6In the text of the Sutta-nipāta edited by V. Fausboll, the reading Alaka is adopted (Vs.977 & 1011), and the variant Muḷaka noticed in the foot-notes. Therc can, however, be no doubt that Muḷaka must be the correct reading. We know of no country of the name Aḷaka. Muḷaka, on the other hand, is well-known. Thus in the celebrated Nāsik cave inscription of Vāsishṭhiputra Pulumávi, the Muḷaka country has been associated with Asaka (Aśmaka), exactly as it has been done in the Sutta-nipāta (El., VIII.80). The same country seems to have been mentioned as Maulika by Varāhamihira in his Brihat.samhitā (XIV. 8.)
7Considering; that Godāvari has been called Godhāvri in the Sutta-nipāta, Gonaddha can verv well be taken to stand for Gonadda- Gonardda, the place from which Patañjali, author of the Mahābhāshya: hailed. Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar has shown on the authority of the Mahābhāshya: that Sāketa was situated on the road from Gonarda to Pāṭalipatra (IA. II 7C). This is exactly in accordance with what the Sutta-nipāta says, for Sāketa, according to the route taken by Bāvarin’s pupils was on the way from Gonaddha to the Magadha country. The native place of Patañjali was, therefore, in Central India somewhere between Ujjain and Besnagar near Bhilsā.
8See e.g. Early History of the Dekkan (Second Edition), P. 9.
9JRAS., 1910, 445/6
10I am not yet in a position to determine finally whether this is a vārtika of Kātyāyana or a supplement of Patañjali. Sri Ramkrishna Bhandarkar in his Early History of the Dekkan (p. 7.8 n. 3) adopts the former view, whereas the text of Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya, as edited by Kielhorn in the Bombay Sanskrit Series, inclines one to the latter view. Even if this last proves ultimately to be the correct view, this in no way vitiates my main conclusion, because as the Pāṇḍyas are referred to both by Megasthenes in his Indika and by Asoka in his Rock Edicts, of their immigration to and settlement in South India were complete long before the rice of the maurya power.
11IA. VI.129.
12p.75. For the river Tāmraparṇi, see further in the sequel. It is also referred to in Asoka’s Rock Edict II. Kauṭilya Paṇḍya-Kavāṭaka seems to be the same as Paṇḍya-vataka or Paṇḍya-vatābhava of the Bṛihat-saṁhitā (80. 2 and 6). Mahendra here seems to be the most southerly spur of the Travancore Hills (JRAS., 1894, 262).
13Hilebrandt, Vedische Mythologie’, I. 95 ; E. Kuhn’s Zeitschrift, 28, 214.
14X.65.
15IA.VI 249-50 and 344.
16We also meet with similar taddhita forms in later history. Thus we have instances of early tribes being called Chalukya, Kadamba and so forth, whose descendants later on came to be called Chālukya, Kādamba and so on.
17IA., XIII. 331 and 349.
18Brihatsamhitā, XIV.3.
19IA., XIII .368.
20Caldwell, Grammar of the Dravidians Languages, Intro., p.16.
21Māhābharata III. 88, 15. That the Paṇḍyas held the Madurā District is quite certain, because it was the territory immediately round about Madhurā, their Capital. That they held also the Tinnevelly District is clear from what Ptolemy and the author of the periplus tell us about the Paṇḍya kingdom (IA., XIII. 331.). Northwards their rule seems to have extended as far a the highlands in the neighborhood of the Coimbatore gap. Its western boundary was formed by the southern range of the Ghāṭs. That the Aryan’s had occupied the Tinnevelly District at this time is evident from the fact that we have here not only the scared river Tāmraparṇi but also the sacred place Agastya.-tīrtha—both mentioned in the Mahābhārata.
22Jour. Ceylon B.R A.Soc., VII. 57 & ff.
23SBE., XII. Intro. Xli seq. : 104 seq.
24JRAS., 1907, p. 644.
25Kauṭilīyaṁ Arthaśāstra—(Bibliotheca Sanskrita- No. 37), p. 11.
26Mahābhārata; I. 85.34, II, 14. 6, & VI. 9. 40 ; Harivaṁśa, 1895, 8816, 12838.
27R.G. Bhandarkar, Early History of the Dekkan, p. 4.
28Wilson, Vishṇu-Pārāṇa, III. 237/ Vikramorvaśīyam (BSPS. Ed.), p. 41; believed to be present Jhusi opposite Allahabad fort.
29In the Mahābhārata are mentioned both Ailavaṁśa (I. 94. 65) and Ailavaṁśyas (II. 14. 4). Ailas are mentioned also in the Purāṇas.
30Lüders, List of Brāhmī Inscriptions etc, Nos. 1202-4.
31It is not at all unlikely that Māḍharīputra Śrī-Vīrapurushadatta was a prince of Dakshiṇa-Kosala which in the third century A.D. may have extended as far as the east coast. We know that-Uttara-Kosala, with its capital of Sāketa or Ayodhyā, was ruled over by the Ikshvākus, and it seems that when the Ikshvākus spread themselves southwards, their new province also was called Kosala, dakshiṇa being also applied to it to distinguish it form their original territory which therefore became Uttara-Kosala. (Dakshina) Kosala was certainly well-known in the fourth century A.D., as it is mentioned in the Allāhābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta and included in Dakshiṇāpatha.
32Mahabharata, III. 104 ; Ramayaṇa, III. II. 85.
33Caldwell, Grammar of the Dravidian Languages, Intro., 101, 119.
34Ramayaṇa, III. 17. 22.
35Ibid.,iii.10.13-14.
36Hyderabad Archacological Serveys, No.I, p.1
37EC.,Vol XI.(Intro.), p.2.
38Annual Report on Epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1912, p.57.
39IA., 1912, 231-2.
40It will be stated further on in the text that no less than three Buddhist stüpas have been found in the Kistnā District with quite a number of Pāli inscriptions showing that the Aryans had colonised that part. The question arises from where did the Aryans go there; they must have gone either from Kaliṅga or Aśmaka, most probably from the latter. See note on p. 26 below.
41Imperial Gazetter of India, Vol.I. pp.351-2.
42Caldwell, Grammar of the Dravidian Languages, Intro pp.43-4.
43JRAS, 1911,p.510.
44IA., 1913, p. 235.
45For a detailed consideration of this subject, see Bāṅgālābhāshāy Drāviḍī upādāna by Mr. B. C. Mazumdar printed in Sāhitya-parishat-patrikā, Vol. XX. Pt. I.
46IA. 1916, p. 16.
47ASSI., I. 91 & 102-3.
48Ibid.,104.
49I use the term in the sense in which it has been taken by Mr. Francke in his Pali and Sanskrit. Perhaps this should have been styled monumental Pāli to distinguish it from literary Pāli, i.e. the Pāli of the buddhist scriptures.
50EC. XI. Intro. 1 & ff.
51Lüders, List of Brāhmī Inscriptions. Nos. 1195-6.
52I had occasion to examine coins of two princes of this dynasty found in the North Canara District, Bombay. Their names on them are clearly Chuṭukalānaṁda and Mulānaṁda (PR—WC., 1911-2, p.5 para 18.) Prof. Rapson is inclined to take Chuṭu and Muḍa (Muṇḍa) as dynastic names (Catalouge of the coins of the Andhra Dynasty etc., intro. lxxxiv-lxxxvi). In my opinion, the whole Chuṭuka(ku)lāṁaṁda and Mulānaṁda are proper names or individual epithets, for to me it is inconceivable how they could mention their dynastic names only on the coins and not individual names or epithets at all.
53Prof. Rapson has conclusively shown that Viṇhukaḍa Chuṭukalānaṁda and Śivaskandavarman of the Maḷavaḷḷi inscriptions were related to each other as father and son (ibid, liv-lv). But then it is worthy of note that the latter has been called king of the Kadambas in one of these records. It thus appears both father and son belonged to the Kadambas dynasty—a conclusion which thoroughly agrees with the fact that their title Vaijayantī-pura-rāja, Mānavyā-sagoita and Hāritiputta are exactly those of the Kadambas known to us from their coppar-plate charters (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I., pt. II, p.287).
54Lüderis’ List, Nos. 1200, 1205, 1327, 1328 and 1194.
55Personally I think most of the princes in Southern India were of Dravidian blood, as is clearly evidenced by their name such as Puḷamāvi. Viḷivayakura, Kaḷataya, Chuṭukala and so forth.
56IRAS. 1904, p. 399 ff.
57Let me say here that the exact question to be answered is why the Dravidian,was supplanted by the Aryan, language
in north India, but not in South India, although Aryan civilisation had apparently permeated South India as much as North India.
58Vinaya-piṭakam, Vol I, Intro.pp.liv-lv.
59Personally I think, the Aryan went to Kaliṅga not by the eastern, but by the southern route. It is worthy of note that Pāli buddist canon knows Aṅgal and Magadha and Assaka(Aśmaka) and Kaliṅga it does not know Vanga, Puṇḍra and Suhena exactly the countries interviewing between Aṅga and Kaliṅga, through which they would certainly have passed and where they certainly would have been settled if they had gone to Kaliṅga by the eastern route. There is, therefore, nothing strange in the dialect of kalinga being the same as that of Mahārāshṭra or the Pāli.
60V.33.1.
~ Lecture II ~
POLITICAL HISTORY
In this lecture I intend treating of the Political history of the period we have selected, viz. approximately from 650 to 325 B.C. No good idea of this history is possible unless we first consider the question: What were the biggest territorial divisions known at this time? The most central of these divisions is, as you are aware, the Madhya-deśa or the Middle Country. According to Manu,1 it denotes the land between the Himālaya in the north, the Vindhya in the south, Prayāga or Allāhābād in the east, and Vinaśana or the place where the Sarasvatï disappears, in the west. It is true that the laws of Manu were put into their present form after 200 B.C., but I have no doubt that by far the greater portion of it belongs to a much earlier period. Manu’s description of the Middle Country e.g. appears to be older than that we find in the Buddhist Pāli canon, because the easternmost point of the Madhyadeśa was Prayāga in Manu’s time, whereas that mentioned in the Buddhist works is far to the east of it. It will thus be seen that the Middle Country has not been described by Manu only but also in Buddhist scriptures. This description occurs in the Vinaya-Piṭaka2 in connection with the Avanti-dakshiṇāpatha country where the Buddhist monk Mahā-Kachchāyana was carrying on his missionary work. Avanti-Dakshiṇāpatha was, we are told, outside the Middle Country, and it appears that Buddhism had not made much progress there when Mahā-Kachchāyana began his work. When a new member was received into the Buddhist order, the necessary initiation ceremony had to be performed before a chapter of at least ten monks. This was the rule ordained by Buddha, but this was well-nigh impossible in the Avanti-Dakshiṇāpatha country as there were very few Bhikshus there. Mahā-Kachchāyana, therefore, sent a pupil of his to Buddha to get the rule relaxed. Buddha, of course, relaxed the rule and laid down that in all provinces outside the Middle Country a chapter of four Bhikshus was quite sufficient. It was, however, necessary to specify the boundaries of the Middle Country, and this was done by Buddha with his characteristic precision. To the east, we are told, was the town called Kajaṅgala, beyond that is Mahāsāla. To the south-east is the river Salalavatī, to the South is the town Setakāṇṇika, to the west is the Brāhmaṇ village called Thūna, and to the north is the mountain called Usīraddhaja. Unfortunately none of these boundary places here specified have been identified except one. This exception is the easterly point, viz. Kajaṅgala which, according to Prof. Rhys Davids, must have been situated nearly 70 miles east of modern Bhāgalpur.3 In the time of Buddha, therefore, the eastern limit of the Middle Country had extended nearly 400 miles eastward of Prayāga which was its eastern most point in Manu’s time. Now there cannot be any doubt that Madhya-Deśa was looked upon as a territorial division. We find constant references to it in the Buddhist Jātakas. Thus in one place we read of two merchants going from Utkala or Oṛissā to the Majjhima Deśa or Middle Country.4 This clearly shows that Oṛissā was not included in the Middle Country. But we read of Videha being situated in it.5 Again, we hear of hermits fearing to descend from the Himālayas to go into Majjhima Deśa because the people there are too learned.6 It will thus be quite clear that Majjhima Deśa or Madhya Deśa was a name not created by literary authors, but was actually in vogue among the people and denoted some particular territorial division. It was with reference to this Middle Country that the terms Dakshiṇāpatha and Uttarāpatha seem to have come into use. Dakshiṇāpatha,I think,originally meant the country to the south not of the Vindhya so much as of the Madhya-deśa. This is clear from the fact that we find mention made of Avanti-Dakshiṇāpatha. I have just told you that it was in this country that the Buddhist missionary Mahā-Kachchāyana preached. It is worthy of note that Avanti was a very extensive country and that in Buddhist works we sometimes hear of Ujjenī7 and sometimes of Māhissatī8 as being its capital. Ujjenī is, of course, the well-known Ujjain, and Māhissatī is the same as the Sanskrit Māhishmatī and has been correctly identified with Māndhātā9 on the Narmadā in the Central Provinces. It, therefore, seems that Ujjain was the capital of the northern division of Avanti, which was known simply as the Avanti country and Māhissatī of the southern division, which was, therefore, called Avanti-Dakshiṇāpatha. Now, Māndhātā, with which Māhissatī has been identified, is not to the south of the Vindhyas, but rather in the range itself, and as it was the capital of a country, this country must necessarily have included a portion of Central India immediately to the north of this mountain range, its southern portion having coincided with Vidarbha. This country of Avanti-Dakshiṇāpatha was thus not exactly to the south of the Vindhya as its upper half was to the north of this range. And yet it has been called Dakshiṇāpatha.10 And it seems to have been called Dakshiṇāpatha because it was to the south not so much of the Vindhya as of the Middle Country. The same appears to be the case with the term Uttarāpatha. One Jātaka speaks of certain horse-dealers as having come from Uttarāpatha to Bārānāsi or Benares.11 Uttarāpatha cannot here signify Northern India, because Benares itself is in Northern India. Evidently it denotes a country at least outside and to the north of the Kāśi kingdom whose capital was Benares. As the horses of the dealers just referred to are called sindhava, it clearly indicates that they came from the banks of the Sindhu or the Indus. We have seen that according to Manu the Sarasvatī formed the western boundary of the Madhyadeśa. And the Indus is as much to the north as to the west of the Sarasvatī and therefore of Madhyadeśa. It was thus with reference to the Middle Country that the name Uttarāpatha also was devised. Up to the tenth century A.D., we find the term Uttarāpatha used in this sense.12 Thus when Prabhākaravardhana, king of Sthāṇvīśvara, sent his son Rājyavardhana to invade the Hūṇa territory in the Himālayas, Bāṇa (cir. 625 A.D.) author of the Harshacharita, represents him to have gone to the Uttarāpatha.13 As the Hūṇa territory has thus been placed in the Uttarāpatha,it is clear that Prabhākaravardhana’s kingdom was excluded from it. And as Sthāṇvīśvara, capital of Prabhākaravardhana, is Ṭhānesar and is on this side of the Sarasvatī, his kingdom was understood to be included in the Madhyadeśa, with reference to which alone the Hūṇa territory seems to have been described as being in the Uttarāpatha. Similarly, the poet Rājaśekhara (880-920 A.D.), in his Kāvya-mīmāṁhsā,14 places Uttarāpatha on the other side of Pṛithūdaka, which, we know, is Pehoa in the Karnal District, Panjāb, i.e. on the western border of the Middle Country. It is, therefore, clear that the terms Dakshiṇāpatha and Uttarāpatha came into vogue only in regard to the Madhyadeśa. It must, however, be borne inmind that although Uttarāpatha in Northern India denoted the country north of the Madhyadeśa, in Southern India even in Bāṇa’s the term denoted Northern India. Thus Harshavardhana, Bāṇa’s Patron, has been described in South India inscriptions as Śrīmad-Uttarāpath-ādhipati, i.e. sovereign of Uttarāpatha which must here signify North India.15
We thus see that the whole of the region occupied by the Aryans was at this early period divided into three parts, viz. Madhyadeśa, Uttarāpatha and Dakshiṇāpatha. Let us now see what the political divisions were. In no less than four places the Aṅgttara-Nikāya mentions what appears to be a stereotyped list of the Soḷasa Mahā-janapada, i.e. the Sixteen Great Countries. This list is certainly familiar to those of you who have read Rhys Davids’ Buddhist I
ndia. It is as follows:—
1.Aṇgā.
2.Magadhā.
3.Kāsī.
4.Kosalā.
5.Vajjī.
6.Mallā.
7.Chetī.
8.Vaṁsā.
9.Kurū.
10.Pñnchālā.
11.Machchhā.
12.Sūrasenā.
13.Assakā.
14.Avantī.
15.Gandhārā.
16.Kambojā.
Now, if we look to this list, we shall find that here we have got the names not of countries proper but of peoples. It is curious that the name of a people was employed to denote the country they occupied. The custom was certainly prevalent in ancient times, but has now fallen into desuetude. Secondly, two of these names are not of peoples but of tribes, viz. the Vajjī and Mallā. Thirdly, we seem to have here a specification, by pairs, of the conterminous countries. Aṅgā. and Magadhā thus are one pair, Kāsī and Kosalā another, Kurū and Pāñchālā a third, and so on, and there can be no doubt that the countries of each pair are contiguous with each other. Other points too are worth noting about this list, but they can be best understood when we come to know the more or less correct geographical position of the countries.
Let us take the first pair, viz Aṅgā and Magadhā. That they were conterminous is clear e.g. from one Jātaka story,16 which tells us that the citizens of Aṅga and Magadha were travelling from one land to another and staying in a house on the marches of the two raṭṭhas, i.e. kingdoms. This shows that they were not only contiguous but separate kingdoms in the 7th century B.C., the social life of which period the Jātakas are believed to depict. In the time of Buddha, Aṅga was first independent, but came afterwards to be annexed to Magadha. The river Champā separated Aṅga from Magadha.17 On this river was the capital of Aṅga which also was called Champā and has been identified by Cunningham with Bhāgalpur.18 One Jātaka story calls it Kālachampā, and places it 60 yojanas from Mithilā. The capital of Magadha was Rājagṛiha, modern Rājgīr. Strictly speaking, there were two capitals here— one, the more ancient, called Girivraja because it was a veritable ‘cow-pen of hills’ being enclosed by the five hills of Rājgīr, and the other,19 Rājagṛiha proper, the later town built at the foot of the hills. Shortly after the death of Buddha the capital of Magadha was transferred from Rājagṛiha, to Pāṭaliputra, modern Paṭnā.
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 4
