Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c11: Excursus

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c11

Language
English

Contents

Excursus

First Excursus. On the Relative Geographical Location of Vedic and Buddhist Culture

c11.s1.2

THOSE of the Indian peoples, among whom Buddhism has its home,* especially the people of Magadha, dwell far to the east of the territories, to which the poetry of the *Rigveda* introduces us. Were they then already residing in the east, or were they at least in the act of penetrating to the east, when the hymns of the Veda were being sung in the west, in the Panjâb and on the Sarasvati? Or were they then within the circle of the Vedic world, and have they not moved eastward until a later period? The question may also be expressed thus: If in the epic-Buddhist age there was an Aryan culture in India, as partakers in which we find the Kurus and Pañcâlas, the people of Magadha and Kosala and so on, did all these peoples at one time participate in the ancient Vedic culture, or did the Vedic culture in the Vedic age within the Indian Aryandom cover a narrower field, which, for example, included the Kurus and Pañcâlas, and on the other hand did not comprise the people of Videha and Magadha?

c11.s1.3

We have (p. 9) declared our adherence to the latter of these two views, and we here intend to more accurately define and support our view, according to which the culture of the Vedas was indigenous to but one portion of the Aryan peoples of Hindostan, and from them reached the other afterwards only at second hand.

c11.s1.4

∗ What the approximate geographical extent of the most ancient Buddhism was, is stated *inter alia* in the “Mahâparinibbâna Sutta,” p.

c11.s1.5

⁵⁵ The chie towns, in which many and respected nobles, Brahmans, and Vaiçyas, who confess adherence to the faith of Buddha, dwell, are there named: Campâ, Râjagaha, Sâvatthi, Sâketa, Kosambî, Bârânasî.

c11.s1.6

Even, à priori, considering the wide spread of the Aryan territory and Aryan peoples in India, it must be considered probable, that already in the Vedic age a community of culture had no longer continued to prevail throughout this vast tract. The analogies of kindred nations which force themselves on our attention indicate this. As, though we do not shut our eyes to the reciprocal influences, we are entitled to say that the Dorians of the Peloponnesus created for themselves a culture apart from the Æolians or Ionians, and that to a late period Umbrians, Latins, and Oscans, pursued their own path of religious, political, and literary development, so the historical treatment of India will in a similar way have to separate between western stocks with their Vedic culture, which went ahead in spiritual development, and the eastern peoples, which developed themselves more slowly, between Kurus and Pañcâlas on one side and the peoples of Kosala, Videha, and Magadha on the other. It will have to make this distinction here, even though it is true that the races of India by on means in themselves, and still less for us, presented so sharply imprinted, distinguishing individualities, as did the Grecian stocks; we cannot expect, it is self-apparent, to realize for ourselves the national life of the Kurupañcâlas on the one hand and of the Videha or Kosala peoples on the other hand, in the same way that we know Dorians and Athenians as clearly different types.

c11.s1.7

It is necessary for us in our inquiry, at first to leave the Rik-Samhitâ out of sight, and first to ask the question, what stocks have had a share in the spiritual movements, which are indicated by the Brâhmana texts and kindred literature. On the basis of the results hereby gained we shall then attempt to determine how the group of peoples appearing in the Rik-Samhitâ are related to the great Indian cultured peoples of later times.

c11.s1.8

The ethnological table in the “Aitareya Brâhmana” (8, 14) shows how the Indian stocks group themselves from the standpoint of this text, where the incisions are, which separate the differently constituted divisions. In the middle “asyâm* dhruvâyâm madhyamâyâm pratisthâyâm diçi" lie the realms of the Kurupañcâlas together with Vaças* and Uçinaras. To the south of this Land of the Middle there dwell the Satvats, eastward the Prâcyas (we shall necessarily think chiefly of the Kâçi, Kosala,† Videha, and Magadha peoples), westward the Nîcyas, Apâcyas. In the north the Middle Land is bounded by the Himalaya, for as peoples north of the Middle those are named, who dwell parena Himavantam, the Uttarakurus and Uttaramadras.

c11.s1.9

∗ In treating of the other territories, instead of asyâm the word etasyâm is used: asyâm contains a significant hint that the compiler of the text belongs to this very territory. Vide Weber, “Ind. Lit. Gesch.,” p. 49.

c11.s1.10

† The Kosala people are by the Buddhists also counted among the Prâcyas. As the Sakyas belonged to the Kosalas, Buddha himself was considered a Kosala; but as to the Buddhas the rule held good: puratthimesu janapadesu buddhâ bhagavanto uppajjanti ("Cullav." xii, 2, 3). In the same way it follows that Benares belonged to the eastern land, for the Buddha Kassapa was born in the kingdom of the king Kiki of Bârânasî (Mahâpadâna Sutta). Moreover the Buddhist texts make the king of Kosala rule over Benares also (Lohiccasutta in the "Dîgha Nikâya": râjâ Pasenadi Kosalo Kâsikosalam ajjhâvasati); in the territory of Kâsi Pasenadi fights his battles against Ajâtasutta (Kosala Samyutta).—Cf. further "Mahâvagga," viii, 2. The distinction of a northern and southern Kosala kingdom ("Burnouf," Intr., p. 22, vol. i) is not in accordance with the Pâli Pitakas.

c11.s1.11

With the sketch of the distribution of Indian peoples, which is thus given, now admirably fit in the data, which are supplied by Manu—probably following older Sûtra texts. The land of the Brahmarshis, whose customs and rights are taken as a model, whose warriors are the bravest, is Kurukshetra and the territory of the Matsyas, the Pañcâlas and Çûrasenas (2, 19 ; 7, 193). Thus the land of the Brahmarshis embraces what is set down in the Aitareya as madhyamâ diç and as south;* but what is regarded in the Aitareya as west and east, above all the eastern peoples of Kâçi, Kosala, Videha, and Magadha, is in Manu excluded from the land of the Brahmarshis.

c11.s1.12

∗ This is the accepted and, as I believe, the correct translation of savaçoçinarânâm. The Vaças will be identical with the Vamsas in the Buddhist enumeration of peoples (vid. infra, p. 407, n. 2,), but can hardly have anything to do with the Vaças introduced by the Petersburg Lexicon from the "Mahâbhârata," i, 6684 (if the reading of the Calc. Edition be correct), who are classed together with the Yavanas, Barbaras, Cînas, and other Mlecchas. The Lexicon finds, apparently correctly, a mention of the Vaças also in the "Gop. Br.," 2, 9: imeshu Kurupañcâleshu Aṅgamagadheshu Kâçikauçalyeshu Çâlvamatsyeshu Çavasa (lege: savaça) uçinareshudîcyeshu. Now, from a comparison of "Ait. Br.," 8, 14, and "Gop. Br.," 2, 9, the relevancy also of a third passage seems to me to be established, "Kaush. Upan.," iv, 1: so 'vasad Uçinareshu savasan Matsyeshu Kurupañcâleshu Kâçivideheshv iti. The "savasan," which here occurs between the names of the Uçinaras and the Matsyas, cannot be disassociated from the "çavasa," which stands between the same names in the "Gop. Br.," and the "savaça," which occurs in the "Ait Br." in conjunction with the name of the Uçinaras. Thus, I think, that in this passage the conjecture "savaçamatsyeshu" should be preferred to the emendation "Satvan-Matsyeshu," recommended by the Pet. Lex. and by Professor Max Müller ("Upanishads," Introd., p. lxxvii).

c11.s1.13

Thus we have here a distinction between those stocks, who felt themselves to be the qualified champions of Aryan culture, and those who were Aryans, it is true, but were not regarded as equally accredited partakers in this culture. Momenta of many kinds may have co-operated to bring about and enhance this difference. Association with non-Aryan elements, to which the stocks that had migrated to the greatest distances were especially exposed, may have been at the same time in play.† But it hardly lay in this only, that the Kurus claimed to be something other and better than the Magadhas. Rather here appears to be the place where the ancient lines of distinction become apparent, which had come down from an immemorial past, drawn between the different leading groups and leading types of the Indian Aryan stocks, and the existence of which we might be entitled to assume almost with à priori certainty. We must, for the testing of this supposition,

c11.s1.14

* Of the peoples of the madhyamâ diç the Kurus and Pañcâlas occur again in Manu; that the small stocks of the Vaças and Uçînaras are not expressly named, is no cause of astonishment. In the south new tribal names have arisen: the Çûrasenas, who are not named at all in the old texts, are now the chief people of the south. As to the connection between the Satvats, Bhojas, Yâdavas, Çûrasenas, see Lassen, “Ind. Alt.,” i, 757; cf. Weber, “Ind. St.,” i, 211.

c11.s1.15

† So it is said in the “Baudhâyanadharmaçâstra,” i, 1 (according to MSS. Burnell 39 and 40 in the India Office Library):

c11.s1.16

Avantayo ’ṅga-Magadhâs Surâṣṭrâ-Dakṣiṇâpathâḥ Upâvrit-Sindhusauvîrâ ete saṃkîrnayonaḥ.

c11.s1.17

Ârattân Kâraskarân Puṇḍrân Sauvîrân Vaṅga-Kaliṅgân prânrinâniti cadagatvâ (? sic, the last word being corrected to codag gatvâ, one MS.; the other reads: prânrinân iti ca gatvâ) punastomena yajeta sarvapriṣṭhayâ vâ. ’thâpy udâharanti:

c11.s1.18

padbhyâm sa kurute pâpam yaḥ Kaliṅgân prapadyate, riṣayo niṣkṛitim tasya prâhur vaiçvânaram haviḥ.

c11.s1.19

next submit the Brâhmana texts and finally the Rik-Samhita to an examination as to their bearing on the peoples of the different groups indicated by us.

c11.s1.20

If, as we hold, in the Brâhmana period the home of Brahmanic civilization has been with the Kuru-Pañcâlas and the stocks of the west standing in closer union with them, we cannot, nevertheless, and we do not, expect to find this disclosed in the exclusive mention of peoples of the western groups in the Brâhmana texts. But the cases of their being mentioned, specially of the Kurus and Pañcâlas, and in a second degree of the Bharatas,* surpass at once beyond all comparison in frequency the mentioning of the eastern peoples, and then the texts frequently attribute to the western peoples unmistakably the weight of an older and higher sacral authority, than to the eastern groups, which latter are plainly named in a hostile or contemptuous tone, or at least appear as peoples who have received from the west instruction in the spiritual knowledge, which has its home there.

c11.s1.21

A selection of the very amply existing materials bearing on this matter will suffice for the illustration of what has been said.

c11.s1.22

The Kurukshetra is the place of sacrifice of the gods (“Çat.” iv, 1, 5, 13; xiv, 1, 1, 2). From the Camasa, which the gods used in the sacrifice, was produced the sacred tree Nyagrodha; the first-born of the Nyagrodha trees grow on the Kurukshetra (“Ait.” 7, 30). In the tale of the Purûravas and Urvaçîs the Kurukshetra plays a part (“Çat.” xi, 5, 1, 4; “Ind. Studien,” i, 197). The offerings which must be performed at the Sarasvatî, Drishadvatî and Yamunâ, are known (v. “Çâṅkh. çr.” 13, 29; “Kâty.” 24, 6; “Pañcav. Br.” 25, 10 seq). In the north, among the Kurupañcâlas, is the country, where the Vâc has her peculiar home; the Vâc, as she there is, is truly (nidânena) to be called a Vâc (“Çat.” iii, 2, 3, 15).† Some prefer the Pañcâvattam to the Caturavattam, but the Caturavattam follows the custom of the Kurupañcâlas, therefore let it be given the preference (“Çat.” i, 7, 2, 8). A saying of the Kurupañcâlas with reference to the kings of the Kurupañcâlas, who have performed the Râjasûya-sacrifice, v. “Çat.” v, 5, 2, 5. A form of the Vâjapeya-offering, which bears the name Kuru-vâjapeya, is explained at “Çâṅkh. çr.” xv, 3, 15. To a disaster which the Kurus sustained by a shower of stones, reference is made in “Chând. Up.” i, 10, 1. An old verse, in which it is said, “The mare saves the Kurus,” is quoted at id. iv, 17, 9. “The Kurus shall be obliged to fly from Kurukshetra,” a Brahman threatens and his threat is fulfilled; “Çâṅkh. çr.” xv, 15, 10.”—Cf. also “Taitt. Br.” i, 8, 4, 1, 2.

c11.s1.23

∗ Concerning these and their relation to the Kurus, see farther on.

c11.s1.24

† Cf. the Çâṅkh. Brâhm., “Ind. Stud.,” ii, p. 309.

c11.s1.25

The brilliant part is well known, which Janamejaya, the king of the Kurus, plays in a series of the Brâhmana texts, as well as that noble ode in praise of his father, the Kuru king Parikshit, which we have preserved in “Av.” xx, 127, 7 seq.

c11.s1.26

As Parikshit and Janamejaya among kings, so Âruni among those versed in sacrifice stands on a high, perhaps on the highest platform.* To Âruni is attributed the formula with which the morning and evening sacrifice is celebrated : agnir jyotir agniḥ svâhâ; sûryo jyotir jyotiḥ sûryaḥ svâhâ (“Çat.” ii, 3, 1, 34), and in others also of the Yajus formulæ are found traces of Âruni’s hand (“Çat.” iii, 3, 4, 19, vgl. “Taitt. Âr.” i, 12, 4). But Aruni is mentioned as a Kaurupañcâla brahman (“Çat.” xi, 4, 1, 2); the Mahâbhârata (i, 682, ed. Calc.) defines him more closely as a Pañcâlya, with which the fact is in keeping, that we find his son Çvetaketu* appear in an assembly of the Pañcâlas ("Çat." xiv, 9, 1, 1; "Chând. Up." v, 3, 1), and that a man from Kauçâmbî is mentioned as Âruni's pupil ("Çat." xii, 2, 2, 13).

c11.s1.27

∗ When the time shall have come for the inquiries, which will have to be made to create order out of the chaotic mass of names of teachers and other celebrities of the Brâhmana period, it may turn out that the most important centre for the formation and diffusion of the Brâhmana doctrine will have to be looked for in Âruni and in the circles which surrounded him. The most divergent lines of tradition meet in the person of Uddâlaka Âruni. He is named as the teacher of Yâjnavalkya (“Çat. Br.” xiv, 9, 3, 15; 9, 4, 33; cf. of the other books of this text V. 5, 5, 14). But also in the texts belonging to the Rigveda he plays a prominent part. As the Vamça at the end of the “Çat. Br.” makes the teacher, who in this text enjoys leading authority, namely, Yâjnavalkya, a pupil of Âruni’s, so the Kaushîtaki Âranyaka (XV) represents Kaushîtaki and through him also his pupil Çâṅkhâyana derive his wisdom from Âruni (“Gunâkhyâc Châṅkhâyanâd asmâbhir adhîtam, Gunâkhyah Çâṅkhâyanâḥ Kaholât Kaushîtakeḥ, Kaholah Kaushîtakir Uddâlakâd Âruneḥ,” etc.). And also the teacher, whose name we find at the head of another branch of Rigveda school tradition, Madhuka Paingya (cf. regarding him “Kaush. Brâhm.” xvi, 9; “Çat. Br.” xl, 7, 2, 8), is through the medium of Yâjnavalkya brought into connection with Âruni (“Çat. Br.” xiv, 9, 3, 16). Cf. also “Chând. Up.” iii, p. 178 ed. Roer.

c11.s1.28

Certain peculiarities of recitation are laid claim to as belonging to the Pañcâlas, others to the Prâcyas ("Çâṅkh. çr." xii, 13, 6; "Rik-Prâtiç. Sûtra" 137 and 186); we shall perhaps be permitted to conclude, that on the whole the method of Vedic recitation has arisen among the Kurus.

c11.s1.29

The passages bearing on the Bharatas, standing to all appearance in closest union with the Kurus, will be set forth and explained farther on. Here we merely mention the saying in "Taitt. Âr." ii, 20: namo Gaṅgâyamunayor madhye ye vasanti . . . namo Gaṅgâyamunayor munibhyaç ca.

c11.s1.30

To the evidence here collected† of the prominent importance of the Kurupañcâlas in the Vedic world—evidence, a part of which is drawn from the "Çatapatha Brâhmana"—will be opposed the important part, which the people of Videha, living far in the east, and their king Janaka play in this very text. The attitude of the "Çatapatha Brâhmana" to the eastern parts of Hindostan is so instructive on the matters which now engage our attention, that we shall go into greater detail on this point.

c11.s1.31

In the last books of the "Çatapatha Brâhmana," the debates, which are carried on between the Brahmans at the Court of the Videha king Janaka, bear leading prominence. The hero of these contests, and at the same time the teacher, whose authority on spiritual questions is regarded as decisive,‡ is Yâjnavalkya. Some passages of the Brâhmana make it, if not absolutely certain, at any rate highly probable, that he belonged by descent, not to the Kurupañcâlas but —we may venture to add conjecturally—to the Videhas.* Thus we have here a proof, from which it is clear that Brahman-Vedic culture was held in honour at a court far east from the land of the Kurupañcâlas, and also that, in all probability, the most respected teacher of this court was himself a native of that eastern kingdom.

c11.s1.32

∗ The same, who in a noteworthy passage of the Âpastamba (i, 2, 5, 6) is cited as an example of the appearance of Çrutarshayas still in later ages. † Compare with these also the very rich collections of Weber, "Ind. St." i, 189 seq.; the relevant passages from the "Kâthaka" are quoted at iii, 469, 471. ‡ For brevity's sake we may here be permitted to omit notice of Books vi-x, xiii, the bearing of which is avowedly peculiar (Weber, "Ind. Stud." xiii, 265-269; Delbrück, "Die Altindische Wortfolge," p. 45).

c11.s1.33

This fact cannot be thrown into relief by itself alone, without setting it in its true light by means of other facts drawn from that same Brâhmana. The “Çatapatha Br.” shows itself in the clearest way, that Brahmanic culture among the Videhas is only an offshoot from the Kurupañcâlas. Yâjnavalkya himself is a pupil of Âruni (note p. 396), who, as we saw, was a Pañcâla. The groups of Brahmans, who flock to Janaka, are—except Yâjnavalkya—Kurupañcâlânâm brâhmanâh (xiv, 6, 1, 1, etc.); the king of the east, who has a leaning to the culture of the west, collects the celebrities of the west at his court—much as the intellects of Athens gathered at the court of Macedonian princes. How fully throughout the whole text, which actually appears to have been compiled in the east, the authority of the west, of the Kurupañcâlas, is felt and acknowledged, the passages collected above amply show.† And most clearly in the well-known narration of the “Çatapatha Br.” i, 4, 1, 10 seq.‡ has the memory been preserved, that there was a time, when the sacrificial system, as it flourished on the Sarasvatî, was still a stranger to the land of the Videhas§ : Videgha Mâthava, the national hero of the Videhas, goes eastward across the Sadânîrâ and there establishes the rule of the Videhas. But Agni Vaiçvânara, who comes from the Sarasvatî, does not accompany him across; he cannot burn beyond the Sadânîrâ. Therefore in earlier ages no Brahmans went across the Sadânîrâ to the east, for it was bad land, whereof Agni Vaiçvânara had not tasted. "Now, however, eastward of that dwell many Brahmans; . . . now is it indeed good land, for now have Brahmans made it enjoyable through offerings." The difference between the ancient Vedic land of culture in the west and the east, where there was Aryan land, but not yet for a long time a home of Vaiçvânara, can scarcely be more significantly expressed. Certainly the limits between the two tracts here appear to have been already pushed forward a stage farther toward the east; the Kosalas have entered earlier than the Videhas into the community of Vedo-Brahmanic culture.*

c11.s1.34

∗ XIV, 6, 1, 1-3 and especially 6, 9, 20. † Holding as we do with Weber that the “Çat. Br.” was compiled in the east, it is very readily explained how this text not only knows those peoples, kings and teachers, as do the other texts, but in addition also knows Yâjnavalkya and Janaka, of whom the other texts are almost wholly ignorant (Weber, “Lit. Gesch.”2 p. 146, note 2). The other texts originated at the very centre, the “Çat. Br.” at the periphery of Vedic culture; in the provinces people know the great folks of the capital, but not vice versâ. ‡ Cf. Weber, “Ind. Stud.” i, 170 seq. § What river that Sâdanîrâ here, named as a boundary, is, cannot, as far as I see, be determined with certainty. Weber (loc. cit. 172, 181) identifies it with the Gandakî, which in later times formed the boundary between the territories of Kosala and Videha. Against this the fact seems to speak, that the Mahâbhârata on one occasion makes its heroes cross “Gandakîn ca Mahâçonam Sâdanîrâm tathaiva ca” (ii, 794 ed. Calc. ; also vi, 325, 332 the two rivers stand beside each other in a long list); this passage is, of course, not decisive, for the

c11.s1.35

Still farther off from the old centres of Vedic culture than the races already named stand the Magadhas. In a well-known passage of the Atharva-Veda (5, 22, 14) the fever is washed away to the Gandhâris† and Mûjavants, and to the Aṅgas and Magadhas; and

c11.s1.36

† The Gandhâras in the north-west will have to be regarded by us as standing outside the pale of Vedic culture, in the same way as the Magadha people did in the south-east (cf. Roth, "zur Literatur," see 42). Of course they are known to the Vedic texts. But their mention in "Chândogya Upan." vi, 14 does not imply that the compiler of that text was specially near to the Gandhâras, so that we cannot conclude with Prof. Max Müller (p. 105 of his Translation) regarding the high antiquity of the text or the northern origin of its compiler. The passage seems to me rather to favour the opposite (cf. also Weber, "Ind. St." i, 219 note). The matter dealt with is a comparison of a man, who is led (ânîya) away by the Gandhâras with closed eyes, and who then inquires his way back from village to village. The

c11.s1.37

knowledge of the true Sadânîrâ, which has been lost to later lexicographers in every instance—for the Karatoyâ cannot possibly be identified with the S.—may have been already wanting to the poets who composed these passages of the Mahâbhârata.

c11.s1.38

∗ It is quite in accordance with this that among the names of the stocks not held in full esteem as though being non-Aryan, which are at the same time applied as the designations of mixed castes, Vaideha occurs as well as Magadha (Manu x, 11; cf. Gautama iv, 17), but not Kausalya. We also find the names of the Nicchivis (Licchavis) and the Mallas (Manu x, 22), the rulers of Kusinârâ and Pâvâ and the near neighbours of the Sakyas. Probably, then, the latter also belonged to the stocks little affected by Brahmanic influences.

c11.s1.39

a host of other passages in the Vedic literature combine to show that the Magadhas were looked upon as strangers, and were regarded by no means with favour.*

c11.s1.40

If our inquiry up to this point, which has been based essentially on the Brâhmana Text, has yielded the probability, that, for the history of the spread of Vedic culture, a sharp distinction must be drawn between Kurus, Pañcâlas, and the peoples connected with them on the one hand, and the Eastern stocks, especially the Videhas and Magadhas on the other, now is the time to examine this hypothesis by the data which the Rik-Samhitâ supplies. We ask: Can we discern among the stocks, which are mentioned in the Rik-Samhitâ, a prominence or even an exclusive appearance of the circle which groups itself round the Kuru-Pañcâlas? We believe we shall have to answer this question in the affirmative.

c11.s1.41

passage means the more, the farther the Gandhâras are made to reside from the land where this may have been said. With the Buddhists the capital of the Gandhâras, Takkasilâ, figures constantly as the place to which anyone travels, when he desires to learn something good, e.g. “Tat. Atth.” ii, 2; 39 etc. and already in the Vinaya Pitaka: “Mahâvagga,” viii, 1, 5, seq.

c11.s1.42

* Vide the quotations in Professor Weber’s “Lit. Gesch.,” second edition, p. 86, 123 seq. 156. I cannot agree with Weber in tracing the light esteem of the Brahmans (or quasi-Brahmans, for they do not apparently pass as pure) of Magadha expressed in the passages in point, to the success of Buddhism in that country. If the Brahmans of Magadha as such are spoken of in a sneering tone, it is, I think, more natural to think of the light esteem in which their fatherland was held, than of a circumstance—the Buddhist faith—which affected only single individuals among them, but affected, instead, Kosala Brahmans, etc., quite as much. If this faith and not the origin of the Magadha Brahmans were the real point, why then was not, for example, the well-known prescript regarding Vrâtyastoma based on the faith and not on the descent? Data of any kind whatever, which might stand in any connection whatever with Buddhism, I have not been able to discover in the whole range of the statements regarding the Vrâtyas. The rôle which the Magadha people here play, is amply explained by the feeling of national antipathy, or of contempt, which was harboured towards them. Prof. Weber seems to me to hit the mark, when he, “Lit. G.,” p. 305, surmises that the land of Magadha was not wholly Brahmanized. But we need not suppose that here “the aborigines always preserved a kind of influence.” The Aryan immigrants themselves were not wholly Brahmanized, i.e., not wholly permeated by the culture of the Kuru-Pañcâlas.—We may here also refer to “Kaush Âr.” 7, 14: atha ha smâsya (i.e., of the Hrasva Mândukeya) putra âha Madhyamah Prâtibodhîputro Magadhavâsî. Thus, dwelling in the Magadha territory is mentioned as something unusual.

c11.s1.43

It is admitted that the status of Indian family-stocks, as it is given in the *Rik-Samhitâ*, corresponds at first sight only partially with that which is set forth in the *Brâhmana*. A series of the most important race-names given in the *Rik-Samhitâ* have vanished wholly, or as good as wholly, in the *Brâhmana*: *e.g.*, the Pûrus, Turvaças, Yadus, Tritsus, and so on. *Vice versâ*, of the names of Kurus and Pañcâlas, which stand in the front in the *Brâhmana*, not one is named, directly at least, in the *Samhitâ*. There arose apparently on the one side new names instead of the old (note the well-known change of Krivi and Pañcâla), on the other, in the many migrations and struggles in numerous places, the countless small stocks of the older days cohered into few greater peoples;* naturally such events might easily necessitate a change in the names. Finally the possibility also must not be overlooked, that one and another among the stocks, which had participated in the culture of the *Rik-Samhitâ*, withdrew later from the circle, in which the Vedic culture has further developed itself, and new stocks entered this circle.

c11.s1.44

The investigation will now naturally take this course: first those stocks of the *Rik-Samhitâ* will be enumerated, which reappear under the same names in the *Brâhmana*. Then will be mentioned the unfortunately only few cases, in which the identity of the name is indeed wanting, but where from further considerations of some kind or other a connection between the one case and the other is rendered probable.

c11.s1.45

Of instances of the first kind I may cite the following:—

c11.s1.46

Kurus, in the *Rik-Samhitâ* at least indirectly named, Zimmer, “Altind. Leben,” p. 130 seq.; Ludwig, “Mantraliteratur,” p. 205.

c11.s1.47

Krivis (= Pañcâlas), s. Zimmer, p. 102 seq. The small importance of the Krivis in ancient times as compared with the later great prominence of the Pañcâlas suggests the supposition, that the change of names is connected with further changes, some such as a cohesion of the Krivis with other elements to form the Pañcâla stock; we shall return to this matter later on, p. 404 seq.

c11.s1.48

∗ Compare the analogous occurrences in ancient Germany, where, for example, the Chamavi, Sigamberi, Ampsivarii of ancient times combined to form the composite race of the Franks.

c11.s1.49

Matsyas, Zimmer, p. 127. The passage quoted from Manu (supra, p. 393) and numerous other evidences establish their connection with the great western groups of peoples.

c11.s1.50

Uçînaras, Zimmer, p. 130. Their belonging to the group of the Kurus and Pañcâlas is clear from the genealogical table of the Aitareya.

c11.s1.51

Srĩnjayas, Zimmer, p. 132; Ludwig, “Mantra Lit.” p. 153 seq.; Weber, “Ind. Stud.” i, 208; iii, 472. Their close connection with the Kurus has been rightly inferred by Zimmer from “Çat.” ii, 4, 4, 5; cf. also “Çat.” xii, 9, 3, 1 seq.

c11.s1.52

Ruçamas, Zimmer, p. 129. In the Brâhmana we meet with at least one Ruçamâ (“Pañc. Br.” xxv, 13); this one runs round Kurukshetra for a bet made with Indra.

c11.s1.53

Cedis, Zimmer, p. 129. I here insert this stock, although, as far as I know, it does not meet us again in the Brâhmana, but only in the great Epic: Pañcâlâç Cedi-Matsyâç ca Çûrasenâh, etc. (iv. 11). The Cedis are set up as the model of upright living (i, 2342 seq.). They lie, judging by their later settlements, of all these peoples farthest to the south-east, s. Lassen, I², 688 A. 3; Cunningham “Archæol. Survey,” ix, 54 seq.

c11.s1.54

Of the Bharatas we shall treat farther on.

c11.s1.55

Already this of itself confessedly scanty list of names indicates unmistakably that the Rik-Samhitâ has its home among those groups of peoples, who are found later on gathered round the centre of the Kurupañcâlas. The instances to the contrary are unimportant. They are the following:—

c11.s1.56

The Gandhâris, Zimmer, p. 30. *Vide* supra, p. 399.

c11.s1.57

The Kîkatas, Zimmer, p. 31. These, according to the lexicographers, would have to be taken as identical with the Magadha people. But, on the one hand, they are mentioned in a way which appears to point to their distance from, rather than their nearness to, the compiler of the poem, and on the other it is more than uncertain that they are to be really identified with the Magadha stock. Yâska (Nir. 6, 32) was only able to say of the Kîkatas that they were non-Aryans. If he was justified in this, then they were not the Magadhas, if these were Aryans. But if Yâska knew nothing really of the Kîkatas and drew what he said of them only from the passage of the Rigveda, it is then difficult to believe that the lexicographers knew more.

c11.s1.58

A connection of the Aṅga Aurava, who according to the Anukramanî is represented to be compiler of Rv. 10, 138, with the people of the Aṅgas, we have no reason to suppose.

c11.s1.59

Ikshvâkus, Zimmer, p. 133, cf. p. 104 note. The later ages trace back the royal race of Eastern Hindostan to Ikshvâku; the race also, to which Buddha belonged, regarded itself as a race of Ikshvâkuidæ. If Ikshvâku stands outside the circle with which, according to our investigation, the Rik-Samhitâ otherwise deals, the mention of a mighty prince in this way would of itself scarcely be used against us as an instance opposed to our result. But the case itself is questionable: the “Çatapatha Brâhmana” (xiii, 5, 4, 5) knows Purukutsa as an Ikshvâkuid;* but Purukutsa was prince of the Pûrus (Zimmer, p. 123), whom no one will seek to identify with those eastern peoples (regarding the Pûrus see our remarks presently). Are we to suppose that the eastern stocks, when they came into closer contact with the Vedic culture, have appropriated to their most venerated kingly races ancestors of Vedic nobility, and that for that purpose the name of Ikshvâkuidæ, belonging correctly to the Pûrus, has been selected?

c11.s1.60

We now pass on to consider the cases, in which the identity or connection of stocks which we mentioned in the Samhitâ, and such as are mentioned in the Brâhmana, is to be rendered probable, not directly by resemblance of name but in some other way.

c11.s1.61

The Pûrus are, as is known, brought in the genealogical system of the great epic into the closest connection with the Kurus. In the Brâhmana there are unfortunately wanting evidences, but internal probability really speaks for our inferring a connection between the people, which stands in the age of the Rik-Samhitâ in the centre of Vedic civilization, and that which occupies the same position in the case of the Brâhmana.* It also deserves to be noted that the Kuruçravana, cf. Rv. x, 33, 4, is denominated Trâsadasyava; but Trasadasyu was a prince of the Pûrus. I believe that the Pûrus were only one among other elements, which combined to form the people of the Kurus; another I shall attempt to point out as we proceed (p. 408 seq.).

c11.s1.62

∗ Probably it serves to confirm this statement, that according to the “Pañcav. Br.” xiii, 3, 12 Tryaruna Traidhâtva was an Aikshvâka; but a Tryaruna we know from Rigv. v. 27 to be a descendant of Trasadasyu.

c11.s1.63

The Turvaças, standing in closest connection with the Yadus, belong of course to the stocks most frequently mentioned in the Rik-Samhitâ; they are sometimes mentioned in a friendly and sometimes in an unfriendly tone. From the Brâhmana their name has almost completely vanished;† nevertheless we have one passage which gives us a key to the place in which we have to search for the ancient Turvaças among the people of the later age. In the lists of kings who have offered the Açvamedha, we find the Pañcâla king Çona Sâtrâsâha (“Çat.” xiii, 5, 4, 16), regarding whose horse-sacrifice a Gâthâ is quoted: “When Sâtrâsâha makes the Açvamedha offering, the Taurvaças arise, six thousand and six and thirty clad in mail (varminâm).” The commentary explains: Taurvaçâh açvâh; the construction (cf. also the following Gâthâ, § 17) clearly shows that the Taurvaças are rather the “varmin,” i.e., the mail-clad escort of noble races, who have to follow the offered horse (or the horses offered), so that it be not lost (“Çat.” xiii, 1, 6, 3; 4, 2, 16; “Kâty. çr.” xx, 2, 11).

c11.s1.64

† That they are identical with the Vricîvants also named in the Brâhmana, as Zimmer (p. 124) would have them, Rv. vi, 27, does not justify us to assume. This passage is satisfactorily explained also if the Vricîvants are treated only as confederates of the Turvaças (cf. Ludwig, “Mantra L.,” p. 153).

c11.s1.65

We expressed above our doubt that the Krivis of ancient time alone, without admixture of other elements, are to be set down as being the same with the Pañcâla: now we have found bands of the Turvaça youth actively engaged in the offering of a Pañcâla king. Thus the conjecture is justified that we are to look to find in the people of the Pañcâlas, of the stock of the Rik Samhitâ, the Turvaças also as well as the Krivis. The union of the Turvaças, frequently with the Yadus, and occasionally with the Matsyas (Rv. vii, 18, 6), falls in completely with this conjecture.

c11.s1.66

∗ Cf. the remarks of Ludwig, “Mantralit.” p. 205.

c11.s1.67

In order to define the position which the Tritsus, whose brilliant victories are so highly celebrated in the Vasistha Hymns, occupy among the stocks of the Vedic age, we point next to the connection in which they stand with the Sriñjaya (vide supra, p. 402), a connection which is undoubtedly to be regarded as an alliance. Both have the same enemies: that the Tritsus stand opposed to the Turvaças in battle we know from vii, 18, 6; 19, 8, and so on; of the Sriñjayas we gather the same from vi, 27, 7. In the hymns of the Bharadvâja book (Mand. vi) an equal friendship for the Sriñjayas and the Tritsu prince Divodâsa appears; the praises of the gifts and honours which the bard has received from Divodâsa, and of those which he has received from the Sârñjaya (i.e., Daivavâta), are united in the same poem (vi, 47).* Now we have already mentioned the union of the Sriñjayas and Kurus appearing in the Brâhmana; as the bard of vi, 47 posed as the Purohita of the Tritsu and Sriñjaya princes, so Devabhâga Çrautarsha (“Çat. Br.” ii, 4, 4, 5) united the purohital dignity of the Kurus and Sriñjayas. Thus we shall be led by probabilities to allot to the Tritsus their place within the circle of stocks, among which later on the name of the Kurus played the most prominent part.

c11.s1.68

Much clearer results are obtained if we accept the important and acute supposition of Ludwig,† who declares the Tritsus to be identical with the Bharatas. I think that there is, in fact, more than one consideration in support of this conjecture. The Tritsus are mentioned under this name exclusively in the seventh Mandala; but it is *à priori* in the highest degree improbable that the race which thus plays so brilliant a part should be wholly unknown to the remaining parts of the Rigveda; there is in them no deficiency of passages where mention is made of the Tritsu king Sudâs and his father, Divodâsa Atithigva, the conqueror of Çambara. If we are thus authorized to presuppose that the Tritsus are identical with one of the elsewhere-mentioned stocks—and certainly in all probability with one of those frequently mentioned—there thus remain, in fact, as the Five Peoples are excluded on account of their enmity against the Tritsus, apparently only the Bharatas of whom we can entertain a thought. That vii, 33, 6, can be used as well to support as to controvert this view is evident. Direct support of this identification of the Tritsus with the Bharatas is found* in the following considerations:—

c11.s1.69

∗ Among the vouchers for the connection of the Tritsus and Sriñjayas I also reckon Rv. vii, 19, 3, although of course the weight of this passage is diminished by the mention of Trasadasyu and the Pûrus being made therein at the same time. As Vîtahavya and Sudâs there stand beside each other, it appears to me to be clear that Vîtahavya is to be understood as a proper name of the Sriñjaya prince, cf. “Ath. V.,” v, 19, 1; “Taitt. Samh.” v, 6, 5, 3; “Pañc. Br.” xxv, 16, 3. A Vîtahavya is also lauded in the Bharadvâja book, which is, as is well known, friendly to the Sriñjayas (Rv. vi, 15, 2, 3). Aliter Zimmer, p. 132.

c11.s1.70

† “Mantraliteratur,” p. 175.

c11.s1.71

Tritsus, like Bharatas, are enemies of the Purus, mentioned elsewhere in the Rik-Samhitâ as a rule in a friendly tone, and certainly the poet belonging to the Vasishthidæ sides with the Tritsus as with Bharatas; cf. vii, 8, 4; 18, 13, etc.

c11.s1.72

The king of the Tritsus is Sudâs; the praise of Sudâs and of the Bharatas is found coupled in iii, 53, 9. 12. 24.

c11.s1.73

In vi, 16, 4. 5, cf. v, 19, the prayer for Divodâsa and for the Bharatas is united in such a fashion that one can scarcely help taking Divodâsa for a Bharata. But Divodâsa is, according to viii, 18, 25, the father of Sudâs, the king of the Tritsus.

c11.s1.74

The question of the historical position of the Tritsus thus merges in that of the position of the Bharatas, and to this latter question we have now to address ourselves.

c11.s1.75

The Brâhmana texts tell us of Bharata heroes in a distant antiquity as well as of such as must be regarded as belonging to a not very remote past. In the list of Açvamedha offerers ("Çat." xiii, 5, 4) two Bharata princes appear: Bharata himself, the son of Dushyanta, and Çatânîka Sâtrâjita; the accompanying verses on both occasions point to the incomparable nobility of the Bharata or Bharatas, whose greatness is as far beyond that of other mortals as the heavens are above the earth. The family, as belonging to which those two princes were regarded by the compilers of the Brâhmana text, proceeds from the person of the priests, who are named in connection with them: Bharata Daushyanti has received the kingly installation from Dîrghatamas Mâmateya, therefore from a Rishi of the Rik-Samhitâ (“Ait.” viii, 23), Çatanîka Sâtrâjita on the contrary from Somaçushman Vâjaratnâyana (“Ait.” viii, 21), therefore from a man, whom his name already stamps as belonging to a later epoch.

c11.s1.76

∗ To a great extent already cited by Ludwig, p. 175.

c11.s1.77

That the existence and prominent importance of the Bharatas continued down to the age of the compiler of the Brâhmana is also evident from a series of other passages,* in which reference is made to customs of the Bharatas usually in such a way that the Bharatas appear in what they say and do as the rule for correct procedure, once (“Ait.” iii, 18) also in such a manner that the knowledge of the Bharata custom is freely designated as something which not every one has.

c11.s1.78

In the lists of tribes in “Ait. Br.” 8, 14, and in Manu the Bharatas are wanting; as little do we meet them in the Buddhists’ enumeration of peoples,† or in the numerous references made by the Buddhist texts to the peoples through whose country Buddha wanders or who figure in any other place in Buddhist sacred history.‡ And anyone who goes through the mentionings made of the Bharatas in the Brâhmana texts will find that there, in a certain way, the course is being prepared already for the vanishing of the Bharata name out of the circle of Indian tribal names which are wont to be mentioned. The Bharatas are referred to with great deference, but in quite another tone than that adopted with regard to the peoples influencing the life of the Kurus, Videhas, etc. ; in the incidental way in which, for example, Brahmans of the Kuru-pañcâla stock are spoken of, or in which it is said that some one wanders in the country of the Matsyas or Uçînaras, the Bharatas do not appear. The peculiar importance and at the same time the isolation of the Bharatas shows itself, perhaps, in the most decisive manner when Agni is spoken of as brâhmana Bhârata (“Çat. Br.” i, 4, 2, 2), and is invited to dispose of the offering Manushvad Bharatavat (ibid. i, 5, 1, 7).

c11.s1.79

∗ “Ait.” ii, 25; iii, 18 (twice); “Çat.” v, 4, 4, 1. Whoever considers these passages by themselves and in comparison with the evidence to be explained further on, will scarcely adhere to the signification “mercenary soldier” for Bharata (vide Pet. Lex.), but see in it solely the name of the tribe. I emend Satvanâm in “Ait.” ii, 25, to Satvatâm (according to “Çat.” xiii, 5, 4, 21, which reading—as opposed to the Lex.—is supported by “Ait.” viii, 14), and translate: “therefore even now go the Bharatas forth for plunder against the Satvats, and their charioteers say: For a fourth part,” etc.

c11.s1.80

† One Sutta of the “Aṅguttara Nikâya” (Atthanipâta); solasannam mahâjanapadânam . . . seyyath’ idam: Aṅgânam Magadhânam Kâsînam Kosalânam Vajjînam Mallânam Cetiyânam Vamsânam (so agreeing two MSS. consulted by me. In the Janavasabhasutta I find Kâsikosalesu Vajjimallesu Cetivamsesu Kurupañcâlesu Macchasûrasenesu). Kurûnam Pañcâlânam Macchânam Surasenânam Assakânam Avantînam Gandhârânam Kambojânam.

c11.s1.81

‡ The only mention known to me of the Bharatas in the sacred Pâli texts occurs in the Govindasutta (“Dîgha-Nikâya”). It is there narrated how in old times, after the death of the king Disampati (cf. “Dîpav.” 3, 40), the Brahman

c11.s1.82

We may, perhaps, be allowed to surmise that in the Bharatas we have to do with a stock which in the time of the Brâhamana had politically merged in, or was about to merge in, one of the great peoples of India in that age, but which had attaching to its name the splendour of great memories and sacral precedence. If we ask after the people, which may have absorbed the Bharatas, it is most natural to seek them in those tracts to which in the Brâhmana period especially the highest sacral authority appertains in the domains of the Kurupañcâla. It fits in with this that, according to “Çat. Br.” xiii, 5, 4, 11. 21, one Bharata king has obtained a victory over the Kâçis, another has made offerings to Gaṅgâ and Yamunâ. It further tallies with the fact that the formula of the king’s proclamation (esha vo, N. N., râjâ) for the people that is addressed, the following variants occur: Kuravah, Pañcalâh, Kuru-

c11.s1.83

Govinda divided the kingdom between Renu, the son of the king, and the “aññe cha khattiyâ.” It is said of this:—

c11.s1.84

“Tatra sudam majjhe Renussa rañño janapado hoti.
Dantapuram Kaliṅgânam Assakânam ca Potamam
Mahîyata Avantînam Sovîrânañ ca Rorukam
Mithilâ ca Videhânam Campâ Añgesu mâpitâ
Bârânsî ca Kâsînam ete Govindamâpitâ ’ti.
Sattabhû Brahmadatto ca Vessabhû Bharato saha
Renu dve ca Dhataratthâ tadâsum satta Bhâratâ ’ti.

c11.s1.85

It is seen how here the name of the Bharatas is used in a wider sense, embracing the whole of India (cf. Bhâratavarsha), or at any rate its princes.

c11.s1.86

pañcâlâh, and Bharatâh (vide Weber, “Ind. Lit. G.”² p. 126, note). With this, above all, fits in the conception running through the epics. Also those who, like us, do not rate highly the confused representations of the Mahâbhârata regarding the stocks of antiquity in general, will not be able to avoid giving a certain weight to the evidences which the great epic at every step, and, indeed, even by its name, furnishes to prove that the royal family of the Kurus was a Bhârata family.*

c11.s1.87

Our discussions hitherto regarding the Bhâratas have not as yet dealt with the evidence furnished by the Rik-Samhitâ. We now inquire, how does its testimony stand to the view of the Bharatas hitherto conjecturally evolved.

c11.s1.88

In the hymns of the Rik we meet the Bharatas as one stock among many others†; the Viçvâmitra odes are well known in praise of the deeds of the Bharatas, the Vasishtha ode referring to their (quondam) defeat.

c11.s1.89

† See the passages in Grassmann’s Lexicon, and Ludwig, p. 175, Zimmer p. 127 seq. Cf. also “Taitt. Âr.” i, 27, 2.

c11.s1.90

Also we find in the Rik-Samhitâ trace of a peculiar position occupied by the Bharatas, a special connection of theirs with important points of sacred significance, which are recognized throughout the whole circle of ancient Vedic culture. Agni is Bhârata, *i.e.*, propitious or belonging to the Bharata or Bharatas; among the protecting deities, who are invoked in the Âprî-odes, we find Bhâratî, the personified divine protective power of the Bharatas.

c11.s1.91

We find the Sarasvatî constantly named in connection with her; must not the sacred river Sarasvatî be the river of the holy people, the Bharatas? In one ode of the Mandala, which specially extols the Bharatas (iii, 23), the two Bhâratas, Devaçravas and Devavâta, are spoken of, who have generated Agni by friction: on the Drishadvatî, on the Âpayâ, on the Sarasvatî may Agni beam. We find thus Bharata princes sacrificing in the land on the Drishadvatî and on the Sarasvatî. Now the land on the Drishadvatî and on the Sarasvatî is that which is later on so highly celebrated as Kurukshetra. Thus the testimonies of the Samhitâ and the Brâhmana combine to establish the close connection of the ideas Bharata, Kuru, Sarasvatî.[*]

c11.s1.92

∗ In this connection we may also point to the fact that the list of the Açvamedhayâjinas, “Çat. Br.” xiii, 5, 4, generally states with reference to each king the people over which he ruled (Purukutsa is designated as Aikshvâko râjâ, Marutta as Âyogavo râjâ, Kraivya as Pañcâlo râjâ, and so on), but in three cases this detail is omitted apparently as superfluous: these cases are those of Janamejaya and his brothers, as well as Bharata and Çatânîka. The first-named was, as is well-known, a Kuru prince; the two last were Bharata kings.

c11.s1.93

Out of the struggles in which the migratory period of the Vedic stocks was passed, the Bharatas issued, as we believe we are entitled to suppose the course of events to have been, as the possessors of the regions round the Sarasvatî and Drishadvatî. The weapons of the Bharata princes and the poetical fame of their Rishis may have co-operated to acquire for the cult of the Bharatas the character of universally acknowledged rule, and for the Bharatas a kind of sacral hegemony: hence Agni as friend of the Bharatas, the goddess Bhâratî, the sacredness of the Sarasvatî and Drishadvatî.

c11.s1.94

Then came the period, when the countless small stocks of the Samhitâ age were fused together to form the greater peoples of the Brâhmana period. The Bharatas found their place, probably together with their old enemies, the Pûrus,[†] within the great complex of peoples now in process of formation, the Kurus; their sacred land now became Kurukshetra.

c11.s1.95

† Is it to be taken as connected with the vanishing of this enmity, that already in the Rik-Samhitâ on some occasions Sudâs, or Divodâsa on the one side and Purukutsa, or Trasadasyu on the other, are named together in a friendly tone? i, 112, 14; vii, 19, 3.

c11.s1.96

We return from this digression bearing on the Bharatas, to state the result of our main investigation.

c11.s1.97

We found that the literature of the Brâhmanas points to a certain definitely circumscribed circle of peoples as its home, as the home of genuine Brahmanism. We found that this circle of peoples corresponds with those whom Manu celebrates as upright in life. We found finally, that the names of the stocks named in the Rigveda, especially the most prominent of them, the Pûrus, Turvaças, Bharata-Tritsus, go back to the same circle of peoples.

c11.s1.98

∗ On the fact, that in the epic Ilâ and Sarasvatî are named among the divine ancestors of the Bharatas ("M. Bh." i, 3760, 3779, etc.) I will lay no stress. More worthy of note, considering the close connection of the Bharatas and Kuçikas (Zimmer, p. 128), is the fact that a tributary of the Drishadvatî bears the name Kauçikî ("M. Bh." iii, 6065).—Regarding the relation of the son of Ilâ, Purûravas, to Kurukshetra, see "Çat. Br." xi, 5, 1, 4.

c11.s1.99

In this way we shall be permitted to consider established the statement premised to this inquiry, that this circle of stocks has formed from of old a community in itself closely inter-connected, separated from the Videhas, Magadhas, and also probably, though less clearly, from the Kosalas. Inasmuch as at the time when those stocks were pressing forward through the Panjâb towards their later habitations, we find this association and that separation already existing, we are entitle to assume that the Kosalas, the Magadhas, the Videhas had at that time already pressed forward farther to the east, down the Ganges. Vedic culture has not had its home, originally at least, among these stocks of the east, but among the peoples of the western group.

c11.s1.100

It will be an interesting task to follow out the distinction here indicated also on the lines of the dialects;* but the time for its performance will not have come until Indian epigraphic has been based on wider and surer foundations than the first volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum presents.

Second Excursus. Annotations and Authorities for the History of Buddha's Youth

c11.s2.2

The several points noted in the account given in the text of the family from which Buddha sprang, are derived from "Cullavagga," vii, 1 seq. (cf. "Dhp. Atth." p. 351), as well as the following passages: Sonadandasutta ("Dîgha N."): samano khalu bho Gotamo pahûtam hiraññam suvannam ohâya pabbajito bhûmigatam ca vehâsattham ca —, samano khalu bho Gotamo addhakulâ pabbajito mahaddhanâ mahâbhogâ. — “Apadâna,” fol. khâh: addhe kule mahâbhoge nibbattissati tâvade.

c11.s2.3

∗ Also the little which we can gather from Buddhist sources regarding the mythology of eastern lands and their religious terminology, so far as this is not overgrown by the Veda, coincides by no means with what the western literature yields.

c11.s2.4

“Apadâna,” fol. ko’:

c11.s2.5

aparimeyye ito kappe Ukkâkakulasambhavo (sic)
Gotamo nâmagottena satthâ loke bhavissati.

c11.s2.6

Idem. fol. gam’ seq. :

c11.s2.7

aparimeyye ito kappe bhûmipâlo mahiddhiko
Okkâko nâma nâmena râjâ ratthe bhavissati.
solasitthisahassânam sabbâsam pavarâ ca yâ
abhijâtâ khattiyâni nava putte janissati.
nava putte janitvâna khattiyâni marissati,
tarunavâ (sic) piyâ kaññâ mahesittam karissati.
Okkâkam tosayitvâna varam kaññâ labhissati,
varam laddhâ ca sâ kaññâ putte pabbâjayissati.
pabbâjitâ ca te sabbe gamissanti naguttamam
jâtibhedabhayâ sabbe bhaginihi samvasissare.
ekâ ’va kaññâ byâdhihi bhavissati purakkhatâ,
mâ no jâti pabhijja (sic) ti nikhaniyanti khattiyâ.
khattiyo niharitvâna tâya saddhim vasissati :
bhavissati tadâ bhedo Okkâkakulasambhavo.
tesam pajâ bhavissanti Koliyâ nâma jâtiyâ,
tattha mânusakam bhogam anubhossanti nappakam.

First 105 of 309 passages. Read on

Linked texts (73)