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.s3: Chapter III. Videha and the Lesser Kingdoms (1200—800 B.C.)

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c3.s3

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. Videha and the Lesser Kingdoms (1200—800 B.C.)

c3.s3.1

VIDEHA AND THE LESSER KINGDOMS

c3.s3.2

(1200—800 B.C.)

The Videhas

c3.s3.t1.1

VIDEHA HAS GAINED an immortal fame through Janaka, the great philosopher-king of the *Upaniṣads*, who even to this day is revered by every pious Hindu. The fame and prosperity of the Kingdom are known also to the *Jātakas*.

c3.s3.t1.2

It extended over three hundred leagues and was situated in Majjimadesa or Middle Country.¹ It comprised 16000 villages.² Its capital city Mithilā covered seven-leagues.³ At its four gates were four market towns (*nigama-gāmas*).⁴ The following fine description of the city is given in the *Mahāja-naka Jātaka*⁵:

c3.s3.t1.3

¹ J., III, p. 365; IV, p. 316.

c3.s3.t1.4

² J., III, p. 367-G. 76.

c3.s3.t1.5

³ Ibid., p. 365.

c3.s3.t1.6

⁴ J., VI, p. 330.

c3.s3.t1.7

⁵ Ibid., pp. 46-7; also J., IV, pp. 358-9.

c3.s3.t1.8

..This Mithilā spacious and splendid,
By architects with rule and line laid out in order fair to see,
With walls and gates and battlements—traversed by streets on every side
With horses, cows and chariots thronged, with tanks and gardens beautified,
Videha's far-famed capital gay with its knights and warrior swarms,
Clad in the robes of tiger-skins, with banners, spread and flashing arms,
Its Brahmins, dressed in Kāsī cloth, perfumed with sandal decked with gems,
Its palaces and all their queens with robes of state and diadems."

c3.s3.t1.9

Videha roughly corresponds to the modern Tirhut in Bihar, and Mithilā is identified with Janakapur, a small town within the Nepal border, north of which the Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga districts meet.⁶

c3.s3.t1.10

⁶ C. A. G. I., p. 718. The territory suffered heavily during the recent earthquake.

c3.s3.t1.11

The *Makhādeva Jātaka*⁷ and the *Nimi Jātaka*⁸ mention a king named Makhādeva as the progenitor of the royal line of Mithilā, while the *Rāmāyaṇa*,⁹ and the *Purāṇas*¹⁰ name Nimi as the founder of the Videha dynasty. Both the latter authorities, again, mention Mithi as the son of Nimi and the builder of the city of Mithilā.¹¹ Some scholars¹² are inclined to take Mithi as identical with our Makhādeva. But this is not plausible. Real identification however is to be sought, as already suggested by Raychaudhury¹ between Māthava Videgha of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*,² and our Makhādeva or Maghādeva of the *Culla Niddesa* and the Barhut Stupa Inscriptions³. The remarkable passage of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* has, since the time of Weber, been taken, perhaps rightly, to indicate the progress of Vedic Āryan civilization from the North-west towards the East from the Sarasvatī to the Sadānīrā.⁴ Whatever the merits of the interpretations given to this passage, it is certain that it refers to an earlier connection of Māthava Videgha with the Videha people. And moreover there is no difficulty, as shown by Barua and Sinha,⁵ in establishing the phonological identification between the two names, Māthava and Makhādeva, both of which are but dialectical variants of one and the same word, Mahādeva. Thus the *Jātaka* may be given the credit of preserving, in common with the older *Brāhmaṇa*, the tradition about the man who should be regarded as the earliest known king of Videha.

c3.s3.t1.12

⁷ J., I, p. 139.

c3.s3.t1.13

⁸ J., VI, p. 96.—"*tesam sabbapathamam*" Cf. the Makhādeva Suttanta, of the Majjhima Nikāya and Culla Niddesa, p. 80.

c3.s3.t1.14

⁹ I, 71, 3.

c3.s3.t1.15

¹⁰ Vāyu P., 89; Viṣṇu P., IV, 5; A. I. H. T., pp. 84, 95.

c3.s3.t1.16

¹¹ J., VI, p. 47-G. 155 names Somanassa as the builder of the city: "māpitam Somanassena."

c3.s3.t1.17

¹² Sen, op. cit., p. 14; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 35—"Mithi is reminiscent of Māthava."

c3.s3.t1.18

¹ P. H. A. I., pp. 35-36.

c3.s3.t1.19

² I, 4, 1, et. seq.

c3.s3.t1.20

³ Barua and Sinha, op. cit., pp. 78-80.

c3.s3.t1.21

⁴ See Vedic Index, II, pp. 151, 298-9; Oldenberg, Buddha, pp. 398-9; Law, Some Kṣatriya Tribes, pp. 127-9; Bhandarkar, C. L., p. 14; C. V. Vaidya, I. H. Q., V, p. 257; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 35. contrast Pargiter, A. I. H. T., pp. 224, 311.

c3.s3.t1.22

⁵ 1. c.; also Barua, in I. H. Q. IV, pp. 522-3. Calcutta Review, October, 1927, p. 66; Jayaswal, J. B. O. R. S., V, p. 520; for Dr. Voegel's objection to the point. J. R. A. S., 1927, p. 594.

c3.s3.t1.23

Makhādeva, in our *Jātakas*, is represented as a pious and religious ruler (*dhammiko dhammarājā*). After a long reign of peace and prosperity, he is said to have renounced the world and assumed the garb of an ascetic, on seeing his hair turn grey.⁶

c3.s3.t1.24

⁶ J., I, pp, 137-9; VI, pp. 95-6; Cf. Majjhima Nikāya, Suttanta No. 83 The scene of the finding of a grey hair is marvellously sculptured on a railing of the Barhut stupa: See Cunningham, Stupa of Barhut, pl. xlviii; Francis and Thomas, Jātaka Tales, pl. i; the idea of renouncing the world when one's hair turn grey, is to this day very common with the Hindus. Cf. a similar utterance of the King in Tagore's The Cycle of Spring.—'Phālguni.'

c3.s3.t1.25

The *Jātakas* also know of more than one Janakas reigning at Mithilā, thus agreeing with the *Paurāṇic* statements about the ‘*Janakavaṃśa*’ or the Janaka dynasty of Videha.⁷ The *Mahājanaka Jātaka*⁸ furnishes us with the following genealogical table which, of course, should not be taken as wholly reliable:—

c3.s3.t1.26

⁷ Mārkaṇḍeya P., 13, 11; Bhavabhūti, Uttararāmacaritam, Act. I, verse 7: "Janakānām"; Pargiter, op. cit., p. 96—"Janaka rājāno bahavo"; Brahmāṇḍa P., 88, 22.

c3.s3.t1.27

⁸ J., VI, pp. 30 ff.

c3.s3.t1.28

Mahājanaka I

c3.s3.t1.29

| . . . . .
| |

c3.s3.t1.30

Aritṭhajanaka Polajanaka

c3.s3.t1.31

Mahājanaka II married ........X........ Sivalidevī.

c3.s3.t1.32

| | . . . . .
|

c3.s3.t1.33

Dīghāyu.

c3.s3.t1.34

Now, which of these two Janakas is identifiable with the one known to us from the *Upanisads* and the Epics?. Dr. Raychaudhury¹ seems to be inclined to identify the *Upanisadic* Janaka with our Mahājanaka I. But the theory does not seem to be supported by strong reasons, as he himself admits. The learned doctor does indeed recognise the parallelism of a verse common to the *Jātaka*, the *Mahābhārata* and the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*. In the *Jātaka*,² it is Mahājanaka II who gives utterance to this famous verse:—

c3.s3.t1.35

¹ P. H. A. I., p. 37—"But", he hesitates, "proof is lacking."

c3.s3.t1.36

² J., VI, p. 54-G. 245; also V, p. 252-G. 16; *Cf.* Dhammapada, 200

c3.s3.t1.37

"Susukham vata jīvāma yesam no natthi Kiñcanam

Mithilāya dahyamānāya na me kiñci adahayathā".³

c3.s3.t1.38

³ "The utterance" so admits Raychaudhury, "indeed reminds us of the great philosopher king"—P. H. A. I., p. 38. The burning of Mithilā as suggested in this famous *gāthā* is however not a historical fact: See Rajwade, *Proceedings-First Oriental Conference*, II, pp. 115 ff.

c3.s3.t1.39

In the Great Epic,⁴ too, in a similar context, the same verse is attributed to the philosopher king Janaka of Mithilā. Whereas—and this is the one stumbling block for Dr. Raychaudhury—the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*⁵ attributes this saying to Nami. Thus the Epic and the *Jātaka* are at one with regard to this fact. The Jaina version should not make us hesitate in accepting the above identification. For, it is a simple fact of substitution of the name of Nami, who is more intimately known to the Jainas, for that of Janaka, the *Brāhmanic* philosopher-king.⁶

c3.s3.t1.40

⁴ XII, 18, 12—"*Mithilāyām pradiptāyām na me dahyati kiñcana*"; also XII, 219, 50.

c3.s3.t1.41

⁵ IX, 14; *S. B. E.*, XLV, p. 37.

c3.s3.t1.42

⁶ Rajwade, op. cit., II, p. 123.

c3.s3.t1.43

Furthermore, the *Jātaka* does not say much about Mahājanaka I, who is only mentioned as the father of two sons, Arittha Janaka and Polajanaka. It is, on the other hand, Mahājanaka II who is the central figure in the whole story. He is 'a towering and luminous personality, a clear-cut historical figure, having had a unique career in his early years and, in the later part of his life, exhibiting a great spirit of renunciation'.⁷ This spirit of renunciation and the general outlook on life bear a great deal of kinship with the character of the *Vedic* Janaka. And even the *Mahābhārata*⁸ relates an 'old incident' (*itihāsam purātanam*) of the Videha king's renunciation, and the discourse that follows between him and his queen who, grief-stricken, makes a pathetic entreaty to alter his resolve—which bears a remarkable resemblance to that which is related in our *Jātaka*. All this makes us feel certain about the identification of Mahājanaka II with the *Vedic* and Epic Janaka.⁹

c3.s3.t1.44

⁷ Sen, op. cit., p. 13.

c3.s3.t1.45

⁸ XII, 18, 12.

c3.s3.t1.46

⁹ This view seems to have been entertained also by Rhys Davids, *B. I.*, p. 26.

c3.s3.t1.47

With regard to the *Rāmāyaṇic* Janaka, the father of Sītā, no conclusive proof is forthcoming to identify him with the *Vedic*, the Epic and the *Jātaka* Janaka. It seems however that this Siradhvaja Janaka was a different king whom later literature, through his connection with Rāma, the divine personage, naively identified with the older *Vedic* king.¹

c3.s3.t1.48

¹ See *Vedic Index*, I, p. 273. "The identification of Janaka of Videha and the father of Sītā is less open to objection but it cannot be proved and is somewhat doubtful." Raychaudhury, *P. H. A. I.*, pp. 36, 56. It is indeed strange that Dr. B. C. Sen, *op. cit.*, p. 13, takes this identification as *fait accompli*.

c3.s3.t1.49

Neither the *Vedic* Literature nor the Epic and *Paurāṇic* accounts supply us with any information of historical value regarding the early life of this famous Janaka. And the *Jātaka* story depicting his adventures to Suvaṇṇabhūmi and his marriage with his own cousin Sīvalī seems essentially to be legendary, and no positive reliance can be put on it.²

c3.s3.t1.50

² The tradition however as embodied in the *Jātaka* can be shown to be as old as the 2nd century B. C. since a scene from our *Jātaka* is seen sculptured on a railing of the Barhut Stupa with the inscription: "*isukāro Janako rājā Sivalidevi*"—The arrowmaker Janaka. Queen Sīvalī: Cunningham, *Stupa of Barhut*, pl. xliv. Barua and Sinha, *op. cit.*, p. 94.

c3.s3.t1.51

Dr. Raychaudhury’s identification of Ariṭṭha Janaka of our *Jātaka* with Ariṣṭanemi of the *Purāṇas*³ has no good proof excepting the similarity in names.⁴ One chief objection to this identification is that Ariṣṭa(-Nemi)’s predecessor was Ṛtujit and successor Śrutāyus,⁵ while Ariṭṭhajanaka’s predecessor was Mahājanaka I and successor Mahājanaka II. This, we admit however, is not a very solid argument looking to the legendary nature of the *Jātaka* evidence.

c3.s3.t1.52

³ *P. H. A. I.*, pp. 37, 56.

c3.s3.t1.53

⁴ That Nemi should have been the son of Ariṣṭa and identical with Mahājanaka II is, as we have seen, not probable.

c3.s3.t1.54

⁵ See Pargiter, *op. cit.*, p. 149.

c3.s3.t1.55

Another Videha king who can claim some historical importance is Nimi (or Nemi) mentioned in the *Makhādeva*⁶ *Kumbhakāra*⁷ and *Nimi*⁸ *Jātakas*. The evidence at our disposal would seem to indicate that Nimi ruled after the great Janaka, as he is called the penultimate sovereign of the dynasty.⁹ His identity with the *Vedic* king Nami Sāpya (*Vaideho rājā*)¹⁰ is, as Raychaudhury remarks, more or less problematical. But as to his being identical with Nami of the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*¹¹ there seems to be no ground for any objection. Though Nimi appears to have been, like *Janaka*, a family title of the Videha kings, and there must have lived several Nimis, as there were several Janakas, it should be admitted that the famous and popular Nimi was one and one only, as the ‘Janaka’ was.¹²

c3.s3.t1.56

⁶ J., I, pp. 137-9.

c3.s3.t1.57

⁷ J., III, pp. 379 ff.

c3.s3.t1.58

⁸ J., VI, p. 96.

c3.s3.t1.59

⁹ J., I, p. 139; VI, p. 96.

c3.s3.t1.60

¹⁰ See *Vedic Index*, I, p. 436. It is certain however, as we saw above, that Nami Sāpya must have lived later than Māthava Videgha who should be regarded as the earliest known king, if not the founder, of the Videha kingdom. Cf. Dutt, *Aryanisation of India*, pp. 113-4.

c3.s3.t1.61

¹¹ *S. B. E.*, XLV, pp. 87 ff.

c3.s3.t1.62

¹² Raychaudhury, *P. H. A. I.*, p. 57.

c3.s3.t1.63

The *Jātakas* represent Nimi as a great king, devoted to pious and charitable activities. The greater part of the *Nimi Jātaka*, however, confused as it is, is devoted to the account of Nimi's journey to heaven and hell in company with Mātali. This is useless for our present purpose. The only thing that may be taken notice of is, that he is depicted as a searcher after the Eternal Truth. He is said to have entertained a sincere doubt whether almsgiving or holy life is more fruitful:

c3.s3.t1.64

"There is king Nimi, wise and good, the better part who chose,
King of Videha, gave great gifts, that Conqueror of his foes;
And as these bounteous gifts he gave, behold this doubt arose
'Which is more useful—holy life or giving alms? who knows?'"¹

c3.s3.t1.65

¹ J., VI, p. 102-GG. 131-2; *Cf.* a similar verse in the Great Epic: "*Dānād vā Sarpa Satyād vā kimato gurudṛśyate*" MBH., III, 181, 3; the question is asked by Yudhiṣṭhira to the snake.

c3.s3.t1.66

The *Kumbhakāra Jātaka* as well as the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, as we have seen before, make him a contemporary of Dummukha of Pañcāla, Naggaji of Gandhāra² and Karaṇḍu of Kaliṅga. This may well be taken to represent a historical fact, though conclusive proof is lacking.³

c3.s3.t1.67

² A Gandhāra king and a Videha king are similarly associated also in the J., III, pp. 364 ff. referring, perhaps, to Nimi and Naggaji.

c3.s3.t1.68

³ *Cf.* Sen, op. cit., p. 6 "...there is at least some reason for regarding it as correct in as much as it may not be quite proper to think that all the different schools of writers conspired to err on this point, where we find them all agreeing in a striking manner."

c3.s3.t1.69

More valuable is the statement of the *Nimi Jātaka*, repeated in the *Makhādeva Jātaka*, that Nimi was born to round off the royal family of Videha. 'like the hoop of a chariot wheel' (—a play on the word 'Nimi'). "Great King" say the soothsayers to the king, "this prince is born to round off your family. This your family of hermits will go no further."⁴

c3.s3.t1.70

⁴ J., I, p. 139: VI, p. 96.

c3.s3.t1.71

And the *Jātaka* ends with a significant statement that "Nimi's son Kalā-rajanaka brought his line to an end."⁵ Whether we accept or not this relation between Nimi and Kalāra—for we have no other reasons for either—the association of the termination of the line of Videha with Kalārajanaka may readily be accepted as correct, in as much as we have some corroborative evidence on the point. The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya⁶ in the chapter on *Indriyajaya* mentions, among others, Karāla Vaideha as having perished along with his kingdom and relations for a lascivious attempt on a Brāhmaṇa maiden. This fact is confirmed by the poet Aśvagoṣa who says "and so Karālajanaka, when he carried off the Brāhmaṇa's daughter, incurred loss of caste thereby (*avāpa bhraṃśamapyeva*), but he would not give up his love."⁷ This Karāla, the Vaideha, must be identified, as already pointed out by Rauchaudhury,⁸ with our Kalārajanaka who, as stated above, brought the line of Videha to an end. Kalārajanaka is again identifiable with the *Paurāṇic* Kṛthi with whom the race of Janakas is said to have ended.¹

c3.s3.t1.72

⁵ Ibid., p. 129-*Putto panassa Kalārajanako nāma taṃ vaṃsaṃ upacchinditvā apabbaji.*"

c3.s3.t1.73

⁶ *Arthaśāstra*, I, 6.

c3.s3.t1.74

⁷ *Buddhacarita*, IV, 80.

c3.s3.t1.75

⁸ P. H. A. I., p. 58.

c3.s3.t1.76

¹ Pargiter, op. cit., p. 96. The *Mahābhārata* also mentions Karālajanaka, but in altogether a different colour. He figures there as a very pious king engaged in discussing with the sage Vasiṣṭha, on some philosophical doctrines. See MBH., XII. 303 *ff*. This is in agreement, if we may so take it, with the *Jātaka*, but differs widely from Kauṭilya and Aśvaghoṣa. The difference, though vital, is remarkably inexplicable.

c3.s3.t1.77

When precisely this important and memorable event, viz., the termination of the Videhan monarchy and the inauguration of an aristocratic republic, presumably the Vajjian Confederacy, took place, we are unable to decide.² But its *terminus ad quem* may, not unreasonably, be taken to be the 8th century B. C., since it must have taken at least a century for the new powerful confederacy to have been firmly established, as we find it in the time of the Buddha and Mahāvīra in the 6th century B. C.³

c3.s3.t1.78

² Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 58.

c3.s3.t1.79

³ Raychaudhury remarks: "The downfall of the Videhas reminds us of the fate of the Tarquins who were expelled from Rome for a similar crime. As in Rome, so in Videha, the overthrow of the monarchy was followed by the rise of a republic—the Vajjian Confederacy. P. H. A. I., p. 58. Cf. Ibid., pp. 82, 84-5, 129 *ff.*; Rhys Davids, *B.I.*, pp. 25-6; C. J. Shah *Jainism in North India*, pp. 82, 85, 102, 104 *ff.*

c3.s3.t1.80

Here may end, properly speaking, our discussion about the Videha kings. But there are yet several Videha kings mentioned in the *Jātakas* who must be noticed here, though for their historical existence we cannot speak with any certainty.

c3.s3.t1.81

The *Sādhina Jātaka*⁴ mentions a king named Sādhina who is said to have been very righteous in due accordance with the proverbial fame of Videha. The same *Jātaka* names Nārada⁵ as seventh in direct descent from King Sādhina, which is rather inconceivable.

c3.s3.t1.82

⁴ J., IV, pp. 355 *ff.*

c3.s3.t1.83

⁵ Ibid., p. 358—"So *kirassa sattano pana nattā*;" also *Ibid*. p. 359-G. 217.

c3.s3.t1.84

The *Suruci Jātaka*⁶ presents a rather interesting story. King Suruci I of Videha had a son named Suruci II. The latter, while a prince, was a great friend of a Barahmadatta prince of Kāsī. Both of them studied together at Takkasilā. Later on, when Suruci II was seated on the throne of Videha and Brhmadatta on that of Benars, the old friendship was strengthened by a matrimonial alliance. Prince Suruci III was married to Sumedhā, princess of Benares. The new pair had for a long time no issue.⁷ When at last a child was born, there was greet jubilation in both the kingdoms. The child was named Mahāpaṇāda. Of this Mahāpaṇāda it is said:—

c3.s3.t1.85

⁶ J., IV, pp. 315 *ff.*

c3.s3.t1.86

⁷ Ibid., pp. 319-20-GG. 101 *ff.*—"*Mahesi Rucino bhariyā ānītā pathamasmi aham*" etc.

c3.s3.t1.87

*Paṇādo nāma so rājā*
*Yassa yūpo suvaṇṇayo*
*Tiriyam solasapabbedho*
*Uccam āhu sahassadhā ..*⁸

c3.s3.t1.88

⁸ J., II, p. 334-GG. 40-2; IV, p. 325. G (?) The verse also occurs in *Theragāthā* (P. T. S.) p. 22.

c3.s3.t1.89

“This great palace of golden pillars” that he had built sunk down in the Ganges near Payāga (Allahabad).¹

c3.s3.t1.90

¹ The *Cakkavatti Sīhanāda Suttanta* of the *Dīgha Nikāya* says that the palace was recovered by King Saṅkha of Kāsi: Rhys Davids, *Dialogues of the Buddha*, III, p. 74 and note. See also *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 57 ff. which in a verse makes Saṅkha contemporaneous with Piṅgala of Kaliṅga, Pāṇḍuka of Mithilā and Elāpatra of Gāndhāra.

c3.s3.t1.91

The *Mahānāradakassapa Jātaka*² mentions a king named Aṅgati, who was a righteous ruler of Mithilā. He had a daughter named Rūjā and three ministers, Vijaya, Sunāma and Alata. Once he paid a visit to Guṇa, of the Kassapa family, an ascetic and a great scholar. The king imbibed heretical views from him. His daughter Rūjā tried hard to prove the worthlessness of Guṇa’s doctrines. It was Nārada Kassapa, however, who succeeded in winning him back to the right path. The doctrines preached by this Guṇa Kassapa,³ bear a striking resemblance with those of the famous Purāṇa Kassapa, the elder contemporary of the Buddha. Guṇa is an “annihilator’ (*Ucchedavādi*) and an unbeliever in the results of good or bad actions, that is to say, a believer in the theory of the ‘passivity of the soul’—the Jaina *Akiriyāvāda*. Such is also the philosophy of Purāṇa Kassapa.⁴ If this identification be accepted as correct, and if Aṅgati is proved to be a real historical character, which is not impossible, and to be a contemporary of Guṇa, then he must be placed some where in the earlier part of the 6th century B. C..

c3.s3.t1.92

² J., VI, pp. 219 ff. The story is a lengthy one and is presented in a confused construction, which makes it impossible for us to distinguish between the different parts of the *Jātaka*.

c3.s3.t1.93

³ Ibid., pp. 225-6--GG. 979-990.

c3.s3.t1.94

⁴ See Barua, *A History of the Pre-Buddhist Indian Philosophy*, pp. 277 ff; Law, *‘Six Heretical Teachers’ in Buddhistic Studies*, pp. 74-6.

c3.s3.t1.95

Anyhow the kings of Videha, noticed in the latter part of our discussion, are more or less doubtful characters, and they must remain as such, until further corroborative evidence comes to their help and proves them otherwise.

Sivi-Madda-Malla-Gandhāra-Kamboja

c3.s3.t2.1

Somewhat less in importance, from the view point of the *Jātakas* of course, were the kingdoms of Sivi, Madda, Malla, Gandhāra and Kamboja, which must have flourished during this period (i.e., 1200-800 B.C.), and should therefore be noticed here.

c3.s3.t2.2

The kingdom of Sivi appears to have been very ancient. The Śiva people of the *Ṛgveda*⁵ perhaps occupied this kingdom. During the time of Alexander the Great, there were the Siboi people. “It is probable,” says Raychaudhury, “that Śiva, Sivi and Siboi were one and the same people, . . . . inhabitants of the Shorkot region in Jhang.”⁶

c3.s3.t2.3

⁵ See *Vedic Index*, II, pp 381-2.

c3.s3.t2.4

⁶ P. H. A. I., p. 170.

c3.s3.t2.5

The earliest kings of Sivi known to the *Jātakas* are Usīnara and his son Sivi, the two famous traditional kings of the *Ancient Period* discussed before.

c3.s3.t2.6

The *Jātakas* mention Ariṭṭhapura¹ and Jetuttara² as the two capita-cities of the Sivi country. Ariṭṭhapura is, most probably, identical with Aristobothra of Ptolemy, in the north of the Punjab.³ And Jetuttara is evidently Jattaraur of Alberuni, the capital of Mewār.⁴ This perhaps indicates the spread of the Sivi people from the North to the South, and their migration to other places is also known.⁵

c3.s3.t2.7

¹ J., IV, p. 401; V, pp. 210, 212; VI, p. 419.

c3.s3.t2.8

² J., VI, pp. 480, 484-G. 1698 etc.

c3.s3.t2.9

³ De, G. D., p. 11.

c3.s3.t2.10

⁴ De, op. cit., p. 81.

c3.s3.t2.11

⁵ See Raychaudhury, op. cit., pp. 170-1. "We find them also in Sind, in Mādhyamikā in Rājputānā, and, in the *Daśakumāracarita*, on the banks of the Kāverī." Before the end of the 2nd century B.C., the Sivis of Jetuttara or Mādhyamikā had already established a republic, for we read on their coins '*Majjhamikāya Sivi Janapadassa*': Majumdar, *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, pp. 280-2.

c3.s3.t2.12

Ariṭṭhapura, if the *Jātakas* can be relied upon, was the earlier of the two capital cities, since Sivi, the Ideal king, about whom we have already spoken before, is associated with this city, whereas the later Sivi kings, like Vessantara, are said to have had their capital at Jetuttara and not at Ariṭṭhapura.

c3.s3.t2.13

From the *Vessantara Jātaka*,⁶ we get the following genealogical table which, we should note, remains uncorroborated by further evidence:—

c3.s3.t2.14

⁶ J., VI, pp. 480 ff. GG. 1698-1700, 1881.

c3.s3.t2.15

| Sivi (?) | Madda (?) |
| Sañjaya. m......... | Phusattī | Madda (?) |
| | |
| Vessantara—married—Maddī (?) | |
| | |
| Jāli | Kaṇhā. |

c3.s3.t2.16

From the above table, it will be seen that, even if the individuals mentioned therein may not all have existed at all, the fact that the two houses of Sivi and Madda were intimately connected by matrimonial ties has some appearance of reality. The fact that they were closely situated geographically renders it more probable.

c3.s3.t2.17

The nucleus of the story, as related in this charming balladic *Jātaka*, centres round Vessantara. He was a great donator. He was banished from the kingdom by the Sivi people for having given away a highly-prized elephant to the Brāhmaṇas of Kaliṅga. He, with his wife Maddī and the two children, Jāli and Kaṇhā, went to a forest and lived as a hermit. Afterwards he was reinstated on the throne of Sivi.

c3.s3.t2.18

It is not possible to identify precisely the kings mentioned in this *Jātaka*. Dr. Pradhan,⁷ let us note however, makes mention of a Sivi-Sañjaya, as an ancestor of Śākya of Devadaha. The identity does not seem to be possible.

c3.s3.t2.19

⁷ op. cit., p. 252.

c3.s3.t2.20

Vessantara, i.e., Viśvantara,¹ again reminds us of a Vedic prince named Viśvantara Sauṣadmana (descendant of Susadman),² whose conflict with his priests may well lead one to establish a connection between the two. But this too is hazardous.³

c3.s3.t2.21

¹ A gāthā, however, derives the name from 'Vessavithi' the Vessa or Vaiśya street, where he is said to have been born: J. VI, p. 482 G. 1700. But this seems to be only a pun on the word. The real form, as is clear philologically, should be Viśvantara which we find in the Tibetan version: *Tibetan Tales*, pp. 257 ff.

c3.s3.t2.22

² *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VII, 27, 3-4; 34; 7-8; *Vedic Index*, II, p. 309.

c3.s3.t2.23

³ The story of Viśvantara is delineated in a fresco-painting at Ajaṇṭā caves, where the scene of Banishment is so touching and the face of the Brāhmaṇa Jujaka with all its greediness is so faithfully represented.

c3.s3.t2.24

The Kingdom of Madda, with its capital Sāgala (modern Sialkot), is often mentioned in the *Jātakas*. As a tribe, the Maddas appear in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* and the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*.⁴ Madda, in the *Brāhmaṇic* Period, appears as a centre of learning and noted for refinement in manners.⁵

c3.s3.t2.25

⁴ *Vedic Index*, II, p. 123.

c3.s3.t2.26

⁵ Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., p. 43; Law, *Some Kṣatriya Tribes*, pp. 214 ff.

c3.s3.t2.27

The *Jātakas*, in common with the great Epic, represent the Maddas as living under a monarchical constitution. They do not unfortunately supply us with the names of any of the Madda kings. Nor do they give us any information about the manners and customs of the Maddas. The only prominent feature referred to about the Madda kings is, that they quite often enter into matrimonial alliances with the neighbouring, and often far-off, royal families. Thus the Madda house, as we have seen, was united with that of the Sivis through the marriages of Phussatī and Maddī with Sañjaya and Vessantara respectively. Princess Pabhāvatī, the eldest daughter of a Madda king, was married to the ugly prince Kusa, son and heir of a Malla king, Okkāka.⁶ Then Candāvatī, the chief queen of the far-off king Kāsirāja of Benares, was a daughter of a Madda king.⁷ So was also Subhaddā, the queen of another Benares king.⁸ And lastly, a Madda princess was given to a Kalinga prince.⁹ Whether these alliances are historically true or not, we have nothing to prove. But what signicant fact the *Jātakas* do perceive is, that the Madda princesses, owing to their exquisite beauty and virtuous demeanour, were in great demand in other royal families of India.¹⁰

c3.s3.t2.28

⁶ J., V, pp. 285 ff.

c3.s3.t2.29

⁷ J., VI, p. 1.

c3.s3.t2.30

⁸ J., V, p. 39.

c3.s3.t2.31

⁹ J., IV, p. 231.

c3.s3.t2.32

¹⁰ Cf. the descriptions of Pabhāvatī, J. V. pp. 283 ff. GG. 3-4, 37-44. The Madda women are characterised as white (gaurī) in the *Mahābhārata*, VIII, 44, 16 ff. So Bimbisāra is said to have married a Madda princess. C. H. I., I. p. 183; Mādrī, wife of Pāṇḍu, is a well known personality in the Great Epic.

c3.s3.t2.33

It is interesting to note in this connection, that far from being a bliss, the beauty of their daughters was, not infrequently, a source of danger of invasions upon these Madda kings by other kings. And we twice¹¹ hear the threatening sound of the kings who had beseiged the capital of Madda for the hand of the princess.

c3.s3.t2.34

¹¹ J., V, pp. 300 ff; IV, pp. 230-1.

c3.s3.t2.35

Madda has no place in the traditional list of the *Solasamahājanapadas*, which flourished a little before the time of the Buddha. The reason is not far to seek. It is because of the fact, as Mr. H. C. Ray¹ points out, that in the period represented by the *Nikāya* and the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*, it was annexed to one of the neighbouring ‘Great Countries,’ probably Gandhāra. Thus it seems that Madda, an independent kingdom, flourished in a period prior to the 7th century B. C.²

c3.s3.t2.36

¹ J. A. S. B., (N. S.), 1922, pp. 257 ff.

c3.s3.t2.37

² For detailed accounts of the Madras see H. C. Ray, J. A. S. B. (N. S.) 1922, pp. 257, ff; Mr. H. K. Deb, has tried to identify the Madras with the Medes of ancient Persia. The proposed identification is not without its value. See. J. A. S. B. (N. S.) 1925, pp. 265 ff.

c3.s3.t2.38

The kingdom of Malla, with its capital Kusāvatī, is mentioned in at least three *Jātakas*.³ The *Mahāsudassana Jātaka* mentions a king named Mahāsudassana whose queen was Subhaddā. In his reign the capital Kusāvatī was a very prosperous city.⁴

c3.s3.t2.39

³ J., 1, p. 392; IV, p. 327; V, pp. 278 ff.

c3.s3.t2.40

⁴ Cf. Mahāsudassana Suttanta, Dialogues of the Buddha, II. pp. 161-2.

c3.s3.t2.41

The *Kusa Jātaka*⁵ mentions a Malla king named Okkāka (Ikṣvāku) with his queen Silavatī. For a long time, says the story, he had no son, and the people became anxious lest the kingdom should be seized and destroyed by a foreigner. At last the queen gave birth to two sons who were named Kusa and Jayampati.

c3.s3.t2.42

⁵ J., V, pp. 278 ff.

c3.s3.t2.43

This Okkāka is surely not a personal name, and cannot therefore be identified. But, as Dr. Raychaudhury⁶ rightly infers, the name probably indicates that like the Śākyas the Malla kings also belonged to the Ikṣvāku family.

c3.s3.t2.44

⁶ P. H. A. I., p. p. 89.

c3.s3.t2.45

King Kusa, of all the Malla kings, bears a remarkable appearance of a historical character. Though we have no positive evidence to prove this, the long ballad-like *gāthās* of the *Kusa Jātaka* speak of him in such a fervent and sympathetic manner as to make us feel confident and certain about his real existence. He is there said to have been ugly.⁷ His marriage with Pabhāvatī, the Madda princess, is however accomplished with much dexterity.⁸ Pabhāvatī, after a short time, recognizes the ugly face, and out of sheer disgust flies away to her parents. Kusa, an ardent and sincere lover of hers, goes after her and, bent upon getting her back, he lives disguised in the Madda palace, employing various ingenuous means to have a sight of his beloved. And at last, when the city is besieged by a host of kings who wanted the fair lady's hand, he comes out to the help of his father-in-law, and defeating the enemies by his valour, obtains back Pabhāvatī, now completely reconciled.

c3.s3.t2.46

⁷ J., V, p. 282.

c3.s3.t2.47

⁸ Ibid., p. 285. It is related that the pair met only at night in the darkness, so that the ugly person of the King might not be recognised. The secret however was disclosed. Dr. Rabindranath Tagore has, apparently from this theme, worked out a beautiful lyrical drama entitled Sāpamocana, the Redemption.

c3.s3.t2.48

Kusa is styled as the ‘Chief ruler of all India.’ In one place¹ he is said to be the grandfather of a Videha king.

c3.s3.t2.49

¹ J., VI, p. 388 G. (†).

c3.s3.t2.50

We know from the Buddhist works, that before the time of the Buddha, the Malla monarchy had already been replaced by a republic, and once the prosperous metropolis of the kingdom, Kusāvatī, had sunk to the level of a little wattle and daub town, a branch township surrounded by jungles, and it had changed its name to Kusinārā (modern Kāsiā, in the east of the Gorakhpur Dist.).²

c3.s3.t2.51

² See Rhys Davids, B. I. pp. 19, 26, 29; Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, pp. 224, 250; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I., pp. 88-90; Cf. Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, XI, 1.

c3.s3.t2.52

The kingdom of Gandhāra with its capital Takkasilā, is mentioned not infrequently.³ No names of Gandhāra kings are specified, except that of Naggaji who figures, as we saw before, as a contemporary of Nimi, Dummukha and Karaṇḍu. The kingdom included Kasmīra.⁴

c3.s3.t2.53

³ J., I, pp. 191, 273, 285, 317, 395; II, p. 217. III, pp. 364, 377. Gandhāra corresponds to the modern Rāwalpindi (Punjab) and Peshāwar (N. W. F. P.) districts. The name survives in Kandahār. The ruins of the great capital city are unearthed near Saraikalā. See for its detailed description, Marshall, A Guide to Taxila, pp. 1, 4.

c3.s3.t2.54

⁴ J., III, pp. 365, 378. This is confirmed by the evidence of Hekataios of Miletos, (B. C. 549-486) who refers to Kaspapyros (Kāśyapapura, i.e., Kāśmīra) as a Gandharie city: P. H. A. I., p. 103.

c3.s3.t2.55

The fame of Gandhāra, during this period, rested on its capital Takkasilā which was a great centre of learning and a resort of students from all parts of India⁵. Uddālaka and his son Śvetaketu, the two great celebrities of the Upaniṣads, are represented in the Uddālaka Jātaka⁶ and the Setaketu Jātaka⁷ respectively, as having studied at Takkasilā under a world-renowned teacher.⁸

c3.s3.t2.56

⁵ Takkasilā maintained its reputation during the later Mahājanapada period as the innumerable references in the Jātakas show.

c3.s3.t2.57

⁶ J., IV, p. 298.

c3.s3.t2.58

⁷ J., III, p. 235.

c3.s3.t2.59

⁸ Cf. Vedic Index, I, pp. 87-9; II, pp. 409-10; Raychaudhury, P. H. A. I. pp. 39-41.

c3.s3.t2.60

In the 6th century B. C. Gandhāra was subject to the Achaemenidan Empire.⁹

c3.s3.t2.61

⁹ P. H. A. I., p. 102; C. H. I., I, pp. 336-7.

c3.s3.t2.62

Kamboja, constantly associated with Gandhāra in later literature, finds mention in a solitary gāthā of the Bhūridatta Jātaka which says:—

c3.s3.t2.63

“Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will—
These are your savage, customs which I hate
Such as Kamboja hordes might amulate”,¹⁰

c3.s3.t2.64

¹⁰ J., VI, p. 208—G. 903.

c3.s3.t2.65

This indictment of barbarity must have been a product of a period later than that of the *Brāhmaṇas* which seem to speak of Kamboja in favourable terms.¹ As pointed out by Raychaudhury,² "already in the time of Yāska (8th century B.C.) the Kambojas had come to be regarded as a people distinct from the Āryas of the interior of India, speaking a different dialect".³ Kamboja horses are praised in a *gāthā* of the *Campeyya Jātaka*.⁴

c3.s3.t2.66

¹ See *Vedic Index*, I, p. 138.

c3.s3.t2.67

² *P. H. A. I.*, p. 105; Cf. Levi. 'Pre-Aryan et Pre-Dravidian dans Inde,' tr. Bagchi, op. cit., pp. 119 *ff*.

c3.s3.t2.68

³ Ibid.

c3.s3.t2.69

⁴ J., IV, p. 464-G. 242—"Kambojake assatare sudante."

c3.s3.t2.70

Ancient Kamboja is located more definitely now by Prof. Jayacandra Vidyālaṅkāra⁵ in the Ghālehā Territory north of Kāshmīr.

c3.s3.t2.71

⁵ *Proceedings Sixth O. C.*, Patna, pp. 102 *ff*; See also Jayaswal, *I. A.*, LXII, pp. 130-1.

c3.s3.t2.72

Other countries that remain to be noticed here are those of the Macchas,⁶ the Sūrasenas⁷ and the Kekakas⁸ associated with the Kurus and the Pañcālas just as in the *Brāhmaṇa* period. No names of kings survive.

c3.s3.t2.73

⁶ J. VI, p. 280-G. 1228. The country corresponds to parts of Alwar, Jaipur and Bharatpur: Bhandarkar, *C. L.*, 1918, p. 53.

c3.s3.t2.74

⁷ J., VI, p. 280-G. 1228. The Sūrasenas were located around Mathurā on the Jumnā.

c3.s3.t2.75

⁸ Ibid., also J. II, pp. 213, 214-G, 154. They dwelt between the Sindhu and the Vitastā (Beas): *Ved. Ind.*, I, pp. 185-6.

The Daṇḍaka Empire

c3.s3.t3.1

Towards the end of the period which witnessed the waning power of Videha, the South of India was, it seems, undergoing a process of Rise and Fall of some states of which no sufficient connected records survive. A delightful ray of light coming from the *Sarabhaṅga Jātaka*⁹ enables us, however, to peep a little through the darkness that surrounds this period.

c3.s3.t3.2

⁹ J., V, pp. 127 *ff*.

c3.s3.t3.3

The *Jātaka* mentions a king named Daṇḍaki,¹⁰ as ruling over an extensive realm of sixty *yojanas* with Kumbhavatī¹¹ as his capital city. We are further told that within his realm ruled his three subordinate kings, (*assa raṭṭhasssa antararaṭṭhādhipatino*) viz., Kaliṅga, Aṭṭhaka and Bhīmaratha.¹² Of these, Daṇḍaki evidently represents the *Saṃskṛta* Daṇḍaka, associated with the forest of that name in the South. Bhīmaratha, again, must represent a South Indian king. The *Mahābhārata*,¹³ the *Purāṇas*¹⁴ and even the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*¹⁵ know Bhīma or Bhīmaratha (of which Bhīma is a shortened form)¹, as kings associated with the southern kingdom of Vidarbha,² modern Berar. Kaliṅga is of course a king of the Kaliṅga country. Now what about Aṭṭhaka? No king of this name is, as far as we are aware, to be found elsewhere, except the one mentioned before as belonging to the Ancient Period, and identified with King Aṣṭaka, son and successor of Viśvāmitra, or more appropriately, Viśvaratha.³ But that ancient Aṭṭhaka referred to as an inspiring example of ideal kingship seems, most probably, to be a different personage from this Aṭṭhaka of the Sarabhaṅga Jātaka, who is more real and intimately associated with the other South-Indian kings.⁴ How is it possible for a North-Indian king to be associated so intimately with the far-off kings of the south separated by the great monarchies and even physical barriers of Central India? We are inclined to think that, if the Jātaka is not to be accused of inconsistency, in the present case at least,—and we have no strong reason so to believe—, Aṭṭhaka should be taken here as a corrupted form of Assaka,⁵ and all our difficulties vanish in a moment. Assaka or Aśmaka, as we know, was a prominent South Indian state, situated on the river Godāvarī, and closely related to the neighbouring kingdoms of Daṇḍaka, Vidarbha and Kaliṅga.⁶

c3.s3.t3.4

¹⁰ Besides the prose, two *gāthās* also mention him: J., V, p. 143. GG. 68, 69.

c3.s3.t3.5

¹¹ According to the *Rāmāyaṇa*, VII, 79, 18, the capital was Madhumanta, while the *Mahāvastu* (Senart's ed.) p. 363, places it at Govardhana (Nāsik): *P. H. A. I.*, p. 64.

c3.s3.t3.6

¹² J., V, pp. 135, 137-G. 50; 149-G. 85.

c3.s3.t3.7

¹³ III, 53, 5 *ff*; 69, 1 *ff*.

c3.s3.t3.8

¹⁴ e. g., *Vāyu P.*, 95.

c3.s3.t3.9

¹⁵ VII, 34; *Vedic Index*, II, p. 106.

c3.s3.t3.10

¹ Cf. Pargiter, op. cit., p. 169.

c3.s3.t3.11

² Vidarbha is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, II, 440, Vedic Index, II, p. 297.

c3.s3.t3.12

³ Supra.

c3.s3.t3.13

⁴ Dr. B. C. Sen, op. cit., p. 7, apparently takes the two Aṭṭhakas identical and comes to a synchronism which, we admit, seems alluring.

c3.s3.t3.14

⁵ We searched in vain, we should admit here, to find if there was any difference of readings of this 'Aṭṭhaka' in Fausböll's texts. Other texts like the Siamese, we have not been able to consult.

c3.s3.t3.15

⁶ See Bhandarkar, C. L., 1918, pp. 19, 22, 40 etc., P. H. A. I., p. 62.

c3.s3.t3.16

It then comes to this. Daṇḍaka, Bhīmaratha, Assaka and Kaliṅga were contemporaries. But unfortunately none of these, except Bhīmaratha, is a personal name, and therefore it is very difficult to identify any of them. Daṇḍaka is not known to the Brāhmaṇas or the Upaniṣads. The Paurāṇic Daṇḍa or Daṇḍaka is, as rightly pointed out by Pargiter,⁷ an eponym to account for the name of the forest, because it clashes with the other statements about the many kings that occupied the Deccan. But whatever may have been the personal name of our Daṇḍaki, he is most certainly identical with Dāṇḍakya of Kauṭilya⁸ and Daṇḍaka of the Rāmāyaṇa⁹ and the Mahābhārata¹⁰ and also of the Jaina Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita of Hemacandra.¹¹ For, all of these refer to the dire destruction that befell his realm. He was most probably a post-Vedic king as may be judged by his absence from the Vedic texts, though this argumentum ex silentio is never conclusive, we admit. We cannot say for certain, again, with which of the several Bhīmas of Vidarbha of the Purāṇas mentioned in Pargiter's list¹ are we to identify our Bhīmaratha, or whether the identification is possible at all. Nor is his identification with Bhīma of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* possible, for in that case we shall have to carry him back to the early *Brāhmaṇa* period to make him contemporaneous with such comparatively ancient kings as Dummukha and Naggaji, which is, to our mind, inconceivable. It appears therefore that Bhīmaratha was later than the *Brāhmaṇic* Bhīma. Similarly, the Kaliṅga king mentioned in our *Jātaka* must be taken as later than Karaṇḍu of the earlier period. Assaka's identity remains uncertain. So from all this it appears reasonable to hold that these four kings, whosoever they in reality may have been, lived at a time when the Northern powers like the Pañcāla and Videha of the later Vedic period were showing signs of collapse and when Kāsī had not yet risen to its Imperial status capable enough to capture Assaka and other powers of the South.² The period may with a fair approximation be dated as 800 B. C..³

c3.s3.t3.17

⁷ A. I. H. T., p. 258; Cf. G. Ramdas, J. B. O. R. S., XI, p. 47.

c3.s3.t3.18

⁸ Arthaśāstra, I, 6.

c3.s3.t3.19

⁹ VII, 81. 7-19.

c3.s3.t3.20

¹⁰ XIII, 153, 11; also II, 30, 16-7.

c3.s3.t3.21

¹¹ G. O. S., LI, pp. 44-5; Cf. Jain, Jaina Jātakas, pp. 47-8.

c3.s3.t3.22

¹ A. I. H T., pp. 146, 148 numbers 41 (Kṛtha Bhīma), 50 (Bhīmaratha), and 66 (Bhīna Sātvata).

c3.s3.t3.23

² See for instance J., II, p. 155.

c3.s3.t3.24

³ The fact that a town of Lambacūlaka in the province (*vijite*) of Caṇḍapajjota is referred to in our *Jātaka* in a manner which may suggest that he was contemporaneous with the group of kings, mentioned above, does not carry much weight. For in another place, J., III, p. 463, the name of the king, in the same context, is Pajoka. It seems natural to think therefore that the story-teller, while reciting an ancient story where the name was different, incorporated the name of that king who was more familiar and nearer to him. It may be said to be an anachronism. See Sen, op. cit., p. 7.

c3.s3.t3.25

The fate of Daṇḍaki and his kingdom must be regarded as historical fact, since all our authorities are, as we saw before, at one on this point, though they ascribe different causes to it. That he made a 'lascivious attempt on a Brāhmaṇa girl' is attested by the *Arthaśāstra*⁴ and the *Rāmāyaṇa*⁵ and also by the Jaina *Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita*,⁶ while our *Jātaka*⁷ says that he treated the holy sage Kīsavaccha very contemptuously. These causes, of course, cannot be viewed in any other light except as later-day inventions of moralists and sectarian propagandists who, to suit their own purposes, explained away a fact of natural phenomena as resulting from a human sin.⁸ Any way, the fact remains, as the unanimous testimony of the above sources forces us to think, that the kingdom of Daṇḍaki round the river Godāvarī and the districts of Nāsik and adjoining parts of Mahārāṣṭra suffered from some terrible natural visitations. The statement of the *Jātaka*⁹ that the land was destroyed by a shower of 'fine sand' (*sukhumavālukavassam*) is in striking agreement with that of the *Rāmāyaṇa* (*pāṃśuvarṣeṇa*).¹⁰

c3.s3.t3.26

⁴ I, 6.

c3.s3.t3.27

⁵ VII, 80, 16.

c3.s3.t3.28

⁶ I. c.

First 200 of 216 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)