32 The Two Epics

32. The Two Epics The two great Epics of India, the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, contain ( particularly the first) numerous passa ges bearing on meny topics of Dharmaśāstra and are relied upon as authorities in medieval and later works. The Mabu bhārata itself claims (in Adiparva, 2. 83) that VyDS composed the work as a great Dharmaśāstra, as Arthasastra ( treatise on politics and Government), Moksaśāstra and also

POONA

1917

350

Kāmaśāstra.868 In the last parvan it claims that whatever is said in it would be found elsewhere and what is not con tained in it would not be found anywhere else i.e. it claims to be encyclopoedic and hence there was a great incentive to later scholars to add to it fresh matter. In the Udyoga parva (130. 18 ) and in Adi, 62. 20 the Mahābhārata is spoken of as Jaya (jayo nāmetihāsoyam śrotavyo vijigīsunā ) and in the last pwrvan ( 5.51 ) the epic is also called sumlitā (1. 16, 63. 90), Purina ( 1. 17), akhyina (2. 388-389 ), itihisa ( 1. 19 and 26 and 2.36, 41 and 62. 18), itihisottama (in 2.385), Kavya (1. 61 and 73, 2. 390 ), Karsnaveda ( 1. 268 and 62. 18). It further states ( Adi. 1. 52 ) that different beginnings of the epic existed. In the last parvan ( svargarohana ) it states that the epic is so called because of its greatness360 ( great extent) and the weightiness (of its contents ) and that the epic is equal (in importance ) to the 18 Purāṇas, all the Dharma Śāstras and the Vedas with their subsidiary lores (chap. 5 45-46 ). Adi (1.81) states 310 that there are 8800 ślokus in the whole work, the import of which only Vyūsu and Suka know and Sanjaya might know or not.371 It is further stated that

368 अर्थशास्त्रमिदं प्रोकं धर्मशास्त्रमिदं महत् । कामशास्त्रमिदं प्रोक्तं व्यासेनामित

बुद्धिना ॥ आदि 2.83 and 62.23 ; आचख्युः कवयः केचित्संप्रत्याचक्षते परे । आख्यास्यन्ति तथैवान्ये इतिहासमिमं भुवि ॥ आदि 1. 26 ; धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च मोक्षे च भरतर्षभ । यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यनेहास्ति न कुत्रचित् ॥ स्वर्गा०; मन्वादि भारत केचिदास्तीकादि तथापरे । तथोपरिचराद्यन्ये विप्राः

सम्यगधीयते ॥ आदि 1. 52. 389 महत्त्वाद्भारवत्त्वाच्च महाभारतमच्यते । निरुक्तमस्य यो वेद सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ॥

अष्टादश पुराणानि धर्मशास्त्राणि सर्वशः । वेदाः साङ्गास्तथैकत्र भारतं चैकतः स्थितम् ॥स्वर्गारोहण० 5. 45-46 ; the words महत्त्वा …. मुच्यते occur in

आदि also (1.274). 370 अष्टौ श्लोकसहस्राणि अष्टौ श्लोकशतानि च । अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति

वा न वा ॥ इदं शतसहस्रं तु लोकानां पुण्यकर्मणाम् । उपाख्यानैः सह ज्ञेयमाद्यं भारतमुत्तमम् ॥ चतुर्विंशतिसाहस्री चक्रे भारतसंहिताम् ॥ उपाख्यानैर्विना

तावद्भारतं प्रोच्यते बुधैः ॥ आदि 1. 81, 102-103. 371 There 880) verses are known as kita ( riddles ). But the nyather

8800 is extremely oxaggerated. If the figure were corrects would mean that in the Mabābharata ono vorse in twelve veesistant riddle. Vaidya in his work Mahabharata, a criticism’s vaso7

(Continual on the next page)

MASTIPUR

DONA

. 1917

32. The Two Epics

351

Bhārata means the epic without the upākhyānas ( tales ) and contaius 24000 verses and the work Mahābhūrata consists of one hundred thousand verses inclusive of the upākhyānas ( Adi. 1.101-2). The Adiparva (63.89-90) states that Vyāsa 37a taught the four Vedas together with the Mahābhūruta as the fifth to four pupils viz. Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, Vaiśampā. yana and to Suka his own son and these five promulyated separate five versions of the story. The Sāntiparva (chap. 327. 26-33 and 349. 10-12 ) repeats the same story about the five pupils of Vyāsa. The extant Mahabharata is supposed to be the one that Vaiśampāyana narrated to Janamejaya, son of Parikșit, the latter being the grand-son of Arjuna and son of Abhimanyu. It is said in Adi ( 1.9-10 ) that Sauti heard the story narrated to Janamejaya and told it to Saunaka and other sages. Thus there are (acc. to the epic itself) three stages, viz. (1) Vyasa first transmitted the epic to five pupils ; (2) these five including Vaiśumpāyana composed separate works and Vaisampayana narrated it to Janamejaya, and (3) Sakti who heard the recital by Vaiśampāyana narra

( Continued from the previous page) examples of Kūta rergos in Appondix, Note III pp. 190.193. One of these may be quoted hore from the Ulyognparva ; oknyā dvo vini. scitya trin oaturbhir vnsam kuru i pnica jitvi :nd-viditvā snpta hitvā sukhi bhava 113 :44. Most of those Sovou hnve two mennings, one relating to Rījaniti, tho other relating to adhyatma’, briefly as follows: cknya… budehyi (by nue’s intellect); dre! moans kāryn ( what should be done ) and sakarya’ (in Rajapiti ) and ‘ditya ‘(pornanont ) and ‘anitya’ ( ovinoscont) (in adhyatma); trin (three ) viz, mitra ( friend ), urlisinn (nentral), śntru ( enemy); or Kama’ ( desirog), Krodha (angor ), Lobla ( grood ); caturbhih (four) viz, sim, dāma, bhorn and dana (in Rijaniti) and sma, daina, uparama, sraddha (in achyatma); pañca ( the five organs of Bonso, in both rājaniti and adhyātina); sud (six) vizi, sandhi and others ou umornted in Menu VII. 160 and in Vodānta aśanāyā, pipāsī, sokn, mohn, jari, m?tyn’; sapla (Boven ) viz. “Yn8112038 women, gambling, hunting, drinking, vākpāru;ya, dandapirusya and arthadūna na (in Rija”) and the five sunses plus mind and buddbi in adhyatma. For the last, compare Maitrāyapi Upanisnd VI. 30 ( Ynda pancivatishanto jñānini inanusā suba Buddhiśca na vioestate tāmāhuḥ paramim yutiin 11). वदानध्यापयामास महाभारतपञ्चमान् । सुमन्तुं जैमिनि पैलं शुकं र स्वमात्मजम् । प्रभुर्वरिष्ठो वरदो वैशम्पायनमेव च ॥ संहितास्तैः पृथक्त्वम् WITHFT TARAT: 1 311 83. 89-90.

372352

ted it to Saunaka and others. Therefore, the author for the extant Mahābhārata is Sauti and Vyāsa is only connected with it mediately. In this respect it differs from the Rāmā yana, the author of which is Valmiki according to all. Janamejaya Pāriksita is a famous name in Indian Antiquity. In the Ait. Br. (VIII. 21 ) it is stated that Tura Kāvaseya performed the Aindra Mahābhiṣeka for Janamejaya Pāriksita, who conquered the whole earth and performed the Afvamedha sacrifice and there is recited a Yajña-gāthā with regard to te it. He is mentioned also in the Satapatha Br. XIII. 5.4.1). What became of the other Samhitās said to have been com posed by the other disciples of Vyāsa is not known.

In the daily tarpana as prescribed in the Aévalāyana grbya-sūtra 374 (III. 4 ) we find an echo of what we learn from the Adiparva about the four pupils (excluding Suke ) of Vyāsa viz. Sumantu - Jaimini - Vaiśampāyana - Paila - Sūtra - bhāsya - Bhārata - Mahābhārata - Dharmācāryas - trpyaptu. Asvalāyana was probably aware of the difference made bet ween Bhārata and Mahābhārata. The Śānkhāyanagṛhya omits the words ’ Bhārata……Dharmācāryāḥ’.

In the present edition (of the H. of Dh.) the Chitrasalā edition of the Mahābhārata with the commentary, Bhārata bhāvadīpa of Nilākantha Caturdhara, has been used. It generally agrees with the Bombay oblong edition ; sometimes, however, there is a difference of one adhyāya or a sloka or two. The Bhandarkar 0. Institute’s edition is not referred to, be cause when I collected my materials it had been only recently begun and even now it is not yet complete, though nearing completion.* But, as that edition gives in the margin of each page, references to the text of three editions of the epic, it is easy to find out a passage from the text of that edition also.

378 The TENTAT is : arretara orang tahui RAHI I 2727

URF T 4: 11 D. AT VIII. 7. 374 gg-Harapat-das-HF1-97794 -4777-HETHRA - faret:

(Tere) i 379. . . III. 4. 4. The 27 E omits to HERTTUfaref; and adds aftor the word prog ress 07174-HUSHIUSOJT: , traff are maī’ &c. od. by Dr. 8. Sehgal, 1980 Since completod,

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Iwo Epics

353

In the following table an attempt (not meant to be exhaustive ) is made to indicate where Dharmaśāstra topics have been deult with in the Mahābhārata at some length.

Abhiseka ( coronation )-śānti | Dāyablariga - Anuśāsana

45.47 Arījaku (evils of anarchy) Putrits ( of various kinds )

Santi 67.

Anusāsapa 48, 49. Ahimsa-Adi. 11, Anuśāsana Prayuscitta-Santi 34, 35,

115. 1 ff, Asvamedhika,

116. 34 #f. chap. 28 and 43, Sānti. Bhaks yābhuksya-Sānti 36,78.

117. Āśrama-dharmas-Sānti 61,

Rājanīti-Sabhā 5, Vanapar

va 150, Udyoga 212-15

33-34, Santi 59 |–Anusisana 104 Āśvumedhika 45.

130, Asrama

āsika 5-7 Apad–dharma-Sinti 131 ff. Upavāra-Anusāsana

| Varnadharma-śānti 60, 106-107.

(mixed cas Tirthas-Vanaparva 82 ft,Anu

tes ) Sānti 65,297 ; śāsana 25-26, Salya 35-54.

Anusāgana 48-49. Dāna-Vanaparva 186, Sānti Vivāha–Anuśāsana 44-46.

234, Aduśisana 57-99. I friidilid-Striparva 26-27, Dandastuti-Sānti 15, 121.

Anuśāsana 87-92.

Many difficult questions arise about the two epics ( which have come down to us in different recensions ), such as the origin and development of the two epics, the inter-relation of the two, the dates of the two epics; the strata, if any, in the two epics; the literature known to them, their versification ; their influence on the early and later Dharmaśāstra works ; their influence in comparatively early times on peoples beyond India. A great deal has been written on these topics by Western and Indian writers for over a century. Considerations of space make it impossible to enter upon the detailed discu ssion of the questions stated above. Yet a few remarks must, be made on some of the topics discussed by scholars. The following works and papers will give some idea of the prob lems connected with these two heirlooms of Indian antiquitaine " Zur Geschichte and Critik des Mahābhārata " by Holtzmit (Kiel, 1892-94 );’ Das Rāmāyana, Geschichte und Inhalt ‘Apa YUMO Dr. Jacobi ( Bonn, 1893 ), ‘The Great Epic of India’ by Premiere E. W. Hopkins (1901); Das Mahābhārata &c. by Dahlmann

POON:

WUND

onāndorkar

354

(Berlin, 1895 ), ‘Mahabharata, a criticism’ by C. V. Vaidya ( 1903 ); The riddle of the Rāmāyana,’ by C. V. Vaidya (1906); ‘Das Mahābhārata, seina Eustehung, Sein Inhalt, seine Form’ by Oldenberg (Gottingen, 1922 ); M. Winter nitz’s History of Indian Literature’ vol. I (Calcutta, 1927 ) pp. 475-517; Dr. V. S. Sukhthankar published several Epic Studies in JBBRAS (New Series ) Vol. IV, pp. 185–202, Vol. XI pp. 165-191, 259-283, Vol. XVI. pp. 70-113, Vol. XVII, pp 185-202, vol. XVIII pp. 1-76, Vol. XIX pp. 20-262 and in Kane Festschrift pp. 472-487 on “Rāmo pākhyāna and the Rāmāyana,” in which he details 86 verbal agreements between the two; Dr. V. S. Sukhthankar’s four lectures on ‘The meaning of the Mahābhārata’ (1942), three of which were delivered and he passed away suddenly before the 4th could be delivered; this last is monograph No. 4 of the Bombay Asiatic Society ; State and Government in ancient India’ by Prof. A. S. Altekar ( Benaras ); • History of Indian Political Ideas’ by Dr. U. N. Ghoshal (1959); Political Theory of Ancient India ’ by I. W. Spellman (Oxford 1964 ); Rev. C. Bulcke’s. Rāmakathā, Utpatti aur Vikāna,’ Allaha bad, 1950; and a paper on the Raināyana its history and character’ in Poona Orientalist Vol. XXV pp. 36-60 and “Three Rāmāyana Recensions " in J. O. R. ( Madras ) vol. 17 pp. 1-32.

It would not be proper to say nothing in this work about some of the vexed and important questions concerning the two epics, such as the approximate dates of the two, the inter-relation of the two and the question of the existence of different strata in them. These questions are inseparably intermixed and cannot be dealt with separately. Some points will first be brought out and briefly discussed and then the present author will state his own conclusions for whatever they may be worth. Winternitz (in History of Indian Litera ture’ Calcutta, 1927, p. 469 ) went so far as to say that each stanza of the Mahābhārata must be judged on its own merits’ and Sukthankar remarks that this is so ‘when we want to use the stanza for historical and comparative purposes’ and he points out (on p. 475 of Kane Festschrift ) that even a pont scholar like Oldenberg commits abysmal mistakes in the esti mate of the age and character of the passages of the Maha bhārata,

FOUNDED

1917

1917

32. The Two Epics

355

.

.

It is clear that the Mahābhārata had become, long before the 7th century A. D., a work for popular education and was being recited before general audiences of men and women in India as in the 19th century. For example, on p. 61 of Peterson’s edition of the Kadambari, 376 it is said that the queen Vilāgavati learnt when the epic was being recited that the son saves his father from Put hell. Similarly, it is stated in the Kādambari (p. 71 ) that the one thousand names of Nārāyana used to be recited continuously. The Kādambari (p. 90) refers to the famous Gita dleclared by Krsua, one of whose names is • Ananta’. Going further backwards, we find in the famous Besnagara376 Columu Inscription (set out in JRAS for 1909 p. 1055 ) of the 2nd century B. C. of Helio dorus, a devotee of Vasudeva and a Yona ( yavana ) ambas sador from the Greek king Antalikita to the court of king Bhaga-bhadra. The last portion in Prakrit words is ‘dama, cāga, appamāda ’ ( dama, tyāga and apranada), which occur in Udyogaparva 43.22 and Striparva 7. 23. 376 महाभारते वाच्यमाने श्रुतं पुन्नाम्नो नरकात्रायत इति पुत्र इति । कादम्बरी, p. 81

para 14. This is आदि 74. 39, Adipurvn 229. 14, and also मनु IX. 138, विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15. 44; अविच्छिन्नपठ्यमाननारायणनामसहस्रम् । काद: p.71 para 64. नारायणनामसहस्र occurs in अनुशासन chap. 149. 14-120 ; ‘महा भारतमिवानन्तगीताकर्णनानन्दितनरम्’. There is double entendre hore Nara means Arjuna and also ‘man’ and अनन्तगीता means the famous book in the Epic ( Bhismaparva) and अनन्तगीत would mean ‘man songs’. In The Indo-Grooks’, Oxford, 1957 ) Dr. A. K. Narain providos a plate (VI), at the end of which he sets out the Heliodurus Inscrip. tion on the Besnagar Pillar in nine lines as follows (in Brābuni characters ): १ (दे )वदेवस वा ( सुदे )वस गरुडध्वजे अयं २ कारिते इ (अ) हेलिओडेरेण भाग– ३ वतेन दियस पुत्रेण तक्खसिलोकन 7 योन-दतेन (आ) गतेन महाराजस ५ अंतलिकितस उपं ता सकासं रजो। ६ (को) सिपु (त्र) स (भा) गभद्रस त्रातारस ७ वसेन च (तु) दसेन राजेन वधमानस ८ त्रिनि अमुतपदानि इअ (सु ) अनुटित्तानि ९ नेयंति (स्वर्ग) दम चाग अप्रमाद.

(Continuall on the next page)

376

त

ANS

POONA

FOUNDEI 1917

न

356

It has been shown above that the Asv. gr. sūtra, which represents the last phase of Vedic literature, includes the ācāryas of Bharata, Mahābhārata and Dharma among the sages in the daily tarpuṇa. The Mārkandeya-purana starts by saying that it has four doubts as to Bharata (vide H. of Dh. Vol. V, p. 901 for the four questions and p. 903 for the date ). The Mrcchakatika (III. 12 ) refers to the Sauptika parva ( mārgo hyesa narendra-Sauptikavadhe pūrvam kṛto Drauninā). In several places where the Vedāntasūtra relies on Smrti for support Sarkarācārya quotes only verses from the Mahābhārata.377 For example, on V. S. II. 3. 47 ( smaranti ca ) he quotes only two verses of the Mahabharata. Vide note below. This establishes that Sarkarācārya held that the Mahābhārata including the Sāntiparva ( which modern critics regard as interpolated later ) was earlier than the Vedānta sutra. The present author has attempted to establish that when the Gitā ( in 13.4 ) speaks of Brahmasutrapadas it does not refer to the Brahmasūtra of Būlarāyana but to several Brahmasutras such as those of Bādari, Audulomi and Asma rathya ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 1173-74). Sabara in his bhāsya on the Pūrvamimumsi-sūtra quotes passages from the present Mahābhāratza text; vide a paper in Sukthankar volume pp. 221-229 by Prof. V. M. Apte and D. V. Garge.

Before proceeding further it must first be emphasized that the Mahābhārata claims to be itihāsa (history ) as stated above, while the Ramayana is a kavya as expressly stated in the Rāmāyana itself several times and as comparatively early

( Continued from the previous page ) Vide ulso JRAS 1909 pp. 1053-6 and 1087-92 and JBBRAS vol. 23 pp. 161-166 for prior attempts at rouding this very important inscription. CHEIITTISTA172 gāsatgalie H i na nyanyia

ाह्मणा ये मनीषिणः ॥ उद्योगपर्व 43-22 ; दमस्त्यागोऽप्रमादश्च ते त्रयो ब्रह्मणो

41: 1 taft pat 7. 23. Bosnagar is about two miles to the north-west of Bhilsa in tho Gwalior Stato. (1) FATE T19.4. II. 3. 47; 41427777f remarks: FARFET व्यासादयो यथा जैवेन दुःखेन न परमात्मा दुःखायत इति । बनाया RATAT… Tag aufi tiftar yana ga: Il These vornos a full

( Continued on the next page )

377

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

357

and famous poets like Kalidasa often say.378 Therefore, it was possible for Vāliniki to vive free rein to his imagination, while in the Mahabharata some restraint had to be observed ) since what was being put forward was dubbed itihāsa.

The words Gūtha and śloka occur in the Rgveda. Gathā ( derived from the root gai’ to sing) means a song or verse. Vide Rg. VIII.32.1, VIII. 71.14, VIII.98.9, X.99.4, IX.85.6 for gātha. The word Sloka occurs more frequently in the Rgveda than the word gathā and means a verse. In the Mahā bhārata Gathas sung by the Pitrs ( Anusāsana, 88.11-14), by Yama (Anu. 45.17 and 104.72 ) or by Janaka (Sinti 17.18-20), by Kaśyapa ( about Ksami, Vana parva 29.35-44), Gāthā about Paurava in Drona (57. 11 ) and about Bhagiratha (in Drona 60.8), of Yayati (in Sānti 26.13 and in Drona 63.8-9 ), gāthās sung by Ambarisa and by Alarka (in Asvamedhika 31. 12ff and 30. 30-31 respectively), by Brhaspati (Santi 23.14–15),by Brahman (Santi 136, about king’s treasury ), gāthās sung by Usanas on distrust (Santi 138.192 ) and many more occur. Slokas also are quoted with the words Slokau cātra bhavatah’ (Vanaparva 192.27-29 ) or ‘bhavanti cātra ślokāh’ as in Vana

…….——-

( Continued from the previous page) 351. 14–18 ; no other smrti passages are quoted by him on this sutra and also on the next siltra quoted hero. (2) अपि च संराधने प्रत्यक्षा. नुमानाभ्याम् । वे. सू. III. 2.24; शंकराचार्य explains ‘प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम् श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामित्यर्थः’ and quotes a verse and a half ; the first ocours in santi 47. 54 and also in 284. 69 ; (3) स्मर्यते च । वे. सू. IV. 2. 14 शङ्कराचार्य explaing : स्मर्यतेपि च महाभारने गत्युत्क्रान्त्योरभावः-सर्वभूतात्म भूतस्य सम्यग्भूतानि पश्यतः । देवा अपि मार्गे मुह्यन्त्यपदस्य पदैषिणः ॥ इति…तथा च त तत्रैवोपसंहृतम् । शुकस्तु मारुच्छीघ्रां गतिं कृत्वान्तरिक्षगः। दर्शयित्वा प्रभावं स्वं सर्वभूतगतोऽभवत् ॥ इति । The verses are Santi.

parva 282. 32 { and also 260. 22 and 333. 19-20 ). 378 न ते वागनृता काव्ये काचिदत्र भविष्यति । तस्य बुद्धिरियं जाता वाल्मीके

र्भावितात्मनः । कृत्स्नं रामायणं काव्यमीदृशैः करवाण्यहम्…समाक्षरैः श्लोक शतैर्यशस्विनो यशस्करं काव्यमुदारधीर्मुनिः ॥ बालकाण्ड 2. 35, 41; आदिकाव्य मिदं त्वार्ष पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम् । युद्धकाण्ड 131. 107; कविः कुशलबविव चकार किल नामतः । … स्वकृतिं गापयामास कविप्रथमपद्धतिम्… कवेरायस्य शासनात् । रघुवंश 15. 32, 33, 41.

VOTENCE

OUNC 191

358

parva (199. 13-15); Slokas by one who ponders over dharma as in Sauptika ( 1.53-55). Then many slokas and gāthās are quoted as Anuvassa or simply as Anuvassam (meaning genealogies handed down in families ) e. g. Vanaparva 129. 8 says’atrānuvamsam pathatah śruṇu me kurunandana’ and then quotes two verses. For ’ Anuvamsam,’ vide also Vana parva 87. 16-17 (yatrānuvainsam bhagavān Jāmadagnyag tathā jagau). For Anuvaṁsa slokas, vide Adiparva 95.8 ( for song878 of Devayani and Sarmiṣtha ).

For other Anuvamsa Slokas, vide Adi. 95. 27, 95. 30-31, 95.46 ( about Santanu ). In Vana parva 88.5 there is an anu vaṁsya gāthā about Nrga. Sometimes, even itihāsa is spoken of as sung i.e. recited (gīta ). The word itihāsa is ancient. It occurs in the Atharvaveda, 380 in the Sata patha-Brāhmana (XI. 1. 6.9), in the Bșhadāraṇyaka and Chandogya Upanigads (III. 4. 2, VII. 2. 1 respectively).

The above brief statement is quite enough to show that before the Mahābhārata was composed there were numerous verses landed down in families and that the Mahabharata utilizes and incorporates a large mass of ballads and bardic verses preserved in many prominent families. The Rāmāyana, on the other hand, is a Kāvya and not an itihara and is con fined to the life of Rāma, his brothers and their vicissitudes.

There is another quarter which sheds useful light on the epics. From Pāvini’s sūtras, the Virtikas thereon and

COM.

379 380

A

The com. on Vannparvu 129. 8 says 3taani TFTTTTTARTOTT 44. Two ślokas are interosting : 3421parat 9a: 1 HET hlar faa: पुत्रो येन जातः स एव सः ।। भरस्व पुत्रं दुष्यन्त मावमंस्थाः शकुन्तलाम् ॥रेतोधाः पुत्र उन्नयति नरदेव यमक्षयात् । त्वं चास्य धाता गर्भस्य सत्यमाह शकुन्तला ॥ 3111qd 93. 30-31. Vide Udyogaparva 33. 103 DR APHAETH

1994 i garagicho fra da girar ll; then twenty verses follow ; तमितिहासः पुराणं च गाथाश्च नाराशंसीश्यानुव्यचलन् । अथर्ववेद XV. 6. 11 ; 347 34FT HEN 4759 faitheananaa golata: सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसमितिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः बृहदा. म. 11 4. 10, IV 1. 2. IV. 5. 11; The HETATS on Pāṇ, IV.2.60 and uroken

snematen EITTITTÀ=727 granica:‘oxplains ghee ( faatanura ait at fa gracili: ).

RS

17

32. Thue Two Epics

359

Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya we learn a good deal about some of the prominent personages of the Mahābhārata, their associates, enemies and their doings.

There are in the Rāmāyana hardly any Anuvamsya ślokas referring to Dasaratha or Rama. According to tbe Sarvānu kramaṇi Rāma, son of Jamadugni, is the seer of Rg. X. 110. Rāma appears to be the name of some person in Rgveda X. 93.14. Rūma Mārgaveya is the name of a person of the priestly family of Syāparna in the Ait. Br. VII. 5. 1.

In Pan. IV. 3. 98 Vasudevaka, 381 a devotee of Vāsudeva, and Arjunaka (a devotee of or one who likes Arjuna ) are derived in the sense of bhakti’ (IV. 3. 95). In VIII. 3. 95 (gaviyudhibh yām 382 sthirah ) the nome Yudhisthira, one of the principal personages in Mahābhārata, is mentioned. On Vārtika 7 (bhrātusca jyāyasah) on Pin. II. 2. 34 (‘alpac taram’) Patañjali states the example’ Yudhiṣthirārjunau,’ where the word Yudhisthira is put before Arjuna, though it has four vowels, because of his being the elder. In VI. 2. 38 Pārini provides for the accent (svara) of ‘mahān’ occurring in the compound Mahābhārata ( along with nine other words ). Vārtika 7 on Pan. IV, 1. 85 provides for the name : Asvat thāmah.’ Kielhorn brings together (in I. A. vol. XIV pp. 326-27 ) all the verse quotations ( of either whole verses or half verses or pādas ) cited by Patañjali in the Mahābhāṣya.

381

382

7: I apcalfarizi g7 11. IV. 3. 95 and 98 ; Hyd gaya sa Hlai: I . FT. The Mahābhāṣya explains that Vasudeva is not merely the naine of a Kyatriya but that it is # designation of the Divine. ya gramat FTT: 1 91. VIII. 3. 95 ( examples fafer: TETET:). The word ‘Bhakti’ in the sense of worship occurs in ASTRITET97 VI. 23. The word of th: relates back to the Paart: ( 91. IV. 3,89) and also reaches forward. Therefore bhakti’ in “Pāṇini’ has a wider sonse than mere worship; it also means ‘resort’, ’liking’ as in ’ A pupika’( npūrā bhaktir-anya ), the songe of object of worship is not excluded from the word ‘bhakti’ in Panini, but that word in larger in meaning than worship’in Panini. Therefore, in IV. 3. ( Vasudevārjunābbykin run) it is quite correct to tell

Vasudevaka’ay menning worshipper of Vāsudova, while Arjunaka may moan one who has a liking for Arjuna or who worshire

Arjuna!

Bhandar Resear

360

On Pān. 1V. 1. 97 ( sulhātur-akañ ca ) the first vārtika is “Sudhātr-vyñsayoh’ and we get Vaiyñsakih’ ( as son of Vyāsa ) i. e. Suka ‘and Mahābhāṣya on it says Vaiyasakiḥ Sukaḥ’). Some of the verses or their parts are very important and interesting about the heroes of the Mahābhārata. On Vārtika 22 on Pān. II. 2. 24 we have two quotations, viz.

asidvitiyosnusasāra Pāndavam’ (he, armed only with a sword, followed the Pandu hero ) and ‘Sarkarsana-dvitiyasya balam Kșsnasya vardhatim’ (in this both Krona and his brother Saṅkarsana are mentioned ). The first quotation (on II. 2. 24 ) clearly shows that it must have been taken from some work dealing with Pandava heroes. Another interesting quotation is ‘Dhanañjayo rane rane’ on’ Vārtika 3 on Pān. III. 3. 58. It is well-known that Arjuna was called Dhananjaya (vide Bhagavadgitā X. 37 Pāṇdavānām Dhananjayaḥ’).

On Vārtika 11 on Pān. IV. 2. 104 Patañjali cites the wordsAkrūra-vargyah’ and ‘Akrūravarginah’ as well as Vāsudev&-vargyah and Vāsudevavarginah. This reminds one of the dialogue between Krona and Nārada reported in Santi parva, chap. 81. It appears from that chapter that there was jealousy among the Yādavas.383 Akrūra and Ahukax were two chiefs among the Andhaka-Vrsnis ( verse 8 ) and Krsna was the President of that Sangha and that Narada advises Krsna that a sangha comes to grief from internal dissensions (verse 25 ) and that Krsna should act in such a way as not to lead to the destruction of the Sarigha. Pān. (IV. 1. 114 ) knew the Andhaka vrsnis and Kurus and Patañjali on Vārtika 7 cites and explains the words Augrasenya ( from Ugrasena of the Andhaka clan ), Vāsudeva and Baladeva ( among Vronis ) and Nākula, Sāhadeva and Bhaimasenya ( among the Kuru clan )

383

Ādi. 2 21. 29 shows that Akrūrn was a Senāpati of the Viṣnis and was called “dāoapati’. Krśṇa says in Santi 81. 9–10 get a वै स स्याद्यस्य स्युः कृत्स्नमेव तत् । द्वाभ्यां निवारितो नित्यं वृणोम्येकतरं न च ।। स्यातां यस्याहुकारों किं नु दुःखतरं ततः । यस्यापि च न तौ स्याता Pag I geti ga: 11’. The com. makes this clear: uth हिषयोरिव युध्यतोर्वा रणे मध्यस्थस्य मम महदुःखं तथा द्वयोः सुहोरल्यागशि FRIT FTTAITATA. Verse 11 is apt : HTË Froscanaa 702 मते । एकस्य जयमाशंसे द्वितीयस्यापराजयम् .

STITU

1917

32. The Two Epice

361

from Nakula, Sahadeva and Bhimasena respectively. Vide also Pāṇ. VI. 2. 34 Rājanyabahuvacana-dvandvesndhaka vrsnisu ‘, which refers to several rājanyas among Andhe kavrsnis.

From the above brief references in Pāṇini and Patañjali one may affirm that the central story of the Mahābhārata is certainly older by centuries than the story of the Rāmāyana. Reference has been made to the fact that there is a Rāmopā khyāna in Vanaparva (chap. 273-292 containing about 750 verses ). It does not completely agree with the present Rāmāyaṇa text. In this Kumbhakarṇa is said to have been killed by Rāma ( Yuddha. 67. 180-181 ), while in the Ramopā khyāna it is Laksmana who does 80 ( Vanaparva 287.18-19 ). Besides, in the Santiparva (chap. 29 ) there is a brief reference to Rāma’s rule for 11000 years and the ideal happiness of the people under his rule. In the Dronaparva also Rāma is briefly referred to in the Sodasa -rājakiya section (chap. 55-71, that relating to Rāma being chap. 59). Stray references to a few other incidents of the Rāma story may be made here. For example, Rāma being led to pursue the gold-coloured deer ; the Sāntiparva refers briefly to the story of Sambūka. The Salyaparva mentions that Rama cut off the head of a rāksasa and the Santi refers to the killing of Rāvana by Rāma through anger (361. 15 ).884

Hopkins refers to certain passages where Vālmiki is mentioned in the Mahābhārata and divides them into two classes. In the first class he puts certain references to Val miki as meant for a mere saint (a pṛi), as in Sabhā 7. 16, Vanaparva 85. 119, Udyoya 93. 27, śānti 207. 4 (along with Asita, Devala and many others ). In my opinion Anusāsana 13.8 ( where Vālmīki is styled bhagavān) belongs to this first category. Then Hopkins mentions ‘four passages as referring’ directly to the Rāmāyaṇa (vide the great Epic of India’) pp. 61 ff).

384 3 T 4HTETT Stanley TÀI GSH 14 II FT. 76, 8;

शम्बुके शद्रे हते ब्राह्मणदारकः । जीवितो धमेमासाद्य रामात्सत्यपराक्रमात ।।

at 163. 67; TT & fog to Tau HERHEIT I… FART Porou Page TTATHRI GETHa: 11 374 39. 9-10.

FOU

19

11

m862

Before proceeding to examine these four passages relied upon by Hopkins a few words must be said about the present text of the Mahābhārata. There are three elements in it, viz. the bare story of the Pandava - brothers and their cousins (usually referred to as Kauravas ), the upākhyānas ( abound ing in the Vanaparva and scattered about in other parvans also ) concerning gods, sages, brāhmanas, kings and others and didactic matter insisting on doing one’s duties and the role of dharma as in Udyoga 148. 16 ‘yato dharmastato jayaḥ’ and in Kunti’s last message to Yudhisthira in Asramavāsika parva 17.21 Dharme te dhiytām budhir-manastu mahad-astu ca’ and philosophy (Saṅkhya, Yoga, Vedānta ). There was, therefore, great scope at all times for adding stories and didactic matters. Thus the Mahābhārata became very much inflated by additions made at different times. Anyone could add a story by saying ‘atrāpyudāharantimam itihāsam purātanam’. In the Anusāsana parvan alone in 25 chapters stories are introduced with these words, apart from several stories introduced in a different manner. Chap. 98 of that parvan is remarkable. There Bhisma introduces ( in the words ‘atrāpyudīharanti’) the story of a dialogue between Manu Prajāpati and one Suvarṇa who asks how the practice of the worship of deities with flowers originated and what the rewards of such worship are. Then Manu cites the story (again with the words ‘atrāpyu’ etc.) of the dialogue between Sukra and Bali Vairocana. Two examples may be cited about Rāma story being interpolated by devotees and enthusiasts. In chap. 74 of the Anuśñsana, apart from the evil results of the killing of a cow, the merit issuing from the gifts of cows or gold is praised and the chapter is wound up (verses 11-14) by Bhīṣma who says that he learnt all this from bis Upā dhyāya to whom it came from the sages, to whom Laksmana imparted the story in the forest which Rāma had heard from his father Daśaratha who learnt it from Indra. Another similar example occurs in chap. 137 of the same parvan, which names numerous great men of the past that achieved highest worlds hy making gifts of various kinds, among whom Rāma (in verse 14), son of Dasaratha, is mentioned as having reached inexhaustible worlds by offerings in yajñas.

Not only were tales interpolated but there are everal repetitions in the Mahābhārata. A few examples may be noted. There is in Sānti ( chap. 227 ) an enlarged version of

SITUT

FOUNDED

32. The Tuo Epice

363

the brief dialogue between Indra and Bali in chap. 223; chap. 175 ( dialogue between father and son ) is practically the same as chap. 277. Salya 38. 39-45 are the same as Vanaparva 83. 116-121. The Sodasarājakiya occurs twice, once in the Droṇa parva (chap. 55–71) and again in the Kantiparva chap. 29. The story of Āstika occurs twice, iu Adi 13ff and in chap. 48ff again.

The literature known to the Mahabharata furnishes some data for making a statement about the probable date of the extant text of the epic. But as the present text is very much inflated owing to additions made at different times, it would be impossible to assign definite dates, and references to Vedas and Brāhmana works need not be cited. The six Angas are mentioned in Adi. 170. 75. In Sāuti 312. 38 the Naighantu ka-padas are mentioned and the word Vrsa therein. The Nirukta of Yaska and its explanation of the word ’ sipivista ’ ( which occurs in Rg. VII. 100. 65-7) is mentioned in the Sāntiparva.386 The Nirukta (V.8) gives the explanation of the word provided by Aupamanyava which is derogatory ( to Viṣṇu), wbile Yāska appears to prefer a laudatory sense and applies the word to Viṣṇu (as Surya), meaning ‘in which rays enter on all sides )’. The Sānti (310. 21-22 ) mentious that Bphaspati knew (composed ? ) the Vedāngas, Bhargava Niti sāstra ( politics ), Nārada music ( Gāndharva ), Bhāradvāja archery, Gārgya the doings of Devull, Kronātreya medicine, and some disputants ( composed ) several sidehāntas based on logic (such as Tārkika, Vaiseṣika and Kāpila ). It will be stat ed in the section on Manusmrti how hundreds of verses are common to the Mabābhārata and the Manusmrti. In the Anuśāsana we have (in 47.35 ) mention of the Sāstra declared by Manu. Itihasa and Purāṇa are called the fifth Veda as early as the Chāndogya Up. VII. 1. 2-4 and the Satapatha Brāhmana requires that in the Pāriplava some Purana and Itihāsa passages were to be recited on the 8th and 9th days respectively. Therefore, the numerous references to Purāṇa in the Great Epic are not here set out. It is important to note that a Purāṇa declared by Vāyu is mentioned in Vana Parva (191. 16). The Svargarohanaparva ( 5. 46-47 ) states that there are 18 Puranas composed by Krsna Dvaipāyana.

.

385 स्तुत्वा मी शिपिविष्टेति यास्क ऋषिरुदारधी: । मत्प्रसादादधो नष्टं निरुक्तमभिः

THETET II TF 342–73.

364

Upavedas are mentioned in Drona parva 202. 75. Dhanur. veda is mentioned in Santi 49. 32, 50. 233 and 167. 31.

The word ‘Dharmaśāstresu’ occurs frequently as shown above (vide pp. 13, 300-1 ). Individual writers on Dharma sāstra ( apart from Manu ) are also quoted e. g. Yama in Santi 82. 31, Aigiras ( two verses ) in Santi 69. 71-73; Usanas on slaying an atatāyin386 ( a desperado like an incendiary or a

poisoner ) may be killed outright in self-defence.

In Anusāsana 18. 38 Garga is said to have obtained the knowledge of the sixty-four Kalas (arts) and in Salya-parva 37. 145 Garga is said to have gained on the banks of Sarasvati knowledge of kāla and about the movements of heavenly bodies. Astronomer Garga is assigned to 50 B. C. by Kern ( vide Preface to Br̥hat-samhita p. 50)and H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 79 and 592 n 878.

It appears that by the time the Mahābhārata assumed its present form Buddhist and Jain ideas had acquired influence among the people. For example, the Vanaparva387 ( 181.42-43) says ’truthfulness, self-restraint, tapas, charity, ahimsa, constant adherence to dharma, these are the means (of higher life ) ainong men, not caste nor family.’ Santiparva says

388 श्लोको चोशनसा गीतो पुरा तात महर्षिणा। … उद्यम्य शत्रमायान्तमपि

वेदान्तगं रणे ॥ निगृह्णीयात्स्वधर्मेण धर्मापेक्षी नराधिपः । … न तेन धर्महा स स्यान्मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति ॥ शान्ति 58. 28-30. Compare मनुस्मृति 8. 348–351 (whore in vorse 351 we have the words fryki Hale

मृच्छति ‘. 387 सत्यं दमस्तपो दानमहिंसा धर्मनित्यता । साधकानि सदा पुंसां न जातिन कुलं नृप ।

वनपर्व 181. 42-43 ; न विशेषोस्ति वर्णाना सर्व ब्राह्ममिदं जगत् । ब्रह्मणा पूर्वसृष्टं हि कर्मभिर्वर्णतो गतम् ॥शान्ति. 188. 10; सत्यं दानमथाद्रोह आनृशंस्यं त्रपा घृणा। तपश्च दृश्यते यत्र स ब्राह्मण इति स्मृतः । … शूद्रे चैतद्भवलक्ष्मं (क्ष्म ? ) द्विजे तच न दृश्यते । न वै शूद्रो भवेच्छूद्रो बाह्मणो न च ब्राह्मणः । शान्ति 189. 4 and 8; Compare Vanaparva 180. 21, 216. 14-15 ; उद्योगपर्व 43.49 ( य एव सत्यान्नापैति स ज्ञेयो ब्राह्मणस्वया); अनुशासन 143. 48-49 (कर्मभिः शुचिभिर्देवि शुद्धात्मा विजितेन्द्रियः । शूद्रोऽपि द्विजवत्सेव्य इति ब्रह्मा ब्रवीत्स्वयम् ॥).

al

POONA’

द

त

FOUNDED 1917

32. The Two Epice

366

(188. 10 ) ’there is no difference among the (four) varṇas; this world is Brāhma (belongs to Brahmā ), because it was formerly created by Brahmā and was, (later) reduced to differ ent varṇas by their (diverse) actions’. The Santiparva annou nces Truthfulness, charity, freedom from hatred and wickedness, humility, kindness and tapas,-where these are seen, he is known as brāhmana. If these characteristics are found in a sūdra and these do not exist in a twice-born person then the Sūdra is not a sūdra and the so-called brāhmaṇa is not a brāhmaṇa. This approaches the teaching of the Dha mmapada verses 383, 393 (yamhi satyam ca dhammo ca 80 sukhi 80 ca brāhmanah). Similiarly, in Anuśāsana 115 Yudhisthira asked Bhisma ‘you have often declared that ahimeā is the highest dharma and you also said that in śrāddhas the pitre desire to have flesh offered’. Buddhist vibāras ( Vana° 188. 56 ) had come into existence and Eļūkas (structures over the bones of the dead); are mentioned in Vana parva ( 90. 65, 67). A naked Ksapanaka ( Digambara Jain) is mentioned in Adi 3. 126; in Santi 232. 21388 the Jain posi tion seems to have been alluded to and also in Afvamedhika 49. 2. In Adiparva 70. 46 it is stated that in Kanva’s hermi tage there were leaders of Lokāyatika views along with students of Vedas and Moksadharma.

On Pāṇ. III. 2. 111 the Mahābhāṣya cites jaghāna Kam sam kila Vāsudevaḥ’ (on Vārtika 2 ’ parokte ca lokavijñāte prayoktur-darsana visaye’) and on Vārtikas 6 and 15 the Mahābhāṣya makes very interesting remarks about Kansa vadha (the killing of Kamsa by Krona ) described in stories, drawn in paintings and represented in dramas; vide Vol. V. p. 130 notes 329-30 and p. 203 note 521. The Mahābhāṣya asks the question bow one can use the present tense (in Kamsam ghātayati) when Kamsa was killed in antiquity. That shows that centuries before the Mahābhāṣya ) works (stories and dramas ) had been composed on the killing of

STITU

POONA

388 एतमेव च नैवं च चोभे नानुभे न च । कर्मस्था विषयं ब्रूयुः सत्त्वस्थाः समः

fia: I TIRA 232. 21 ; Josep Cara tachilla de केचित्संशयितं सर्व निःसंशयमथापरे ॥ आश्वमे० 49. 2.

FOUNDE

366

Kamsa by Kṛsụa. That some verses quoted by the Maha bhāsya are found in the Mahabharata is shown in the note below. 380

The date of the Mahābhāṣya is generally accepted to be about 150 B, C.; vide (pp. 75-79 above). It quotes a quarter of a verse stating that some person followed the Pandava hero with only a sword in his hand and Pāṇini knows the central figures of the great Epic viz. Yudhisthira and Arjuna. It has been shown above (p. 75 ) that Panini flourished about 450 to 400 B.C. Therefore, it follows that there were poems about Pandava heroes and about Krsna killing Kamsa some time before 400 B. C. Scholars would have to assign 500 B. C. as the latest date for the core of the Mahābhārata.

Another circumstance pointing to the same conclusion is that the Asv. Gș. mentions " Bhārata-Mahābhārata dharmā cāryāḥ’. The Gșhyasūtras belong to the latest phase of the Vedic literature. The mention of Bhārati and Mahābhārata as preceding the Āśv. Gș. would make it very probable that the Mahābhārata was in existence at least just before the end of the Vedic period.

One warning already given by Winternitz in ’ History of Indian Literature’ (Calcutta, 1927 p. 469) and accepted by the late Dr. V. S. Sukthankar (in ‘Epic Studies’ VIII in Kane Festschrift p. 474 ) with an addition is that when we want to use a stanza for historical and comparative purposes each

389

390

Op Vārtika 6 on Pāṇ. III. 1.26 the oxamples are: HUARTE 978 of aarthi afe atraglia. Then on Vārtika 15 on tho samo sitra the Mahābhāṣya has a madarasa hanya ada arty

a rotan Bie l ; thou Patañjali justifios it in the words ’ zat yatoto. Ou Pāṇ III. 3. 167 (Kielhorn vol. II. p. 167 ) we have the hall verso

res: Tafa yana y : Hetia 75r; this occurs in aftua 2.24 ; op Pāṇ. V. 1.115 the Mahābhāṣya remarks pa ga great Juagerig वर्तन्ते ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियो वैश्यः शूद्र इति । अतश्च गुणसमुदाय एवं ह्याह’ and quotes a verse ; 79: 8 2 gram gap EVER FALI 99: arzi et état arfgaragot ga 11. The aware 121.7 hast. श्रुतं च योनिश्चा’ येतद् ब्राह्मण्यकारणम् । त्रिभिर्गुणैः समुदितस्ततो अभिवति ā Past: 1

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epice

367

such stanza must be judged on its own merits’. But life being short, this would be an almost impossible task for one scholar for the one hundred thousand stanzas of the Mahābhārata.

But if we turn to the Rāmāyana, none of the great per sonages depicted in that epic such as Daśaratha, Rāma, Laks mana, Bharata (Rama’s brother ), Hanāmat, Sugriva, Bibhisana is inentioned by Pāṇini or in quotations cited in the Mahābhāṣya. Those who want to argue that the present Rāmāyaṇa was known to Patañjali rely on a few matters, such as the reference to Kiskindhi and two verses891 about Vānarasainyu in the Mahābhāṣya. These two verses do not occur in the Rāmāyana at all; besides, here “Vānarasainya’ does not necessarily mean an ‘army of monkeys’; it may play. fully be applied to a crowd or number of monkeys; and moreover such verses illustrating the use of the same root in the Parasmaipada and Ātmanepada might have been com posed by a teacher of grammar for the benefit of his pupils. As there is a parody of Dasaratha, Rāma and Sitā in the Dasarathajātaka, it is probable that some decades before 250 B. C. there existed a popular story about these three. Some further remarks will be made in the section on Rāmā yana.

The first of the four passages relied upon by Hopkins is ‘api cĀyam pura gitah bloko Vālmīkinā bhuvi i na hantavyāḥ striya iti yad-braviși plavangama…Piļākaram amitrānām

391

Postsopprett is described as the capital (in Kiskindbā-kānda chap. 26,5) and also a caro (same chapter vereo 10 and elsewhere ). In modern days it is said to be a village on the north bank of the Tungabhadrā near Hampi in Bollary District ( Madras State ).

Two versos on Vārtika I (34109YFTAFF Curet:) on Paṇ. I. 3. 25 (5477 ) Aro ( Kielhorn’s ed, rol. I p. 281): abarterani नामेको भवति चित्तवान् । पश्य वानरसैन्येऽस्मिन् यदर्कमुपतिष्ठने ॥ मैवं मंस्थाः सचित्तोयमेषोपि हि यथा वयम् । एतदप्यस्य कापेयं यदमुपतिष्ठति ॥ Those illustrate the rulo tbat. Sthā’ with upa’ takes A when it means to worship’ but if there is no question of worship but thore in un action patural to some one if takos only Parasmuoto pada.

POON

HASTITE pade room

368

yat-syāt kartavyam eva tat’ (Dronaparva 14.67-68 ).32 The criticisms against this citation are several. One is that what is quoted is not a Sloka at all, but only a pāda (quarter) at the most; secondly, the Sloka in the Rāmāyana does not amount to an absolute rule, but there is a counterpoise in the latter half of the śloka ; another criticism is that the Maha bhārata itself had already stated in the Adiparva and Vana parva the same rule against killing a woman. So it is proba ble that some interpolator mentioned it in the Dronaparva to show off his knowledge of the other epic. As regards the 2nd citation I am sorry to say that Hopkins is carried away by his enthusiasm to prove direct quotations from the Rāmā yana in the other epic. In the Rāmāyana, the verse ‘rājāpam prathamam vindet’ does not occurses at all. Hopkins is obliged to say that it agrees closely enough in sense and words with the verse in Ayodhyā 67. 11. The verge from Ayodhyā is not ipsissima verba’. There is another gratuitous assumption made by him. He thinks that Bhargava is Vālmiki. Bhargava

means Usanas. Vide Amarakosass quoted below. Hopkins, in spite of his learning and industry, here forgets that the Sāntiparva ( 210. 20 ) ascribes # Nitisāstra to Bhargava and among the expounders of Rājaśāstra385 the Santiparva mentions

392 न हन्तव्याः स्त्रियश्चति यद्ब्रवीषि प्लवंगम । पीडाकरममित्राणां यच कर्त

व्यमेव तत् ॥ युद्धकाण्ड 81. 29-30 ; Compare अवध्या नियमित्याह धर्म साधर्मनिश्चये । आदि 158. 31 ; अवध्याः स्त्रियः सृष्टा मन्यन्ते धर्मचारिणः ।

आदि 217. ’ ; vide also वनपर्व 208. 48. 398 आख्याते रामचरित नृपतिं प्रति भारत ॥ राजानं प्रथम विन्देत्ततो भार्या

ततो धनम् । राजन्यसति लोकस्य कुतो भार्या कुतो धनम् ॥ शान्ति 67. 40-41; अयोध्याकाण्ड 67. 11 is ‘अराजके धनं नास्ति नास्ति भार्याप्यराजके । इदमत्याहितं चान्यत्कुतः सत्यमराजके ॥’; राज्येऽसति कुतो धर्मों धर्मेऽसति

कुतः परम् । शान्ति• 320. 59. 394 शुको दैत्यगुरुः काव्य उशना भार्गवः कविः । अमरकोश. 395 भार्गवो नीतिशा तु जगाद जगतो हितम् । शान्तिपर्व 210.20. एतत्ते

राजधर्माणां नवनीतं युधिष्ठिर । बृहस्पतिर्हि भगवाज्याय्यं धर्म प्रसिति । विशालाक्षश्च भगवान्काव्यश्चैव महातपाः। … राजशासप्रणतारो ब्रह्मण्या ब्रह्मवादिनः ॥ शान्ति• 58, 1-3.

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

369

Kāvya (i.e. Uśanas ) and Bhargava 306 as identical. Vālmīki’s name has nowhere been mentioned as that of an expounder of Rājaśāstra. The Rāmāyana itself regards Usanas ( Sukra ) and Bhargava as identical when it describes the auspicious appearances on Rāma’s invasion of Rāvana’s capital ( Yuddha 4.49 ). Vide above under Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra where pa88a ges from the Mahābhārata on the Rājaśāstra of Uganas have been quoted. Hopkins misunderstands the verse. What it means is: the life of Rāma was recited to some king by a court poet or possibly by Bhargava Uśanas himself the expounder of Rajasāstra, who thereon recited the famous verse ‘rājānam prathamam vindet &c,’ because the underlying idea of that expounder was ’no king, no dharma nor security’. It is quite possible that both (i, e. Mahābhārata and Rāmāyana ) quote from a common source viz, the Rājaśāstra of Kavya Uśanas which once existed but has not yet been recovered.

The third passage occurs in the Vana parva, where Bhima is said to have met Hanumat on the Gandhamādana but did not recognize him and took him to be a mere ordinary monkey (chapters 146 ff). There he speaks of Hanumat as his brother and very famous 397 in the Rāmāyana (147. 11). Vālmīki’s name is not mentioned in those chapters and this story was proba bly interpolated later. The Vanaparva is in extent next to the Santiparva. These two and the Anusasana parva cover about two-fifths of the whole of the extant Mahabharata. The 4th passage ( quoted in the note below )308 on which Hopkins relies occurs in the last chapter of the Harivamsa (which is a khila) and not at all in the text of the Mahā. bhārata in the Chitrashala edition and others.

The above discussion shows that out of the four passages relied upon by Hopkins one is wrongly interpreted, two are not in the Mabābhārata at all and the remaining one is pro bably interpolated.

896 33ar z mata ai niat 16: 1 YE HUS 4. 49 ( 48 in some

editions ). 397 भ्राता मम गुणश्लाघ्यो बुद्धिसत्त्वबलान्वितः । रामायणेऽतिविख्यातः श्रीमान्ला

paypa: 11 9772 147. 11. 398 वेदे रामायणे पुण्ये भारते भरतर्षभ । आदौ चान्त च मध्ये च हरि. सर्वत्र

oftea o at 132.95 ( nafasque ).

HASTITUTE

1917

370

The most puzzling question concerning the Mahābhārata is how the members of a polyandrous family became the heroes of the great national epic. Even in the extant epic attempts are made to explain the matter in a supernatural way. In the Asramavāsikaparva it is stated that after the carnage in the great war, Dhṛtarāstra, Vidura, Kunti ( the mother of five Pandavas ), Gāndhāri, Draupadi, Subbadrā met together and sages like Vyāsa, Nārada, Parvata and others also came when Dhṛtarāstra complained that he had no sleep and no peace of mind and Gāndhārī requested Vyāsa to vouch safe to Dhrtarāstra the sight of his fallen sons. Kunti told Vyāsa (Asramavāsikaparva chap. 30 ) how Durvāsas ( an irate sage ) came to her father (a king ) for alms when she was yet a maiden and as she pleased the sage by her assidu ous hospitality, he gave her five mantras on repeating any one of which the god addressed in that mantra would come to her. She proceeded to say that when she saw from her father’s palace the rising sun, she called him to come by reciting the appropriate mantra, the sun came and she duly requested him to grant her a son, when the Sun’s refulgence entered her and she secretly gave birth to a son (later ) called Karna, whom she let down in a river. She wanted to see that son whom she abandoned. Then Vyāsa consoled her that she was not to be blamed, that deities enter human bodies, that human limi tations do not apply to deities and he recited a verse that everything is pure and wholesome to the strong. 808

In the Adiparva (chap. 169 ) a similar story is repeated almost in the same words that a maiden requested God Śhaṅkara five times to bestow on her a husband and so he ble ssed her that she would have five husbands ( pati ) and she became later Draupadi, daughter of king Drupada. Adiparva (197, 35-36 and 44 ff) states the same kind of story, but it is Laksmi (in Svarga ) who asks five times for a husband.

In Adiparva the question how a polyandrous marriage was allowed in the case of the five Pandava heroes has been raised and dealt with in chapter 195, verses 27-31. Drupada (father of Draupadi) urges that five brothers should have one wife is adharma, it is opposed to the Veda and the use

399 सर्व बलवतां पथ्यं सर्व बलवा शुचि । सर्व बलवतो धर्मः सर्व बलवतो

7777 11 3 Half4 30. 24,

1917

32. The Two Epics

371

of the people. The reply of Yudhisthira is: ‘Dharma is subtle; we only follow the path of our predecessors. I never told a lie nor am I bent on adharma. But my mother says that we five should have the same woman as wife.400 If one may speculate on the origin of the Pandavas, it is possible that they hailed from the hilly regions in the Himalayas where polyandry prevailed up to recent times, that they were formidable warriors and made their way in the countries of Kuru and Pañcāla and married a Pāñcāla princess. The desceudants of the Pandava heroes viz. Pariksit and Janame jaya are well-known in the Vedic age. The Sat. Br. XIII. 4.5 and Ait. Br. 35. 1 mention Pāriksita Janamejaya as a performer of Afvamedha. Dasaratha, Rama and their descendants are not spoken of in these ancient works.

In Anushgana (115. 68-75 ) about fifty ancient kings are named that gave up flesh-eating in Kaumuda (Kārtika) month and therefore they went to heaven. These passages of the great epic would have to be assigned at the most to ā century or two before the Christian era.

The Raināyana ( Ayodhyā 109.34 ) contains a down-right condemnnation of Buddha401 as nāstika (atheist ) and 88 & thief and in chap. 108 of the same epic Jābāli is introduced as an atheist who condemns in the presence of Rāma tbe finer virtues of respect for parents and other relatives, the institu tion of Srāddha, condemns those who talk of the other world and asks Rāma not to leave the kingdom in favour of Bharata.

The two epics have in common many striking verses. For example, in the story of the Kapota bird and the lubdhaka (hunter) where the Kapota burnt itself in order to offer food to the hungry hunter and the female bird, on the death of the male bird, entered fire and killed herself, a fine verse is put in

400 सूक्ष्मो धर्मो महाराज नास्य विमो वयं गतिम् । पूर्वेषामामुपूर्येण यातं

वर्मानुयामहे ॥ न मे वागनृतं प्राह नाधर्मे धीयते मतिः । एवं चैव वदत्यम्बा मम चैतन्मनोगतम् । एष धर्मो ध्रुवो राजंश्चरैनमविचारयन् । अनि

195. 29-31. 401 यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धस्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि । तथाहि म

77777: qarat a arffatahraga mu: tala I 3927027 109. 3. m. ER

Phon”

FONED

17872

the mouth of the female bird in Sāntiparva 148. 6–7.403 In the Ayodhyākānda 39. 30-31 Sitā repeats the same verse be fore Kausalyā when she prepares to go into exile with Rāma. Another famous verse of the propriety of punishing even a guru when he becomes conceited, fails to distinguish between what ought to be done or not to be done and who pursues the wrong path 403 occurs in both. The Sāntiparva (in 57.6 ) says that in former times king Marutta recited an ancient bloka in Brhaspati’s treatise in the section on kings (Rājādhi kāra ) and that it is 57.7. Another verse that occurs in both epics is : all collections end in dissolution, all tall things end in falling down, unions end in separation, life ends in death.404

The discussions so far beld make this clear that the main characters of the Mahabharata were known long before Panini and that tales relating to Pāṇdava heroes had been embodied in a work or in works in verse long before Patañjali wrote i. e. that the core of the Mahabhārata existed before 500 B. C. The same cannot be said about the Rāmāyana. There is no evidence to show that the principal characters of the Rāmā yana were known to Pāṇini or even to Patañjali. At the most one can say that the three names, Dasaratha, Rāma and Sitā, were probably known about 250-200 B. C. but not described

402 मितं ददाति हि पिता मितं भ्राता मितं सुतः। अमितस्य हि दातारं भर्तारं

2017 CETTE II Tifa 148. 6-7, 3PTO 39. 30-31 (in this latter the Madras ed. roads AICT for TAT). It is noteworthy that the Mitāksarā on Yāj. I. 86 refers to this Kapotikākhyāna, quotes vergos 10 and 12 of Santi 148 and remarks that in the guise of this story Vysa recommends anvārohana’ (burning onoself on tho deceased husband’s funeral pyre ) as most meritorious. I am in. olined to hold that it is the author of the Rāmāyana that probably borrows. Rima was only going to a forest (no question of dying arose ) add so the words are not so appropriate in the Rāmāyaṇa as

they are in the Mahābhārata. 403 गुरोरप्यवलिप्तस्य कायोकार्यमजानतः । उत्पथं प्रतिपन्नस्य दण्डो भवति शाश्वतः॥

Tifa 57. 7; also in aa 140. 48 ( reads 411497 for 217977: ); game 178. 48 reads last pāda as fari faeituat; first wala

217494 I 3772T 21. 13. 404 सर्वे क्षयान्ता निचयाः पतनान्ताः समुच्छ्रयाः । संयोगा विप्रयोगान्ता मरणान्त

a alifaran ll Ifa 27. 31, 330. 20, siqa 11. 3; 3771e4T 106. 12 og

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

978

as endowed with the qualities they bear in the extant Rāmā. yana. Therefore, one may conclude that there was a Bhārata epic long before there was a Rāma epic. From the way in which the Vānaras led by Angada ( Kiṣkindhā 41. 6ff) among whom were included such doughty fighters as Hanūmat, Nila, Jāmbavat, were directed to go from Kiṣkindhā towards the south in search of Sitā carried away to Lankā by Rāvana, one feels that the author did not correctly know the different countries that the Vānaras would have had to traverse before reaching Lanka. Sugrīva is said to have told them to go from Kiskindha to the south and one is surprised to read that Sugriva first mentions the Vindhya mountain with its thousand peaks and immediately afterwards Narmadā (chap. 41.8 ) and then mentions Godāvarī, Kronavenī, Varadā ( 41.9), Mekala, Utkala, Dasārna towns, Avanti ( 41.10 ), Vidarbha, Vanga, Kalinga ( 41.11 ). It is unnecessary to cite more. The present writer is constrained to hold that whoever wrote that chapter was an inhabitant of a place north of the Narmadā (which springs from Mekala )405 and knew only the names of towns, rivers and countries without knowing their exact loca tion. The author had probably never been to the island of Ceylon nor kuew anything about the distance between India and Ceylon nor haid he any idea about the extent of Ceylon. It was all a poetic fancy without any solid basis of known facts, even ancient. Kiskindhā is now shown to be a village on the Tungabhadrā river in the Bellary District. We know from the Aranyakānda ( chap. 13 ) that Agastya directed Rāma to have a hut in Pañcavaṭi near Godāvari and from that place be later went to Royamūka near Pampā where dwelt Sugriva with four others ( Aranya. 72.11-12 ). 406

406 Vide Amarakosa which says ‘Tard TTT THAT À* Print’. 406 Several scholars have writton about the location of Lankā. Mr. M.

V. Kibe locates Lauka in contral India (vide ABORI Vol. XVII pp. 371-384; F. W. Thoinas prosentation Vol. pp. 144-5; J. C. Ghosh in ABORI vol, XIX pp. 84-86; Daniel John in ABORI vol. XXI pp. 270-279 ( who holds that Mr. Kibe is wrong and that Lankā must be some island in the inidst of the son off the southern or south-eastern count of tho prosent island of Coylon. Mr, G. K Ramdus holds thut · Rāvana’s Lankā’ was pour Ainarakantaka (xing I. H. Q. vol. IV pp. 338-346). In A. B. 0. R. I. Vol. XIX at p. 8oront is pointed out that a portion of Orissa was known as Lankāmena M. 8. Anoy in his papor “The Ramayana tradition in the PORARE

(Continued on the next page)

1917

374

It has been shown above that the Rāma story and chara cters are mentioned in the extant Mahābhārata and the legends and some well-known characters in the Mahābhārata are noted in the extant Ramayana. Therefore, all that one can say is that both works have influenced each other. But As the core of the Mahābhārata is much older than that of the Rāmāyana and as the Mahābhārata is four times as bulky as the Rāmāyana, it is the latter that most probably borrowed several matters from the great Epic. It has been demonstre ted above that the so-called four direct references in the Mabābhārata to the Rāmāyana put forward by Hopkins are not so and that only one remains, which appears to me to be a later interpolation.

Just as the story of Nala-Damayanti was set out in the Mahābhārata from a tale current in early days, so the Rāma story might have been only a popular tale in the beginning and was later turned into an epic, but the Mahābhārata, if it had directly borrowed from the Rāmāyana, would not have differed from the epic on such an important matter as the killer of Kumbhakarna. Therefore, it is very probable that the Rāma tale was included in the Vanaparva at a time when the Rāmāyana in its present form did not exist. The present writer holds that the Mahābhārata assumed its present form certainly before the Christian era, but how much earlier it is difficult to say.

( Continued from the previous page ) day Ceylon’ in the Proceedings of the A. I. 0. Conference at Dar bhanga ( 1048 ), pp. 206-218 tries to show that Lankā is the present Ceylon and supports his viow by referring to the Sundarakānda, Mahavamsa, Rājāvali and some similar works. I regret that his arguments aro far from convincing. In tho Sundarakānda Lanka is not an island but is described as tho capital of Rāvana situated beyond the sea on the slopes of Trikūta and surrounded by a wall as the versos quoted below testify. The Mahābhārata mentions Sinhala and Lankā soparntoly (Vanaparva 01. 23 Sinhalan Barba. rān mlecchun ye ca Lankiniviisinaḥ ). The Dipavamsa is the ear: liest chroniolo (about Ceylon) and it is not oarlier than the 4th ceatury A. D. and the Mahavarisa is much later (6th century or later ). They are not reliable authorities for ovonts that aro guppo sed to have lapponou govoral couturies before Christ. स सागरमनाधृष्यमतिक्रम्य महाबलः । त्रिकूटस्य तटे लहुन स्थितः ATT T T II … TATATU 7 SEATAEt Trauen argia H49T: FIETOSTITEATH i rep a spus 2. 7–8; at which is Tarraga: 31ATH 1 97*To 3. 13,

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

375

Hopking497 devotes pp. 386-403 of his work The Great Epic of India’ to the date of the Epic and summarises his con clusions on pp. 397-398. On p. 398 he says there is no date of the Epic’ which will cover all its parts (though handbook makers may safely assign it in general to the 2nd century B. C.). A sizable volume would be required to criticize his remarks on several matters and to expose the hollowness of his hasty and one-sided conclusions. To take only one exa mple at random. He relies (p. 387) on the occurrence of the word Dināra in the Harivamsa which is only a supplement to the Mahābhārata and on the fact that in the present text of the Epic ( Adiparva chap. 2.82-83 ) reference is made to the Harivaṁsa as a Khila, in which are included the deeds of Viṣṇu such as killing Kamsa and the Bhaviṣya parva, wbich is a large and wonderful one amony Khilas. 408 The Dināra is not mentioned in the 18 parvans of the Mahābhārata (not even in Santiparva nor in Anuśāsa naparva ) as Hopkins admits on p. 387. Supposing for a moment that the mention of dināra in Harivaṁsa is not interpolated, still from the reference to Harivassa in Adi I. 2 in general it does not necessarily follow that the writer of Adi. 2 had before him a Harivamsa contai ning the word Dināra. Besides, his dating about the Intro duction of Dināras in India is not supported by satisfactory evidence. He states ( on p. 387 ) " for the Roman denarius is known to the Harivamsa and the Harivamsa is known to the first part of the first book and the last book; hence such parts of this book as recognize the Harivarsa must be later than

m

407

408

Hopkins in Great Epic of India’ pp 403-145 ( Appendix A) sota out 337 cases of parallel phrases in the two Epios. Vide also JOR ( Madras ) vol. XI pp. 22-26 on the samo topic. महाप्रस्थानिकं पर्व स्वर्गरोहणिकं ततः ॥ हरिवंशस्ततः पर्व पुराणं खिल. संज्ञितम् । विष्णुपर्व शिशोश्चर्या विष्णोः कंसवधस्तथा ॥ भविष्यपर्व चाप्युक्तं parani hem I gacua and got an email HEICHaT II 2. 81–83. The commontator explains the word “Khila’ as follows ; ETTEITEN शाखान्तरे यदपेक्षावशात्पठयंते तसिलमिति वैदिकी प्रसिद्धि : । यथा बहुचानां श्रीसूक्तमेधासूक्तादीनां संहिताकाले पाठो दृश्यते । एवमस्मिभितिहासे यत्पुराणान्तरस्थमाकांक्षावशात्पठ्यते तत्खिलं हरिवंशाख्यमित्याह । अत एवास्य खिलस्य पुराणमिति विशेषणम् । तथाहि अत्र विष्णुचर्या विष्णुपुराणका साकल्येन दृश्यते । एवं भविष्यपुराणकथा च ।

FOUND

1917

17012

376

the Introduction of Roman coins into the country (100-200 A, D.)’. He does not mention the evidence on which he bases his conclusion about the exact period of the Introduction of the Denarius in India. For the date of early Denarius coins, vide Pro. of British Academy, Vol. XVIII for 1932 pp. 211-266.409

The Romakas are mentioned in Sabhāparva 51.17. One remarkable matter is as follows. The Apastamba Dh.S. II. 5. 11.5-6 are’ Rājñaḥ panthā brāhmanevāsametya’ and ‘gamety. tu brāhmaṇasyaiva panthah’. These two sūtras form the second half of the verse in Vana parva 133.1 (the first half being ‘And hasya panthāḥ… bhūra vāhasya panthāḥ &c ).

Vyāba or the Mahābhārata has been mentioned in some early inscriptions.

For example, the Pardi plates of Dahra-sena of Samvat 207 (probably of the Kalacuri or Chedi era i. e. of 456 A. D.) ascribes the verse ‘ṣaṣṭim varsa sahasrāại’ &c. (in E. I. Vol. X. p. 53 ) to Vyāsa. Gupta Ing. No. 31 at p. 137 (the Khoh copper-plate of Mahārāja Sarvanātha dated in 204 of the Gupta era i.e. 533 A. D. ) says ‘uktam ca Mahābhārate Vyāsena’.410 This inscription establishes that long before 530 A. D. the Great Epic was deemed to have one hundred thousand verses composed by Vyāsa. It has been already shown how in Bana’s day the Epic was recited to an audience of men and women. Several hundred verses are commou to both the Manuṣmṛti and the Mahābhārata. Commentators of Dharmaśāstra works from early times quote the Mabā bhārata. Medhātithi on Manu II. 94 quotes one of Yayāti’s verses about Kāma (desire ) being insatiable. On Manu

409

That paper shows that formerly it wag believed that the Donarius was introducted in 269 B, C. But on a fresh appraisal it is stated (od p. 214 ) that we may rogard 190 B. C. as a close approximation to the true date. On. p. 254 it is shown that the first issue of the paper denaring was in 187 B. C. In plate III accompanying the vol. No. 32 is a donarius of 42 B. C. and No. 33 of 99, 94 B. C. Hence Dinarius could have been introduced in India in 150 B. C.

On p. 137 (Gupta Inscription No. 31 ) the Inscription ends with tho words ‘उक्तं च महाभारते शतसाहस्यां संहितायां परमर्षिणा पराशर• सुतेन वेदव्यासेन व्यासेन । पूर्वदत्तां द्विजाति … पालनम् ॥ प्रायेण हि . वसुन्धराम् ॥ बहुभिर्वसुधा … तदा फलम् ॥ षष्टिवर्षस…नरके वसेत् ।। स्वंद

( Continued on the next page)

410

FOUNDED 1917

32. The Two Epics

377

XI.93 he quotes · Ubhau Madhvõsavaksibau’(Udyoga 59.5); on IX.64 he quotes Sānti 63.13411 that the Sūdra is entit led to three āśramas but not to that of parivrājaka. On Manu VII. 177 he quotes the well-known verse na kascit kasyacit’ ( quoted above). The Mit. quotes the Mahābhārata or Vyāsa frequently (e. g. on Yāj. 1.72,86, 256, III. 6, 250, 258, 300 ). Aparārka quotes from the Mahābhārata dozens of verges, but the quotations from Vyāsa include many verses on Vyava bāra attributed to Vyāsa which do not occur in the Mahā bhārata. The Kṛtyakalpataru sparingly quotes the Mahā bhārata. It is unnecessary to refer to other and later digests on the question of the, date and text of the Mahābhārata.

When ancient Indians came to Java they brought with them their sacred books. The Mahābhārata soon became most popular among the Javanese. Portions of the Mahā bhārata were renderad into old Javanese or Kavi poetry. This work is known as Brata Yuda (modern Javanese) i.e. Bhārata Yuddha. The Kalasan Inscription of the suka year 700 ( 778 A. D. ) found in a temple in central Java is the earliest Javanese Inscription written in a North Indian script. It was published by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar in JBBRAS Vol. VII part 2 from a photograjih copy sent to him from Batavia. It opens with a salutation to Tūrā, Buddhist goddess. The temple was constructed by the Rājaguru (king’s chaplain ) of a king of the Sailendra dynasty. It contains twelve verses one of which is quoted below.412 Sardar K. M. Panikkar’s

(Continued from the previous page ) acant at… Haifa il 3777ihSacoiny…tj gran ll Vide the list of imprecatory verses from inscriptions set out in H. of Db, vol. II pp. 1271-77. Tbo above five verses are respectively Nos. 6, 13 (reads T3IHT ), 1, 2, 4 and the last is not in that list. Vide under Mapusmrti about these vernes being sometimes attributed to

Manu and the criticism of Hopkin’s views theroon. 4ll ‘न पृथिव्यां व्रीहियवं हिरण्यं पशवः खियः । नालमेकस्य तत्सर्वमिति मत्वा शर्म

atta II. The Ch. ed. reads this as ‘great marqurf fecool… ahta’

(BT12 75.51); 3 ar farear: Ha affacar Pazifith TFA 83 412 सर्वानवागामिनः पार्थिवेन्द्रान् भूयो भूयो याचते राजसिंहः । सामा

male harini talent and greatzt hala: It is the same

( Continued on the next page )

378

paper on ‘Manipravāla in Java’in ‘Kunhan Raja Presentation volume pp. 65-69’ shows how from the 12th century A. D. onwards poems were composed in Java in the local kavi language, employed different Sanskrit metres and took over stories from the Sanskrit kāvyas of Kālidāsa, Bhāravi and the episodes in the Mahābhārata and adopted Sanskrit theories of rhetoric and ala; kāras (figures of speech ). Several European scholars have worked on this subject. Vide for example, Louis Finot’s learned paper in I. H. Q. vol. I pp. 599-622 ( on the geography and chronology of Indian civilization in Indo China’) in which he gives the names of several Dutch and French scholars ( as his predecessors in the same field ). He remarks India has laid her mark on all the great Eastern countries some of which received a substantial part of their religious and artistic culture from India and others are indebted to her for their very existence as civilized states’. For Srivijaya’, vide ‘La Royamme de Srivijaya’ by G. Coedes mentioned by Finot’s paper (1). 619) and Prof. Nilakanta Sastri in ‘Bulletin of the ’l’ecole de Extreme Orient’, Tome XV fasc. 2 pp. 239 ff ( Hanoi ).

The commentary called Bhāratabhāvadīpa of Nilakantha Caturdhara ( son of Govinda ) on the Mahābhārata (printed in the Ch. ed. ) is a learned one. In the opening verses at the beginning of Adiparva he praises one Laksmaṇārya, then two ancestors of his viz. Nārāyana and Dhireśa who are again named with reverence in Sabhā l.1 as Hamiranurya (i.e. residing in Hamirapur ). At the beginning of Udyoga parva he calls bimself Laksmana padinuga ( following in the footsteps of Laksmana ); again on Vanaparva 129. 9 he states that followers of Lakṣmalla who was the ornament of a family of persons well-versed in knowledge of brahman explains that verse differently. At the beginning of Bhismaparva, chap. 25 ( i.e. the Bhagavadgiti ) he performs an obeisance to Sridhara and others as ‘sadgurūn’. This Sridhara is, it appears, the commentator of the Bhagavata purana. On

( Continued from the previous page) No. 10 on p. 1273 of the H of Dh, vol. II, with this difforonco that the order of the two halves is reversed and that the words underlinod are difforently road is this ins, namely THIET E LOFT

THT: , Toti for 7910T and waiaam … -572 for भाविनी भूमिपालान् .

A

1917

32. The Two Epics

379

Vana-p. 133. 24 he quotes Mūdhava ou the five kinds of years (Candra, Saura etc. ), who is most probably Mādhavācārya, who wrote Kāla mādhava. He states that he collected M88. of the Epic from different parts of India. He quotes Medini kośa frequently (e.g. on Adi.47. 11, 140.12, 214.2, Vanaparva 236.10), Yadava on Vana° 260.3, Viśvakośa on Udyoga 40.16 and quotes Viśvalocana on the meaning of Cakradhara’ in Anuśāsana 162.38, and on the meaning of granthikāh’ in Āśvamedhika 70.7. He refers to the commentary called

Viṣamaslokavyākhyā’ on Vanaparva 82.38 as reading a certain verse there but states it was omitted by later igno. rant expositors. On Virāṭa parva 2.9 he mentions the mean ing of’ūralika’given by the author of the com. Visamaśloki. He mentions Arjunamisra’s explanation of Jārūthyān ‘in Vanaparva 284.23; on Adi 170.15 he notes that Devabodha and others read it differently and on the word ‘madhuparki kāh’ in Dronaparva 182.2. he gives Devabodha’s explanation. On Vana parva 263.8 he refers to Saṅkarācārya’s commentary on Vispusahasranāma and on Udyoga 42.1 he refers to the commentary of Bhāsyakūra on Sanatsujātiya; he refers to the Sajiksepaśūriraka on Udyoga 43.42; On Bhīṣma parva 3.13 and 31 he quotes a work called Narapativijaya on astrology ; on Sānti 306.8 he mentions a work on Yoga called Yogacinta maṇi and Bhoja’s work on Poetics dealing with 24 gunas of Sabda (on Santi 320.87). He quotes a verse of Dattatreya on Khecari Muurā (on Āśvamedhika 19.37). In many places he discusses various readings as on Ādi 214.2, Sabhā 16.3 (Gaudlapātha ) and 21.16 (Gaudopatha ), Vanaparva 239.4 (Gauda pātha ), discusses three readings on Vana parva 264.12. On Sabhā 61.9 ( where the word ‘Ṣaṣṭiviśūradih’ occurs ) he refers to Sridharasvimi’s #13 com. on Bhagavatapurāṇa and also ou Sabha’ 41.1. He appears to have written a work called. Vedānta-kataka’ und refers to what he says therein on ‘Dabarādhikarana’ (i.e. Brahmasūtra 1. 3. 14-21 ) At the

. -. 413 चतुःषष्टिषु कलासु विशारदाः । कलानामानि तु श्रीमद्भागवतदशमस्कम्प

कायां श्रीधरस्वामिभिर्दर्शितानि ; । on सभा 61. 9. अत एव श्रीमद्भागवताण हरिनिन्दायन्थः स्तुतिपरत्वेनैव व्यायातः श्रीधरस्वामिभिः । on सभा

Sh. Q…

FOUNDED

880

end of the Sāntiparva and of Anuśāganao he enumerates 414 the several teachers (eight in all) under whom he learnt Vedānta, Mahābhāṣya, Veda with its subsidiary lores, logic, Srauta &c.

He mentions Niruktabhāsya on Vanaparva 291.70 and also Vedabhāsya (i.e. Sāyaṇabhāsya ) on Jarūtha (occurring in Rg. VII. 1.7 and X. 80.3). He appears to have been & Mahārāstra brāhmana. On Udyoga 143.25 he explains ’eka paksāksicaranāḥ’as pārkoli’ (a bird ) in Mahārāsṭrabhāgā; on Adiparva 63.20 he explains ‘pitakaiḥ’ as ‘petyā iti bhā Bāyām’ which is Marathi ‘petī’ or ‘petyā’. He refers to the custom of raising a bamboo staff at the end of a year and the beginning of a new one (in Adi. 63. 18-19 ) as seen in Mahā rāstra and other places. On Sabhā 21.20 he explains the word ‘Srnga’ as ‘Manurī’, which is’ Manorā’ in present Marathi; on Sānti 87.35 he explains ·gominaḥ’as ‘cāranas’ which is & Marathi word. On Vana’ 93.27 he explains * Kathinānām as Kāthi iti Mahūrūstra prasiddhah’. Though a Mahārāstrian he knew Yavanabhāsā as on Sabhā 4,2 he ex plains that’Jivantī’ is called ’ viriji’ in Yavanabhāśā.

As he refers to the Medinikoga and the Kālamadhava he is certainly later than the 14th century A. D. In ‘Indian Culture’ vol. I pp. 706-710 it is stated that Arjunamisra, a Varendra brābmana who flourished in the latter part of the 13th century is a better commentator than Nilakantha. Vimalabodha wrote a commentary on the Mahabharata called Vimalasloki or Durghatārthaprakāśini, a ms, of which is in possession of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute ( Poona). Vide Gode’s paper

414 वेदान्ते लक्ष्मणार्य ऋतुविधिविवृती तीर्थ-नारायणार्य तर्के धीरेशमिश्रान्

फणिपतिभणिती पोलगङ्गाधरायम् । वेदे साङ्गे पितृव्यं शिवमथ पितरं दक्षिणामूर्युपास्तौ श्रोते चिन्तामणि यः शरणमुपगती भूम्नि गोपालदेवम् ॥ ( at end of tifata); hari at foran tante ATENTES तर्के धीरेशमिश्रान् फणिपतिभणिती पोलगङ्गाधरार्यम् । भाट्टे नारायणं यो गुरुमकृत ततं दक्षिणामूर्यु गस्ती धाते चिन्तामणिं च व्यभजत स महाभारते FIATHIRII. Mā appears to bave been used for reasons of metro instead of the usual word ard. In the Kathopaniad Nagitan asks his father’AI TITTA’ (1.4) and in the BOX 112, 3 ( Tere na for 1517299 HT ).

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

381

in Silver Jubilee Vol. of the BORI pp. 146 ff. Vide Dr. Raghavan’s paper in Kane Festschrift (pp. 351-355 ) for some commentators of the Mahābhārata such as Varada, Yajñanārāyaṇa and Anandapurna (about 1350 A. D. ), parts of whose commentaries are found in mss. collections.

The extant Mahābhārata professes that it is removed from the Mahābhārata war only by two generations or 80. It was narrated by Vaisam pāyana to Janamejaya who was the great-grandson of Arjuna. The topics regarding the beg inning of the Kaliyuga and the astronomical data in the Mahābhārata have been discussed at some length in the 3rd volume of the H. of Dh. pp. 896-923.

The probable date of the Mahābhārata war has been dis cussed by the present author in H. of Dh. Vol. III pp. 895 923 and Vol. V. p. 849. There are three dates put forward from comparatively early times, viz. 3101 B. C. (the tradi tional date );( 2 ) that of the Br̥hat-samhitā and Rājatarangini (viz. about 653 of Kali age ); (3) that of the Vāyu, Matsya, Brabmanda and Bhagavata purāṇas which provide that bet ween the birth of Pariksit ( grandson of Arjuna, the outstand ing fighter among the Pandavas ) and the coronation of Nanda there is a period of 1500 (or 1050 or 1015 years, according to various readings in the mss of those Purāṇas ). Almost all modern scholars discard the idea that the Mahābhārata was composed a short time after the war. Similarly, the matters in the Sānti and Anusasana parvans containing over twenty thousand verses are stated to have been declared by Bhisma, who was mortally wounded but lay on death-bed till the sun turned northwards. This was a very helpful camouflage to insert into the Epic any matter deemed worthy of being put in. In the Parvasa nigrahaparva ( Adi. 2.325-331 ) it is stated that in the Sāntiparva there are 329 udhyāyas ( chapters ) and 14732 verses and in Adi. 2.331-338 it is stated that in the Anuśāsana parva there are 146 adhyāyas and 8000 verses. In the Chitraslala edition there are 365 chapters in the Santi parya and 168 in the Anusasanaparva. Thus the chapters in the two parvans (in the present text ) exceed the number of chapters stated in Adiparva, chap. 2. It is possible that later redactors arranged the chapters differently for varidus reasons. In the Santiparva the longest adhyāya ( 138 ) 221 verses, then comes chap. 284 with 208 verses. On the

INST

FOUN382

other hand the shortest chap. of Sintiparva is 363 (of six verses only ), chapters 353 and 365 have only nine verses each, while some chapters (such as 129, 136, 304, 352 ) have only eleven verses. A few chapters like 192, 338, 342 have a few verses and also long prose passages. I have calculated the verses in the Santiparva and they come to about 13200 or so in the Chitrashala edition, but if one takes into account the prose passages (and calculates them as versified with 32 letters in each verse ), then there would not be much divergence in the number of slokas. Vide C. V. Vaidya’s ‘Mahābhārata: a criticism’, Appendix, note one, for the total of chapters and slokas in the 18 parvans and the kbila Harivaṁsa stated in the Parvasangrahaparva and in the Bombay edition. They are respectively 96836 and 95826 blokas. Therefore, the reputed extent of the Mahābhārata even in early inscriptions (the Khoh plate of 533 A. D. ) viz. one hundred thousand is only approximate; vide Dr. Sukhtankar’s paper in ABORI, Silver Jubilee Volume, (1943) pp. 549-558 for remarks on the figures mentioned in the Parvasangrahaparva.

The Mahābhārata not only repeats tales but also single verses of its own e.g. Sānti, chap, 231.31 repeats Gitā 8.17 (sahasra yuga’), chap. 251.9 is the same as Gītā (11.70, āpūryamānam ), chap. 312.14 ( sarvatah pārio) is same as Gītā 13.13; Vana parva 189.27 (yada yadā ca dharmasya ) is the same as Gitā 1V. 7.

In the two epics genealogies of ancient kings occur fre quently and it is impossible to reconcile all of them. A few simple examples may be cited. The Manusmrti (in I. ) claims that Brahmā first ( 1.32 ) created Viraj who created him (Manu) and he (Manu) created (1.35 ) the great sages ( Marici, Atri, Angiras, Pulaha, Pulastya, Kratu, Pracetas Vasistha, Bhrgu and Nārada ) and they created the seven Manus (1.36 ) and the world was created by them. If we turn to the Mahabharata, the Anuśasana (chap. 2.5 ft’) tells us that Manu Prajāpati’s son was Iksvāku, who had one hundred sons of whom Daśāśva was the 10th. But the Vana parva (iu chap. 201-202 ) speaks of Ikyvāku, his son Sasida ( who ruled in Ayodhyā ), his son Kakusthu, bis son Anenas, whose son was Pșthu-whose son was Viśvagaśva, whose son was Adki wlinse son was Yuvanāśva and so on. In the Āsvamedljikapare (chap. 4 ) the genealogy is ( in Kytayugu ) Manu-son Krasan

Ο τουNρεο

Ν

32. The Two Epics

383

dhi-son Ksupa-son Ikṣvāku (chap. 4.3-14 ). If we now turn to the Rāmāyana, chap. 110 of the Ayodhyākānda furni. shes a long pedigree (in verses 5-34 ) as follows: Brahmā Marici-Kaśyapa-Vivasvat-Manu Vaivasvata Prajāpati-Iks vāku (the first king of Ayodhyā )-Kuksi-Vikukṣi-Bana Anaraṇya-Pythu-Triśajku – Dhundumāra - Yuvadāśva - Mān dhātr-Susandhi-Dhruvasandhi– Bharata-Asita-Sāgara - A82 mañja - Aṁśumān - Dilipa - Bhagiratha - Kakustha - Raghu Pravṛddha. Kalmāsarāda -Saṅkhana - Sudarsana - Agnivarṇa Sighraga-Maru-Prasuśruva-Ambarisa-Nahusa-Nābhāga-Aja Daśaratha-Rāma. This pedigree contradicts the one in Manu smrti ( 1.34-35 ) set out a little above, where Marici is one of the ten sons of Manu. Let us now turn to the Raghuvamsa, where ( in 1.11-12 ) it is stated that Vaivasvata Manu was the first king, that among his descendants was king Dilipa, whose son was Raghu whose son was Aja whose son was Dasaratha. It should be noted that in the Ayodhyākānda two kings inter vene between Dilipa and Raghu and between Raghu and Aja ten kings are named. Hence it follows that the Ayodhyā. kānda pedigree is either an inflated one or that Kālidasa had a different pedigree before him at least from Dilipa downwards or that Kūlidasa was not aware of the longer pedigree. From the Raghuvamsa itself it appears that Kūlidāsa knew the story of Sagara as an ancestor of Rama and the story of his Aśvamedha horse being carried to the bottom of the earth and the digging of the earth for finding it and the ocean being filled with the waters of Ganges ( Raghu. XIII. 31 ); he also knew the story of Bhagiratha taking the Ganges from the matted hair of Śiva (Raghu IV.32 ) to the earth and of Kaku stha being a descendant of Iksvāku ( Raglu VI. 71 ). It is not unlikely that a very long pedigree was manufactured for the glory of the family of Rama and Kalidasa was not pre pared to accept it in its entirety. It may be noted that Bāna in the Harsacarita ( 6th ucchvĀsa p. 38 of my edition ) holds that Raghu was the son of Dilipa.

Both the epics inspired many later writers to compose Sanskrit dramas based on the characters and the various stories contained in them. The Dasarūpaka416 recommend

Pooh

416 इत्याद्यशेषमिह वस्तुविभेदजातं रामायणादि च विभाव्य बृहत्कथां च । साम।

त्रयेत्तदनु नेतृरसानुगुण्याचित्रा कथामुचितचारुवचःप्रपश्चैः ॥ दशरूपक I. OE

384

that intending dramatists should rely upon the Rāmāyana and the Bșhatkatbā for plots. Dr. V. Raghavan recently published a work on ‘Some old lost Rāma plays’ (Annamalai University, 1961).

It appears from Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra that it knew the central story of the Mahābhārata and that of the Rāmāyana. For example, on I. 6. 8 ( Arthaśāstra ) it is stated that Rāvana perished since he did not restore another’s wife owing to pride and Duryodhana perished because he on account of pride did not agree to give a portion of the kingdom. In Arthaśāstra VIII. 3. 41-43 reference is made to Jayatsena and Duryodhana winning in gambling because of expertness in it and Nala and Yudhisthira lost in gambling. In the Mahābhārata, however, Nala’s opponent is said to have been Puskara ( and not Jayatsena). There is little to show that the Arthasāstra refers to literary works like the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyana and not to tales current among people in its day.

The Mahābbārata is predominently a Vaimna vite work and contains two of the five jewels of Vuisuavism viz. the Gītā and the one thousand names of Viṣṇu (in Anuśāsana parva 149. 14-120).

But it is not at all so thorough going in its dogma as are some medieval South Indian works of the 11th and later centuries A. D. The Anuśāsana ( 17. 31–153 ) contains 1008 names of Śiva also. In many places the identity of Śiva and Viśṇu is emphasized as in Vanaparva and Santiparva.416 There are grand eulogies of Śiva in Dronaparva 80. 39-48 and Sau ptikaparva 17 ( this last by Krsna ). In Anuśāsana (16.8) Śiva is identified with Bruhman.

418 शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे । दक्षयज्ञविनाशाय हरिरुद्राय वै नमः ॥

q948 39. 76–77; vide also afra 342, 33 aratah #Ai af affalas स मामनु । नावयोरन्तरं किंचिन्मा ते भूद्बुद्धिरन्यथा.। निष्कलं सकलं कृत्य निर्गुणं गुणगोचरम् । योगिनां परमानन्दमक्षरं मोक्षसंज्ञितम् ॥ अनुशासन 18. 8. Compare निष्कलं निष्क्रिय शान्तं निरवयं निरञ्जनम् ॥ अमृतस्य पर सेतु

Tetraf919754 VI-19; FASHICH arghita qeyd racire E14479: Il gugata. III 1. 8.

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

385

The Mausala parva417 ( chap. 7) varrates that, after Krona passed away, Arjuna went alone to Dvārakā in order to bring his wives and the Yādava women to the Pārdava capi tal, that Arjuna was attacked by the Abhiras on his way and the Abhiras forcibly carried away many ladies and some went with them of their own free will. Moreover, in Salya Parva 61. 28 ff,418 where Duryodhana, being mortally wounded by a mace stroke on the thigh by Bhima, severely upbraided Vasudeva for the breaches of the rules such as putting up Sikhandip against Bhisma and Yudhisthira’s prevarication about the death of Asvatthāmā. Then Vasudeva referred to Duryodhana’s evil deeds ( verses 42-47 ), such as not giving & share to Pandavas in the paternal estate, poisoning Bbima, trying to burn Pandavas together with their mother in

jatugļha’, taking by force Draupadi to the Sabbā when she was in her monthly period, assault on the very young Abhi manyu by many of Duryodhana’s partisans, and added that he Wag killed for all these misdeeds. The text says that the gods showered flowers on Duryodhana and Gandharvas played on musical instruments &c. (verses 55-58). If the great epic had been a thoroughgoing Vaishave work these incidents would not have been mentioned by it.

A few passages 419 common to two or more works with slight variations from among (Arthaśāstra of Kauṭily., Makābhārata, Manu, Mahābhāṣya, and Rāmāyana are here set out and some have already been mentioned above ).

417 मिषतां सर्वयोधानां समस्ताः प्रमदोत्तमाः । समन्ततोऽवकृष्यन्त कामाचान्या:

Taa: 11 H14O 7.59. 418 दुर्योधनो वासुदेवं वाग्भिरुग्राभिरादयत् । कंसदासस्य दायाद न ते लजास्त्यनेन वै॥

अधर्मेण गदायुद्धे यदहं विनिपातितः । उरू भिन्धीति भीमस्य स्मृति मिथ्या 44E537 I … Parerga greint eraara Porame: 1 PETE977:

Ara eral ari y a 11 31rarat ha: TUOI Type 01. 27–32. 419 (1) FTTET TI-*. I, 15.60, #VII. 105, atfeet 140.24.

(2) faggatus: 17-1914: 1 **. 1. 4. 6-6,49. V11.102-3, anfa

140. 6-7, Tae 140. 7-8. (3) FITOTT:-. 1. 4. 13, I. 13.8, Sifa 18.30, 67. 16, 42 v1.0 (4) Harilor rando- AI XI, 180, IECT 165. 37.

( Continued on the next page )

ISTITUT

SPOONA

FOUNDET

1917

771117

DE ส่งไว

386

THE RĀMĀYAŅA It is remarkable that an Italian scholar G. Gorrecio, published the text of the Rāmāyana in five volumes ( the first being published in 1843 A. D. with a long Introduction of 143 pages and the Uttarakānda being omitted ) and five more volumes of translations, Prefaces and Indexes, the 10th volume being published in 1858 A. D. The Rāmāyana has been edited in several places e. g. by the Gujarati Press of Bombay in seven volumes ( with three commentaries ) and by the Nirnaya sāgara Press (text in two volumes ) in 1905. A critical edition of the Rāmāyana on the lines of the Poona critical edi tion of the Mahābhārata was undertaken at Baroda and 80 far the first three kāndas have been issued. In the present edition of the H. of Dh. the one volume edition of the text of the Rāmāyana published by Mr. R. Narayanaswami Aiyar and edited by a committee of four scholars in 1933 and based on four palm-leaf mss. and several printed editions has been used.

There are several recensions of the Rāmāyana, three being well-known, viz. the Southern represented by the Guja rati Press edition in seven parts and the Nir. edition in two parts, the Bengali recension (represented by Gorrecio’s edi tion ) and North-western recension represented by the edition of the Rāmāyana published by the D. A. V. College, Lahore in 1923 ff. The Southern recension is the most widely spread of the three. Jacobi found differences in these recen sions and classified them and arrived at the following conclusions :- (1) Each recension differs from both or one of the other two in the common verses, the Southern recension

( Continued from the previous page ) ( 5 ) एकं हन्यान्न वा हन्यादिषुः क्षिप्तो धनुष्मता। प्राज्ञेन तु मतिः क्षिप्ता हन्याद

Hotarafa il t. X. 6. 51, Jan. 33. 43. (6) SERT BE A quala 71 asteht thaila HIT&F: 1 . XII. 1-2 ;

Jū11. 34. 37 and TFT. 67. 11 (5674 stund and a h all). (7) कल्याणी बत गाथेयं लौकिकी प्रतिभाति मे । एति जीवन्तमानन्दो नरं वर्ष

Tarifa il g=37#173 34. 6, 16*103 129. 2 ( Gorrocio’s od.x262 the महाभाष्य quotes the quarter एति जीवन्तमानन्दः on PATRE (Kielbord vol. I. p. 277 ) and on III. 1. 67 anfaa 6 ( katha vol. II. p. 59 ).

32. The Two Epics

387

having the more original text; ( 2 ) each recension has a good number of verses, longer pageages and sometimes whole can tos which are not found in one of the other two recensions or in both the other recensions ; (3) the sequence of the verses is often different in two or sometimes in all three recensions. Jacobi found that in the first 30 cantos of Kiṣkindhā 749 ver ses were common out of a total of 1303 verses in Southern recension and 1228 in East Bengal recension. Prof. C. Bulcke finds that of the 4202, verses of the N. W. version of Sundara kānda, 31 percent are absent from the Bengal version and 28 percent from the Southern Recension and 13 percent exclu sively belong to the N. W. recension (vide Poona Orientalist, vol. 25 at p. 37) and adds that the narrative changes very little and that the additional verses are often due to repeti tion of laments, consolations and fuller descriptions of events already narrated. He advances the plausible theory that all three recensions were reduced to writing independently on the basis of a text which had been transmitted orally for several centuries by professional singers who had committed the poem to memory. Prof. C. Bulcke (of Allahabad Univer sity ) in his careful paper on the ( three Rāmāyaṇa recensions) examines these divergences in the recensions (in J. O. R., Madras vol. 17 pp. 1-32 ) and arrives at the conclusion that, in spite of the divergeuces the subject matter of the Rāmā yana viz. the narrative itself has been changed very little. He examines 152 cases from the seven kāndas and shows, (A) how in some cases the subject matter occurring in the Southern recension is absent from one recension or from both of the other recensions ; (B) the subject matter not found in the Southeru recension is in some cases present in one or both of the other recensions; and lastly (C) there are other differen ces among the tbree recensions which cannot be classified under either A or B. He points out places where entire sar. gas or fairly long passages are not present in all the recen sions even if they do not contain any new subject matter.

A few striking illustrations of the divergence in the three recensions may be cited here :

1 In the Bālakānda, the auspicious conjunctions of the planets in certain signs of the Zodiac ( Rāśis ) at the birth of Rāma and his brothers occur in the Southern recension but

888

i

are absent in the other two;420 (2) a long poetic description of the Ganges in Ayodhya ( 50. 13-24 ) is absent in the other two recensio

censions: 13 ) the condemnation of Buddha as nūstiku ( atheist ) and as resembling a thief occurs in Ayodhyā ( chap. 109.34 ) in Southern recension but is absent in Gorrecio’s ed. aud the whole chap. is absent in N. W. recension; (4) Two sargas, 62 and 63, of Aranyakāṇda (in S. recension ) are absent from both Bengal and N. W. recensions; (5) a group of six sargas (10-15 ) in Yuddha-kānda in S. recension is entirely absent from the Bengali recension and partly from N. W. recension.

Many of the quotations from the Rāmāyana in medieval digests are not found in the current editions of the epic, e.g. the Dānasagara of Ballālasena, king of Bengal (composed in sake 1091 i.e. 1169-70 A.D.) quotes four verses from the Rāmāyana of which only one is found in the Yuddhakanda (18.30), acc. to Mr. Bhabtosh Bhattacharya in his paper on

The Rāmāyana and its influence on Ballālasena and Raghu nandana’ in J. O. I. ( Baroda ) vol. II (pp. 18-22). Vide Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya’s’ Studies in Dharmaśāstra’ pub lished in ‘Indian Studies’ (past and present) in 1964, in which he gives a list of verses from Rāmāyana in seven digests (from Danasāgara and others) which can be identified (pp. 53-55) and

An

te - R-

.

Y

O

.

Y

420 ततश्च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ । नक्षत्रेऽदितिदैवत्ये स्वोच्चसंस्थेषु

पञ्चसु । ग्रहेषु कटे लग्ने वाक्यताविन्दुना सह । प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथं सर्व लोकनमस्कृतम् । कौसल्याजनयद्राम… ॥ पुष्ये जातस्तु भरतो मीनलग्ने 5777u: 1 … Fit arat zatrhat Befristea rat i aproastus 18. verses 8-10, 13-14. Aditi is tho prosiding doity of (Punarvasu pakṣatra ), Sarpāḥ (serpents) of Aslo;ū ; Karkata (aod Kulīra also ) is Cancer sigo and Mina in Piscos’; the uccha Sigos (nigns of oxaltation) are Moa, Vīṣabha, Makara, Kapya, Karkata, Mina and Tulā and are respectively tho uccæ signs of the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Morcury, Jupiter, Vonus and Saturn. For the horoscope of Rāma and his brothers as doscribed in the Rāmāyana, vide the present author’s paper in J, 0. I. ( Baroda ) vol. I pp. 3–7; vide the Ayodhya Kanda ( 15. 3) where there is a reforonco to the Karkataka sigu ‘Jfca fara great atazinasema i gra **TES

Theatre (v. l. SFH ) TTARU a fera l’(tho Madrag ed. list should be noted that the astrologioal dotails about five plavet ains in exaltation (ucca ) are associated in the Ragbuvamsa ( 19

of Raghu and not at all with the birth of PST (Raghuvamśn X. 66-67 ).

POON

"

177.14

11-19

32. The Two Epics

389

another list on pp. 55-56, where verses quoted as from Rāmāyana in the same works cannot be identified. In another paper on the Rāmāyana and its influence upon the medieval digests of Eastern India Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya shows that the early medieval works like the Hāralatā of Aniruddha and the three Ratnākaras of Candesvara on Kr̥tya, Grhastha and Vivāda, quote the Rāmāyaṇa sparingly, e. g. Aniruddha quotes only five verses and the Ratnakaras quote only four verses and that it is only the later medieval works such as the three out of the four Kaumudis of Govindananda that quote fourteen verses from the Rāmāyana, most of which are found in all recensions of the Ramayana and the Rajadharmakaus tubha of Anantadeva quotes in all 39 verses from the Rāmā. yana but many of these verses do not tally exactly with the three recensions of the Rāmāyana.

It should be noted that the Uttarakānda shows no diffe rence worth mentioning. Therefore, it may be assumed that that kānda is not only the work of later interpolators, but it must have been composed after the original poem was bifur. cated into the Southern recension and Northern recension. The Mahabharata narrates the Rama story in Vanaparva (chap. 273-292 ) in about 750 verses. It may be noticed that some of the incidents mentioned in the Uttarakānda occur in the Raghuvamsa of Kālidāsa. For example, Rama’s spy called Bhadra was ordered by Rāma on his return to Ayodhyā after the destruction of Rāvana and his forces to report what was talked in the capital and the kingdom by the citizens and other people about himself ( Rāma ), about Sitā and about his brothers (Uttara. chap. 43. 4-6). Then, Bhadra, after repeating what people said about Rāma’s ex ploits, stated that people talked disparagingly about taking back Sitā, whom Rāvana had placed on his lap when carrying her away and had imprisoned in the Asokavanikī and that the subjects remarked that they would have to endure, if similar incidents happened in the case of their wives.431 In the 421 अङ्कमारोप्य तु पुरा रावणेन बलाद्धताम् । लङ्कामपि पुरा नीतामशोकवनिका

गताम् । रक्षसां वशमापना कथं रामो न कुत्सते । अस्माकमपि दारेषु सहनीय

fazla i 791 Pegora trh 981 Jagadā i Japatos 53. 18-10. Compare ‘स किंवदन्तीं वदतां पुरोगः स्ववृत्तमुद्दिश्य विशुद्धवृत्तः । सपोषित

FTSENTS( STF) 9993 wa fafcarka: ’ T9. 14. 31. Ang

390

•

Raghuvamsa (14.31 ) also the spy is called Bhadra. It is clear that Kalidasa knew the Uttarakānda. The Raghuvamsa in chapter 15 closely follows the Uttarakānda. A few inci dents may be set out. Raghuo. 15. 81-84 may be compared with Uttarakānda 97. 15–17. Compare also Raghu. 15.87-90 with Uttarao chap. 100, Raghu 15. 89-90 with Uttarao chap. 101-102, Raghu, 15. 92-95 with Uttarao 103-5, Raghu 15. 97-98 with Uttarao 107. Kālidāsa in Raghu (14.70) echoes the very words of the Rāmāyana ( Bālakāṇda+38 2. 18 and 40).

It should be noted that at the end of the Yuddhakanda there is a long phaluśruti about the fruits of reading it and there is another at the end of the Uttarakānda also.+23 Besides, the first canto of the Balakānda gives a synopsis of the whole of the Rāmāyaṇa up to Rāma’s becoming a king after return ing from his victory over Rāvana, in which there is no reference to the subject matter of the Bāla kānda or of the Uttarakānda. Then, again, in the 3rd chap. of the Bālakanda there is a summary of events from Rāma’s birth up to his abandonment of Sitā. It follows that even at the time of this second table of contents the Uttarakinda had not come up to its present form. Dr. Bulcke is not right when he says (on p. 41 of his paper in Poona Orientalist Vol. XXV) that Laks mana was unmarried as Rāma gays in Aranya-kānda ( 18.3). The learned writer forgets that Rāma was making fun of Sūrpaṇakhā who wanted Rima to marry her and therefore he (Rāma who had Sitii with him) jocosely said that Lakomana (unaccompanied by a woman ) was unmarried and that she might approach him. But this was all spoken iu fun, as is made clear by the word ‘parihāsūvicalcṣanā’ applied to Sūr panakhā (not clever enough to understand the ridicule and the joke). Balakanda, chap. 73 verses 30-33 specify the names of the wives of Rāma and his brothers and Ayodbyā chap. 118.53 expressly says that Urmilī was married to Lakṣmala.

482 faiziagizazalaca: FANTU TFT T*: / Eo 14. 70 ;

Compare a

1 105 2. 18 ṣirkrātu gani a Bet yag alaguti and 2. 41 AlgoTipol.4: T1*: 1979 1978: 1 423 Vido F103 chap. 131 ( Madras el. ) vorso9 111-124 and

chap. III versos 11-25 for phalasruti’.

FOUNDED

1917

WAN

Ꭶos

32. The Two Epics

391

The Rāma story is frequently alluded to in the extant Mahābhārata. The story of the golden deer424 ( Mārica ) whose beautiful skin Sitā longed to have ( Araṇyakānda. chap. 43-44 ) is referred to in the Sabhāarva 76.5. The Vana parva (chapters 147.31 to 148.19 ) summarizes the Rāma story and ends with the verse that Rāma ruled the kingdom for eleven thousand years. This verse occurs in the Rāmā yaṇa also ( Yuddha 131.106 ). The Dronaparva (chap. 59 ) describes the excellence of Rāmarājya. The Dronaparva (196. 36 ) compares the death of Drona to the death of Vālin. A large volume would have to be written if one were to deal with all questions relating to the two epics. I hold that there is no doubt that there existed a Bhārata Epic before there was a Rāmāyana ( Vide’the Great Epic of India’ by Hopkins, as he says on p. 61 ). Jacobi’s German work on the Rāmāyana has been translated into English by Dr. Ghoshal piecemeal in the Volumes of the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, in vol. V onwards.

In the Salyaparva (39.9–10 ) reference is made to the cutting of the head of a raksasa by Rāma in Janasthāna. In the Santiparva425 is mentioned the story of the return to life of a brāhmana boy ( who had died prematurely ) when Rāma killed Sambūka, a sūdra practising peuance. The Sāptiparva speaks of the death of Rāvana at the hands of Rāma who was angered by Rāvana. 426 The Drona parva compares the fight of Ghatotkaca and Alayudha with the fight of Rāma and Ravaya ( 96.27-28 ).

All verse quotations in the Mahābhāṣya are collected in one place by Kielhorn in I. A. vol. 14 the pp. 326-327

…— —– 424 314a SET ASTIATUITO A 9H 29784–971. 76.5; 59

वर्षसहस्राणि दश वर्षशतानि च । राज्यं कारितवान् रामस्ततः स्वभवनं गतः ॥ 4793 148.19 ; Torak 59. 21-22 ( 2nd half is a:7777 THT 1139441897 ); T2711A¥ ( p. 130 ) bas (796FERENTIAT Fig Tre valla el frauliai HEITIG TIA 1551 376150ita i verse 93. भूयने शम्बके शूद्रे हने ब्रह्मणदारकः । जीवितो धर्ममासाय रामात्सत्य

PTIKATI 11 12a 163. 67. 428 रोषस्य हि दशं गत्वा दशग्रीवः प्रतापवान् । तथा शक्रप्रतिस्पर्धी हतो रामेण:

Yo lo anfaa 360. 15.

425

E

17”) 12892

Another question much discussed by some Western scholars is the relation of the Rāmāyaṇa to the Dasarathā jātaka. Reasons of space prevent any detailed discussion. The Dasarathajātaka ( No. 461 in Fausböll’s edition, vol. IV) is a travesty of the Rāma story. In it Sitā is a sister of Rāna, Dasaratha is a king of Benares (and not of Ayodhya ) who is said to have had 16000 wives and Sītā ( a sister ) is made queen after Rāma’s return from the forest. There is nothing peculiarly Buddhist in it. The Jātakas forma later part of the Pali literature. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddbist India ‘furnishes a chronological table of Buddhist litera ture from Buddha’s times to Asoka and divides it into ten groups of which the Jātakas and Dhammapadas form the 7th. The Jātakas are not earlier than 250 B. C. and may be later by a century or more. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the germs of most of the JĀtaka stories were derived from the folk-lore of India existing in those times. They are meant to glorify Buddha in his suppo sed previous existences and, while using well-known names, try (probably purposely ) to make these names (except that of the Bodhisattva) ridiculous. For example, the Kanha Dipāyana Jātaka No. 444 ( its prose being in two distinct parts ) makes it clear that none of the traits of the most famous sage of the Mahābhārata can be traced in the Jātaka called after him. The Jātakas generally contain some Gāthās and some prose passages. In a number of Jātakas the prose parts are in conflict with the gāthās or have nothing to do with them. The prose parts in their present form belong to 5th cent. A. D. and arose in Ceylon. Jacobi (Das Rāmā yana pp. 84 ff) and Keith (JRAS. 1915 p. 323 ) hold that the prose parts of Jātakas are confused and belong to a later date. Two questions arise viz. (1) Does the Dasarathe jātaka present an older form of the Rāma story? (2) Is the Dasaratha Jātaka really older than the Rāmāyana ? Accor ding to the present author the replies to these two questions are in the negative and he agrees with the conclusions of the late Mr. N. B. Utgikar (in JRAS. Centenary Supplement pp. 203-211 ). Vide also the same scholar’s paper in LABRAS ( New Series vol. 4 pp. 115–134 ). In most of the Patuks also the stories as told in the Epic differ greatly from the stories labelled under the same name in them.

Stilts

?4:117 11

1?

32. The Two Epics

393

In the Dasarathajātaka ( No. 461, p. 127 ) occurs a gātha (‘phalānam iva pakkānam niccaṁ papatanā bhayam I evam jātānām maccānam niccam maranato bhayamil’), which occurs in Gorrecio’s edition (vol. II p. 42, verse 4) and is quoted below*** (but does not occur in other editions ).

Just as in the extant Mahābhārata references are some times made to the Rāma story, so in the extant Rāmāyana occur references to the legends that occur in the Mahābhārata. For example, the story of Savitri (daughter of Asva pati, king of the Madras, and wife of Satyavan, son of Dyumat sena, the blind king of Sālva ) well-known to all Indian women as the paragon of wifely virtue, is described in Vana parva (chap. 293-299), is very briefly mentioned in the Ayodhyakanda, where+18 Rama first expressed his unwilling Dess to allow Sitā to accompany him in his forest exile. It should be noted that the verse speaks of Savitri’s story as well-known and does not dilate on any of the incidents connected with that story. It is again referred to in Sun darakānda 24.11. In the Sundarakānda (chap. 24 10-12 ) six pativratus are named among whom Damayanti is the last.458 The story of Nala, king of Niṣadha, and his devoted wife Damayanti is one of the longest ākhyānas in the Mahābha rata and is a very charming one. It is set out in the Vana parva, chapters 52-79. Cyavana was a son of Bhrgu. Vana parva (chap. 122-124 ) narrates at some length how Suka nyā, daughter of king Saryāti, had to marry the sage blinded by her through mistake. She stuck to the old and blinded Cyavana, although the Asvins sought her hand. It should be noticed that most of these stories occur in the Mahābhārata

427 यथा फलाना पक्कानां नान्यत्र पतनाद्भयम् । एवं नराणां जातानां नान्यत्र

HEUTSOURI 428 शुमसनसुतं वीरं मत्यवन्तमनुव्रतम् । सावित्रीमिव मां विदि त्वमान्मव.

rahat ll 3771ZT 30. 6. 429 लोपामुद्रा यथागस्त्यं सुकन्या च्यवनं यथा । सावित्री सत्यवन्तं च कपिल

श्रीमती यथा ।। सौदासं मदयन्तीव केशिनी सगरं यथा । नैषधं दमयन्तीव WAT faqaat 1 3777024. 11–12. Tho Earta ( I JETE pp. 11-12 of tho author’s edition ) refers to 1921, daughter at king raia and bor marriage with sago $497 wbo bad bio bure mitago about two kroșas beyond the Sona (river),

WHDEO

12121

1

1772

394

and some (like those of Sāvitrī, Damayanti and Sukanya ) at great length, while the Rāmāyaṇa employs them only for com parison and does not set them out at length. Sagara is referred to in the Rāmāyana (Ayodhyā 36.16 about Asamañja). But no reference is made to his wives. In Vana parva (chap. 106-7) it is stated that Sagara was a descendant of Iksvāku, had two wives, Vaidarbhi and Saibyā, had from Saibyā one son called Asamañja whom he banished because he indulged in the pastime of drowning the children of the subjects (Santi, chap. 57.8-9 ) and Sagara had sixty thousand sons from Vaidarbhi who were all reduced to ashes by Kapila’s wrath when they dug the earth, found Aśvamedha horse near sage Kapila and wanted to apprehend Kapila as the thief. The story of Uttarka, a devoted pupil of Gautama, is narrated at length in Advamedhika parva chap. 55-58 and in Vanaparva chap. 132–33. He married the daughter of Gau tama and requested Ahalyā, Gautama’s wife, to accept some present as Gurudaksiṇā (fee). When Uttanka pressed her to accept something, she asked him to bring the jewelled ear rings of the wife of king Saudāsa- man-eater ( 56.31 ). He went to Saudāga and begged for the ear-rings of his wife Madayanti. Saudāsa asked him to see his wife and give her his message. A long story is narrated about the ear-rings which she gave. King Janaka held assemblies of learned men for discussion. One bandin (i. e. sūta at his court ) used to argue with learned men, defeated them and plunged them in water. Uddalaka had a pupil Kahoda, who married the daughter of his guru. She conceived and the child in the womb rebuked his father when he committed mistakes in re peating Veda. The father cursed the foetus that he would be defective in eight limbs. Astāvakra defeated bandin and those who had been thrown into water (including Kahoda who had been defeated by Bandin ) were revived by Varuna and then Kahoda recited a verse set out in the note below.480 Yayāti is frequently mentioned for comparison or illustration as in Ayodhyā 5. 10 ( same words in Kiṣkindhā 17. 9, viz. ‘yayātim-iva punyānte devalokād-iba cyutam’, also Araṇyeo

INS

430 । तारितोहं त्वया पुत्र सुपुत्रेग महात्मना । अष्टावक्रेण धर्मात्मा होलो

Atauit at 11 7 105 122. 16. The vorse that Kahola Labouton was: इत्यर्थमिच्छन्ति सुताअना जननकर्मणा । यदहं नाशकं को तत्पश्चा TIFAA 11 99798 134. 33.

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

395

66. 7. “Jāmadagnya Rāma killed his mother at his father’s order (Ayodhyā 21. 33 ); Viṣṇu taking three steps ( Kiṣkindhā 67. 3 and 25 ).

The Sundarkānda is regarded by scholars as part of the original epic. Therefore, it is probable that the part of Sun darkāṇda which mentions the names of six pativratas, the stories about whom occur at length in the Vanaparva and Aśvamedhika-parva, is probably later than the parvan: (Vana and Asvamedhika ) which are held by several scholars to be later than earlier parvans of the great Epic.

Nalakūbara is said to have cursed Rāvana when the latter ravished apsaras Rambhā (Vanaparva 280.59-60, Uttara kānda 26. 15 and 41 ff’) who had an assignment with Nalakūbara, son of Vaisravana, brother of Rāvana; on hearing about this he cursed Rāvana that his head would be shattered in seven pieces if he dared to ravish any woman. In the Yuddbakānda ( 122. 16 ) it is stated that Dasaratha ( who had died and had gone to heaven ) came in a heavenly car to meet Rāma after his victory over Rāvana and said . You have saved me as the brāhmaṇa Kabola was saved by Astāvakra.’ The story of Astāvakra, son of Kahoda is narrated in Vana parva chap. 132-4. King Nrga while making gifts of cows to brāhmaṇas, by mistake donated the cow belonging to a brāh mana which had strayed among the cows belonging to the king and when the brāhmana lodged a complaint against the recipient of his cow before the king, the latter did not look into the matter for many days and the two brāhmanas cursed him to be a chameleon. That story is referred to in Apusā. sana 6. 38, Asvamedhika 90. 99-100 and Anusāsana 70 (at length ) and 72. 2.

Taking the cue from the name Sitā (the heroine of the Rāmāyaṇa ) several scholars have regarded the Rāmāyaṇa as an allegory, the word Sitā being employed twice in the Rgveda (IV. 57.6 and 7) and apostrophized as a goddess.481 Three personages are known to our mythology as Rāma, viz. Jāme dagaya Rāma ( or Parasurama ), Balarāma ( brother of Krsna )

431 अर्वाची सुभगे भव सीने वन्दामहे त्वा । यथा नः सुभगाससि यथा नः सफला

ससि ॥ इन्द्रः सीतां नि गृह्णातु तां पूषानु यच्छतु । सा नः पयस्वती दुरीमा रामतरी समाम ॥ ऋ. IV. 57. 8-7. सीता means tho furrow loft Parent plough.

1917

396

and Dāśarathi Rama. It is unnecessary for the history of Dharmasastra to deal with this question when the Rāmāyaṇa is admitted by all scholars as separated from the Rgveda by at least a thousand years or more.

It has been stated above that the core of the Rāmāyana story may be only as old as 300-250 B. C. at the most. Asva ghosa432 in his Buddhacarita refers to Vālmīki as writing a poetical work when Cyavana ( his ancestor ) did not do 80. Besides, the Raghuvamsa closely follows the Uttarakānda as shown above. If we accept the date of Kālidāga as between 350 to 450 A. D., then the Ramayana in its present form can not be placed later than about 200 A. D. and may be placed at least a century or two earlier. In the Kiskiudhā-kānda two verses have been expressly quoted as recited by Manu which occur in the present Manu.433 In Ayodhya 107.11-13 two verses are stated to have been uttered by Gaya in Gaya with reference to pitrs.434

The Rāmāyana being mainly a Kāvya is not frequently or profusely quoted by works on Dharmaśāstra, particularly by comparatively earlier ones. Among the early commentators, Medhātithi on Manu IV. 217 refers to the Rāmāyana as pre scribing Srāddha on the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th days after the death of a person. On Manu V. 7 Medhātithi quotes without naming the Rāmāyana a half verse from it (yadannaḥ puruso

432 वाल्मीकिनादश्च जगाद पयं जग्रन्थ यन्न च्ययनो महर्षिः । बुद्ध चरित I. 43. 433 श्रूयते मनुना गीतो लोको धारित्रवत्सली । गृहीतौ धर्मकुशलैस्तत्तथावरितं

मया ।। राजभिः धृतदण्डास्तु कृत्वा पापानि मानवाः । निर्मलाः खर्गमायान्ति सन्तः सकृतिनो यथा ॥ शासनाद्वा विमोक्षाद्वा स्तेनः स्तेयाद्विमुच्यते । राजा स्वशासन्पापस्य तदवाप्नोति किल्बिषम् ॥ किष्किन्धा 18. 31–33. Vide Manu VIII, 318 and 316. The first occurs in Vas. Dh. S. 19.45 also and for the and compare Vas. Dh. S. 19. 46. श्रूयते हि पुरा तात श्रुतिस्ता यशस्विना । गयेन य नमानेन गयेष्वेव पितॄन् प्रति। पुंनाम्ना नरकाद्यस्मात् पितरं त्रायने सुतः । तस्मात्पुत्र इति प्रोक्तः पितृन्यः पाति सर्वतः ।। एटव्या बहवः पुत्रा गुगवन्तो बहुश्रुताः । तेषां वै समवेताना मपि कश्चिद्गयां व नेत् ।। अयोध्या 107. 11-13. The first verse (घुनामी) occurs in Manu IX. 138 ( last pāda is स्वयमेव स्वयंभुवा, धादिपर्व 229. 14 (first half ), विष्णुधर्म 15. 44; part of the 2nd verse oopara.in वनपवे 87. 10.

.434

0CCI

FOUNDED

1917

32. The Two Epics

397

rājan-tadannāstasya devatāḥ ).436 It may be noted that the Dhvanyaloka ( a Kashmirian work on Poetics of the latter half of the 9th century A. D. ) quotes a verse from the Aranya-kanda ( 16. 18 ) as an example where the Vyaigya ( suggested ) sense pushes the literal sense ( vācya ) of the word ( undhu in that verse ) very much in the background (atyanta-tiraskxta-vacya ).438_ In spite of this writers on Sanskrit Poetics rarely quote or refer to it.

Even Aparārka who quotes the Mahābhārata dozens of times quotes the Raināyana only twice. 437 On Yāj. I. 211 Aparārka quotes & verse saying of one who being able to save a sarunāgatu allows him to die in his presence all merit ( sukrta i.e. puṇya ) is taken away by the one who is not saved ). On offering water to one’s deceased relations Aparārka ( on Yaj. III. 5) quotes a verse from Ayodhyakanda (102-27 ). The Smrticandrika ( I. p. 57 ) quotes Sundara kanda 59, 35-36 about cessation of study on the first tithi of a month (pratipat-phthasilasya vidyevu tanutam gata). The Kr̥tyakalpataru ( on vrata, brahmacāri, tīrtha and naiyata kāla has no verses froin Rāmūyana though Naiyata kālikā quotes about two dozen verses from the Mahābhārata). Both epics condemn the king who being engrossed in pleasures does not attend the court of justice when the parties approach him for justice. The Kalpataru on ‘grhastha.’ quotes only two verses from Ramayana, but it mentions the Mahābhārata

….. - .. . .– ..

436 तथा च पक्वान्नभोजनेपि विधिमेतं स्मरन्ति । यदन्नः पुरुषो राजस्तदशास्तस्य

देवताः । इति । मेधा. on मनु V. 7. Vide: अयोध्याकाण्ड 102. 29-30 ऐजदं बदरीमिधं पिण्याकं दर्भसंस्तरे । न्यस्य रामः सुदुःखातो रुदन् वचनम ब्रवीत् ॥ इदं मुंश्व महाराज प्रीतो यदशना वयम् । यदन्नः पुरुषो भवति तदन्नास्तस्य देवताः ॥. The same half is repeated in अयोध्या 103. 14 रामेणेदिपिण्याकं पितुर्दत्तं समीक्ष्य मे । यदन्नः… देवताः ॥. It is called there

लौकिकीश्रुति. 438 रविसंक्रान्तसौभाग्यस्तुषारारुणमण्डलः । निःश्वासान्ध इवादर्शश्चन्द्रमा न

प्रकाशते । अरण्यकाण्ड 18. 13 (the Madras edition of रामायण ronda

तुषारावृतमण्डलः ). 437 विनष्टः पश्यतो यस्य रक्षितुः शरणागतः । आदाय सुकृतं तस्मात्सर्व गहित्य

रक्षितः ॥ अयोध्याकाण्ड 18. 30 . by अपरार्क p. 385.

TOTU

POONA

PRINDE 1917

398

twenty times, one citation on pp 281-285 quoting 20 verses from Anusāsana ( 11.6-21 ) on where Sri resides. The Dānasāgara composed by king Ballālasena in saka 1091 (1169-70 A.D. ) quotes the Mahabharata over 200 times, but quotes from the Rāmāyaṇa only four verses.488

In the Rajanitiratnakara of Candesvara (ed. by K. P. Jayaswal ), verses about the right of the eldest son to succeed to his father are supported by quotations from the Rāmā yana.430

Indian culture penetrated to Borneo, Java, Bali and other Indonesian islands. In the Rāmāyana, Sugrīva is said to have sent his followers in search of Sitā in the four quarters. He directs them to the countries in the East and names Yavadvīpa (Java) as one of them (in Kiskindhā 40.29-30 ).440 Ptolemy (in his Geography of India about 150 A.D.) refers to it as

• Jabadien’. It is generally accepted that Java and Sumatra had been Hinduized before the 3rd century A.D. This is not the place to go into the question of the cultural migration from India to the Eastern Archipelago. Vide Dr. Bijan Raj Chatterjee’s ‘India and Java’ (Calcutta, 1933 ). The culture .of South-East Asia’ by Reginald le May (pub. in 1954) with 216 illustrations at the end ; ‘South India and the Eastern Archipelago’, in the Krsnaswamy Aiyangar Vol. by C. S. Srinivasachari pp. 483-497 ; ‘Sanskrit Texts from Bali’ edited by Prof. Sylvain Levi ( G. O. S. 1933 ); - Indian influence on the Literature of Java and Bali’ by H. B. Sarkar ( Calcutta, 1934 ); Stutterheim’s Rāma legenden’ and

…

.

.

…

438 नहि राज्ञः सुता सर्वे राज्ये तिष्ठन्ति भामिनि । स्थाप्यमानेषु सर्वेषु सुमहान

नयो भवेत् । तस्माज्ज्येष्ठे हि कैकेयि राज्यतन्त्राणि पार्थिवाः । स्थापयन्त्य नवद्याड्गि गुणवस्वितरेष्वपि ॥ रामायण, अयोध्या 8. 23-24 q. by राजनीति रत्नाकर p. 76, which quotes also Vasistha’s words in Ayodhya 110. 38 ( on p. 77 ) ’ इक्ष्वाकूणां हि सर्वेषां राजा भवति पूर्वजः । पूर्वजे नावरः

पुत्रो ज्येष्ठो राजा भविष्यति’ ॥ 439 रामायणे जलप्रदानवाक्यं राम आह । इदं पुरुषशार्दूल विमलं दिव्यमक्षयम् ।

पितृलोकेषु पानीयं मद्दत्तमुपतिष्ठताम् ॥ अपरार्क on या. III. 5. p. 875. The verse occurs with slight variations in अयोध्या 103. 27: प्रबो

राजशार्दूल विमलं तोयमक्षयम् । पितृलोकगतस्याद्य महत्तमुपतिष्ठतु | 440 यत्नवन्तो यवद्वीपं सप्तराज्योपशोभितम् ॥ सुवर्णरूप्यकं चैव सुवर्णाकरमाइतम ।

यवद्वीपमतिकम्य शिशिरो नाम पर्वतः ।। किष्किन्धा 40. 29-30.

32. The Two Epics

399

’ Pictorial History of civilization in Java ;’ History of Srivijaya’ by Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (1949 ); ‘Hindu Law in Java and Bali’ by Dr. R. C. Majumdar in S. K. Aiyangar Memorial Volume pp. 445-461.

The Mahābhārata became very popular in Java; the Javanese puppet shows called ‘wayang’ have preserved the old Hindu traditions even in these days, though Java has been * Moslem country for five centuries. Tantric doctrines also prevailed in Java and Sumatra. The Rāmāyana exists in Bali in the Kavi language. There exist several recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa in Java, both in verse and probe.

Some incidents of the Rama story are represented in the Javanese · Wayang’ (shadow plays ). Dr. Bijan Raj Chatterjee in India and Java’ p. 29 states “ In a 6th century inscription of Cambodia we find the following passage with the Rāmā yana and the Purana he (the Brahman Somaśarman ) gave the complete Mahabharata and arranged for a daily recitation without interruption’. About India’s influence on architecture in Indonesia Levi writes “In Architecture it is in distant Cambodia and distant Java that we have to look for the two wonders produced by the Indian genius, Angkor and Boro Budur’( q. from Srivijaya ‘by Prof. Nilakanta Sastri p. 11 ).

Two interesting chapters in the two epics are known as Kaccit-praśna’ chapters. They are Sabhā-parva chap. 5 verses 17-110 and 114-125 (in all 106 verses ) where the sage Nārada asks Yudhisthira certain questions about what an ideal king is expected to do in all that concerns the Govern ment of the State and the people, and Ayodhyākānda chap.100 verses 76 ( of which the first five are introductory in which Rāma, who was staying on Citrakūta along with Sitā and Lakṣmala ), inquires of Bharata about the Government of Ayodhyā after Rāma left.441 In verses 6-10 Rāma asks Bharata about Dasaratha, about the Upādhyāya ( Vasistha ) of the family and about his mother and step-mother; so in the Rāmāyana only 66 verses are properly concerned with the Government of the country, the king’s duties and actions and cognate matters, while in the Mahābhārata these matters are

POONA

441

For the Mabābhārata the Chitrakālā adition and for the Rāmis en pleine the one volume odition published in 1933 by Mr. R. Narayandpāmi Algar havo boon used; A or. Ay.=Ayodhyākāṇda and S=Sabhāparyay being used in the verses having Kaooit’in them,

FOUNDED

400

dealt with much more elaborately (in 106 verses ). One in teresting feature of these two chapters is that they contain about twenty-nine identical verses. Sometimes the Rāmā– yana text is corrupt. Very slight differences of readings are not noted here but only substantial ones.

The word ‘Kaccit’ is employed when the person asking the question desires to receive a favourable reply, as the Amarakośa says ‘Kaccit kāmapravedane’. The Rāmāyana, employs this word in other passages also as in Balakānda 52. 7-9. The Gitā also employs it in chan. 18. 72 (Srikrona asks ‘Kaccid-ajñāna-sammohaḥ pranastuste Dhanaījaya’ and the reply is 18. 73 nasto mohah, &c’as Krsna desired.

(A = Ayodhyākānda and S = Sabhāparva ) (1) A. 100.17 - S.5.29 reads ‘arthavit’ for

arthanaipunam’ of A; ( 2 ) A. 100.62-63 - S. 5.19-20 (A reads “priti.

lobhena’ for pritisārena’ of S.); (3) A. 100.52 - S. 5.32 (reads in last pada

saṁsrstam cātra’ for ‘madhyamevātra’ of A ); ( 4 ) A. 100.22 - S. 5.35 ( reads in first half

sahasrair-mūrkhānāmekam’ for ‘sahasran

mūrkhāṇām-ekam-icchasi’ of A); ( 5 ) A. 100.24 - S. 5.37 (reads “Dānto’ for

• Dakso’of A); (6) A. 100.36 - S. 5.38 (reads “cārakaih’ for

cāranaiḥ’ of A which is a misreading and makes

no sense). (7) A. 100.11-12 - 8. 5.40-41 (reads’anuprastĀ’

for ‘anudrastā of A ); (8) A. 100.25-28 - S. 5.43–46 ( 8 reads ‘udvijase

prajāḥ’ for ‘udvedita prajam ‘in A); ( 9 ) A. 100.30 - S. 5.46 ( Senāpatiguṇa: ); (10) A. 100.31 - S. 5.47 ( A reads drstāpadānā

for dbṛstīvadatāh’ of ( s. ) ( 11 ) A. 100.32-34 - S. 5.48-50 ( A readz vilam base’

for vikarsasi’in S (A reads ‘bhartuḥ kupyanti

“dusyanti’in 33 and ’ samāhitāḥ’ for sadā yudha (12) A. 100.47 (half) and S. 5.79 ( A reads. Vāplayan

samsritus-tāta loko bi suklam-edbate’ Andono reads ( lokoyam sukham &c.’

praju

1917

32. The Two Epics

401

(13) A. 100. 53 - S. 5.36. ( 14 ) A. 100.49 - S. 5,83 ( 15 ) A. 100.56 - S, 9.104 (A reads ‘adṛstaḥ…

lopād’ for ‘adrstaśāstra’ and . lobhād’. ( 16 ) A. 100-57 - 8. 5.105 ( A reads “gļhitascaiva

prstasca kāle’ and S reads drsto grhītastat

kārī). (17) A. 100. 65-67 - S. 5.107–9 (A reads mangala

syāprayogam &c’ and 8. reads “mangalādya

prayogam’. ( 18 ) A. 100. 62-63 - S. 5.19 20 (A reads pritilo.

bhena ‘for pritisarena’ and ‘sarvān varada’ for

gadā ’ varada in S. (19) A. 100.72 - S. 5.110 ( A reads “saphalāḥ

kriyāḥ’ for ’ sapihalam dhanam’ of S. From this analysis it follows that out of 66 verses in which the word lcuccit occurs in the Rāmāyana 29 are almost the same as in Sabhāparva and there also a few half verses, pādas ( quarters of a verse ), which are the same but are not noted here. Another weighty criticism is that at the time when this kaccit chapter is supposed to have been addressed by him to Bharata, Rāma did not know that king Dasaratha was dead. It is after this chapter that Bharata tells Rāma (in chap. 101. 5-6 ) that after Rima left for the forest the king died, being overwhelmed by sorrow. Therefore, some of the questions put in the mouth of Rāma are inappropriate and irrelevant, such as the questions about the honour paid to Upādhyāya, about Purohita, Mantrins, Senāpati and duta. All these high functionaries had been appointed by Dasaratha himself. On the other hand, in the case of Yudhisthira, who was the eldest among the sons of Pandu and who performed the Rājasūya also ( also as described in Sabhā 33 ff ), those questions were appropriate. I think the chapter ( 100 ) of the Ayodhyākānda is based on chap. 5 of the Sabhāparva and about 29 verses were almost bodily taken from the sheet parva into the Ayodhyākānda.

The Rāmāyana is a Kāvya, yet, op account of the mobile ideals that it sets up in the chief characters, it washaper prend

WS

FOUNDED

1917

CS

17

Research

terte402

popular and is relied upon as a source in digests on Dharma, though not so frequently and profusely as the Mahābhārata. Vide for example, Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattīcārya’s paper on * Rāmāyana and its influence on medieval digests of East India’ in Gode com. volume pp. 19-26. The following table will give some idea of the different topics of Dharmaśāstra dwelt upon by the Ramayana. The references are to the Madras one volume edition referred to above (p. 399 n. 441 ).

Abhiseka-Ayodhyā 15, Yuddha 131. Arājaka-Ayodhyā 67. Pātakas (sins )- Kiskindhā 17-18. Rājadharma-Balakanda 7, Ayodhyā 100, Aranya 6, 9, 33,

40-41, Yuddha 17, 18, 63. Srāddha-Ayodhyā 76, 103. Satyapraśamsā-Ayodhyī 109. Strīdharma-Ayodhyā 24-27, 29, 39, 117-118.

It must be stated that whole cantos are unauthorizedly added in some cases in the Rāmāyana e.g. in the Uttarakānda after chap. 23 five surgas ( containing 296 verses ) are added. Five more are added after chap. 37 ( containing 244 verses ) and three cantos are added after chap. 59 ( containing 145 verses ).

Another matter to be noted is that not only are unautho rized verses added in the Rāmīyana but here and there verses are repeated e.g. several verses in Ayodhyā 105. 4-12 and Yuddha 131. 2-10. It has been already shown that about 29 verses ( with ‘kaccit’ in them ) have been borrowed from the Mahābhārata. Moreover, several verses are common to both the epics (e. g. vide pp. 385-386 above).

The claim, put forward in the Balakanda (chap. 2, verses 3-31 ), that Valmiki, on seeing the Kraunca bird killed by a hunter, uttered a verse ( śloka ) that was to be the pattern or model for all succeeding poets composing poems in that matters cannot be admitted as tenable. The Rāmāyana as a K cannot be claimed on the available evidence as earlier things 300-200 B. C.

32. The Two Epics

403

Quotations in the Mahābhāṣya lead to the conclusion that, centuries before Patañjali, works in the Sloka metre bad been composed. A few examples quoted below will bear out this.442

Verses in the Sundarakāndia*4.3 are of great significance on the date of the Ramiyana. Hanūmin is said to have pondered over the question whether he should address Sita in Sanskrit used by Dvijātis ( brālimanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas ) or he should employ sentences used by common men ( vide note below). There is hardly anything to show that about 400 or 500 B. C. there was a vast difference between the languages spoken by higher classes and those spoken by lower classes. But a century or two before and after the Christian era great differences had arisen between the two as indicated by Inscrip tions aud literary works.

I cannot close this brief section on the Rāmāyaṇa without mentioning a work of outstanding merit viz. •Thirty lectures

442 It is Kielhoro’s ed. of the Mahabhāsyn that is referred to :

(1) 450Facautai (vol. I, p. 6); (2) gia Giara417 : (vol. I, p. 277 on qildion II. 7. 6), vol. II,

p. 59 on arrdan 5 op 1II. 1,67 ); (3) at: y a dlfiet (vol. I, p. 41 ) on II. 2. 6 avd vol. II. p. 363

on V. 1. 115; (4) VISITAR (vol. I, p. 426 ) ; (5) amartar lagt (vol. 1, p. 419 on arāta 3 on II. 3. 13); (6) 37317717 * (vol. I, p. 457 on aifft 2 on II. 3. 35 ) : (7) an for at fā fat ( vol. 1, 458 on 21. 6 on II. 3. 36 ); (8) #13: qfa zatia (vol. II, 167 ); (9) sifor feirama (vol. II, 220 on 1. 9 on IV. 1. 48 ) ; (10) 1978399: steal (vol. III, 288 on VII. 2. 23 ); (11) arpā: for That (vol. III. 367 on alfa i on 9.

VIII. 1. 8). 443 अहमतितनुश्चैव वानरश्च विशेषतः । वाचं चोदाहरिष्यामि मानुषीमिह संस्थतान ।।

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् । रावणं मन्यमानाnaam भीता भविष्यति ॥ वानरस्य विशेषण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम् । अवश्यमव बनाये HTTI (Finana i Toato 30, 17-19.

1917

404

History of Dharınaśāstra

on the Rāmāyana’ by ths late Right Honourable V. S Srinivasa Sastri ( publisheil by the Madras Sanskrit Academy in 1949). He does not real with the Rāmāyaṇa in the spirit of a critical scholar. Questions of the date of the Rāmāyana, the authorship of it, of the indebtedness of Vālmiki to others and of the authenticity of the present text are left out by him. He deals at great length with the principal characters of the epic and his language is moving, often charged with fervour and emotion and his exposition of the different incidents is masterly. He quotes a very large number of verses from the Rāmāyana. In his exposition he is at his best when he deals with the attack by Rāma against Vālin from behind trees and the incident of harsh words Rāma used when he abandoned Sitā after killing Rāvana ( Yuddhakānda, 118, verses 12-24) His words are most eloquent when in the 27th lecture on p. 432 he says ’that is Rāma’s greatness that he did not mind sacrificing anything to preserve Dharma. Dharma has many pbases. What he ( Rāma ) thought was his highest Dbarma, that he fulfilled and to that end there was nothing that be would not sacrifice’. It may be pointed out that the Padma purāṇa (Anandaśram ed. IV. 66. 28-29 ,444 proclaims in two verses the virtues that the Rāmiyana emphasizes by delineat ing some paragons of virtue such as Rāma, Sitā, Bharata, Laksmana and Hanūmān.

Though the Rāmāyana is full of poetic passages, it often departs from Panini’s grammar. A few examples may be cited; * Kurmi’ ( for karomi ) in Ayodhya 12. 36, ‘ānayitum’ (for ‘ānetum’) in Ayodhyā 19. 10 and ’nayisyati ( for ’ nesyati’) in Ayodhyā 12. 87, ‘rusya’ Ayodhya 97. 12, Mantrimsca’ in Sundarakānda 51. 37 ( for Mantriṇasca ).

The Gujarati Press edition of the Rāmāyana ( in seven parts, 1912-20 ) contains three commentaries. A brief statement on these may be made here. Of the three the earliest seems to be the one called Bhūsana composed by Govindarājan of Kausikagotra. He was a man of profound learning in the various branches of Sanskrit literature. Sometimes his commentary is very extensive ( as on the first verse of the Balakanda ), but sometimes it is the briefest of

POORA

44 यस्मिन् धर्मविधिः साक्षात्पातिव्रत्यं तु यत्स्थितन् । भ्रातृस्नेहो महान्यत्र गकर

भक्तिस्तथैव च ॥ स्वामिसवकयोर्यत्र नीतिमूर्तिमती किल । अधर्मकरशास्ति यत्र साक्षाद्रघूद्वहात् ।। पद्मपुराण.

1917

32. The Two Epics

405

the three commentaries ( as on I. 75. 4, 1. 76. 15 ). At the end of the Bālakānda he states that he had acquired fame by his proficiency in the Vedas, Sāstras and learned discussions and he had a keen intellect in Sanskrit poems, Alwinkāra ( Poetics ) and the dramatic art. This writer confers different names on his own commentaries on the different kāndas viz. Manimanjira, Pitambara, Ratnamekhalā, Muktāhāra, Srngāra tilaka, Ratnakiriṭa, Manimukuta. It appears that Satakopa of Vatsa-gotra was his guru and he was the son of Varada ( last verse in com. on Yuddhakanda ). At the end of his commentary on Sundarakanda, he states that he looked into several commentaries of former ācāryas.

As he quotes the KĀvyaprakāśa, the Alankārasarvasva and the Vștta-ratnākura he is certainly later than the 12th century A.D. and most probably flourished in the last quarter of the 15th century. Vide an exhaustive paper on Govinda rāja by the late Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar in A.B.O.R.I. [ Silver Jubilee vol. (1943), pp. 30-54 ).

The 2nd commentary is called “Rāmāyanusiromani’. The author’s name is not clearly stated in the beginning, though at the end of the 7th kānda the concluding verse clearly says ‘Śivasalāya-nirinitiresā’. So this commentary was written by Śiva-sahāya and he composed the commentary on the banks of the Triveni (Ganges at Allahabad ) with the help of a rich patron called Vamsidhura, sou of Sitārāma, son of Todirama. This commentary also is learned and very extensive on some verses. From the last verse ( 8 ) it appears that the commentary was completed in Sarvat 1921, Asvina sukla 10 (i, e. 1864 A. D.). Thus it is a very modern commentary.

The third commentary is called Tilaka.445 The concluding verses 448 of the commentary indicate that the commentary was

445 Introductory vorse 18 of the commontary is ‘7891 TH Para t

TIÆT TAT : 1 TATTORI face gard TTADEÒ Il’. At the end of the Balakanda and somo other kāndas the commentary states ‘इति श्रीरामाभिरामे श्रीरामीये रामायणतिलके आदिकाव्ये बालकाण्डे

Fanfaa: 1: 448 निर्मलं कतकक्षोदादपि रामायणार्णवम् । अत्यन्तं निर्मलं चके रामः स्वमाति

वाससा । भटनागेशपूज्येन सेतुः श्रीरामवर्मणा । कृतः सर्वोपकृतये श्रीमद्रामाधान

( Continued on the next page)

POONI

406

written by Sri Nāgeśa under the patronage of Rāmavarman, The idea of those two verses appears to be that the import of the Rāmāyana was made clearer by the clearing cloth in the form of the intellect of Rāmavarman. What part other than that of a patron ( who employed an eminent scholar like Nāgeśabhatta ) Rāmavarman played is not quite clear. The opening verses of the commentary on the Bālakānda mention only Rāma as the author.

The commentary is learned and to the point and does not make an exhibition of the author’s wide reading and scholar ship.

As would be shown later on Nāgeśa (or Nāgojibhatta ) flourished between 1670-1750 A. D.

Vide Prof. P. P. S. Sastri’s paper on The commentators of the Rārnīyana in the 15th to 17th century A. D.‘in A. B. O. R. I. (Silver Jubilee vol. 1943, pp. 413-414 ). He mentions the commentators on the Ramayana mostly from South India, as the Vaiṣṇavas in South India looked upon the Rāmāyana as the most sacred work on Viṣṇu wor ship.

In the Mahābhārata-titparya-nirṇaya of Anandatirtha (Sri Madhvācārya, 13th century A. D.), seven chapters (III-IX) are devoted to the Ramayana story. In the first chapter he sets out the authorities. In I. 30447 he refers to the four Vedas vin. Rgveda and others, the Pancurātra system, the Bharata, the Mula-Rāmāyana, and the Brahmasūtra these are regarded as self-sufficient authorities. What does be mean by Mūla-Rāmāyana ? It means nothing else than the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki. In Sanskrit and the popular langua

(Continued from the previous page ) FETETT 11 The first verse alone ocours at the end of the Uttara. kānda. There is a referonce in the first vorse to the commentary called Kataka. There is a pun on the word Kataka (dame of a coinmentary and also the cleansing pot which clarifios muddy water or cleanses soilod clothes). Focus 2289187 geg. प्रसादकम् । न नामग्रहणादेव तस्य वारि प्रसीदति ।। . by कल्पतरु on मोक्ष (p. 64). This is howa VI. 67. There is & commentary on Rāmāyana called Kataka or Amita-Kataka composed out 1650 A, D. ऋगादयश्चत्वारः पञ्चरात्रं च भारतम् । मूलरामाय गं ब्रह्मसूत्रं माना

74 | 1. 30.

447

32. The Two Epics

407

ges of India there are numerous works having the Rāmāyaya as part of their names. At the end of chap. IX (verses 125-7)448 the great Acārya says ’through the grace of Viṣṇu he has declared this grand story, by reasoning and by the power of his intellect, after dispelling all contradictions and deciding the truth from all the Purāṇas, the works on Pancarātra, from the Bhārata, the Vedas and the great Rāmāyana. So here the word Mahārāmāyana is used in the same sense as Mula-Rāmāyana, since in both places ( 1-30 ) and (IX. 125 127 ) it is the sources of the Rāma saya that are spoken of

Mr. S. N. Tadpatrikar (in ABORI vol. V. pp. 61-68 ) refers to the word ’ Mūlarāmāyana ’ and starts a new theory that the Mūlarāmāyana mentioned in I. 30 by Madh vācārya is different from the Mahārāmāyaṇa mentioned by the Acārya himself in IX. 125. The only authority for this is his inter pretation of some words he quotes from the commentary Tilaka. The few words he quotes are not at all clear and do not support what Mr. Tadpatrikar mentions and further the commentator is no authority binding on modern scholars for the meaning of the words employed by the Acārya in the 13th century.

The Rāmāyaṇa, being a Kāvya and an Akhyāna ( as stated in Dānasāgara, Introductory verse, 15, p. 3), it is sparingly quoted in Dharmaśāstra works. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper on The Rūmayana and its influence on Ballūlasena and Raghunavdana ‘449 published in J. O. I. ( Baroda ), vol II, pp. 18-22 points out that only one out of

449

448 इत्यशेषपुराणेभ्यः पञ्चरात्रेभ्य एव च । भारताच्चैव वेदेभ्यो महारामायणादपि ॥

परस्परविरोधस्य हानानिय तत्त्वतः । युक्त्या बुद्धिबलाच्चैव विष्णोरेव प्रसादतः ॥ बहुकल्पानुसारेण मयेयं साकथोदिता। नैकग्रन्थाश्रया तस्मा. AT499 Fabia IX. 125-127. It may be stated that the writer of this paper failed to note thata the onio vorse is quoted by an earlier writer viz. Aparārketing (p. 385 on Yaj. I. 211 ) and that Aparārka also quotes on pin the verse 5… Faust fecupy i formalan qatei AETTA Fagara Il’ ( 3471127[103. 27. Nir. od. ).

#STITE

FOON

VASE

COUNDI 1917

408

the four verses quoted from the Rāmāyana in the Dānasāgara could be traced in the Yuddhakānda (chap. 18.30 · vinastaḥ … raksitaḥ ‘) in the Gujarati Press edition and that none of the four verses could be found in the Bengali editions. In another paper on the Rāmāyana and its infiuence on the medieval digests of Eastern India’ in P. K. Gode Commemora tion Volume 1960, pp. 319-326, the same learned writer discus ses the quotations from the Rāmāyana in the Hāralatā, the three Ratnākaras of Candeśvara (on Kr̥tya, Grhastha, and Vivāda), Kaumudis of Govindānanda ( on Dāna, Srāddha ), and the Rājadharma-kaustubha of Anantadeva. The Kalpa taru on Moksa (pp. 25-26 ) quotes some verses from the Rām. Aranyakānda (chap. 6.2 ff) with different readings. The Mahābhārata offers a great contrast in this respect to the Rāmāyaṇa, as hundreds of verses are quoted from it even in the comparatively early commentaries and digests like the Mitākṣarā and the Kalpataru.

It is impossible to deal with the numerous writings on the Rāmāyana. Jacobi’s German work on the Rāmāyana has been translated into English by Dr. S. N. Ghoshal and published by driblets in several volumes of the Journal of Oriental Institute ( Baroda ). Numerous dates have been proposed for the Rāmāyana e. g. the Department of Letters, Vol. 19 ( Calcutta University ) puts down 433 A. D. as its date. The Rāma story occurs frequently in the Mahābhārata e. g. vide Sabhāparva 50. 39, Vanaparva chap. 148-152 (31 verses ), chap. 274-293 ( verses about 769 ); several Purāṇas such as Brahmao, chap. 123 and 154, Padmapurāṇa ( several times in Pātālakhanda and Uttarakhanda ), Nārada purāṇa, Bhāgavatapurāṇa (IX. 10-11 about 82 verses ), Agni purāṇa (chap. 5-12, verses 189 ). One writer in Preraṇā ’ monthly for October 1949 says that there are fourteen commentaries on the Rāmāyana.