We now come to describe the dynasty or rather the dynasties that ruled over Magadha. The first of these is the family to which belonged Bimbisāra and his son Ajātaśatru, who, you will remember, were contemporaries of Budhha. The authority which is generally followed in giving an account of this family is the Purāṇas. But there is another authority, is more reliable, but which is neglected. I mean the Sinhalese chronicle Māhavaṁsa. The Purāṇic account, I am afraid, is anything but satisfactory, so far as the order of succession, at any rate, is concerned, through I quit believe the scraps of information they supply in regard to some princes. According to the Purāṇas Śiśunāga was this founder of this dynasty and Bimbisāra was its fourth prince. And they also tell us that the Pradyota dynasty consisted of five kings and that they were supplanted by Śiśunāga. Bimbisāra is thus ten generation’s removed from Pradyota, whereas, as a matter of fact, we know that both were contemporaries of each other, being contemporaries of Buddha. Again, though the decrease tradition as to individual names is not very unstable in the different Purāṇas, the same cannot lie said in regard to the period of the individual reigns which vary considerably. What is also strange is that they assign a period of 363 years to ten consecutive reigns, i.e. at least 36 years to each reign which is quite preposterous and utterly unknown to Indian History.75 This indicates a desperate attempt on the part of the Purāṇas to fill up the gaps in the chronology anyhow—an inference which entirely agrees with their attempt at reduplicating names and assigning them to consecutive kings, such as Khemadharman and Kshemavit, Nandivardhana, and Mahānandin, and so forth. Further, it worthy of note that the Mahāvaṁsa mentions the name of the king Muṇḍa, which is entirely omitted from the Purāṇa list. The existence for the king is now sufficiently attested by the Aṇguttara-Nikāya and the Aśokāvadāna. Next, the Mahāvaṁsa makes Udayabhadda (or Udāyi) the immediate successor of Ajātaśatru, but the Purāṅas place one Darśaka in between. That surely is highly questionable, because the Dīgha-Nikāya speaks of Udayabhadra as Ajātaśatru’s son, but we have no such evidence in respect of Darśaka. I am aware, it may be argued, that Darśaka has, as a matter of fact, been mentioned by Bhāsa in the Svapna-Vāsavadattā, as a king of Magadha whose sister Padmāvatī was married to Udayana of Kauśāmbī, and that it is possible that he was another son of Ajātaśatru and might have been the latter’s immediate successor, his brother Udayabhadra coming to the throne after him. But this argument does not appear to be sound to me, because how old, I ask, could Udayana be when he married Padmāvatī? To make the case favourable to the other side, we will suppose that he was wedded to her in the very first year of Darśaka’s accession to the throne. We know that Buddha preached not only to Udayana but also to his son Bodhi. To make the case more favourable, we shall suppose that Bodhi was then only sixteen years old, and that Bodhi was born when Udyana was also sixteen. Udayana thus must have been at least thirty-two years old when Buddha preached to Bodhi. We will also concede that Buddha died the same year that he delivered the sermon to Bodhi. And we know that Buddha died in the eighth regnal year of Ajātaśatru and that the latter reigned twenty-four years after Buddha’s death. We thus see that Udayana was at least thirty-two years old when Buddha died and therefore fifty-six years old when Ajātaśatru ceased to reign. Udayana was thus married in his fifty-seventh year, i.e. in the first year of Darśaka’s reign. Is it the proper age for the hero to make love to the heroine, and is it proper for the poet to describe it?76 Verily there must be some mistake somewhere. Bhāsa evidently followed the tradition that was current in his time, i.e. most probably in the third century A.D. By that time the Purāṇas, through the corruption of their texts, must have become full of contradictions and discrepancies, and must have been more than once tampered with to make them yield an intelligent story. For these reasons I cannot help thinking that it is not safe to rely upon the account furnished by the Purāṇa for this early period so far at any rate as the order of succession and the duration of individual reigns are concerned. The tradition preserved in the Mahāvaṁsa about the Magadha dynasties seems to me more reliable. At any rate, no inaccuracies or blunders have yet been detected in the account of this chronicle, which wonderfully agrees with the scraps of information which the Purāṇas furnish for some princes.
I have already told you that the two rulers of Magadha who were contemporaries of Buddha were Bimbisāra and his son Ajātaśatru. The name of the family to which Bimbisāra belonged is not definitely known, but it seems that it was. Nāga. The last prince of Bimbisāra’s dynasty is called Nāga-Dāsaka by the Mahāvaṁsa. The second component of the name, viz. Dāsaka, doubtless corresponds to the Dāsaka of the Purāṇa. And the name Nāga has been prefixed to Dāsaka to distinguish him from his successor who belonged to a somewhat different family and who has therefore been called Susu-Nāga, or little Nāga Darśaka, and thus Bimbisāra, belonged to the Great Nāga dynasty. We do not know whether any kings of his dynasty preceded Bimbisāra. They have certainly not been mentioned by the Mahāvaṁsa, but there was no need for this chronicle to mention them, its sole object being to describe the events of the period beginning with Buddha and not anterior to him. The Purāṇas no doubt represent at least four kings to have ruled before Bimbisāra, but their authority for this period, as I have just stated, is disputable. The probability is that Bimbisāra was the founder of his dynasty, because Bimbisāra has in the Pāli Canon been called Seniya, which is the same thing as Senāpati. We know that Pushpamitra, founder of the Śuṇga dynasty, was designated Senāpati, and we have the authority of the Purāṇas that Pushpamitra was actually the commander-in-chief of the last king of the Maurya family that he supplanted. It is not at all impossible that Bimbisāra was the general of the Power that ruled over Magadha before him and that if he did not actually destroy it, he at any rate declared his independence and carved out a kingdom for himself. The question here arises: who could be exercising sway over Magadha prior to Bimbisāra? A passage in one of the oldest Buddhist documents speaks of Vesāli as Māgadhaṁ puraṁ,77 capital of the Magadha country. If Vesāli was thus the capital of the Magadha kingdom, it is quite possible that it was at the expense of the Vajjīs that Bimbisāra secured territory for himself. According to the Purāṇa, Magadha was originally held by the Bārhadratha family. Then, it seems, occurred the inroads of the Vajjīs, who held Magadha. In the early years of Buddha, Bimbisāra thus appears to have seized Magadha after expelling the Vajjīs beyond the Ganges and to have established himself at Rājagṛiha, the old capital of the kingdom. This was not the only conquest achieved by him. Bimbisāra conquered Aṇga also and incorporated it into his dominions. In the Majjhima-Nikāya78 we have mention of a king of Aṇga who gave a daily pension of 500 kārshāpaṇas to a Brāhmaṇ. The name of this king has not been specified, but there can be little doubt that is was this prince from whom Bimbisāra wrested Aṇga. It was doubtless these conquests that gave Bimbisāra sovereignity-over 80,000 townships,79 the overseers of which, it appears, he was in the habit of calling to an assembly for personally discussing state matters and receiving his instructions.
The Mahāvagga80 says that Bimbisāra had 500 wives. Of these one was, we know, a Vaidehī princess. According to an early Jaina authority she was Chellanā, daughter of Cheṭaka, a Lichchavi, Chief of Vaiśālī.81 It is quite possible that this matrimonial alliance was a result of the peace concluded after the war between Bimbisāra and the Lichchhavis. His another queen was Kosaladevī, daughter Mahākosala, who was father of Pasenadi. The father, when he married his daughter to the king Bimbisāra, gave a village of the Kāsi country, yielding a revenue of a hundred thousand, as her nahāna-chuṇṇa-mūla, i.e. bath and perfume money.82 From his Vaidehī queen Bimbisāra had a son called Ajātaśatru.83 He had also another son, named Abhaya, but we do not know who the latter’s mother was. When Abhaya was once going to attend upon his father, king Bimbisāra, he saw an infant exposed on a dust-heap.84 He took up the infant, nourished him, and named him Jī
vaka Komārabhachcha. Jīvaka went to Takshaśilā, and learnt the science of medicine. He returned to Rājagṛiha and showed his expert knowledge by speedily curing king Bimbisāra of fistula. Bimbisāra was so pleased that he appointed Jīvaka as physician to the royal household and to the fraternity of the Bhikshus headed by Buddha. Bimbisāra had at least two more sons. One of them was Sīlavat born at Rājagṛiha.85 The other was Vimala-Koṇḍañña from Queen Ambapālī.86 As Vimala bears the Brāhmaṇ clan-name of Koṇḍañña (=Kauṇḍiṇya), it appears that his mother was a Brāhmaṇ woman. The princes, Abhaya, Sīlavat and Vimala, all became Buddhist monks, probably through fear of Ajātaśatru after he became king. When by murdering his father, as we shall just see, Ajātaśatru seized the throne he must have attempted to assassinate his brothers also, who therefore must have thought it discreet to embrace Buddhism and become monks. We have got evidence at least in the case of Sīlavat whom according to the Thera-therī-gāthā Ajātaśatru was anxious to put to death.
I have just referred to the murder of Bimbisāra by his son Ajātaśatru. The story is just this. Being instigated by Devadatta, cousin but enemy to Buddha, Ajātaśatru conceived the design of killing his father and obtaining the kingdom. With that object in view he once entered the private chamber of the king at an unusual hour with a dagger in his hand. He was, however, seized upon by the officers in attendance and taken before the king. On learning that his son wanted to kill him because he wanted the kingdom, Bimbisāra at once handed over the reins of government him.87 But the prince was not satisfied with this, and in order to make his position quite secure, he at the advice of Devadatta managed to kill his father by starvation. While once he was listening to a sermon of Buddha he was suddenly striken with remorse and confessed his sin before him.88 Although there is no sound reason to distrust the story of this patricide, the explanation which Buddhist texts give of his name, viz. Ajātaśatru, scarcely deserves any credence. It is said that even when he was in his mother’s womb, he conceived a longing for his father’s blood, which was gratified only by the mother drinking it from the right knee of Bimbisāra, and that because he had thus been his father’s enemy (śatru), while yet unborn (ajāta), he was named Ajātaśatru. This is nothing but a pun.89
I have told you that when king Mahākosala, father of Pasenadi, married his daughter to Bimbisāra, he granted a Kāsi village as dowry. When Ajātaśatru put Bimbisāra to death, Kosaladevī died of grief. For sometime after this queen’s death, Ajātaśatru continued to enjoy the revenues of this village, but Pasenadi resolved that no parricide should have a village which was his by right of inheritance and so confiscated it. There was thus war betwixt Ajātaśatru and Pasenadi. The former was fierce and strong, and the latter old and feeble. So Pasenadi was beaten again and again. Now, at the time when he had returned to his capital Śrāvastī after suffering his last reverse, Buddha was staying close by with his fraternity of bhikshus. Amongst those there were many who formerly were officers of the king. Two of these at dawn one day were discussing the nature of the war, and one of them emphatically declared that if Pasenadi but gave Ajātaśatru battle by arranging his army in the śakaṭa-vyūha array, he could have him like a fish in lobster pot. The king’s couriers, who happened to overhear the conversation, informed him. Pasenadi seized the hint, and immediately set out with a great host. He took Ajātaśatru prisoner and bound him in chains. After a few days he released him, gave him his daughter, Princess Vajirā, in marriage, and dismissed her with that Kāsi village for her bath-money, which was for long the bone of contention between the two royal families.90
Ajātaśatru was at war also with the Lichchhavis of Vesāli. I have already told you that his mother was a Vaidehī Princess. This means that she belonged to the Lichchhavi clan. Ajātaśatru was thus at war with his relations on his mother’s side. He seems to have pursued the policy inaugurated by his father. We have seen that it was at the expense of the Lichchhavis that Bimbisāra made himself master of the Magadha kingdom. And now his son Ajātaśatru conceived the design of destroying the independence of the Lichchhavis. It appears that at this time the Ganges separated the Magadha from the Videha kingdom, and that Pāṭaligrāma, which afterwards rose to great importance and became celebrated as Pāṭaliputra, was then on the frontier of the Magadha territory. At any rate, this is the impression produced on our mind on reading the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta,91 which is concerned with the decease of Buddha. The same Sutta also gives us the impression that Pāṭaligrāma was on the road from Vesāli to Rājagṛiha. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to fortify Pāṭaligrāma. And when, shortly before his death, Buddha visited Pāṭaligrāma, Sunēdha and Vassakāra, Chief Ministers of Magadha, were busy building a fortress there to repel the Vajjīs, i.e. Lichchhavis. The Jaina Nirayāvali-sūtra informs us that Ajātaśatru fixed a quarrel on Cheṭaka, a Lichchhavi Chief of Vesāli, his grandfather and went forth to attack him.92 Nine confederate Lichchhavi and nine confederate Malla kings came to his assistance but it was of no avail, and the Vajjīs or Lichchhavis were ere long subjected to the sway of Ajātaśatru along with the Mallas.
Ajātaśatru was succeeded by his son Udayabhadra who is no doubt the same as the Udāyin of the Purāṇas. According to the Dīgha-Nikāya, as we have seen, Ajātaśatru looked upon him as his favourite son, but it was this favourite son who for the sake of kingdom murdered his father, as the Mahāvaṁsa93 tells us. The Purāṇas say that he made Kusumapura on the southern bank of the Ganges his capital.94 Kusumapura is but another name for Pāṭaliputra, and there is nothing strange in Udayabhadra’s removing his capital from Rājagṛiha to Pāṭaliputra. The Magadha kingdom was very much extended during the reign of Ajātaśatru. The dominions of the Lichchhavis and Mallas and some parts of even Kosala were annexed to it. Such an extensive kingdom required a central capital, and this idea was well fulfilled by Pāṭaliputra, which, though in the first instance it was fortified to repel and subdue the Lichchhavis, admirably served the purpose of a central seat of government.
Udayabhadra reigned for sixteen years. He was succeeded by Anuruddha, and the latter by Muṇḍa. A period of eight years has been assigned to them. No reference to Anuruddha has so far been traceable in the Buddhist literature, but the Aṅguttara-Nikāya95 does make mention of Muṇḍa, king of Pāṭaliputra. His queen, Bhadrā-devī died, and the king was simply overwhelmed with grief. His Treasurer Priyaka became intensely anxious on his account, and arranged for an interview between the king and Nārada, a Buddhist monk, who had at that time come to Pāṭaliputra in the course of his religious tour. Nārada’s religious discourse made a deep impression on Muṇḍa and gave him strength of mind to overcome his grief.
Muṇḍa was succeeded by Nāga-Dāsaka. I told you a short while ago that Dāsaka of this composite name corresponded to the Darśaka of the Purāṇas, and Nāga was prefixed to his name to show that he pertained to the principal Nāga dynasty. The tradition mentioned by Bhāsa that Padmāvatī married to Udayana was his sister does not appear to be probable, and you have already seen the reasons I have set forth. The Mahāvaṁsa says that from Ajātaśatru down to Darśaka we had kings who were parricides, and that the people, who were, therefore, disgusted with this dynasty, aided one Susu-Nāga, who was an amātya or minister apparently of Darśaka, to oust him and secure the throne. Susu-Nāga, as I have said, does not seem to be a proper name. It denotes a branch of the Nāga family, and as sometimes a king is designated by his family name alone without specification of his individual name, the family name Susu-Nāga, or Śiśu-Nāga of the Purāṇas, has been employed to denote the usurper of Darśaka’s sovereignty. Anyhow this usurper was not an outsider, but a prince of the Nāga dynasty though of a branch line. The Purāṇas inform us that Śuśunāgas annihilated the renown of the Pradyota dynasty, placed his son in Vārāṇasī or Benares, and made Girivraja (Rājgīr) his capital.96 The Purāṇas evidently tell us that Śuśunāgas made himself master not only of Magadha but also of Avanti and Kāśi-Kosala. This seem
s to be correct, and to this we may add that he probably annexed the Vatsa kingdom also to his empire. We know that Pradyota, Pasenadi (Prasenajit), Bimbisāra and Udayana were contemporaries, and their families, curiously enough, became extinct four generations after them, i.e. about the rise of Śuśunāgas. The latter was thus practically a ruler of the whole of Northern India except the Panjāb. Being thus a powerful monarch and practically of the same family as Bimbisāra, he was, in later times when the Purāṇas were recast, placed at the head of the family, and all the kings styled Śiśunāgas after him. Sisunāga reigned for eighteen years and was succeeded by his son Aśoka. To distinguish him from Aśoka, the Maurya Emperor, he was designated Kālāśoka, the epithet kāla indicating his black complexion. This also explains why he was called Kākavarṇa in the Purāṇas. As a Burmese tradition informs us, he removed his capital from Rājagṛiha to Pāṭaliputra.97 This is exactly in keeping with the Mahāvaṁsa,98 which represents Kālāśoka to be established in Pushpapura, i.e. Pāṭaliputra. The only event which, we know, took place in the reign of Kālāśoka was the holding of the second Buddhist Council. It was held in Vesāli under this king in the year 383—2 B. C. and led to the separation of the Mahāṁsaṁghikas from the Theravāda.99 Kālāśoka reigned for twenty-eight years only. After him his ten sons conjointly ruled over the Magadha Empire. Their names are: (1) Bhadrasena. (2) Koraṇḍavarṇa, (3) Maṇgura, (1) Sarvañjaha, (5) Jālika, (6) Ubhaka, (7) Sañjaya, (8) Koravya, (9) Nandivardhana and (10) Panchamaka.100 Nandivardhana of this is most probably Nandivardhana of the Purāṇic list.101 These ten brothers held joint sway over the Magadha dominions for about twenty-two years and were supplanted by the Nanda dynasty. Nine members of this dynasty are said in the Mahāvaṁsa102 to have reigned in succession and for a period of twenty-two years. They were most probably one father and eight sons as mentioned in the Purāṇas.103 They were: (1) Ugrasena, (2) Paṇḍuka, (3) Paṇḍugati, (4) Bhūtapāla, (5) Rāshṭrapāla, (6) Govishāṇaka, (7) Daśasiddhaka, (8) Kaivarta and (9) Dhana.104 As Ugrasena heads the list, it seems that he was the father and the remaining princes his sons. The chief of the Nandas, according to all the Purāṇas, is Mahāpadma. The commentary on the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa says that he was so called because he was the lord of soldiers or wealth numbering or amounting to 100,000 millions. Probably the correct meaning would be that he was master of as big an army as could be arrayed in a padma-vyūha or in a lotus fashion.105 This agrees with the fact that in Buddhist works he has been styled Ugrasena, i.e. possessed of a terrific army.
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 6
