore ten sons successively—Vāsudeva, Baladeva, Candadeva, Suriyadeva, Aggideva, Varuṇadeva, Ajjana, Pajjana, Ghaṭapaṇḍita and Aṅkura. They all were managed to pass as Nandagopā’s sons, and the ten daughters of Nandagopā similarly passed as the dauhgters of Devagabbhā.

c3.s1.t2.118

The ten brothers, now known as the sons of Andhakaveṇhu, grew big and strong and fierce and ferocious withal, they went about plundering. King Kaṃsa came to know of these plundering raids. The real identity was then disclosed and Kaṃsa devised a plan to put an end to them. He invited the two brothers, Vāsudeva and Baladeva, to a wrestling fight. The two came to the place making havoc all the way through. Baladeva easily put the two royal wrestlers, Cāṇūra and Muṭṭhika to death, and Vāsudeva killed Kaṃsa and his brother by throwing a wheel. The crowd which had gathered to witness the performance was terrified and at once accepted Vāsudeva as their protector.

c3.s1.t2.119

Then began the career of conquest. The ten brothers first of all surrounded the city of Ayojjā, cleared the jungle around it and took the king, Kālasena, prisoner. From Ayojjā they proceeded to Dvāravati. Now, this was a wonderous city. On one side of it there was a mountain and on another the sea. Being unable to capture it they took the advice of sage Kaṇhadīpāyana who was their friend. They fixed four iron pillars at the four gates of the city and clumped them with chains of iron. Thus enabled they entered the city, killed its king and captured the country. After this they conquered three and sixty thousand cities all over India and then lived at Dvāravati dividing the kingdom in ten shares. At the generous suggestion of the youngest Aṅkura, his share was conferred upon lady Añjanā. In course of time their parents died.

c3.s1.t2.120

Then died one dearly-loved son of King Vāsudeva. The king, overwhelmed with grief, gave himself up to mourning, neglecting everything. Then Ghaṭapaṇḍita, wishing to relieve him, made a trick. He said he wanted 'the hare within the moon'. 'This was absurd,' pointed out Vāsudeva. Ghaṭa, then, showed with wise sayings, that his mourning too was futile. Thus consoled, Vāsudeva Mahārājā ruled the kingdom righteously.

c3.s1.t2.121

After a long time the sons of the ten brothers visited Kaṇhadīpāyana of divine insight (dibbacakkhuka) to test him. They procured a young lad and dressed him up and by binding a pillow about his belly, made it appear as though he were big with child. "When, Sir, will this woman be delivered?" they asked. The sage perceived everything. He replied, "this man on the 7th day from now will bring forth a knot of accacia wood (khadiraghaṭikā) with which he will destroy the line of Vāsudeva." "Ah, false ascetic!" said they, "a man can never bring forth a child," and they killed the sage at once.

c3.s1.t2.122

Some time after, the kings proposed to enjoy a sport in the water. In a gorgeous pavillion they sat, ate and drank. They began to go quarrelsome and divided themselves into two groups. At last one of them picked a leaf from the eraka plant, which, even as he plucked it, became a club of accacia wood in his hand. With this he beat many people. Then the others also did the same, and cudgelling one another they all were killed. Vāsudeva, Baladeva and sister Añjanā fled in a chariot with the purohita, while the fight was on.

c3.s1.t2.123

Baladeva was killed in the forest of Kālamuṭṭhika by Muṭṭhika, the wrestler, who had been born again as a *yakkha*. Vāsudeva, with his sister and the *purohita* came to a frontier village. He lay down in a forest, sending his sister and the *purohita* into the village to get some food. A hunter named Jarā, passing by the way, took him to be a pig and threw a spear which pierced his feet. The wound proved fatal. Thus excepting Lady Añjanā, they perished everyone, it is said.

c3.s1.t2.124

It will be readily seen from the foregoing summary that, leaving out some statements of purely mythical and legendary character, there is a nucleus of a really historical tradition. Our task must be to compare this version with others and get at the Truth, at least to a probable degree.

c3.s1.t2.125

First to take the identity of names. Our *Jātaka* knows that Vāsudeva was also called Kaṇha (Kṛṣṇa) which was his *gotta* name.¹ His father's name is given as Upasāgara, an unfamiliar name, while the Epic,² the *Purāṇas*³ and the Jaina *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*⁴ unanimously give the name Vāsudeva. His mother's name, according to our *Jātaka*, is Devagabbhā, which is identical with Devakī of other authorities.⁵ That he had a younger brother named Baladeva is vouchsafed by other sources also.⁶ The names of Añjanādevī, Kaṇha's sister, and the eight brothers⁷ seem to be free inventious of the laterday commentator.

c3.s1.t2.126

¹ J., IV, pp. 79-89-GG. 139, 147, 148; *Cf.* also J., pp. 421-G. 1485. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar took the two names as denoting two different individuals. Vāsudeva, in his opinion, was a Kṣatriya belonging to the Yādava, Vṛṣṇi or Sātvata race who founded a theistic system. Later on he was identified with Kṛṣṇa whose name had been handed down as that of a holy seer *Ind. Ant.* 1912, p. 13. But, as Keith opines, the separation of Vāsudeva and Kṛṣṇa as two entities, it is impossible to justify. *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, p. 840.

c3.s1.t2.127

² *MBH.* xiii, 147, 33-5.

c3.s1.t2.128

³ See Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, pp. 104-7.

c3.s1.t2.129

⁴ *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, xxii.

c3.s1.t2.130

⁵ See above; also *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*. III, 17, 6; *Cf.* Bhitarī Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta (5th cent. A. D.) "*jitamiti paritoṣanmātaraṃ śāśrunetrāṃ Hataripuriva Kṛṣṇo Devakī mabhyupetaḥ*". Fleet, G. I. No. 13, p. 54.

c3.s1.t2.131

⁶ *MBH.*, II, 79, 23; *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, IV.

c3.s1.t2.132

⁷ These names betray the later-day conception of the legend as a Nature-myth: *Cf.* Keith, *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, pp. 839 ff. Aṅkura—Akrura ?

c3.s1.t2.133

Dr. Raychaudhury, in his valuable monograph on ‘The Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect’ has thoroughly examined all the available sources for the life history of Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva and has maintained with good reasons, that Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva of the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*,⁸ the *Aṣṭādhyāyī* of Pāṇini,⁹ the *Indika* of Megasthenes,¹⁰ the Jaina *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*,¹¹ the *Ghaṭa Jātaka*,¹² the *Mahābhāṣya* of Patañjali,¹³ the *Mahābhārata*,¹⁴ and the Purā- nas,¹ is one and the same person.² This illuminating identity does not at all seem improbable when we try to visualise the simple, inornate and human figure of Kṛṣṇa from out the entangling ‘prodigious after-crop of fable’ that has grown around him. It is a remarkable way of looking at things legendary that has led scholars to interpret Kṛṣṇa as a solar divinity,³ or a god⁴, or even a vegetarian deity,⁵ like the Greek Dionysos. It was the same process by which that talented French Savant,⁶ was dragged on to represent Gotama Buddha as a Solar type, and the history of the reformer as a sun-myth. It is a wrong process, this, to begin at the wrong end with the late epic and Paurāṇic legends which have completely overshadowed the original figure, instead of at the right end with the earlier sources which preserve it in its original colours.⁷

c3.s1.t2.134

⁸ III, 17, 6.

c3.s1.t2.135

⁹ IV, 3, 95; IV, 3, 98-99.

c3.s1.t2.136

¹⁰ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 201.

c3.s1.t2.137

¹¹ Lecture, XXII.

c3.s1.t2.138

¹² J., IV, pp. 79-89.

c3.s1.t2.139

¹³ See *Ind. Ant.*, III, 1874, pp. 14-6.

c3.s1.t2.140

¹⁴ *Cf.* Sörensen's, *Index to the Mahābhārata*, sub, voc,

c3.s1.t2.141

¹ See Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, pp. 104-7.

c3.s1.t2.142

² Raychaudhury, *Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect.*, pp. 34-5. The identity of the Epic and Paurāṇic Kṛṣṇa with the Upaniṣadic Kṛṣṇa is denied by Max Müller, *S. B. E.*, I, p. 52 note; Macdonnell and Keith doubt it: *Ved. Ind.*, I, p. 184. Barth accepts it rather reluctantly: *Religions of India*, p. 168. cf. Keith. "The epic has a god, the Upaniṣad a man, and the means of connexion are not apparent." *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, p. 839.

c3.s1.t2.143

³ Barth, op. cit., 167 and note.

c3.s1.t2.144

⁴ Hopkins, *Religions of India*, p. 467.

c3.s1.t2.145

⁵ Keith, *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, pp. 839 ff.

c3.s1.t2.146

⁶ Emile Senart, *Essai Sur la legende du Buddha*, 2nd ed., Paris, 1882.

c3.s1.t2.147

⁷ Raychaudhury, *Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect*, p. 24.

c3.s1.t2.148

Kṛṣṇa is not a mythical personage. Our Jātaka lends support to the Upaniṣad and the Jaina Uttarādhyayana Sūtra in manifesting the simple and human character of Kṛṣṇa.⁸ The Jātaka presents him as only a powerful warrior and a great king ‘who has not even sufficient self-control for checking his feelings at the death of his dear son, and some wise sayings of his brother Ghaṭa Paṇḍita,⁹ restore him to his normal peace of mind.’

c3.s1.t2.149

⁸ Though, we must observe here, the Jātaka seems to be conversant with the popular deification of him in that his epithet Kesava, so well-known in the Epic and the Purāṇas is known to and used by, the gāthās, nos. 130, 144 of this Jātaka. As we know from the Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra, II, 5, 24, was an epithet of Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu: Raychaudhury, *Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Sect*, p. 62. Grierson points out that the deification of Kṛṣṇa was an accomplished fact as early as the time of Pāṇini (8th B.C.) *I. A.*, 1908, p. 253. But this is a matter of controversy. See Jayaswal *Hindu Polity*, I, pp. 120-2. *I. H. Q.*, I. pp. 483 ff; II, pp. 186 ff. 409 ff. 856-6. But Epigraphic evidence shows that the deification was complete before 2nd B. C. See Lüders, *Brāhmi Inscriptions, E. I.*, X, Appendix, nos. 6, 669, 1112.

c3.s1.t2.150

⁹ There is nothing to corroborate this incident which seems to us to have risen out of the imagination of a latter-day commentator. One may however be tempted to try to discover some link between these gāthās of Ghaṭa and the philosophisings of Ghora Aṅgirasa of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Is Ghaṭa identical with Gaya Sukumāla of the Antagadadasāo, pp. 62, 71 ?.

c3.s1.t2.151

The Jātaka knows that Vāsudeva was a scion of the royal family—the Yādava, Sātvata or Vṛṣṇi of the Purāṇas—of Mathurā—Uttara Madhurā.¹⁰ The existence of a city named Asitañjanā and a separate district of Kaṃsa is unknown to other sources.¹¹

c3.s1.t2.152

¹⁰ Of. the statement of Megasthenes regarding the connection of the Indian Herakles (i.e., Kṛṣṇa already deified) with the Sourasenoi (Surasena is mentioned in a Jātaka, VI, p. 280-G. 1228) and Methora: McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 201.

c3.s1.t2.153

¹¹ In the Epic and the Purāṇas, it is Mathurā over which Kaṃsa ruled: Pargiter, op. cit. pp. 167, 171, 282, 291.

c3.s1.t2.154

It is not a little surprising to learn that the *Jātaka* takes *Andhakaveṇhu* (*Andhakavṛṣṇi*) as a name of one particular person who was the slave husband of Nandagopā, the maid servant of Devagabbhā in her confinement,¹ and after whom Kṛṣṇa and his brothers were known as *Andhakaveṇhudāsaputtā*, the sons of Andhakaveṇhu, the servitor.² Whereas the Paurāṇic tradition, we know, makes Andhaka and Vṛṣṇi two sons of Sātvata, the Yādava, after whom their descendants were together known as *Andhakavṛṣṇis*.³

c3.s1.t2.155

¹ In the *Purāṇas*, they are Nanda and Yaśodā respectively, *Cf. Harivaṃśa*, 59.

c3.s1.t2.156

² *J.*, IV, p. 81.

c3.s1.t2.157

³ If the *Jātaka* conception about the Andhakavenhus has any value, and if we are not wrongly obsessed with its idea, we have our misgivings about the true denotation of the term ‘*Andhakavṛṣṇis*’ of the *Purāṇas*. Is it really a combination of the two words, Andhaka and Vṛṣṇi, or is it one single word as the *Jātaka* boldly declares? Andhakas are not known to Vedic literature, which indeed knows the Vārṣṇa (Vṛṣṇi) family: See *Vedic Index*, II, pp. 289-90. On the other hand so old an authority as Pāṇini knows both of them as a joint name: *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, IV, 1, 114; VI, 2, 34. Kṛṣṇa himself is generally supposed to be known to the Vṛṣṇi family, (*Cf. Gītā*: *Vṛṣṇīnāṃ Vāsudevo’ham*) but the Mandasore stone Inscription of Yaśodharman (6th A. D.) would seem to connect him with the Andhakas: *Fleet, G. I.*, p. 153. Viduratha, again who is placed by the *Purāṇas* in the Andhaka line, is taken by Bāṇa (7th A. D.) as a Vṛṣṇi: *Harṣacarita*, Cowell, p. 193. Ugrasena, generally an Andhaka, is, in the *Mahābhārata*, I, 221, 8, a powerful king of the Vṛṣṇis. How are we to reconcile these conflicting statements? May be, the difference is only outwardly. See, now J. Przyluski, *The name of the God Viṣṇu and the Kṛṣṇa legend*. Q. J. M. S., XXV, pp. 39 ff.

c3.s1.t2.158

The *Jātaka* does not give us any definite account of Vāsudeva’s childhood, except that he and his brothers are said to have grown very naughty, plundering wherever they liked.⁴ Neither those miraculous youthful performances of his, so elaborately described in the *Purāṇas*, nor his questionable relations with the ‘gopis’ are thrust upon us by the *Jātaka* which only knows the simple story.⁵

c3.s1.t2.159

⁴ Dr. Raychaudhury, *Early History*, p. 45, accepting his identity with Kṛṣṇa Devakīputra of the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, says that “as a child he most probably lived with his preceptor Ghora Aṅgirasa and returned to Mathurā on arriving at adolescence.”

c3.s1.t2.160

⁵ *Cf.* Hopkins, “It is not till he becomes a great, if not the greatest god, that tales about his youthful performances when he condescended to born in low life begin to rise.” *Religions of India*, p. 467.

c3.s1.t2.161

The story of his quarrel with Kaṃsa, and the eventful death of the latter appears on the other hand to be founded on fact. As early as the time of Patañjali (2nd B.C.) this event was clearly remembered, though believed to have occurred at a very remote time, and was the subject of dramatic representation.⁶ The real cause of this quarrel is unknown to the *Jātaka*, which does not portray Kaṃsa in essentially bad colours as does the Paurāṇic account, but makes him, on the contrary, a kind king who readily hears and decides the complaints of his subjects. The prophesy, both here and elsewhere, is only an ignorant sheath for the real cause.⁷ The incident of the wrestling match may have some historical basis, since it is commonly related by various authorities.¹

c3.s1.t2.162

⁶ See passages from Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya* examined by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar: *I. A.*, III (1874), pp. 14-6: “*Asādhurmātule Kṛṣṇaḥ*,” shows that Kṛṣṇa was not well-disposed towards his maternal uncle; “*Cirahate Kaṃse*” and “*Jaghāna Kaṃsaṃ Kila Vāsudevaḥ*” assert that in remote times Vāsudeva killed Kaṃsa. This event is also depicted in the delightful drama ‘*Bālacarita*’ ascribed to Bhāsa, who preceded Kālidāsa: Keith, *The Sanskrit Drama*, pp. 98-100.

c3.s1.t2.163

⁷ The *Jātaka* does not know Jarāsandha, King of Magadha, whose two daughters, as the Paurāṇic accounts tell us were married to Kaṃsa and whose favour empowered Kaṃsa to tyrannise over his own subjects, thus enraging Kṛṣṇa against himself: Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 282,

c3.s1.t2.164

¹ J., IV, pp. 81-2; Bālacarita, Act V; Harivaṃśa, 83; Viṣṇu P., V, 20.

c3.s1.t2.165

After the death of Kaṃsa, the people chose Kṛṣṇa to be their lord and protector. Then followed the career of conquests. Only two out of these conquests are specifically mentioned in the Jātaka. First, they invaded the city of Ayojjā, captured it and took its king Kālasena prisoner. Then they proceeded towards Dvāravatī which they could not easily capture. It was only after various tactics learnt from sage Kaṇhadīpāyana that they were able to take possession of it and then they settled there.²

c3.s1.t2.166

² According to the clear testimony of the Epic and the Purāṇas, it was through fear of Jarāsandha, the mighty foe, and their incompetence to resist his forces that Kṛṣṇa together with all his people migrated from Mathurā to Dvārakā. See S. L. Katre, op. cit., pp. 856, 858, 863-5. Pargiter, A. I. H. T., p. 282. See for an interesting suggestion from Dr. Raychaudhury P. H. A. I. p. 100, regarding the probable cause of this Yādava exodus.

c3.s1.t2.167

The Jātaka does not at all refer to Kṛṣṇa's connection with the Pāṇḍavas or Jarāsandha which must have been intimate if the Epic and Paurāṇic accounts are to be believed.³

c3.s1.t2.168

³ See Supra, also see Katre, l. c. Some may venture to see a concealed reference to Jarāsandha in the use of the name Jarā, the hunter, in our Jātaka.

c3.s1.t2.169

The Mahāummagga Jātaka preserves, it seems, a genuine tradition when it states in a gāthā that Vāsudeva Kaṇha had for his beloved queen Jāmba-vatī, a Caṇḍāla woman, the mother of King Sivi.⁴

c3.s1.t2.170

⁴ J., VI, p. 421-G. 1485. Cf. Viṣṇu P., V. 37; IV. 15; Bhavisya P., 139; Antagada-dasāo, pp. 79, 84, all of which name the son as Sāmba not quite dissimilar a name from Sivi Pāṇini, the poet, is said to have composed a poem named Jāmbavatī-pariṇayam or marriage of Jāmbavatī: Bhandarkar, Collected Works, II, pp. 167, 360, 364, 368: Cf. verses quoted in Thomas, Kavindravacanasamuccaya, pp. 51 ff: See Keith, A History of Sanskrit Literature pp. 45, 203-4-, 430.

c3.s1.t2.171

The story of the Andhakaveṇhu youths testing the divine sight of the wise sage Kaṇhadīpāyana, in a rather indecent manner, and the consequent rage of the latter and the slaying of him by the youths, might appear to have been originated in fact, as it is related by various other authorities in common.⁵

c3.s1.t2.172

⁵ MBH. XVI, 1; Viṣṇu P., V, 37; Arthaśāstra, I, 6; Antagadadasāo pp. 80-2. The story of Kaṇhadīpāyana—the famous Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, the traditional compiler of the great Epic—as found in the Ghata and the Kaṇhadīpāyana Jātakas, J., IV, pp. 87-8; IV, pp. 27 ff. has been examined with its parallel in the great Epic by Prof. Utgikar, J.B.B.R.S., IV (N.S.) pp. 120-4. The irreverent attitude of the Andhakaveṇhus towards Brāhmaṇas may have some significance in connection with Aryan expansion if the episode was a reality. Cf. Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 100. Yādavas as an Asura tribe, see A. Banerji Sastri, Asura India, pp. 83 ff.

c3.s1.t2.173

This brings us to the final phase of the life of Kṛṣṇa and his kinsfolk, viz., the final destruction of the Andhakaveṇhus. Besides the detailed and well-nigh picturesque account given in the present Jātaka, there are two gāthās which summarize the episode, in a nut-shell as it were. The one in the Kumbha Jātaka⁶ says:—

c3.s1.t2.174

⁶ J. V. p. 18-G, 57.

c3.s1.t2.175

"Twas after drinking this, I ween,
The Andhakas and Vṛṣṇi race,
Roaming along the shore, were seen,
To fall, each by his kinsman's mace ;"

c3.s1.t2.176

and the other in the *Saṃkicca Jātaka*¹ reads:—

c3.s1.t2.177

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 267-G. 97.

c3.s1.t2.178

“Assailing black Dīpāyana, the men of Vṛṣṇi race²

With Andhakas sought Yama’s realm, each slain by other’s mace”³.

c3.s1.t2.179

² The English translation has ‘Viṣṇu’ for Vṛṣṇi...which is evidently a wrong interpretation arising from the later connection of Kṛṣṇa with the God Viṣṇu. *Cf.* also Utgikar, *op. cit.*, IV, p. 123.

c3.s1.t2.180

³ *Cf.* MBH. XVI, 3; *Viṣṇu P.*, V. 37; *Arthaśāstra*, I, 6; *Antagaḍadasāo*, pp. 80-2.

c3.s1.t2.181

This incident of the pathetic ruin of the Andhakaveṇhus by fratricidal strife, which occurred a few years after the great Kurukṣetra war,⁴ must, we think, be regarded as historical fact.⁵

c3.s1.t2.182

⁴ This incident according to the solitary statement of the MHB, XVI, 1, 13, occurred 36 years after the Great Battle. Pargiter thinks this to be an exaggeration, *op. cit.*, p. 282 and note.

c3.s1.t2.183

⁵ See Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 284. N. K. Siddhanta, *The Heroic Age*, p. 123; N. K. Dutt, *Aryanisation of India*, p. 126; N. C. Banerji, *I. H. Q.*, I, p. 97.

c3.s1.t2.184

Vāsudeva and his favourite brother Baladeva were the sole survivors.⁶ Both of them leave the fatal place at once. Baladeva dies on the way and Kṛṣṇa himself lives a few days more.⁷ Thus ends this tragic, but completely misunderstood, chapter of the remote period of our history, which, though unsupported by any definite contemporary records, has sufficient naturalness and vividness to be taken as historically true.

c3.s1.t2.185

⁶ *Cf.* MBH., XVI, 3.

c3.s1.t2.186

⁷ The throwing of an arrow by the hunter named Jarā and the consequent death of Kṛṣṇa as related in our *Jātaka* are also described in the *Purāṇas* and the Jain *Antagaḍadasāo*. *Cf.* *Viṣṇu P.*, *l. c.*, *Antagaḍadasāo*, *l. c.* This must be taken to be an allegorical aspect of the end of the great person, if Jarā has any significance, though the popular belief is still there and the place where the incident happened is shown and worshipped, a few miles far from Prabhāsa pāṭaṇa, Kāthiāwāḍ. It is known as *Dehotsarga*.

c3.s1.t2.187

The disunited remnants of this great and distinguished family of Dvāravatī (Dvārakā) then abandoned their main stronghold—Dvārakā, on which the sea encroached as the Paurāṇic accounts say—and retreated northwards but were attacked and broken up by the rude Ābhīras of Rājputānā.⁸ Their descendants, however, reappear in history as one of the powers which arise on the ruins of the Mauryan Empire in the second century B. C. and the name of their corporation (*rājanya gaṇa*) has been preserved by a unique coin.⁹

c3.s1.t2.188

⁸ Pargiter, *A. I. H. T.*, p. 284.

c3.s1.t2.189

⁹ N. K. Dutt, *op. cit.*, p. 126; Majumdar, *Corporate Life in Ancient India* pp. 279-80; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., pp. 99-100.

Cites (22)