Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c11.s5: Was Sanskrit Spoken Language?

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c11.s5

Language
English

Was Sanskrit Spoken Language?

c11.s5.1

It may be presumed that the language of these debates, the medium of instruction in these times, was Sanskrit which was a spoken language then. During the *Brāhmaṇa* period and down to later times, there is no doubt that, as F. W. Thomas has pointed out [*JRAS.*, 1904], "Sanskrit was the language of public religious rites, of domestic ceremonies, of education, and of science." In the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* [xiii, 4, 3] is given a vivid picture of the Brahman priest teaching the people (men, householders unlearned in the scriptures, old men, handsome youths, maidens, evil-doers, usurers, fishermen, etc.) the Pāriplava legend, the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Atharvaveda, the Āṅgirasa, the Sarpavidyā, the Devajanavidyā, Magic, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, the Sāmaveda. Some of the sacred works of the period distinguish two kinds of speech, divine (*daivī*) and human, which probably stand for the Sanskrit of the hymns and ritual, the language of divine service, and the Sanskrit of ordinary conversation respectively, and not, as Sayāṇa suggests, for Sanskrit and Apabhraṁśa [ib., vi, 1, 34; *Kāṭh. Saṁ.*, xiv, 5; *Maitr. Saṁ.*, i, 11, 5 (*yaś cha veda yaś cha na*); *Ait. Br.*, vii, 18, 13 (*om iti vai daivam tatheti mānusham*, etc.); *Ait. Ār.*, i, 3, 1]. Both kinds of speech are known to the Brahmin [*Kāṭh.*, ib., *Maitr.*, ib.]. Reference is also made to Āryan [*Ait. Ār.*, iii, 2, 5 (*āryā vāchaḥ*)] and to Brāhmin [ib., i, 5, 2, which Sāyaṇa vaguely comments on as *vedasambandhi vākyam*] and these distinctions represent an early piece of evidence for the existence of several dialects of the ancient Indian language. As yet the opposition meant seems to be to the non-Aryan tongues of the period [cf. *Taṇḍya Mahā. Br.*, xvii, 1, 2, 9]. In Keith’s opinion [*Ait. Ār.*, p. 196 n.], whatever be the history of Vedic and Sanskrit, it is difficult to believe at this date (800–700 B.C.) in very much development of Prākrit forms so as to render contrast with them natural, though no doubt such forms existed. Thus a twofold linguistic differentiation was known in the period, viz. (1) *Sanskrit* designated as Āryan or Brāhmin speech to distinguish it from non-Aryan tongues, (2) within the domain of Sanskrit, the *daivī* or sacerdotal forms of Sanskrit as distinguished from its popular forms. In the *Sundarakāṇḍa* of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, Hanumant in choosing the language in which he should speak to Sītā mentions as his alternatives the above two varieties of Sanskrit (*vāchaṁ mānushīṁ saṁskṛitām* or *dvijāter iva vāchaṁ saṁskṛitām*). By the time of Daṇḍin, the term *daivī vāch* had come to be used for Sanskrit [*Kāvyādarśa*, i, 33].

c11.s5.2

The best Sanskrit of the times seems to have been current in the country of the Kuru-Pañchālas and probably also of the Uttara-Kurus in Kashmir and men went there to study the language [*Śatap.*, iii, 2, 3, 15 (a passage difficult, however, to construe); *Kaushītaki Br.*, vii, 6]. The *Śatapatha* [iii, 2, 1, 23. 24] also refers to barbarisms in speech which were to be avoided. These barbarisms were probably characteristic of the Vrātyas who are described in the *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa* [xvii, 1, 9] as speaking the language of the initiated (*dīkshita-vāch*), though they, uninitiated (*a-dīkshita*), do so with difficulty for “they call what is easy of utterance (*a-durukta*) difficult to utter”. This shows that the Vrātyas were very probably Aryans who had been already developing prakritic forms of speech.¹

c11.s5.3

¹ The claim that Prākritie dialects became very early the ruling speech of the people superseding Sanskrit cannot be well supported. They were subsequent to the Mantra literature and to the earliest epic (not mere *ākhyānas* or *itihāsas*), Brāhmaṇas, Upanishads, and Āraṇyakas (800-600 B.C.). The necessary interval of time is to be allowed for the complete separation of the literary and vulgar speech. The place of the Epic must be found either before the decay of speech had rendered Sanskrit unintelligible to the warrior classes of the populace or after the general revival of Sanskrit in the second and third centuries A.D. The latter view is not quite in accord with our conception of the history of language and literature. Besides, we have references to the *Mahābhārat* and *Ramāyaṇa* in the *Kauṭilīya* (300 B.C.) and the *Mahābhāshya* (150 B.C.). The fact, besides, cannot be doubted that the Epics constituting the fifth Veda were meant to be studied by ordinary worldly people, warriors, husbandmen, and ladies, just as the four Vedas and the Brahmanical literature founded on them were studied by the priests. The Prākrits were certainly posterior to Pāṇini (350 B.C. at the latest) who distinguishes the *laukikabhāshā* or the spoken Sanskrit of ordinary life from *chhāndasa* or poetical language of the Vedas. Again, since Patañjali knew the drama we must assign to his period the separate use of Sanskrit and Prākrit for the different characters when Sanskrit could be used by kings and nobles as intelligible to their inferiors. [On the whole subject see Macdonell, *Vedic Index* (on *Vācha* and *Vrātya*); *Sans. Lit.*, pp. 20-4; *JRAS.*, 1904, pp. 435 f.; Keith, *JRAS.*, 1906, p. 2; and *Ait. Ār.*, pp. 179, 196, 255 (notes). I have here adopted Dr. Keith's conclusions.]

c11.s5.4

**Geographical Background.** We shall now proceed to consider the geographical background of this many-sided culture of the *Brāhmaṇa* period and bring together the available data for the purpose.

c11.s5.5

**Kuru-Pañchāla, Kosala, Videha.** The most important work to be considered in this connection is the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, the geographical data of which point to the land of the Kuru-Pañchālas as being still the home and headquarters of Brahmanical culture. The kings of these parts who performed the horse-sacrifice are all eloquently extolled under what appears to be "a still fresh feeling of gratitude" [Weber, *Ind. Lit.*, 125]. We have mention of the Kuru King Janamejaya Pārikshita with his three brothers who by means of horse-sacrifice (performed at his capital, Āsandīvant) were absolved from the guilt of *brahmahatyā*. The sacrificial priest was Indrota Daivāpa Śaunaka, who is once mentioned as coming forward in opposition to Bhāllaveya and to Yājñavalkya who rejects his view. We have mention of the Pāñchāla kings Kraivya (the Pāñchāla overlord of the Krivis, formerly called the Pañchālas) and Sātrāsāha; of Bharata Dauḥshanti (born of Śakuntalā at Nāḍapit, the hermitage of Ṛishi Kaṇva) and Śātānīka Sātrājita, king of the Bharatas and enemy of the Kāśī king; of Purukutsa Aikshvāka; Dhvasan Dvaitavana, king of the Matsyas; Ṛishava Yājñatura, king of the Śviknas. The renowned scholars Uddālaka and Śvetaketu, father and son, who figure prominently in the *Śatapatha* are expressly stated to be Kuru-Pañchāla Brahmins. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Brahmanical system had also by this time spread to the countries to the east of Madhyadeśa, to Kosala with its capital, Ayodhyā, and Videha with its capital, Mithilā. Among the horse-sacrificers, the Kausalya king, Para Āṭṇāra, is mentioned. The court of King Janaka of Videha figures, as we have seen, as the centre of the culture of the times which drew to itself the learned Brahmins of the Kuru-Pañchāla country in literary Congresses and Conferences summoned on important sacrificial occasions. The neighbouring kingdom of Kāśī was devoid of learned men who were all attracted to Janaka for his lavish patronage and, accordingly, Ajātaśatru, the Kāśī king, could not but envy his great contemporary. Yājñavalkya was the hero of the tournaments of debate held at Janaka’s court and was himself probably a Videhan, and the fact that he is represented as getting the better of the most distinguished teachers of the West in argument probably shows that the redaction of the White Yajurveda took place in this eastern region [Macdonell, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 214]. The earlier stages of this movement of Vedic culture towards Videha and the eastern regions are allegorically represented in the legend of Māthava, King of Videgha, and his preceptor, Gotama Rāhūgaṇa, which has been already referred to. It has also been stated that a part of the *Śatapatha*, Books vi–x, where Śāṇḍilya is regarded as the highest authority, and where the north-western peoples alone are mentioned, viz. the Gāndhāras, Śalvas, and Kekayas, has a *north-western* origin, while the remainder, where Yājñavalkya is the authority and the peoples of central and eastern Hindusthan alone are consequently mentioned, viz. the Kuru-Pañchālas, Kosala-Videhas, Śviknas, and Sṛiñjayas, belongs to those parts.

c11.s5.6

**Vaśa-Uśīnara, Kāśi.** Most of the geographical data, together with really historical statements, are to be found in the last books of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* from which it at any rate specially follows that their scene is the country of the Kuru-Pañchālas and Vaśa-Uśīnaras. The ethnological table given in viii, 14 is sufficiently clear on this point. In the middle [“*asyāṁ dhruvāyāṁ madhyamāyāṁ pratishṭhāyāṁ diśi*” in which the use of the word *asyāṁ* as distinguished from *etasyāṁ* used in respect of other territories shows that the compiler of the text belongs to this very territory] lie the realms of the Kuru-Pañchālas together with Vaśas and Uśīnaras. To the south of this Land of the Middle there dwell the Satvats, eastward the Prāchyas (i.e. the Kāśī, Kosala, Videha, and Magadha peoples), westward the Nīchyas, Apāchyas. In the north the Middle Land is bounded by the Himālaya, beyond which (*pareṇa Himavantam*) dwell the Uttara Kurus and Uttara Madras. This sketch of the distribution of Indian peoples points to the land which formed the centre of genuine Vedo-Brahmanic culture from which it radiated in all directions. This land was later known (cf. Manu) as the land of the Brahmarshis whose customs and rites are taken as a model, whose warriors are the bravest, the land of Kurukshetra and of the Matsyas, Pañchālas, and Śūrasenas [ii, 19; vii, 193] corresponding to what is set down in the *Aitareya* as *madhyamā diś* and as south; but what is regarded in the *Aitareya* as west and east, above all, the land of the eastern peoples of Kāśī, Kosala, Videha, and Magadha, is by Manu excluded from the land of the Brahmarshis

c11.s5.7

The *Śāṅkhāyana* (or *Kaushītaki*) *Brāhmaṇa* gives the interesting information that the northern parts of India were then famous as seats or centres of linguistic studies and people resorted thither in order to become acquainted with the language and on their return came to be regarded as authorities and specialists on linguistic questions.

c11.s5.8

**Matsya.** The *Kaushītaki Upanishad* knows only of the territory enclosed between the northern (Himavant) and southern (Vindhya) mountains and mentions a list of peoples in accord with this, viz. the Vaśas, Uśīnaras, Matsyas, Kuru-Pañchālas, and Kāśī-Videhas.

c11.s5.9

**Places of Sacrifice.** The *Tāṇḍya* or *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa* contains a variety of interesting geographical data. In the first place, we have minute descriptions of sacrifices on the Sarasvatī and Dṛishadvatī. Secondly, we have descriptions of *Vrātyastomas* or sacrifices by which Aryan but non-Brahmanical Indians were admitted into the Brahmanical order. Thirdly, the great sacrifice of the Naimishīya Ṛishis is mentioned, along with the river Sudāman. Weber concludes from these data that they point to an active communication with the west, particularly with the non-Brahmanic Aryans there, and, consequently, to the fact that the locality of its composition must be laid more towards the west. But there are other data which point us to the east such as the mention of Para Āṭṇāra, King of the Kosalas, of Nami Sāpya, King of the Videhas (the Nimi of the Epic), of Kurukshetra, Yamunā, etc., of the Vedic name Trasadasyu Purukutsa (connecting it with the earlier Ṛishi period) and the significant absence of any allusion to the Kuru-Pañchālas or to Janaka (showing probably its origin in a different locality or its priority to the flourishing epoch of the Kuru-Pañchālas).

c11.s5.10

The *Chhāndogya Upanishad* mentions the Naimishīya, the Mahāvṛishas, and the Gāndhāras which would make its origin more western, while the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka* to which it is more akin¹ in other respects belongs distinctly to the eastern part of Hindusthan.

c11.s5.11

¹ The two have in common the following names: Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Ushasti Chākrāyaṇa, Śāṇḍilya, Satyakāma Jābāla, Uddālaka Āruṇi, Śvetaketu, and Aśvapati. The somewhat late date of *Chhāndogya* may be inferred from the mention of Atharvāṅgirasaḥ, Itihāsas, and Purāṇas as existing in independent forms (though Śaṅkara regards them as parts of the *Brāhmaṇas*); of legal cases recalling Manu's Code, viz. infliction of capital punishment for denied theft, trial by ordeal (carrying red-hot axe); and of the doctrine of transmigration of souls (also mentioned in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka*).

c11.s5.12

The general conclusion drawn by Oldenberg from the geographical data of the literature of the period is that the culture of the Vedas was indigenous to but one portion of the Aryan peoples of Hindusthan and from them reached the other afterwards only at second hand; that the home of Brahmanic civilization has been with the Kuru-Pañchālas and the stocks of the west standing in closer union with them who, as the qualified champions of Aryan culture, are to be distinguished from those who were not regarded as equally accredited partakers in this culture. Though this conclusion seems to be contradicted by the fact that our *Brāhmaṇa* texts like the *Satapatha*, for instance, do not mention the western peoples to the exclusion of the eastern (as have been already shown), we should, however, bear in mind that the cases of their being mentioned, specially of the Kurus and Pañchālas, and, in a second degree, of the Bharatas, surpass at once in frequency the mentioning of the eastern peoples; and that 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.s5.13

**Kurukshetra.** Oldenberg has adduced a body of select evidence on the point which may be set forth after him. ‘The Kurukshetra is the place of sacrifice of the gods [*Satap.*, iv, 1, 5, 13; xiv, 1, 1, 2]. From the Chamasa which the gods used in the sacrifice was produced the sacred tree Nyagrodha; the first-born of the Nyagrodha trees grew on the Kurukshetra [*Ait. Br.*, vii, 30]. In the tale of Purūravas and Urvaśī, the Kurukshetra plays a part [*Śatap.*, xi, 5, 1, 4]. The offerings which must be made on the Sarasvatī, Dṛishadvatī, and Yamunā are known [*Pañchav. Br.*, xxv, 10; *Śāṅkh. Śr.*, xiii, 29; *Kāty.*, xxiv, 6]. In the north, among the Kuru-Pañchālas, is the country where the Vāch has her peculiar home; the Vāch, as she there is, is truly (*nidānena*) to be called a Vāch [*Śat.*, iii, 2, 3, 15]. Some prefer the Pañchāvattam to the Chaturavattam, but the Chaturavattam follows the custom of the Kuru-Pañchālas; "therefore, let it be given the preference" [ib., i, 7, 2, 8]. There are other references to the Kurus or Pañchālas showing their relative importance, e.g. a saying of the Kuru-Pañchālas with reference to such of their kings as have performed the Rājasūya [*Śat.*, v, 5, 2, 5]; a form of Vājapeya offering called Kuru-Vājapeya [*Śāṅkh. Śr.*, xv, 3, 15]; a disaster of a shower of stones, to the Kurus [*Chhānd.*, i, 10, 1]; an old verse, "the mare saves the Kurus" [ib., iv, 17, 9]; a Brahmin's threat that the Kurus shall be obliged to fly from Kurukshetra [*Śāṅkh. Śr.*, xv, 15, 10].

c11.s5.14

Equally significant is the brilliant part played by the Kuru King, Janamejaya, in a series of *Brāhmaṇa* texts, as well as that noble ode in praise of his father, Pārikshita [*Av.*, xx, 127, 7].

c11.s5.15

As Parikshita and Janamejaya among kings, so Āruṇi Uddālaka among those versed in sacred writ stands on a high, perhaps on the highest platform, as will be evident from the details of his life and work given above.

c11.s5.16

Certain peculiarities of recitation are attributed to the Pañchālas among whom probably arose the method of Vedic recitation [*Śāṅkh. Śr.*, xii, 13, 6; *Ṛik-Prātiś. Sūtra*, 137 and 186].

c11.s5.17

**The land of the Bharatas.** A similarly important position attaches to the Bharatas in the texts. We have already referred to two Bharata princes in the *Śatapatha* list of Aśvamedha offerers and their greatness is stated in the accompanying verses to be as far beyond that of other mortals as the heavens are above the earth. In other places, the Bharatas are regarded as the exemplars of correct conduct, the knowledge of whose customs is stated to be something which not everyone has [*Śat.*, v, 4, 4, 1; *Ait. Br.*, ii, 25; iii, 18]. According to Oldenberg, the testimony of the Rigveda shows the Bharatas emerging, out of the struggles in which the migratory period of the Vedic stocks was passed, as the possessors of the regions round the Sarasvatī and Dṛishadvatī on whose banks the Bharata princes perform their sacrifices. The weapons of the Bharata princes and the poetical fame of their Ṛishis 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 Bhāratī, the sacredness of the Sarasvatī and Dṛishadvatī. Then came the period when the countless small stocks of the Saṁhitā age were fused together to form the greater peoples of the Brāhmaṇa period. The Bharatas found their place, probably together with their old enemies, the Pūrus [cf. the vanishing enmity in *Ṛv.*, i, 112, 4; vii, 19, 3], within the great complex of peoples now in process of formation, the Kurus; their sacred land now became Kurukshetra.

c11.s5.18

**Videha under Janaka.** To the evidence here adduced (partly from the *Śatapatha*) of the pre-eminence of the Kuru-Pañchālas in the Vedic world may be opposed, however, the evidence of the same text itself regarding the important part played by the people of Videha living far in the east and their king Janaka. In the literary Congress held by Janaka who invited to it the entire body of Kuru-Pañchāla Brahmins, the palm of victory belongs to Yājñavalkya, a Videhan scholar [xiv, 6, 1, 1–3; especially 6, 9, 20]. This shows, firstly, that Vedic culture was held in honour at a place far east from the land of the Kuru-Pañchālas—a shifting, so to speak, of the literary centre of gravity—and, secondly, the most important figure in that Congress of Brahmins, whose authority on spiritual questions is regarded as decisive, belongs to that eastern region. This fact, however, has to be considered along with other facts related about the Congress in order to get at the truth of the matter. For the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* itself shows clearly that Brahmanic culture among the Videhas is only an offshoot from the Kuru-Pañchālas. Yājñavalkya himself, as we have seen, is a pupil of Āruṇi, a Pañchāla. Next, the Brahmans whom Janaka invites to his Congress are all—except Yājñavalkya—*Kurupañchālānāṁ brāhmaṇāḥ*. The king of the east, with his regard and partiality for the culture of the west, pays homage to that culture by collecting at his court the literary celebrities of the west—much as the intellects of Athens gathered at the court of Macedonian princes. Over and above this stands the evidence already cited, showing how the authority of the west, of the Kuru-Pañchālas, is felt and acknowledged throughout the text and how the land of the Videhas was once a stranger to the sacrificial system as it flourished on the Sarasvatī.

c11.s5.19

**Position of Magadha.** Farther off from the old centres of Vedic culture than the Kosalas and Videhas stood the Magadhas to whom along with the Aṅgas in the farther east and the Gandhāris¹ and Mūjavants in the far north-west fever is wished away, as we have seen, in a well-known passage of the Atharvaveda [v, 22, 14]. That Magadha Brahmins were held in light esteem is evident from other passages in Vedic literature [e.g. *Vāja. Saṁ.*, xxx, 5, 22], but the reason for it is their imperfect brahminization and not, as surmised by Weber, the success of Buddhism in their country.

c11.s5.20

¹ The Gandhāras in the north-west will have to be regarded also as standing outside the pale of Vedic culture, despite the reference to Gandhāra in the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* [vi, 14], which proves, according to Oldenberg, neither the northern origin of its compiler, nor the antiquity of the text, as supposed by Max Müller, but rather the contrary, as will appear from the context and contents of the passage where there is a comparison of a man who is led (*āntya*) away by the Gandhāras with closed eyes and who then inquires his way back from village to village. Thus in the passage the Gandhāras are made to reside the farther from the land where the statement of the passage may have been made.

c11.s5.21

We thus find that the literature of the *Brāhmaṇas* points to a certain definitely circumscribed circle of peoples as its home, as the home of genuine Brāhmaṇism, corresponding to the region held noted for its purity by Manu. This community, a complex of peoples of earlier Rigvedic stocks (like the Pūrus, Turvaśas, Bharata-Tṛitsus), is to be distinguished from the Kosalas, the Videhas, and the Magadhas, who were pressing forward farther to the east down the Ganges, as the former peoples were pressing forward through the Panjab towards their later habitations.

c11.s5.22

**Seats of Sacrifice as Seats of Learning.** We have now had an idea of the general geographical background of the culture of the *Brāhmaṇa* period, but regarding the actual seats of this ancient learning we have unfortunately but little evidence. Nowhere in the entire range of this vast and varied literature do we find any direct mention of the locality of any of the numerous schools through which that literature was preserving and propagating itself except in one solitary passage in the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* [v, 3, 1] repeated in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* [xiv, 9, 1, 1] testifying to the Assembly or Parishat of the Pāñchālas which counted among its members the distinguished scholars, the Brahmin Śvetaketu and the Prince Pravāhaṇa Jaivali. If we, however, proceed on the assumption that the places celebrated for sacrifices were also those celebrated for learning, then we can avail ourselves of some additional evidence. Nor is the assumption far from truth. It has been already shown how the culture of the Upanishads centred round the sacrifice which was made the occasion for learned debates in meetings of scholars well versed in the wisdom of the age. One of the most renowned places of such sacrifice in these ancient times was the far-famed Naimisha forest. The Ṛishis of the Naimisha forest and their sacrificial festivals are frequently mentioned in the literature of the period [e.g. *Kāth. Saṁ.*, x, 6; *Pañchav. Br.*, xxv, 6, 4; *Jaimi. Br.*, i, 363; *Kaush. Br.*, xxvi, 5; xxviii, 4; *Chhānd. Up.*, i, 2, 13, where the Udgātṛi of the Naimishīya sacrificers is mentioned, viz. Vaka Dālbhya]. It may be noted, too, in this connection that one of the sacrificers in this Naimisha forest was Śaunaka at whose sacrificial feast Sauti, the son of Vaiśampāyana, is said to have repeated before the assembly of Ṛishis the *Mahābhārata* recited by his father on an earlier occasion to Janamejaya (the second) together with the *Harivaṁśa*.

c11.s5.23

It is also to be noted that these sacrifices were celebrated in a great variety of ways. According to the *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa*, the Soma sacrifices extended over one day or several, or finally over more than twelve days. The latter were known as *Sattras* or sessions which Brahmins alone could perform and that in considerable numbers. These might last 100 days or even several years. It is thus clear how these sacrificial sessions would naturally be the occasions for learned discussions by the concourse of Brahmins engaged therein. Like the Soma sacrifices, the horse-sacrifices which only great kings were entitled to perform were also accompanied by gatherings of learned men, the most typical instance of which is the Aśvamedha of Janaka of Videha who brought together for the occasion a vast assembly of Brahmins from the Kuru-Pañchāla country.

c11.s5.24

Some of these horse-sacrifices are described in a few of the sacred texts.

c11.s5.25

At *Āsandīvant*, the capital of the kingdom of the Kuru king Janamejaya, a horse-sacrifice was performed by the Ṛishi Indrota Daivāpa Śaunaka [*Śat.*, xiii, 5, 4]. The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* mentions Tura Kāvasheya as the Ṛishi of Janamejaya [viii, 14, 4; 19, 2]. At the sacrifice of Kraivya, "the Pañchāla king," at a place called *Parivakrā*, the immense offering was divided "among the Brahmins of the Pañchālas from every quarter" so that it must have been the occasion for a great gathering of learned men [*Śat.*, ib.]. Near the lake of *Dvaitavana* in the country of the Matsyas was the scene of the sacrifice of its King Dhvasan Dvaitavana [ib.]. Then there were the sacrifices of Bharata Dauḥshanti with his priest Dīrghatamas Māmateya in the country of *Mashṇāra* where he distributed as gifts innumerable elephants with white tusks and golden trappings; innumerable cows to 1,000 Brahmins of the country named *Sāchīguṇa*; and kept 78 steeds in a place on the *Yamunā* and 55 in the place named *Vṛitrāghna* on the *Gaṅgā* [ib.; *Ait. Br.*, ib.]. At the sacrifice of Ṛishabha Yājñatura, king of the *Śviknas*, the Brahman-folk assembled divided between them the offering-gifts [*Śat.*, ib.]. At the sacrifice of the *Pāñchāla* King Śoṇa Sātrāsāha, the assembled Brahmins became satiated with wealth [ib.]. There were sacrifices performed on the *Sarasvatī* and *Dṛishadvatī* of which minute descriptions are given [*Pañchav. Br.*].

Linked texts (23)