32. The Two Epics

Volume I: Part I pp. 349–408

The two great Epics contain numerous passages bearing on topics of Dharmasastra - Mbh. itself claims as being composed by Vyasa as a great Dharmasastra, as Arthasastra etc. - Mbh. consists of one hundred thousand verses - a great deal has been written about the Two Epics - a work for popular education long before the 7th cent. A. D. - Anuvamsa slokas in Mbh. - From the references in Panini and Patanjali it is certain that the story of Mbh. is diffe-rent from the story of Ramayana - there was considerable scope for adding stories and didactic matter and hence the Mbh. became very much inflated by additions at different times - literature known to Mbh. - criticism against four passages relied upon by Hopkins as referring to Ramayana - the core of the Mbh. existed before 500 B. C.-references to Mbh. in some early inscriptions - Nilakantha's commentary on Mbh. - date of the Mahabharata war - both the Epics inspired many later writers to compose Sanskrit dramas on the characters and stories contained in them - the Mahabharata, predominantly a Vaisnavite work. Several recensions of the Ramayana - the three well-known being Southern, Bengali and North-Western - relation to the Dasarathajataka - references to the legends in the Mahabharata occur in the extant Ramayana - Ramayana mainly being a Kavya is less quoted than the Mahabharata, but is relied upon as a source of dharma - the Ramayana exists in Bali in the Kavi language- 'Kaccit-prasna' chapters in the two epics - the Ramayana is not earlier than 300–200 B. C. – verses in the Sundarakāṇḍa of great significance on the date of Rāmāyaṇa – Srinivasa Sastri’s ‘ Thirty Lectures on the Rāmāyaṇa’ – commentaries on the Rāmāyaṇa – Mr. Tadpatrikar’s theory about the Mūlarāmāyaṇa.

— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra

32. The Two Epics

The two great Epics of India, the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, contain (particularly the first) numerous passa- ges bearing on many topics of Dharmaśāstra and are relied upon as authorities in medieval and later workṣ The Mahā- bhārata itself claims (in Ādiparva, 2. 83) that Vyāsa composed the work as a great Dharmaśāstra, as Arthaśāstra (treatise on politics and Government), Mokṣaśāstra and also Kāmaśāstra.¹ In the last parvan it claims that whatever is said in it would be found elsewhere and what is not contained in it would not be found anywhere else i.e. it claims to be encyclopaedic and hence there was a great incentive to later scholars to add to it fresh matter. In the Udyogaparva (130. 18) and in Ādi. 62. 20 the Mahābhārata is spoken of as Jaya (jayo nāmetihāsoyam śrotavyo vijigīṣuṇā) and in the last parvan (5. 51) the epic is also called saṃhitā (1. 16, 63. 90), Purāṇa (1. 17), ākhyāna (2. 388-389), itihāsa (1. 19 and 26 and 2.36, 41 and 62. 18), itihāsottama (in 2.385), Kāvya (1. 61 and 73, 2. 390), Kṛṣṇaveda (1. 268 and 62. 18). It further states (Ādi. 1. 52) that different beginnings of the epic existeḍ In the last parvan (svargārohaṇa) it states that the epic is so called because of its greatness² (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). Ādi (1. 81) states³ that there are 8800 ślokas in the whole work, the import of which only Vyāsa and Śuka know and Sañjaya might know or not.⁴ It is further stated that Bhārata means the epic without the upākhyānas ( tales ) and contains 24000 verses and the work Mahābhārata consists of one hundred thousand verses inclusive of the upākhyānas ( Ādi. 1.101–2 ). The Ādiparva (63.89-90) states that Vyāsa⁶ taught the four Vedas together with the Mahābhārata as the fifth to four pupils viz. Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, Vaiśampāyana and to Śuka his own son and these five promulgated separate five versions of the story. The Śāntiparva ( chap. 327. 26–33 and 349. 10–12 ) repeats the same story about the five pupils of Vyāsa. The extant Mahābhārata is supposed to be the one that Vaiśampāyana narrated to Janamejaya, son of Parikṣit, the latter being the grand-son of Arjuna and son of Abhimanyu. It is said in Ādi ( 1.9–10 ) that Sauti heard the story narrated to Janamejaya and told it to Śaunaka and other sageṣ Thus there are ( acc. to the epic itself ) three stages, viz. (1) Vyāsa first transmitted the epic to five pupils; (2) these five including Vaiśampāyana composed separate works and Vaiśampāyana narrated it to Janamejaya, and (3) Śakti who heard the recital by Vaiśampāyana narra- ted it to Śaunaka and otherṣ Therefore, the extant Mahābhārata is Sauti and Vyāsa is only connected with it mediately. In this respect it differs from the Rāmāyaṇa, the author of which is Vālmīki according to all. Janamejaya Pārikșita is a famous name in Indian Antiquity. In the Ait. Br. (VIII. 21) it is stated that Tura Kāvașeya performed the Aindra Mahābhișeka for Janamejaya Pārikșita, who conquered the whole earth and performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice and there is recited a Yajña-gāthā with regard to⁶ it. He is mentioned also in the Śatapatha Br. XIII. 5. 4. 1). What became of the other Samhitās said to have been composed by the other disciples of Vyāsa is not knowṇ

In the daily tarpaṇa as prescribed in the Āśvalāyana gṛhya-sūtra⁸ (III. 4) we find an echo of what we learn from the Ādiparva about the four pupils (excluding Śuka) of Vyāsa viz. Sumantu – Jaimini – Vaiśampāyana – Paila – Sūtra – Bhāșya – Bhārata – Mahābhārata – Dharmācāryas – tṛpyantu. Āśvalāyana was probably aware of the difference made between Bhārata and Mahābhārata. The Sāṁkhyāanagṛhya omits the words 'Bhārata.......Dharmācāryāḥ'.

In the present edition (of the H. of Dh.) the Chitraśālā edition of the Mahābhārata with the commentary, Bhāratabhavadīpa of Nīlakaṇṭha Caturdhara, has been useḍ It generally agrees with the Bombay oblong edition; sometimes, however, there is a difference of one adhyāya or a śloka or two. The Bhandarkar O. Institute's edition is not referred to, because when I collected my materials it had been only recently begun and even now it is not yet complete, though nearing completioṇ* 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. In the following table an attempt ( not meant to be exhaustive ) is made to indicate where dharmaśāstra topics have been dealt with in the Mahābhārata at some length.

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 discussion of the questions stated above. Yet a few remarks must be made on some of the topics discussed by scholarṣ The following works and papers will give some idea of the problems connected with these two heirlooms of Indian antiquity. ‘ Zur Geschichte und Critik des Mahābhārata ” by Holtznann ( Kiel, 1892–94 ); ‘ Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und Inhalt ’ by Dr. Jacobi ( Bonn, 1893 ), ‘ The Great Epic of India ’ by Prof. E. W. Hopkins ( 1901 ); ‘ Das Mahābhārata &c. by Dahlmann ( Berlin, 1895 ), ‘Mahābhārata, a criticism’ by C. V. Vaidya ( 1903 ) ; ‘ The riddle of the Rāmāyaṇa,’ by C. V. Vaidya ( 1906 ) ; ‘ Das Mahābhārata, seina Eusteheng, 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. Sukhtankar 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 Rāmāyaṇa,” in which he details 86 verbal agreements between the two; Dr. V. S. Sukhtankar’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 Vikāsa,’ Allaha- bad, 1950; and a paper on the ‘Rāmāyaṇa its history and character’ in Poona Orientalist Vol. XXV pp. 36-60 and “ Three Rāmāyaṇa 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 theṃ 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 Sukhtankar 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 great scholar like Oldenberg commits abysmal mistakes in the esti- mate of the age and character of the passages of the Mahā- bhārata. 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 Kādambarī,¹⁰ it is said that the queen Vilāsavatī learnt when the epic was being recited that the son saves his father from Put hell. Similarly, it is stated in the Kādambarī ( p. 71 ) that the one thousand names of Nārāyaṇa used to be recited continuously. The Kādambarī ( p. 90 ) refers to the famous Gītā declared by Kṛṣṇa, one of whose names is ‘ Ananta ’. Going further backwards, we find in the famous Besnagara¹¹ Column Inscription ( set out in JRAS for 1909 p. 1055 ) of the 2nd century B. C. of Helio- dorus, a devotee of Vāsudeva and a Yona ( yavana ) ambas- sador from the Greek king Antialikita to the court of king Bhāga-bhadra. The last portion in Prakrit words is ‘dama, cāga, appamāda ’ ( dama, tyāga and apramāda ), which occur in Udyogaparva 43.22 and Strīparva 7. 23. It has been shown above that the Āsv. gr. sūtra, which represents the last phase of Vedic literature, includes the ācāryas of Bhārata, Mahābhārata and Dharma among the sages in the daily tarpaṇa. The Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa starts by saying that it has four doubts as to Bhārata (vide H. of Dh. Vol. V, p. 901 for the four questions and p. 903 for the date ). The Mṛcchakaṭika (III. 12 ) refers to the Sauptika parva ( mārgo hyeṣa narendra-Sauptikavadhe pūrvam kṛto Drauṇinā ). In several places where the Vedāntasūtra relies on Smṛti for support Śaṅkarācārya quotes only verses from the Mahābhārata.¹³ For example, on V. S. II. 3. 47 ( smaranti ca ) he quotes only two verses of the Mahābhārata. Vide note below. This establishes that Śaṅkarācārya held that the Mahābhārata including the Śāntiparva ( which modern critics regard as interpolated later ) was earlier than the Vedānta-sūtra. The present author has attempted to establish that when the Gītā ( in 13.4 ) speaks of Brahmasūtrapadas it does not refer to the Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa but to several Brahmasūtras such as those of Bādari, Auḍulomi and Āśma-rathya ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. V, pp. 1173-74 ). Śabara in his bhāṣya on the Pūrvamīmāmsā-sūtra quotes passages from the present Mahābhārata 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 Rāmāyaṇa is a kāvya as expressly stated in the Rāmāyaṇa itself several times and as comparatively early and famous poets like Kālīdāsa often say.¹⁵ Therefore, it was possible for Vālmīki to give free rein to his imagination, while in the Mahābhārata some restraint had to be observed) since what was being put forward was dubbed itihāsa.

The words Gāthā and Śloka occur in the Ṛgveda. Gāthā (derived from the root ‘gai’ to sing) means a song or verse. Vide Ṛg. VIII.32.1, VIII. 71.14, VIII.98.9, X.99.4, IX.85.6 for gāthā. The word Śloka occurs more frequently in the Ṛgveda than the word gāthā and means a verse. In the Mahā- bhārata Gāthās sung by the Pitṛs (Anuśāsana, 88.11–14), by Yama (Anu. 45.17 and 104.72) or by Janaka (Śānti 17.18–20), by Kāśyapa (about Kṣama, Vanaparva 29.35–44), Gāthā about Paurava in Droṇa (57. 11) and about Bhagīratha (in Droṇa 60.8), of Yayāti (in Śānti 26.13 and in Droṇa 63.8–9), gāthās sung by Ambarīṣa and by Alarka (in Āśvamedhika 31. 12ff and 30. 30–31 respectively), by Bṛhaspati (Śānti 23.14–15), by Brāhman (Śānti 136, about king’s treasury), gāthās sung by Uśanas on distrust (Śānti 138.192) and many more occur. Ślokas also are quoted with the words Ślokau cātra bhavataḥ’ (Vanaparva 192.27–29) or ‘bhavanti cātra ślokāḥ’ as in Vana- parva (199. 13-15); ślokas by one who ponders over dharma as in Sauptika (I.53-55). Then many ślokas and gāthās are quoted as Ānuvaṁśam or simply as Anuvaṁśa (meaning genealogies handed down in families) e. g. Vanaparva 129. 8 says ‘atrānuvaṁśam paṭhataḥ śṛṇu me kurunandana’ and then quotes two verseṣ For ‘Ānuvaṁśam,’ vide also Vanaparva 87. 16-17 (yatrānuvaṁśam bhagavān Jāmadagnyastathā jagau). For Ānuvaṁśa ślokas, vide Ādiparva 95. 8 (for sons¹⁶ of Devayānī and Śarmiṣṭhā). For other Ānuvaṁśa Ślokas, vide Ādi. 95. 27, 95. 30-31, 95.46 (about Śantanu). In Vanaparva 88. 5 there is an ānuvaṁśya gāthā about Nṛga. Sometimes, even itihāsa is spoken of as sung i.e. recited (gīta). The word itihāsa is ancient. It occurs in the Atharvaveda,¹⁷ in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (XI. 1. 6. 9), in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads (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 handed down in families and that the Mahābhārata utilizes and incorporates a large mass of ballads and bardic verses preserved in many prominent familieṣ The Rāmāyaṇa, on the other hand, is a Kāvya and not an itihāsa and is confined to the life of Rāma, his brothers and their vicissitudeṣ There is another quarter which sheds useful light on the epicṣ From Pāṇini’s sūtras, the Vārtikas thereon and Patanjali’s Mahābhāṣya we learn a good deal about some of the prominent personages of the Mahābhārata, their associates, enemies and their doingṣ There are in the Rāmāyaṇa hardly any Ānuvaṁśya Ślokas referring to Daśaratha or Rāma. According to the Sarvānu- kramaṇi Rāma, son of Jamadagni, is the seer of Ṛg. X. 110. Rāma appears to be the name of some person in Ṛgveda X. 93.14. Rāma Mārgaveya is the name of a person of the priestly family of Syāparṇa in the Ait. Br. VII. 5. 1. In Pāṇ. IV. 3. 98 Vāsudevaka,¹⁸ a devotee of Vāsudeva, and Arjūnaka (a devotee of or one who likes Arjuna) are derived in the sense of ‘bhakti’ (IV. 3. 95). In VIII. 3. 95 (‘gaviyudhibhyām¹⁹ sthiraḥ’) the name Yudhiṣṭhira, one of the principal personages in Mahābhārata, is mentioneḍ On Vārtika 7 (bhrātuśca jyāyasaḥ) on Pāṇ. II. 2. 34 (‘alpāc- taram’) Patañjali states the example ‘Yudhiṣṭhirārjunau,’ where the word Yudhiṣṭhira is put before Arjuna, though it has four vowels, because of his being the elder. In VI. 2. 38 Pāṇini provides for the accent (svara) of ‘mahān’ occurring in the compound Mahābhārata (along with nine other words). Vārtika 7 on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 85 provides for the name ‘Aśvāt- thāmaṇ’ 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. On Pāṇ. IV. 1. 97 ( sudhātur-akaṇ ca ) the first vārtika is ‘Sudhātr-vyāsayoḥ’ and we get ‘Vaiyāsakiḥ’ ( as son of Vyāsa ) i. e. Suka ‘and Mahābhāṣya on it says Vaiyāsakiḥ Sukaḥ’. Some of the verses or their parts are very important and interesting about the heroes of the Mahābhārata. On Vārtika 22 on Pāṇ. II. 2. 24 we have two quotations, viz. ‘asidvitiyoṇusāsāra Pāṇḍavam’ ( he, armed only with a sword, followed the Pāṇḍu hero ) and ‘Śaṅkarsaṇa-dvitīyasya balam Kṛṣṇasya vardhatām’ ( in this both Kṛṣṇa and his brother Saṅkarṣaṇa are mentioned ). The first quotation ( on II. 2. 24 ) clearly shows that it must have been taken from some work dealing with Pāṇḍava heroeṣ Another interesting quotation is ‘Dhanañjayo raṇe raṇe’ on Vārtika 3 on Pāṇ. III. 3. 58. It is well-known that Arjuna was called Dhanañjaya ( vide Bhagavadgītā X. 37 ‘Pāṇḍavānām Dhanañjayaḥ’ ).

On Vārtika 11 on Pāṇ. IV. 2. 104 Patañjali cites the words ‘Akrūra-vargyaḥ’ and ‘Akrūravargiṇaḥ’ as well as Vāsudeva-vargyaḥ and Vāsudevavargiṇaḥ. This reminds one of the dialogue between Kṛṣṇa and Nārada reported in Śānti parva, chap. 81. It appears from that chapter that there was jealousy among the Yādavaṣ²⁰ Akrūra and Ahukax were two chiefs among the Andhaka-Vṛṣṇis ( verse 8 ) and Kṛṣṇa was the President of that Saṅgha and that Nārada advises Kṛṣṇa that a saṅgha comes to grief from internal dissensions ( verse 25 ) and that Kṛṣṇa should act in such a way as not to lead to the destruction of the Saṅgha. Pāṇ. ( IV. 1. 114 ) knew the Andhakavṛṣṇis and Kurus and Patañjali on Vārtika 7 cites and explains the words Augrasenya ( from Ugrasena of the Andhaka clan ), Vāsudeva and Baladeva ( among Vṛṣṇis ) and Nakula, Sahadeva and Bhaimasenya ( among the Kuru clan ) from Nakula, Sahadeva and Bhīmasena respectively. Vide also Pāṇ. VI. 2. 34 ‘ Rājanỵabahuvacana-dvandvesndhaka- vṛṣṇiṣu’, which refers to several rājanỵas among Andha- kavṛṣṇiṣ

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 Rāmāyaṇa. 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 Rāmopā- khyāna it is Lakṣmaṇa who does so (Vanaparva 287.18-19 ). Besides, in the Śāntiparva (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 Droṇaparva also Rāma is briefly referred to in the Śoḍaśa-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 Śāntiparva refers briefly to the story of Śambūka. The Śalyaparva mentions that Rāma cut off the head of a rākṣasa and the Śānti refers to the killing of Rāvaṇa by Rāma through anger (361. 15).²¹

Hopkins refers to certain passages where Vālmīki is mentioned in the Mahābhārata and divides them into two classeṣ In the first class he puts certain references to Vāl- miki as meant for a mere saint (a ṛṣi ), as in Sabhā 7. 16, Vanaparva 85. 119, Udyoga 93. 27, Śānti 207. 4 (along with Asita, Devala and many others). In my opinion Anuśāsana 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 ). 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 Pāṇḍava 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, brāhmaṇas, 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 Yudhiṣṭhira in Āśramavāsika-parva 17.21 ‘Dharme te dhiyṭām budhir-manastu mahad-astu ca’ and philosophy (Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Vedānta). There was, therefore, great scope at all times for adding stories and didactic matterṣ Thus the Mahābhārata became very much inflated by additions made at different timeṣ Anyone could add a story by saying ‘atrāpyudāharantimam itihāsam purātanam’. In the Anuśāsanaparvan 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 Bhīṣma introduces (in the words ‘atrāpyudāharanti’) the story of a dialogue between Manu Prajāpati and one Suvarṇā 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 Śukra and Bali Vairochana. Two examples may be cited about Rāma story being interpolated by devotees and enthusiastṣ In chap. 74 of the Anuśāsana, 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 his Upā-dhyāya to whom it came from the sages, to whom Lakṣmaṇa 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 by making gifts of various kinds, among whom Rāma (in verse 14), son of Daśaratha, is mentioned as having reached inexhaustible worlds by offerings in yajñaṣ

Not only were tales interpolated but there are several repetitions in the Mahābhārata. A few examples may be noteḍ There is in Śānti (chap. 227) an enlarged version of the brief dialogue between Indra and Bali in chap. 223 ; chap. 175 (dialogue between father and son) is practically the same as chap. 277. Śalya 38. 39-45 are the same as Vanaparva 83. 116-121. The Śodaśarājakīya occurs twice, once in the Droṇaparva (chap. 55-1) and again in the Śāntiparva chap. 29. The story of Āstika occurs twice, in Ādi 13ff and in chap. 48ff agaiṇ

The literature known to the Mahābhārata 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 Brāhmaṇa works need not be citeḍ The six Aṅgas are mentioned in Ādi. 170. 75. In Śānti 342. 38 the Naiṣighanṭuka-padas are mentioned and the word Vṛṣa thereiṇ The Nirukta of Yāska and its explanation of the word 'śipiviṣṭa' (which occurs in Ṛg. VII. 100. 6-7) is mentioned in the Śāntiparva.³³⁵ The Nirukta (V. 8) gives the explanation of the word provided by Aupamanyava which is derogatory (to Viṣṇu), while Yāska appears to prefer a laudatory sense and applies the word to Viṣṇu (as Sūrya), meaning 'in which rays enter on all sides)'. The Śānti (310. 21-22) mentions that Bṛhaspati knew (composed ?) the Vedāṅgas, Bhārgava Nītiśāstra (politics), Nārada music (Gāndharva), Bhāradvāja archery, Gārgya the doings of Devarṣis, Kṛṣṇātreya medicine, and some disputants (composed) several siddhāntas based on logic (such as Tārkika, Vaiśeṣika and Kāpila). It will be stated in the section on Manusmṛti how hundreds of verses are common to the Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti. In the Anuśāsana we have (in 47.35) mention of the Śāstra declared by Manu. Itihāsa and Purāṇa are called the fifth Veda as early as the Chāndogya Up. VII. 1. 2-4 and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa requires that in the Pāriplava some Purāṇa 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 Svargarohaṇaparva (5. 46-47) states that there are 18 Purāṇas composed by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana. Upavedas are mentioned in Droṇaparva 202. 75. Dhanurveda is mentioned in Śānti 49. 32, 50. 233 and 167. 31.

The word ‘Dharmaśāstresu’ occurs frequently as shown above (vide pp. 13,300–1 ). Individual writers on Dharmaśāstra (apart from Manu ) are also quoted e. g. Yama in Śānti 82. 31, Aṅgiras ( two verses ) in Śānti 69. 71–73; Uśanas on slaying an atatāyin²³ ( 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 Kulās (arts) and in Śalya-parva 37. 145 Garga is said to have gained on the banks of Sarasvati knowledge of kāla and about the movements of heavenly bodieṣ Astronomer Garga is assigned to 50 B. C. by Kern ( vide Preface to Bṛhat-saṃhitā 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 Vanaparva²⁴ (181.42-43 ) says ‘truthfulness, self-restraint, tapas, charity, ahimsa, constant adherence to dharma, these are the means (of higher life) among men, not caste nor family.’ Śāntiparva says ( 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 waṣ (later) reduced to differ ent varṇas by their (diverse) actions'. The Śāntiparva annou nces 'Truthfulness, charity, freedom from hatred and wickedness, humility, kindness and tapas,—where these are seen, he is known as brāhmaṇa. If these characteristics are found in a śūdra and these do not exist in a twice-born person then the śūdra is not a śūdra 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 so sukhī so ca brāhmaṇah ). Similiarly, in Anuśāsana 115 Yudhiṣṭhira asked Bhīṣma 'you have often declared that ahiṁsā is the highest dharma and you also said that in śrāddhas the pitṛs desire to have fleṣh offered'. Buddhist vihāras (Vana° 188. 56 ) had come into existence and Edūkas (structures over the bones of the dead); are mentioned in Vana parva ( 90. 65, 67 ). A naked Kṣapaṇaka (Digambara Jain) is mentioned in Ādi 3. 126 ; in Śānti 232. 21²⁵ the Jain posi tion seems to have been alluded to and also in Āśvamedhika 49. 2. In Ādiparva 70. 46 it is stated that in Kaṇva's hermi take there were leaders of Lokāyatika views along with students of Vedas and Mokṣadharma.

On Pāṇ. III. 2. 111 the Mahābhāṣya cites 'jaghāna Kam sam kila Vāsudevaḥ' ( on Vārtika 2 'parokte ca lokavijñāte prayoktur-darśanaviṣaye' ) and on Vārtikas 6 and 15 the Mahābhāṣya makes very interesting remarks about Kaṁsa vadha (the killing of Kaṁsa by Kṛṣṇa) 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 how one can use the present tense (in Kaṁsam ghātayati) when Kaṁsa was killed in antiquity. That shows that centuries before the Mahābhāṣya ) works (stories and dramas) had been composed on the killing of Kāṃsa by Kṛṣṇa. That some verses quoted by the Mahābhāṣya are found in the Mahābhārata is shown in the note below.²⁶

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 Pāṇḍava hero with only a sword in his hand and Pāṇini knows the central figures of the great Epic viz. Yudhiṣṭhira and Arjuna. It has been shown above (p. 75) that Pāṇini flourished about 450 to 400 B. C. Therefore, it follows that there were poems about Pāṇḍava heroes and about Kṛṣṇa killing Kāṃsa 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 Āśv. Gr. mentions “Bhārata-Mahābhārata-dharmācāryāḥ'. The Gṛhyasūtras belong to the latest phase of the Vedic literature. The mention of Bhārata and Mahābhārata as preceding the Āśv. Gr. would make it very probable that the Mahābhārata was in existence at least just before the end of the Vedic perioḍ

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 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 Rāmāyaṇa, none of the great personages depicted in that epic such as Daśaratha, Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa, Bharata ( Rāma's brother ), Hanūmat, Sugrīva, Bibhīṣaṇa is mentioned 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 Kiṣkindhā and two verses²⁸ about Vānaraseinyā in the Mahābhāṣya. These two verses do not occur in the Rāmāyaṇa at all; besides, here 'Vānaraseinyā' does not necessarily mean an 'army of monkeys'; it may playfully 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 composed by a teacher of grammar for the benefit of his pupilṣ As there is a parody of Daśaratha, Rāma and Sitā in the Daśarathajātaka, 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 Rāmāyaṇa.

The first of the four passages relied upon by Hopkins is 'api cāyam pura gitah śloko Vālmikinā bhuvi | na hantavyāh striya iti yad-bravīṣi plavangama...Piḍākaram amitranām yat-syāt kartavyam eva tat' (Droṇaparva 14. 67-68)²⁹. The criticisms against this citation are several. One is that what is quoted is not a Śloka at all, but only a pāda (quarter) at the most; secondly, the Śloka in the Rāmāyaṇa does not amount to an absolute rule, but there is a counterpoise in the latter half of the śloka ; another criticism is that the Mahā- bhārata itself had already stated in the Ādiparva and Vana- parva the same rule against killing a womaṇ So it is probable that some interpolator mentioned it in the Droṇaparva 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- yaṇa in the other epic. In the Rāmāyaṇa, the verse 'rājānaṃ prathamam vindet' does not occur³⁰ at all. Hopkins is obliged to say that it agrees closely enough in sense and words with the verse in Ayodhyā 67. 11. The verse from Ayodhyā is not ipsissima verba. There is another gratuitous assumption made by hiṃ He thinks that Bhārgava is Vālmiki. Bhārgava means Uśanaṣ Vide Amarakosa³¹ quoted below. Hopkins, in spite of his learning and industry, here forgets that the Śāntiparva (210. 20) ascribes a Nitiśāstra to Bhārgava and among the expounders of Rājaśāstra³² the Śāntiparva mentions Kāvya (i.e. Uśanas) and Bhārgava³³ as identical. Vālmīki's name has nowhere been mentioned as that of an expounder of Rājaśāstra. The Rāmāyaṇa itself regards Uśanas (Śukra) and Bhārgava as identical when it describes the auspicious appearances on Rāma's invasion of Rāvana's capital (Yuddha 4.49 ). Vide above under Kauţilya's Arthaśāstra where passages from the Mahābhārata on the Rājaśāstra of Uśanas have been quoteḍ Hopkins misunderstands the verse. What it means is: the life of Rāma was recited to some king by a court poet or possibly by Bhārgava Uśanas himself the expounder of Rājaśāstra, 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 Rāmāyaṇa ) quote from a common source viz, the Rājaśāstra of Kāvya Uśanas which once existed but has not yet been recovereḍ

The third passage occurs in the Vanaparva, where Bhīma is said to have met Hanūmat on the Gandhamādana but did not recognize him and took him to be a mere ordinary monkey (chapters 146 ff). There he speaks of Hanūmat as his brother and very famous³⁴ in the Rāmāyaṇa (147. 11). Vālmīki's name is not mentioned in those chapters and this story was probably interpolated later. The Vanaparva is in extent next to the Śāntiparva. These two and the Anuśāsanaparva cover about two-fifths of the whole of the extant Mahābhārata. The 4th passage (quoted in the note below )³⁵ on which Hopkins relies occurs in the last chapter of the Harivamśa (which is a khila ) and not at all in the text of the Mahābhārata in the Chitrashala edition and otherṣ

The above discussion shows that out of the four passages relied upon by Hopkins one is wrongly interpreted, two are not in the Mahābhārata at all and the remaining one is probably interpolateḍ 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 Āśramavāsikaparva it is stated that after the carnage in the great war, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Vidura, Kuntī (the mother of five Pāṇḍavas), Gāndhārī, Draupadī, Subhadrā met together and sages like Vyāsa, Nārada, Parvata and others also came when Dhṛtarāṣṭra complained that he had no sleep and no peace of mind and Gāndhārī requested Vyāsa to vouch- safe to Dhṛtarāṣṭra the sight of his fallen sonṣ Kuntī told Vyāsa (Āśramavāsikaparva 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 and she duly recited the appropriate mantra; the sun came and she duly asked to grant her a son, when the Sun's refulgence entered her and she secretly gave birth to a son (later) called Karṇa, whom she let down in a river. She wanted to see that son whom she abandoneḍ 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.³⁶

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

In Ādiparva the question how a polyandrous marriage was allowed in the case of the five Pāṇḍava heroes has been raised and dealt with in chapter 195, verses 27–31. Drupada (father of Draupadī) urges that five brothers should have one wife is adharma, it is opposed to the Veda and the usages of the people. The reply of Yudhiṣṭhira is: 'Dharma is subtle; we only follow the path of our predecessorṣ 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.³⁷ If one may speculate on the origin of the Pāṇḍavas, it is possible that they hailed from the hilly regions in the Himālayas where polyandry prevailed up to recent times, that they were formidable warriors and made their way in the countries of Kuru and Pāñcāla and married a Pāñcāla princesṣ The descendants of the Pāṇḍava heroes viz. Parikṣit and Janamejaya are well-known in the Vedic age. The Śat. Br. XIII. 4. 5 and Ait. Br. 35. 1 mention Pārikṣita Janamejaya as a performer of Aśvamedha. Daśaratha, Rāma and their descendants are not spoken of in these ancient workṣ

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

The Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā 109.34) contains a down-right condemnation of Buddha³⁸ as nāstika (atheist) and as a thief and in chap. 108 of the same epic Jābāli is introduced as an atheist who condemns in the presence of Rāma the finer virtues of respect for parents and other relatives, the institu- tion of Śrāddha, 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 verseṣ 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 the mouth of the female bird in Śāntiparva 148. 6-7.³⁹ In the Ayodhyākāṇḍa 39. 30-31 Sītā repeats the same verse before 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 path⁴⁰ occurs in both. The Śāntiparva (in 57.6) says that in former times king Marutta recited an ancient śloka in Bṛhaspati’s treatise in the section on kings (Rājādhikāra) 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.⁴¹

The discussions so far held make this clear that the main characters of the Mahābhārata were known long before Pāṇini and that tales relating to Pāṇḍava heroes had been embodied in a work or in works in verse long before Patañjali wrote i. e. that the core of the Mahābhārata existed before 500 B. C. The same cannot be said about the Rāmāyaṇa. There is no evidence to show that the principal characters of the Rāmāyaṇa were known to Pāṇini or even to Patañjali. At the most one can say that the three names, Daśaratha, Rāma and Sītā, were probably known about 250-200 B. C. but not described as endowed with the qualities they bear in the extant Rāmā- yaṇa. 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 Aṅgada (Kiskiṅdhā 41. 6ff) among whom were included such doughty fighters as Hanūmat, Nīla, Jāmbavat, were directed to go from Kiskiṅdhā towards the south in search of Sītā carried away to Laṅkā by Rāvaṇa, one feels that the author did not correctly know the different countries that the Vānaras would have had to traverse before reaching Laṅkā. Sugrīva is said to have told them to go from Kiṣkiṇdhā to the south and one is surprised to read that Sugrīva first mentions the Vindhya mountain with its thousand peaks and immediately afterwards Narmadā (chap. 41.8) and then mentions Godāvarī, Kṛṣṇaveṇī, Varadā (41.9), Mekala, Utkala, Daśārṇa towns, Avanti (41.10), Vidarbha, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga (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)⁴² and knew only the names of towns, rivers and countries without knowing their exact loca- tioṇ The author had probably never been to the island of Ceylon nor knew anything about the distance between India and Ceylon nor had he any idea about the extent of Ceyloṇ It was all a poetic fancy without any solid basis of known facts, even ancient. Kiṣkiṇdhā is now shown to be a village on the Tuṅgabhadrā river in the Bellary District. We know from the Araṇyakāṇḍa (chap. 13) that Agastya directed Rāma to have a hut in Pañcavaṭī near Godāvarī and from that place he later went to Ṛṣyamūka near Pampā where dwelt Sugrīva with four others (Araṇya. 72.11–12)⁴³. It has been shown above that the Rāma story and characters are mentioned in the extant Mahābhārata and the legends and some well-known characters in the Mahābhārata are noted in the extant Rāmāyaṇa. 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 Rāmāyaṇa and as the Mahābhārata is four times as bulky as the Rāmāyaṇa, it is the latter that most probably borrowed several matters from the great Epic. It has been demonstrated above that the so-called four direct references in the Mahābhārata to the Rāmāyaṇa put forward by Hopkins are not so and that only one remains, which appears to me to be a later interpolatioṇ

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 Rāmāyaṇa, would not have differed from the epic on such an important matter as the killer of Kumbhakarṇa. Therefore, it is very probable that the Rāma tale was included in the Vanaparva at a time when the Rāmāyaṇa 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. Hopkins⁴⁵ devotes pp. 386–403 of his work ‘The Great Epic of India’ to the date of the Epic and summarises his conclusions 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 conclusionṣ To take only one example at randoṃ He relies ( p. 387 ) on the occurrence of the word Dināra in the Harivamśa which is only a supplement to the Epic ( Ādiparva chap. 2.82–83 ) reference is made to the Harivamśa as a Khila, in which are included the deeds of Viṣṇu such as killing Kamsa and the Bhavisyaparva, which is a large and wonderful one among Khilaṣ⁴⁶ The Dināra is not mentioned in the 18 parvaṇs of the Mahābhārata ( not even in Śāntiparva nor in Anuśāsanaparva ) as Hopkins admits on p. 387. Supposing for a moment that the mention of dināra in Harivamśa is not interpolated, still from the reference to Harivamśa in Ādi I. 2 in general it does not necessarily follow that the writer of Ādi. 2 had before him a Harivamśa containing the word Dināra. Besides, his dating about the Introduction of Dināras in India is not supported by satisfactory evidence. He states ( on p. 387 ) “for the Roman denarius is known to the Harivamśa and the Harivamśa is known to the first part of the first book and the last book; hence such parts of this book as recognize the Harivamśa must be later than 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. 211–266.⁴⁷

The Romakas are mentioned in Sabhāparva 51.17. One remarkable matter is as followṣ The Āpastamba Dh.S. II. 5. 11.5-6 are ‘ Rājñah panthā brāhmaṇenāsametya ’ and ‘ sametya tu brāhmaṇasyāiva panthāh’. These two sūtras form the second half of the verse in Vanaparva 133.1 (the first half being ‘And- hasya panthāh...bhāravāhasya panthāh &c ).

Vyāsa or the Mahābhārata has been mentioned in some early inscriptionṣ

For example, the Pardi plates of Dahra-sena of Saṁvat 207 (probably of the Kalacuri or Chedi era i. e. of 456 A. D. ) ascribes the verse ‘ saṣṭiṁ varṣasahasrāṇi’ &c. (in E. I. Vol. X. p. 53 ) to Vyāsa. Gupta Inṣ No. 31 at p. 137 (the Khoh copper-plate of Mahārāja Śarvanātha dated in 204 of the Gupta era i.e. 533 A. D. ) says ‘ uktam ca Mahābhārate Vyāsena ’⁴⁸ 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 Bāṇa’s day the Epic was recited to an audience of men and womeṇ Several hundred verses are common to both the Manusmṛti and the Mahābhārata. Commentators of Dharmaśāstra works from early times quote the Mahā- bhārata. Medhātithi on Manu II. 94 quotes one of Yayāti’s verses about Kāma (desire) being insatiable. On Manu XI.93 he quotes ‘Ubhau Madhvasavaksibau’ (Udyoga 59.5); on IX.64 he quotes Śānti 63.13⁴⁹ that the Śūdra is entit- led to three āśramas but not to that of parivrājaka. On Manu VII. 177 he quotes the well-known verse ‘na kaścit kasyacit’ (quoted above). The Mit. quotes the Mahābhārata or Vyāsa frequently (e. g. on Yāj. I.72,86, 256, III. 6, 250, 258, 300 ). Aparārka quotes from the Mahābhārata dozens of verses, but the quotations from Vyāsa include many verses on Vyava- hāra 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 bookṣ The Mahābhārata soon became most popular among the Javanese. Portions of the Mahā- bhārata were rendered into old Javanese or Kavi poetry. This work is known as Brata Yuda (modern Javanese) i.e. Bhārata Yuddha. The Kalasan Inscription of the Śaka 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 photograph copy sent to him from Batavia. It opens with a salutation to Tārā, Buddhist goddesṣ The temple was constructed by the Rājaguru (king’s chaplain) of a king of the Śailendra dynasty. It contains twelve verses one of which is quoted below.⁵⁰ Sardar K. M. Panikkar’s 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 Kāvī 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 alaṅkāras ( 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 ‘Śrīvijaya’, vide ‘La Royaume de Śrīvijaya’ by G. Coedes mentioned by Finot’s paper (p. 619) and Prof. Nilakanta Sastri in ‘Bulletin of the l’ecole de Extreme Orient’, Tome XV fast. 2 pp. 239 ff ( Hanoi ).

The commentary called Bhāratabhāvadīpa of Nīlakaṇṭha Caturdhara ( son of Govinda ) on the Mahābhārata ( printed in the Ch. eḍ ) is a learned one. In the opening verses at the beginning of Ādiparva he praises one Lakṣmaṇārya, then two ancestors of his viz. Nārāyaṇa and Dhīreśa who are again named with reverence in Sabhā 1.1 as Hamīrāpurya ( i.e. residing in Hamirapur ). At the beginning of Udyoga- parva he calls himself Lakṣmaṇapadānuga ( following in the footsteps of Lakṣmaṇa ); again on Vanaparva 129. 9 he states that followers of Lakṣmaṇa who was the ornament of a family of persons well-versed in knowledge of brahman explains that verse differently. At the beginning of Bhīṣmaparva, chap. 25 (i.e. the Bhagavadgītā ) he performs an obeisance to Śrīdhara and others as ‘sadgurūn’. This Śrīdhara is, it appears, the commentator of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Vana-p. 133. 24 he quotes Mādhava on the five kinds of years (Cāndra, Saura etc. ), who is most probably Mādhavācārya, who wrote Kālamādhava. He states that he collected Msṣ of the Epic from different parts of India. He quotes Medinī-kośa frequently (e.g. on Ādi.47. 11, 140.12, 214.2, Vanaparva 236.10 ), Yādava on Vana° 260.3, Viśvakośa on Udyoga 40.16 and quotes Viśvalocana on the meaning of ‘ Cakradhara ’ in Anusāsana 162.38, and on the meaning of ‘granthikāh’ in Āśvamedhika 70.7. He refers to the commentary called ‘Viśamaślokāvyākhyā’ on Vanaparva 82.38 as reading a certain verse there but states it was omitted by later ignorant expositorṣ On Virāṭaparva 2.9 he mentions the mean-ing of ‘ārālika’ given by the author of the coṃ Visamaśloki. He mentions Arjūnamisra’s explanation of ‘Jāruthyān’ in Vanaparva 284.23; on Ādi 170.15 he notes that Devabodha and others read it differently and on the word ‘madhuparki-kāh’ in Droṇaparva 182.2. he gives Devabodha’s explanatioṇ On Vanaparva 263.8 he refers to Saṅkarācārya’s commentary on Viṣṇusahasranāma and on Udyoga 42.1 he refers to the commentary of Bhāsyakāra on Sanatsujātiya; he refers to the Saṅkṣepaśārīraka on Udyoga 43.42; On Bhīṣmaparva 3.13 and 31 he quotes a work called Narapativijaya on astrology; on Sānti 306.8 he mentions a work on Yoga called Yogacintā-maṇi and Bhoja’s work on Poetics dealing with 24 guṇas of Śabda (on Sānti 320.87). He quotes a verse of Dattātreya on Khecari Mudrā ( on Āśvamedhika 19.37 ). In many places he discusses various readings as on Ādi 214.2, Sabhā 16.3 (Gauḍapāṭha) and 21.16 (Gauḍapāṭha ), Vanaparva 239.4 (Gauḍapāṭha ), discusses three readings on Vanaparva 264.12. On Sabhā 61.9 (where the word ‘Ṣaṣṭiviśāradāḥ’ occurs) he refers to Śrīdharasvāmī's ⁵² coṃ on Bhāgavatapurāṇa and also on Sabhā° 41.1. He appears to have written a work called ‘Vedānta-kaṭaka’ and refers to what he says therein on ‘Daharādhikaraṇa’ (i.e. Brahmasūtra I. 3. 14–21) At the end of the Śāntiparva and of Anušāsana° he enumerates⁵³ the several teachers (eight in all) under whom he learnt Vedānta, Mahābhāṣya, Veda with its subsidiary lores, logic, Śrauta &c.

He mentions Niruktabhāṣya on Vanaparva 291.70 and also Vedabhāṣya (i.e. Sāyanabhāṣya) on Jarutha (occurring in Rg. VII. 1.7 and X. 80.3). He appears to have been a Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇa. On Udyoga 143.25 he explains 'eka- pakṣaksicaraṇāh' as 'pāṇkoli' (a bird) in Mahārāṣṭrabhāṣā; on Ādiparva 63.20 he explains 'piṭakaih' as 'petyā iti bhā- ṣāyam' which is Marathi 'peṭi' 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 Ādi. 63. 18–19) as seen in Mahā- rāṣṭra and other placeṣ On Sabhā 21.20 he explains the word 'Śṛṅga' as 'Manurā', which is 'Manorā' in present Marathi; on Śānti 87.35 he explains 'gominah' as 'cāraṇas' which is a Marathi worḍ On Vana° 93.27 he explains 'Kathinanām as 'Kāṭhi iti Mahārāṣṭraprasiddhaḥ'. Though a Mahārāṣṭrian he knew Yavanabhāṣā as on Sabhā 4.2 he ex- plains that 'Jīvanti' is called 'viriji' in Yavanabhāṣā.

As he refers to the Medinīkośa and the Kālamādhava he is certainly later than the 14th century A. D. In 'Indian Culture' vol. I pp. 706–710 it is stated that Arjūnamīśra, a Varendra brāhmaṇa who flourished in the latter part of the 13th century is a better commentator than Nīlakaṇṭha. Vimalabodhi wrote a commentary on the Mahābhārata called Vimalāśloki or Durghaṭārthaprakāśinī, a mṣ of which is in possession of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute (Poona). Vide Gode's paper 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 Ānandapūrṇa (about 1350 A. D.), parts of whose commentaries are found in msṣ collectionṣ

The extant Mahābhārata professes that it is removed from the Mahābhārata war only by two generations or so. It was narrated by Vaiśampāyana to Janamejaya who was the great-grandson of Arjuna. The topics regarding the beginning 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 discussed 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 Bṛhat-saṃhitā and Rājatarangiṇī (viz. about 653 of Kali age); ( 3 ) that of the Vāyu, Matsya, Brahmāṇḍa and Bhāgavata purāṇas which provide that bet ween the birth of Parīkṣit ( grandson of Arjuna, the outstand ing fighter among the Pāṇḍavas ) 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 Śānti and Anuśāsana parvuns containing over twenty thousand verses are stated to have been declared by Bhīṣma, who was mortally wounded but lay on death-bed till the sun turned northwardṣ This was a very helpful camouflage to insert into the Epic any matter deemed worthy of being put iṇ In the Parvasaṅgrahaparva (Ādi. 2.325–331 ) it is stated that in the Śāntiparva there are 329 adhyāyas (chapters) and 14732 verses and in Ādi. 2.331–338 it is stated that in the Anuśāsanaparva there are 146 adhyāyas and 8000 verseṣ In the Chitrasbālā edition there are 365 chapters in the Śānti parva and 168 in the Anuśāsanaparva. Thus the chapters in the two parvans (in the present text ) exceed the number of chapters stated in Ādiparva, chap. 2. It is possible that later redactors arranged the chapters differently for various reasonṣ In the Śāntiparva the longest adhyāya ( 138 ) has 221 verses, then comes chap. 284 with 208 verseṣ On the other hand the shortest chap. of Śāntiparva 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 verseṣ A few chapters like 192, 338, 342 have a few verses and also long prose passageṣ I have calculated the verses in the Śāntiparva and they come to about 13200 or so in the Chitrasbala 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 ślokaṣ Vide C. V. Vaidya's ‘Mahābhārata: a criticism’, Appendix, note one, for the total of chapters and ślokas in the 18 parvans and the khila Harivamśa stated in the Parvasaṅgrahaparva and in the Bombay editioṇ They are respectively 96836 and 95826 ślokaṣ 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 Parvasaṅgrahaparva.

The Mahābhārata not only repeats tales but also single verses of its own e.g. Śānti, chap, 231.31 repeats Gītā 8.17 ( sahasrayuga¹¹⁰ ), chap. 251.9 is the same as Gītā ( II.70, apuryamāṇam ), chap. 312.14 ( sarvataḥ pāṇi⁸⁷ ) is same as Gītā 13.13; Vanaparva 189.27 (yadā yadā ca dharmasya ) is the same as Gītā IV. 7.

In the two epics genealogies of ancient kings occur frequently and it is impossible to reconcile all of theṃ A few simple examples may be citeḍ The Manusmṛti (in I. ) claims that Brahmā first ( I.32 ) created Virāj who created him ( Manu ) and he ( Manu ) created ( I.35 ) the great sages ( Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulaha, Pulastya, Kratu, Pracetas Vasiṣṭha, Bhṛgu and Nārada ) and they created the seven Manus ( I.36 ) and the world was created by theṃ If we turn to the Mahābhārata, the Anuśāsana (chap. 2.5 ff) tells us that Manu Prajāpati’s son was Ikṣvāku, who had one hundred sons of whom Daśāśva was the 10th. But the Vanaparva ( in chap. 201-202 ) speaks of Ikṣvāku, his son Śaśāda (who ruled in Ayodhyā ), his son Kakustha, his son Anenas, whose son was Pṛthu-whose son was Viśvagaśva, whose son was Adri whose son was Yuvanāśva and so oṇ In the Āśvamedhikaparva ( chap. 4 ) the genealogy is (in Kṛtayuga ) Manu-son Prasan- dhi-son Kṣupa-son Ikṣvāku (chap. 4.3–14). If we now turn to the Rāmāyaṇa, chap. 110 of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa furni- shes a long pedigree (in verses 5–34) as follows: Brahmā- Marīci-Kaśyapa-Vivasvat-Manu Vaivasvata Prajāpati-Ikṣ- vāku (the first king of Ayodhyā )-Kukṣi-Vikukṣi-Bāṇa- Anaraṇya-Pṛthu-Triśaṅku - Dhundumāra-Yuvanāśva – Mān- dhātṛ-Susandhi-Dhruvasandhi-Bharata-Asita-Sāgara – Asa- mañja – Amśumān – Dilipa – Bhagīratha – Kakustha – Raghu- Pravṛddha-Kalmāṣapāda-Śaṅkhana-Sudarśana – Agnivarna- Śīghraga-Maru-Praśuśruva-Ambarīṣa-Nahuṣa-Nābhāga-Aja- Daśaratha-Rāma. This pedigree contradicts the one in Manu- smṛti ( I.34–35 ) set out a little above, where Marīci is one of the ten sons of Manu. Let us now turn to the Raghuvamśa, where (in I.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 Daśaratha. It should be noted that in the Ayodhyākāṇḍa two kings inter- vene between Dilipa and Raghu and between Raghu and Aja ten kings are nameḍ Hence it follows that the Ayodhyā- kāṇḍa pedigree is either an inflated one or that Kālidāsa had a different pedigree before him at least from Dilipa downwards or that Kālidāsa was not aware of the longer pedigree. From the Raghuvamśa itself it appears that Kālidāsa knew the story of Sagara as an ancestor of Rāma 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 Bhagīratha taking the Ganges from the matted hair of Śiva (Raghu IV.32 ) to the earth and of Kaku- stha being a descendant of Ikṣvāku (Raghu VI. 71). It is not unlikely that a very long pedigree was manufactured for the glory of the family of Rāma and Kālidāsa was not pre- pared to accept it in its entirety. It may be noted that Bāṇa in the Harṣacarita ( 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 theṃ The Daśarūpaka⁵⁴ recommends that intending dramatists should rely upon the Rāmāyaṇa and the Brhatkathā for plotṣ Dr. V. Raghavan recently published a work on ‘Some old lost Rāma plays’ (Annamalai University, 1961).

It appears from Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra that it knew the central story of the Mahābhārata and that of the Rāmāyaṇa. For example, on I. 6. 8 ( Arthaśāstra ) it is stated that Rāvaṇa 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 kingdoṃ 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 Arthaśāstra refers to literary works like the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa and not to tales current among people in its day.

The Mahābhārata is predominantly a Vaiṣṇavite work and contains two of the five jewels of Vaiṣṇavism viz. the Gītā and the one thousand names of Viṣṇu (in Anuśāsana- parva 149. 14–120).

But it is not at all so thoroughgoing 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 Viṣṇu is emphasized as in Vanaparva and Śāntiparva.⁵⁵ There are grand eulogies of Śiva in Droṇaparva 80. 39-48 and Sauptikaparva 17 ( this last by Kṛṣṇa ). In Anuśāsana ( 16.8 ) Śiva is identified with Brahmaṇ The Mausalaparva⁵⁶ (chap. 7) narrates that, after Kṛṣṇa passed away, Arjuna went alone to Dvārakā in order to bring his wives and the Yādava women to the Pāṇḍava capi- tal, that Arjuna was attacked by the Ābhīras on his way and the Ābhīras forcibly carried away many ladies and some went with them of their own free will. Moreover, in Śalya- parva 61. 28 ff,⁵⁷ where Duryodhana, being mortally wounded by a mace stroke on the thigh by Bhīma, severely upbraided Vāsudeva for the breaches of the rules such as putting up Śikhaṇḍin against Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira’s prevarication about the death of Aśvatthāmā. Then Vāsudeva referred to Duryodhana’s evil deeds (verses 42-47), such as not giving a share to Pāṇḍavas in the paternal estate, poisoning Bhīma, trying to burn Pāṇḍavas together with their mother in ‘jatugṛha’, taking by force Draupadī to the Sabhā when she was in her monthly period, assault on the very young Abhi- many by many of Duryodhana’s partisans, and added that he was killed for all these misdeedṣ 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 Vaiṣṇava work these incidents would not have been mentioned by it.

A few passages⁵⁸ common to two or more works with slight variations from among (Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, Mahābhārata, Manu, Mahābhāṣya, and Rāmāyaṇa are here set out and some have already been mentioned above ). THE RĀMĀYAṆA

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

There are several recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa, 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 Rāmāyaṇa 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 common verses, the Southern recension having the more original text; ( 2 ) each recension has a good number of verses, longer passages and sometimes whole cantos 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 recensionṣ Jacobi found that in the first 30 cantos of Kiṣkindhā 749 verses were common out of a total of 1303 verses in Southern recension and 1228 in East Bengal recensioṇ Prof. C. Bulcke finds that of the 4202½ verses of the N. W. version of Sundara-kāṇḍa, 31 percent are absent from the Bengal version and 28 percent from the Southern Recension and 13 percent exclusively 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 narrateḍ 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 University ) 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 divergences the subject matter of the Rāmā-yaṇa viz. the narrative itself has been changed very little. He examines 152 cases from the seven kāṇḍas 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 Southern recension is in some cases present in one or both of the other recensions; and lastly (C) there are other differen-ces among the three 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 Bālakāṇḍa, 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 are absent in the other two,⁶³ (2) a long poetic description of the Ganges in Ayodhyā (50. 13-24) is absent in the other two recensions; (3) the condemnation of Buddha as nāstika (atheist) and as resembling a thief occurs in Ayodhyā (chap. 109.34) in Southern recension but is absent in Gorrecio's eḍ and the whole chap. is absent in N. W. recension; (4) Two sargas, 62 and 63, of Araṇyakāṇḍa (in S. recension) are absent from both Bengal and N. W. recensions; (5) a group of six sargas (10-15) in Yuddha-kāṇḍa in S. recension is entirely absent from the Bengali recension and partly from N. W. recensioṇ

Many of the quotations from the Rāmāyaṇa in medieval digests are not found in the current editions of the epic, e.g. the Dānasāgara of Ballālasena, king of Bengal (composed in śake 1091 i.e. 1169-70 A.D.) quotes four verses from the Rāmāyaṇa of which only one is found in the Yuddhakaṇḍa (18.30), acc. to Mr. Bhabtosh Bhattacharya in his paper on ‘The Rāmāyaṇa 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 Rāmāyaṇa in seven digests (from Dānasāgara and others) which can be identified (pp. 53-55) and another list on pp. 55-56, where verses quoted as from Rāmāyaṇa in the same works cannot be identifieḍ In another paper on the Rāmāyaṇa and its influence upon the medieval digests of Eastern India Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya shows that the early medieval works like the Haralatā of Aniruddha and the three Ratnākaras of Cāṇḍeśvara on Kṛtya, Gṛhastha and Vivāda, quote the Rāmāyaṇa sparingly, e. g. Aniruddha quotes only five verses and the Ratnākaras quote only four verses and that it is only the later medieval works such as the three out of the four Kaumudis of Govindānanda that quote fourteen verses from the Rāmāyaṇa, most of which are found in all recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Rājadharmakaustubha of Anantadeva quotes in all 39 verses from the Rāmāyaṇa but many of these verses do not tally exactly with the three recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa.

It should be noted that the Uttarakānḍa shows no diffe-rence worth mentioning. Therefore, it may be assumed that that kānḍa is not only the work of later interpolators, but it must have been composed after the original poem was bifurcated into the Southern recension and Northern recensioṇ The Mahābhārata narrates the Rāma story in Vanaparva ( chap. 273-292 ) in about 750 verseṣ It may be noticed that some of the incidents mentioned in the Uttarakānḍa occur in the Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa. For example, Rāma'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 Sītā 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 Sītā, whom Rāvana had placed on his lap when carrying her away and had imprisoned in the Aśokavanikā and that the subjects remarked that they would have to endure, if similar incidents happened in the case of their wiveṣ⁶⁴ In the Raghuvamśa (14.31) also the spy is called Bhadra. It is clear that Kālidāsa knew the Uttarakāṇḍa. The Raghuvamśa closely follows the Uttarakāṇḍa. A few incidents may be set out. Raghu° 15. 81-84 may be compared with Uttarakāṇḍa 97. 15-17. Compare also Raghu. 15.87-90 with Uttarakāṇḍa chap. 100, Raghu 15. 89-90 with Uttara° chap. 101-102, Raghu. 15. 92-95 with Uttara° 15. 97-98 with Uttara° 107. Kālidāsa in Raghu (14.70) echoes the very words of the Rāmāyaṇa (Bālakāṇḍa⁶⁵ 2. 18 and 40 ).

It should be noted that at the end of the Yuddhakaṇḍa there is a long phalasrutī about the fruits of reading it and there is another at the end of the Uttarakāṇḍa also.⁶⁶ Besides, the first canto of the Bālakāṇḍa gives a synopsis of the whole of the Rāmāyaṇa up to Rāma's becoming a king after return- ing from his victory over Rāvaṇa, in which there is no reference to the subject matter of the Bālakāṇḍa or of the Uttarakāṇḍa. Then, again, in the 3rd chap. of the Bālakāṇḍa there is a summary of events from Rāma's birth up to his abandonment of Sītā. It follows that even at the time of this second table of contents the Uttarakāṇḍa had not come up to its present forṃ Dr. Bulcke is not right when he says (on p. 41 of his paper in Poona Orientalist Vol. XXV ) that Lakṣ- maṇa was unmarried as Rāma says in Araṇya-kāṇḍa (18.3). The learned writer forgets that Rāma was making fun of Sūrpaṇakhā who wanted Rāma to marry her and therefore he (Rāma who had Sītā with him ) jocosely said that Lakṣmaṇa (unaccompanied by a woman) was unmarried and that she might approach hiṃ But this was all spoken in fun, as is made clear by the word ‘parihāsāvicakṣaṇā’ applied to Sūr- paṇakhā ( not clever enough to understand the ridicule and the joke ). Bālakāṇḍa, chap. 73 verses 30-33 specify the names of the wives of Rāma and his brothers and Ayodhyā chap. 118.53 expressly says that Urmilā was married to Lakṣmaṇa. The Rāma story is frequently alluded to in the extant Mahābhārata. The story of the golden deer⁶⁷ ( Mārica ) whose beautiful skin Sitā longed to have ( Araṇyakāṇḍa. chap. 43–44 ) is referred to in the Sabhāparva 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 yearṣ This verse occurs in the Rāmāyaṇa also ( Yuddha 131.106 ). The Droṇaparva ( chap. 59 ) describes the excellence of Rāmarājya. The Droṇaparva ( 196. 36 ) compares the death of Droṇa to the death of Vāliṇ A large volume would have to be written if one were to deal with all questions relating to the two epicṣ I hold that there is no doubt that there existed a Bhārata Epic before there was a Rāmāyaṇa ( Vide ‘the Great Epic of India’ by Hopkins, as he says on p. 61 ). Jacobi’s German work on the Rāmāyaṇa has been translated into English by Dr. Ghoshal piecemeal in the Volumes of the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, in vol. V onwardṣ

In the Śalyaparva ( 39.9–10 ) reference is made to the cutting of the head of a rākṣasa by Rāma in Janasthāna. In the Śāntiparva⁶⁸ is mentioned the story of the return to life of a brāhmaṇa boy ( who had died prematurely ) when Rāma killed Śambūka, a śūdra practising penance. The Śāntiparva speaks of the death of Rāvaṇa at the hands of Rāma who was angered by Rāvaṇa.⁶⁹ The Droṇaparva compares the fight of Ghaṭotkaca and Alāyudha with the fight of Rāma and Rāvaṇa ( 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. Another question much discussed by some Western scholars is the relation of the Rāmāyaṇa to the Dasaratha- jātaka. Reasons of space prevent any detailed discussioṇ The Dasarathajātaka (No. 461 in Fausböll's edition, vol. IV) is a travesty of the Rāma story. In it Sītā is a sister of Rāma, Dasaratha is a king of Benares (and not of Ayodhyā) 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 form a later part of the Pali literature. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist India’ furnishes a chronological table of Buddhist litera- ture from Buddha’s times to Aśoka 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 timeṣ They are meant to glorify Buddha in his supposed previous existences and, while using well-known names, try (probably purposely) to make these names (except that of the Bodhisattva) ridiculouṣ For example, the Kaniha 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 hiṃ The Jātakas generally contain some Gāthās and some prose passageṣ In a number of Jātakas the prose parts are in conflict with the gāthās or have nothing to do with theṃ The prose parts in their present form belong to 5th cent. A. D. and arose in Ceyloṇ Jacobi (Das Rāmā- yaṇa 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 Dasaratha- jātaka present an older form of the Rāma story? (2) Is the Dasaratha Jātaka really older than the Rāmāyaṇa? 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 JBBRAS (New Series vol. 4 pp. 115–134). In most of the Jātakas also the stories as told in the Epic differ greatly from the stories labelled under the same name in theṃ In the Daśarathajātaka (No. 461, p. 127) occurs a gāthā (‘phalānam iva pakkānaṁ niccaṁ papatanā bhayam | evaṁ jātānaṁ maccānaṁ niccaṁ maraṇato bhayam’ ), which occurs in Gorrecio’s edition (vol. II p. 42, verse 4) and is quoted below⁷⁰ ( 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 Rāmāyaṇa occur references to the legends that occur in the Mahābhārata. For example, the story of Sāvitrī (daughter of Aśvapati, king of the Madras, and wife of Satyavān, 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 Ayodhyakāṇḍa, where⁷¹ Rāma first expressed his unwilling- ness to allow Sītā to accompany him in his forest exile. It should be noted that the verse speaks of Sāvitrī’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- darakāṇḍa 24.11. In the Sundarakāṇḍa (chap. 24 10-12) six pativratas are named among whom Damayantī is the last.⁷² The story of Nala, king of Niṣadha, and his devoted wife Damayantī is one of the longest ākhyānas in the Mahābhā- 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 Śaryāti, had to marry the sage blinded by her through mistake. She stuck to the old and blinded Cyavana, although the Aśvins sought her hanḍ It should be noticed that most of these stories occur in the Mahābhārata and some (like those of Sāvitrī, Damayantī and Sukanyā) at great length, while the Rāmāyaṇa employs them only for comparison and does not set them out at length. Sagara is referred to in the Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā 36.16 about Asamañja). But no reference is made to his wiveṣ In Vanaparva (chap. 106-7) it is stated that Sagara was a descendant of Ikṣvāku, had two wives, Vaidarbhī and Śaibyā, had from Śaibyā one son called Asamañja whom he banished because he indulged in the pastime of drowning the children of the subjects (Śānti, chap. 57.8-9) and Sagara had sixty thousand sons from Vaidarbhī 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 Uttaṅka, a devoted pupil of Gautama, is narrated at length in Āśvamedhikaparva chap. 55-58 and in Vanaparva chap. 132-33. He married the daughter of Gau- tama and requested Ahalya, Gautama's wife, to accept some present as Gurudakṣiṇā (fee ). When Uttaṅka pressed her to accept something, she asked him to bring the jewelled ear- rings of the wife of king Saudāsa–a man-eater (56.31 ). He went to Saudāsa and begged for the ear-rings of his wife Madayantī. 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 discussioṇ One bandin (i. e. sūta at his court ) used to argue with learned men, defeated them and plunged them in water. Uddālaka had a pupil Kahoḍa, who married the daughter of his guru. She conceived and the child in the womb rebuked his father when he committed mistakes in repeating Veda. The father cursed the foetus that he would be defective in eight limbṣ Aṣṭāvakra defeated bandin and those who had been thrown into water (including Kahoḍa who had been defeated by Bandin) were revived by Varuṇa and then Kahoḍa recited a verse set out in the note below.⁷³ Yayāti is frequently mentioned for comparison or illustration as in Ayodhyā 5. 10 ( same words in Kiṣkindhā 17. 9, viz. ‘ yayātim-iva puṇyānte devalokād-iha cyutam’, also Araṇya° 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 Sundarkāṇḍa is regarded by scholars as part of the original epic. Therefore, it is probable that the part of Sundarkāṇḍa 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 parvans (Vanaparva and Aśvamedhika) which are held by several scholars to be later than earlier parvans of the great Epic. Nalakūbara is said to have cursed Rāvaṇa when the latter ravished apsaras Rambhā ( Vanaparva 280.59–60, Uttarakāṇḍa 26. 15 and 41 ff ) who had an assignment with Nalakūbara, son of Vaiśravaṇa, brother of Rāvaṇa; on hearing about this he cursed Rāvaṇa that his head would be shattered in seven pieces if he dared to ravish any womaṇ In the Yuddhakaṇḍa ( 122. 16 ) it is stated that Daśaratha ( who had died and had gone to heaven ) came in a heavenly car to meet Rāma after his victory over Rāvaṇa and said ' You have saved me as the brāhmaṇa Kahola was saved by Aṣṭāvakra. ' The story of Aṣṭāvakra, son of Kahoda is narrated in Vanaparva chap. 132–4. King Nṛga while making gifts of cows to brāhmaṇas, by mistake donated the cow belonging to a brāhmaṇa which had strayed among the cows belonging to the king and when the brāhmaṇa 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 brāhmaṇas cursed him to be a chameleoṇ That story is referred to in Anuśāsana 6. 38, Aśvamedhika 90. 99–100 and Anuśāsana 70 ( at length ) and 72. 2. Taking the cue from the name Sītā ( the heroine of the Rāmāyaṇa ) several scholars have regarded the Rāmāyaṇa as an allegory, the word Sītā being employed twice in the Ṛgveda ( IV. 57. 6 and 7 ) and apostrophized as a goddesṣ⁷⁴ Three personages are known to our mythology as Rāma, viz. Jāmadagnya Rāma ( or Paraśurāma ), Balarāma ( brother of Kṛṣṇa ) and Dāśarathi Rāma. It is unnecessary for the history of Dharmaśāstra to deal with this question when the Rāmāyaṇa is admitted by all scholars as separated from the Ṛgveda by at least a thousand years or more.

It has been stated above that the core of the Rāmāyaṇa story may be only as old as 300-250 B. C. at the most. Aśvaghoṣa⁷⁵ in his Buddhacarita refers to Vālmiki as writing a poetical work when Cyavana (his ancestor) did not do so. Besides, the Raghuvaṁśa closely follows the Uttarakhanda as shown above. If we accept the date of Kālidāsa as between 350 to 450 A. D., then the Rāmāyaṇa 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 Kiṣkindhā-kāṇḍa two verses have been expressly quoted as recited by Manu which occur in the present Manu.⁷⁶ In Ayodhyā 107.11-13 two verses are stated to have been uttered by Gayā in Gayā with reference to pitṛṣ⁷⁷

The Rāmāyaṇa being mainly a Kāvya is not frequently or profusely quoted by works on Dharmaśāstra, particularly by comparatively earlier oneṣ Among the early commentators, Medhātithi on Manu IV. 217 refers to the Rāmāyaṇa as prescribing Śrāddha on the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th days after the death of a persoṇ On Manu V. 7 Medhātithi quotes without naming the Rāmāyaṇa a half verse from it (yadannaḥ puruṣo rājan-tadannāstasya devatāh).⁷⁸ It may be noted that the Dhvanyāloka (a Kashmirian work on Poetics of the latter half of the 9th century A. D.) quotes a verse from the Araṇya-kāṇḍa (16. 13) as an example where the Vyāṅgya (suggested) sense pushes the literal sense (vācya) of the word (unītha in that verse) very much in the background (atyanta-tiraskṛta-vācya).⁷⁹ 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 Rāmāyaṇa only twice.⁸⁰ On Yāj. I. 211 Aparārka quotes a verse saying of one who being able to save a śaraṇāgata allows him to die in his presence all merit (sukṛta i.e. puṇya) is taken away by the one who is not saved). On offering water to one's deceased relations Aparārka (on Yāj. III. 5) quotes a verse from Ayodhyākāṇḍa (102–27). The Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 57) quotes Sundara-kāṇḍa 59, 35–36 about cessation of study on the first tithi of a month (pratipat-pāṭhaśīlasya vidyeva tanutām gatā). The Kṛtyakalpataru (on vrata, brahmacārī, tīrtha and naiyatakāla has no verses from Rāmāyaṇa though Naiyata-kālika 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 ‘gṛhastha’ quotes only two verses from Rāmāyaṇa, but it mentions the Mahābhārata. twenty times, one citation on pp 281-285 quoting 20 verses from Anuśāsana (11. 6–21 ) on where Śrī resideṣ The Dānaśāgara composed by king Ballālasena in śaka 1091 (1169–70 A.D.) quotes the Mahābhārata over 200 times, but quotes from the Rāmāyaṇa only four verseṣ⁸¹

In the Rājanītiratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara (eḍ by K. P. Jayaswal ), verses about the right of the eldest son to succeed to his father are supported by quotations from the Rāmāyaṇa.⁸²

Indian culture penetrated to Borneo, Java, Bali and other Indonesian islandṣ In the Rāmāyaṇa, Sugrīva is said to have sent his followers in search of Sītā in the four quarterṣ He directs them to the countries in the East and names Yavadvīpa (Java ) as one of them (in Kiṣkindhā 40. 29–30 ).⁸³ 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 Kṛsnaswamy 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 'Pictorial History of civilization in Java ; 'History of Śrīvijaya' 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 a Moslem country for five centurieṣ Tantric doctrines also prevailed in Java and Sumatra. The Rāmāyaṇa exists in Bali in the Kavi language. There exist several recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa in Java, both in verse and prose.

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 Rāmāyaṇa and the Purāṇa he ( the Brahman Somaśarman ) gave the complete Mahābhārata 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 ‘Śrīvijaya’ by Prof. Nilakanta Sastri p. 11 ).

Two interesting chapters in the two epics are known as ‘Kaccit-praśna’ chapterṣ They are Sabhā-parva chap. 5 verses 17–110 and 114–125 ( in all 106 verses ) where the sage Nārada asks Yudhiṣṭhira 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 Ayodhyākāṇḍa chap.100 verses 76 ( of which the first five are introductory in which Rāma, who was staying on Citrakūṭa along with Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa ), inquires of Bharata about the Government of Ayodhyā after Rāma left.⁸⁴ In verses 6–10 Rāma asks Bharata about Daśaratha, about the Upādhyāya ( Vasiṣṭha ) of the family and about his mother and step-mother ; so in the Rāmāyaṇa 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 dealt with much more elaborately ( in 106 verses ). One in- teresting feature of these two chapters is that they contain about twenty-nine identical verseṣ Sometimes the Rāmā- yaṇa text is corrupt. Very slight differences of readings are not noted here but only substantial oneṣ

The word ‘ Kaccit ’ is employed when the person asking the question desires to receive a favourable reply, as the Amarakośa says ‘ Kaccit kāmapravedane ’. The Rāmāyaṇa employs this word in other passages also as in Bālakāṇḍa 52. 7–9. The Gītā also employs it in chap. 18. 72 ( Śrīkṛṣṇa asks ‘ Kaccid-ajñāna-sammohaḥ praṇaṣṭaste Dhanañjaya ’ and the reply is 18. 73 ‘ naṣṭo mohaḥ, &c ’ as Kṛṣṇa desireḍ ( A = Ayodhyākāṇḍa and S = Sabhāparva ) From this analysis it follows that out of 66 verses in which the word kacvit occurs in the Rāmāyaṇa 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 kacvit chapter is supposed to have been addressed by him to Bharata, Rāma did not know that king Daśaratha was deaḍ It is after this chapter that Bharata tells Rāma ( in chap. 101. 5-6 ) that after Rāma 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 dūta. All these high functionaries had been appointed by Daśaratha himself. On the other hand, in the case of Yudhiṣṭhira, who was the eldest among the sons of Pāṇḍu and who performed the Rājasūya also ( also as described in Sabhā 33 ff ), those questions were appropriate. I think the chapter ( 100 ) of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa is based on chap. 5 of the Sabhāparva and about 29 verses were almost bodily taken from the Sabhāparva into the Ayodhyākāṇḍa.

The Rāmāyaṇa is a Kāvya, yet, on account of the noble ideals that it sets up in the chief characters, it was very H. D—51 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 Bhattācārya’s paper on ‘Rāmāyaṇa and its influence on medieval digests of East India’ in Gode coṃ volume pp. 19-26. The following table will give some idea of the different topics of Dharmaśāstra dwelt upon by the Rāmāyaṇa. The references are to the Madras one volume edition referred to above ( p. 399 ṇ 441 ).

Abhiseka-Ayodhyā 15, Yuddha 131. Arājaka-Ayodhyā 67. Pātakas (sins) – Kişkindhā 17–18. rājadharma–Bālakāṇḍa 7, Ayodhyā 100, Araṇya 6, 9, 33, 40–41, Yuddha 17, 18, 63. Śrāddha–Ayodhyā 76, 103. Satyapraśaṁsā–Ayodhyā 109. Stridharma–Ayodhyā 24–27, 29, 39, 117–118.

It must be stated that whole cantos are unauthorizedly added in some cases in the Rāmāyaṇa e.g. in the Uttarakāṇḍa after chap. 23 five sargas ( containing 296 verses ) are addeḍ 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 unauthorized verses added in the Rāmāyaṇa 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 Bālakāṇḍa ( chap. 2, verses 3–31 ), that Vālmīki, on seeing the Krauñca 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 metre, cannot be admitted as tenable. The Rāmāyaṇa as a Kāvya cannot be claimed on the available evidence as earlier than 300–200 B. C. Quotations in the Mahābhāsya lead to the conclusion that, centuries before Patañjali, works in the Śloka metre had been composeḍ A few examples quoted below will bear out thiṣ¹⁰⁴

Verses in the Sundarakāṇḍa¹⁰⁵ are of great significance on the date of the Rāmāyaṇa. Hanūmān is said to have pondered over the question whether he should address Sītā in Sanskrit ( brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas ) 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 classeṣ But a century or two before and after the Christian era great differences had arisen between the two as indicated by Inscriptions and literary workṣ

I cannot close this brief section on the Rāmāyaṇa without mentioning a work of outstanding merit viz. ‘ Thirty lectures on the Rāmāyaṇa’ by ths late Right Honourable V. S. Srinivasa Sastri ( published by the Madras Sanskrit Academy in 1949 ). He does not deal with the Rāmāyaṇa in the spirit of a critical scholar. Questions of the date of the Rāmāyaṇa, the authorship of it, of the indebtedness of Valmiki to others and of the authenticity of the present text are left out by hiṃ 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 Rāmāyaṇa. In his exposition he is at his best when he deals with the attack by Rāma against Valin from behind trees and the incident of harsh words Rāma used when he abandoned Sītā after killing Rāvana ( Yuddhakaṇḍa, 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 phaseṣ What he ( Rāma ) thought was his highest Dharma, that he fulfilled and to that end there was nothing that he would not sacrifice ’. It may be pointed out that the Padma- purāṇa ( Ānandāśram eḍ IV. 66. 28-29 )¹⁰⁶ proclaims in two verses the virtues that the Rāmāyaṇa emphasizes by delineat- ing some paragons of virtue such as Rāma, Sītā, Bharata, Laksmana and Hanūmāṇ

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

The Gujarati Press edition of the Rāmāyaṇa ( in seven parts, 1912-20 ) contains three commentarieṣ A brief statement on these may be made here. Of the three the earliest seems to be the one called Bhūṣaṇa composed by Govindarajan of Kauśikagotra. 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 Bālakāṇda ), but sometimes it is the briefest of the three commentaries ( as on I. 75. 4, I. 76. 15 ). At the end of the Bālakāṇḍa he states that he had acquired fame by his proficiency in the Vedas, Śāstras and learned discussions and he had a keen intellect in Sanskrit poems, Alaṅkāra ( Poetics ) and the dramatic art. This writer confers different names on his own commentaries on the different kāṇḍas viz. Maṇimañjīra, Pītāmbara, Ratnamekhalā, Muktāhāra, Śṛṅgāra- tilaka, Ratnakirīṭa, Maṇimukuṭa. It appears that Śaṭakopa of Vatsa-gotra was his guru and he was the son of Varada ( last verse in coṃ on Yuddhakaṇḍa ). At the end of his commentary on Sundarakāṇḍa, he states that he looked into several commentaries of former ācāryaṣ

As he quotes the Kāvyaprakāśa, the Alaṅkārasarvasva and the Vṛtta-ratnākara 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 ‘ Rāmāyaṇasiromaṇi ’. The author’s name is not clearly stated in the beginning, though at the end of the 7th kāṇḍa the concluding verse clearly says ‘ Śivasahāya-nirmtireṣā’. So this commentary was written by Śiva-sahāya and he composed the commentary on the banks of the Triveṇī ( Ganges at Allahabad ) with the help of a rich patron called Vaṁśīdhara, son of Sītārāma, son of Todirama. This commentary also is learned and very extensive on some verseṣ From the last verse ( 8 ) it appears that the commentary was completed in Saṁvat 1921, Āśvina- śukla 10 ( i. e. 1864 A. D. ). Thus it is a very modern commentary. The third commentary is called Tilaka.¹⁰⁷ The concluding verses¹⁰⁸ of the commentary indicate that the commentary was written by Śrī Nāgeśa under the patronage of Rāmavarmaṇ The idea of those two verses appears to be that the import of the Rāmāyaṇa was made clearer by the clearing cloth in the form of the intellect of Rāmavarmaṇ What part other than that of a patron ( who employed an eminent scholar like Nāgeśabhaṭṭa ) Rāmavarman played is not quite clear. The opening verses of the commentary on the Bālakāṇḍa 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 Nāgojibhaṭṭa ) flourished between 1670–1750 A. D.

Vide Prof. P. P. S. Sastri's paper on ‘The commentators of the Rāmāyaṇa 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 Rāmāyaṇa mostly from South India, as the Vaiṣṇavas in South India looked upon the Rāmāyaṇa as the most sacred work on Viṣṇu wor- ship.

In the Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya of Ānandatīrtha ( Śrī Madhvācārya, 13th century A. D. ), seven chapters ( III-IX ) are devoted to the Rāmāyaṇa story. In the first chapter he sets out the authoritieṣ In I. 30⁴⁴⁷ he refers to the four Vedas viz. Ṛgveda and others, the Pañcarātra system, the Bhārata, the Mūla-Rāmāyaṇa, and the Brahmāsūtra. these are regarded as self-sufficient authoritieṣ What does he mean by Mūla-Rāmāyaṇa ? It means nothing else than the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki. In Sanskrit and the popular langua- ges of India there are numerous works having the Rāmāyaṇa as part of their nameṣ At the end of chap. IX (verses 125–7)¹¹¹ the great Ācārya 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 Pañcarātra, from the Bhārata, the Vedas and the great Rāmāyaṇa. So here the word Mahārāmāyaṇa is used in the same sense as Mūla-Rāmāyaṇa, since in both places (I–30) and (IX. 125–127 ) it is the sources of the Rāma saga that are spoken of.

Mr. S. N. Tadpatrikar (in ABORI vol. V. pp. 61–68) refers to the word ‘Mūlarāmāyaṇa’ and starts a new theory that the Mūlarāmāyaṇa mentioned in I. 30 by Madhvācārya is different from the Mahārāmāyaṇa mentioned by the Ācārya 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 Ācārya in the 13th century.

The Rāmāyaṇa, being a Kāvya and an Ākhyāna (as stated in Dānasāgara, Introductory verse, 15, p. 3), it is sparingly quoted in Dharmaśāstra workṣ Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper on ‘The Rāmāyaṇa and its influence on Ballālasena and Raghunandana’¹¹² published in J. O. I. (Baroda), vol II, pp. 18–22 points out that only one out of the four verses quoted from the Rāmāyaṇa in the Dānasāgara could be traced in the Yuddhakaṇḍa (chap. 18. 30 ‘vinaṣṭaḥ ... rakṣitaḥ’) in the Gujarati Press edition and that none of the four verses could be found in the Bengali editionṣ In another paper ‘on the Rāmāyaṇa and its influence 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 Rāmāyaṇa in the Hāralatā, the three Ratnākaras of Cāṇḍeśvara (on Kṛtya, Gṛhastha, and Vivāda), Kaumudis of Govindānanda (on Dāna, Śrāddha), and the Rājadharma-kaustubha of Anantadeva. The Kalpa-taru on Mokṣa (pp. 25–26) quotes some verses from the Rāṃ Araṇyakāṇḍa (chap. 6.2 ff') with different readingṣ 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 Rāmāyaṇa. Jacobi’s German work on the Rāmāyaṇa 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 Rāmāyaṇa 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 Brahma°, chap. 123 and 154, Padmapurāṇa ( several times in Pātālakhaṇḍa and Uttarakaṇḍa ), 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 Rāmāyaṇa.

अर्थशास्त्रमिदं प्रोक्तं धर्मशास्त्रमिदं महत् । कामशास्त्रमिदं प्रोक्तं व्यासेनामित- बुद्धिना ।। आदि 2.83 and 62.23; आचक्ष्यः कवयः केचित्संप्रत्याचक्षते परे । आख्यास्यन्ति तथैवान्ये इतिहासमिमं भुवि ।। आदि 1.26; धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च मोक्षे च भरतर्षभ । यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यन्नेहास्ति न कुत्रचित् ।। स्वर्गो० ; मन्वादि भारतं केचिदास्तीकादि तथापरे । तथोपरिचरायने विप्राः सम्यगाधीयते ।। आदि 1.52. ↩
a passage here stands at आदिपर्व P01_U02_A002.383 →
महद्वाद्भारतत्वाच्च महाभारतमुच्यते । निरुक्तमस्य यो वेद सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ।। अष्टादश पुराणानि धर्मशास्त्राणि सर्वशः । वेदाः साङ्गास्तथैकेन भारतं चैकतः स्थितम् ।। स्वर्गारोहण० 5. 45-46; the words महत्वा .... मुच्यते occur in आदि also (1. 274). ↩
a passage here stands at आदिपर्व P01_U01_A001.274 →
अष्टौ लोकसहस्राणि अष्टौ लोकशतानि च । अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति वा न वा ।। इदं शतसहस्रं तु श्लोकानां पृथक्कर्मणाम् । उपाख्यानैः सह ज्ञेयमार्षं भारतमुत्तमम् ।। चतुर्विंशतिसाहस्रं चक्रे भारतसंहिताम् ।। उपाख्यानैर्विना तावद्भारतं प्रोच्यते बुधैः ।। आदि 1. 81, 102-103. ↩
These 8800 verses are known as kūṭa ( riddles ). But the number 8800 is extremely exaggerateḍ If the figure were correct, it would mean that in the Mahābhārata one verse in twelve verses is a riddle. Vaidya in his work 'Mahābhārata, a criticism' gives 27 ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) examples of Kūta verses in Appendix, Note III pp. 190–193. One of these may be quoted here from the Udyogaparva : 'ekayā dve vini- ścitya trin caturbhir vaśam kuru | pañca jitvā sa-viditvā sapta hitvā sukhi bhava ।। उद्योगापर्व 33. 41. Most of these seven have two meanings, one relating to Rājaniti, the other relating to 'adhyātma', briefly as follows: ekayā. buddhyā (by one's intellect); 'dve' means kārya (what should be done) and 'akārya' (in Rājaniti) and 'nitya' (permanent) and 'anitya' (evanescent) (in adhyātma); trin (three) viz. mitra (friend), udāsīna (neutral), śatru (enemy); or 'Kāma' (desires), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed); caturbhih (four) viz. sāma, dāma, bheda and daṇḍa (in Rājaniti) and sama, dama, uparama, śrāddha (in adhyātma); pañca (the five organs of sense, in both rājaniti and adhyātma); ṣaḍ (six) viz. sandhi and others enumerated in Manu VII. 160 and in Vedānta 'aśanāyā, pipāsā, śoka, moha, jarā, mṛtyu'; sapta (seven) viz. vyasana-women, gambling, hunting, drinking, vākpāruṣya, daṇḍapāruṣya and arthaḍūṣaṇa (in Rāja°) and the five senses plus mind and buddhi in adhyātma. For the last, compare Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad VI. 30 ( Yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha । Buddhiśca na viceṣṭate tamāhuḥ paramām gatim ।। ). ↩
वदन् वयायामास महाभारतपञ्चमान् । सुमन्तुं जैमिनिं पैलं शुकं चैव स्वमात्मजम् । प्रभुर्वरो वैशम्पायनमेव च ।। संहितस्तेः पृथक्त्वेन भारतस्य प्रकाशिताः । आदि 63. 89-90. ↩
a passage here stands at आदिपर्व P01_U06_A063.89 →
The यज्ञगाथा is: आसन्दीवति धान्यादं हरिमर्ण हरितसृजम् । अश्वं बबन्ध सारङ्गं देवेभ्यो जनमेजयः ॥ ऐ. ब्रा VIII. 7. ↩
सुमन्तु–जैमिनि–वैशम्पायन–पैल–सूत्र–भाष्य –भारत–महाभारत – धर्माचार्याः (तृत्यन्तु) । आश्व. गृ. सू. III. 4. 4. The शाङ्खायनगृत्य omits भारत-महाभारतधर्माचार्याः and adds after the word भाष्य ‘ गार्ग्यै–बभ्रु – बाभ्रव्य–मण्डमाण्डव्याः, गार्गी वाचकनवी ’ &c. eḍ by Dr. S. Sehgal (1960)’ Since completeḍ . ↩
H. D.—45 . ↩
महाभारते वाच्यमाने श्रुतं पुत्राज्मो नरकात्त्रातय इति पुत्र इति। कादम्बरी, p. 61 para 14. This is आदि 74. 39, आदिparva 229. 14, and also मनु IX. 138, विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15. 41; अविच्छिन्नपठ्यमाननानारायणनामसहस्रम् । कादं. p. 71 para 64. नारायणनामसहस्र occurs in अनुशासन chap. 149. 14–120; 'महा- भारताम्मिन्दनन्तगीतार्कीर्णानां नन्दितनरम्'. There is double entendre here. Nara means Arjuna and also 'man' and अनन्तगीता means the famous book in the Epic (Bhīṣmaparva) and अनन्तगीत would mean 'man songs'. ↩
In ‘The Indo-Greeks’ (Oxford, 1957) Dr. A. K. Narain provides a plate (VI), at the end of which he sets out the Heliodorus Inscrip-tion on the Besnagar Pillar in nine lines as follows (in Brāhmi characters): १ (दे )वेदवस वा ( सुदे )वस गरुडध्वजे अयं २ कारिते इ ( अ ) हेलिओडोरेण भाग- ३ वतेन दियपुत्रेन तकससिलकिन ४ अंतालिखितस उपं ता सकारां रञो ५ (को )सिपु (त्र ) स ( भा ) गभद्रस त्रातास्र ७ वसेन च ( तु ) दसेन रजिन वधमानस ८ त्रिनि अमृतपदानि इअ ( सु ) अनुटित्तानि ९ नेयंति ( स्वर्ग ) दम चाग अप्रमाद. ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) Vido also JRAS 1999 pp. 1053-6 and 1087–92 and JBBRAS vol. 23 pp. 164-166 for prior attempts at reading this very important inscriptioṇ दमस्त्यागोऽदमार्द्रश्च पुर्व्वेषुतमाहितम् । तानि सत्यमुबान्याहु- र्ब्राह्मणा ये मनीषिणः ॥ उद्योगपर्व्व 43·22 ; दमस्त्यागोऽप्रमादश्च ते त्रयो ब्राह्मणे हया: । क्षीरसर्वे 7. 23. Besnagar is about two miles to the north-west of Bhilsa in the Gwalior State. ↩
(1) स्मरन्ति च। वे. सू. II. 3.47; शंकराचार्य remarks : स्मरन्ति च व्यासादयो यथा जैवेन दुःखेन न परमात्मा दु:खायत इति । तत्र य: परमात्मा...स सतरकेनापि राशिना गुप्यते पुनः ॥ These verses are Santi ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
14–16; no other smṛti passages are quoted by him on this sūtra and also on the next sūtra quoted here. (2) अपि च संराधनै प्रत्यक्ष- नुमानाभ्याम् । वे. सू. III. 2.24; शंकराचार्य explains ‘ प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम् श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामियर्थ:’ and quotes a verse and a half; the first occurs in śānti 47. 54 and also in 284. 69; (3) स्मर्यते च । वे. सू. IV. 2. 14 शंकराचार्य explains: स्मर्यतेनेपि च महाभारते गन्युकान्तीरभावः-सर्वभूतात्म- भूतस्य सम्यग्भूतानि पश्यतः । देवा अपि मार्ग मुहान्यपदस्य पदेक्षिणः ॥ इति... तथा च त तंत्रैवोवपसंग्रहम । शुक्कस्तु मारुच्छीर्घो गति कृत्वांतरिक्षगः । दर्शयित्वा प्रभावं स्वं सर्वभूतगतोऽभवत् ॥ इति । The verses are Śānti- parva 262. 32 ( and also 269. 22 and 333. 19–20 ). ↩
न ते वाग्गणता का०ये काचिदत्र भविष्यति । तस्य बुद्धिरियं जाता वाल्मीकि- भार्वितात्मनः । कृत्स्नं रामायणं काव्यमीदृशैः करुणाण्वहम्...समाश्लेरैः श्लोक- शतैर्यशस्विनो यत्स्कंर काव्यमुदारधीमुनिः ॥ बालकाण्ड 2. 35, 41; आदिकाव्य- मिदं त्वार्य पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम् । युद्धकाण्ड 131. 107; कविः कुशलवाचेव चकार किल नामतः । ... स्वकृतिं गाययामास कविप्रथमपद्धतिम् । कवेश्चयस्य शासनान् । रघुवंश 15. 32, 33, 41. ↩
The coṃ on Vanaparva 129. 8 says अनुवंशं परम्परागतमाख्यानश्लोकवद्. ↩
Two ślokas are interesting: अत्रानुवंशश्लोकौ भवतः । ब्रह्मा माता पितुः पुत्रो येन जातः स एव सः ॥ भरस्व पुत्रं दुष्यन्तं मावमंस्थाः शकुन्तलाम् ॥ रेतोधाः पुत्र उन्नयति नरदेव यमक्षयात् । त्वं चास्य धाता गर्भस्य सत्ममाह शकुन्तला ॥ आदिपर्व 95. 30-31. Vide Udyogaparva 33. 103 अत्रैवोदाहरन्तीमिमितिहासं पुरातनम् । पुराणमेसुरन्द्रेण गीतं चैव सुधन्वना ॥; then twenty verses follow; समितिहासः पुराणं च गाथाश्च नाराशंसीथ्यनुचलनम् । अथर्ववेद XV. 6. 11; अरे अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसमिमितिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः बृहदा. उप. II 4. 10, IV 1. 2. IV. 5. 11; The महाभाष्य on Pāṇ. IV. 2. 60 and Vārtika ‘आख्यानाख्यायिकैतिहासपुराणेभ्यश्च द्रव्यकव्यः’ explains एतिहासिक (इतिहासभवेति वर्ति वा इति एतिहासिकः ). ↩
a passage here stands at आदिपर्व P01_U07_A095.31 →
भक्तिः। वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् । पा. IV. 3. 95 and 98; भज्यते सेव्यते इति भक्तिः। सि. कौ. The Mahābhāṣya explains that Vāsudeva is not merely the name of a Kṣatriya but that it is a designation of the Divine. ↩
गवि-युधिभ्यां स्थिरः । पा. VIII. 3. 95 (examples गविष्ठिरः युधिष्ठिरः). The word ‘Bhakti’ in the sense of worship occurs in श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् VI. 23. The word भक्तिः relates back to सौस्य निवासः ( पा. IV. 3,89) and also reaches forwarḍ Therefore ‘bhakti’ in ‘Pāṇini’ has a wider sense than mere worship; it also means ‘resort’, ‘liking’ as in ‘Apupika’ (apūpā bhaktiḥ-asya ), the sense of object of worship is not excluded from the word ‘bhakti’ in Pāṇini, but that word is larger in meaning than ‘worship’ in Pāṇini. Therefore, in IV. 3. 95 ( Vāsudevārjunābhyām vun ) it is quite correct to take ‘Vāsudevaka’ as meaning worshipper of Vāsudeva, while Arjunaka may mean ‘one who has a liking for Arjuna or who worships Arjuna’. . ↩
Ādi. 2. 21. 29 shows that Akrūra was a Senāpati of the Vṛṣṇis and was called ‘dānapati’. Kṛṣṇa says in Śānti 81. 9–10 ‘ यस्य न स्फूर्णे वै स स्थाख्य स्थुः कृस्नमेव तत् । द्वाभ्यां निवारितो नित्यं गुणोभ्येकतरं न च ।। स्यातौ यस्यादुकाकूरौ किं नु दुःखतरं ततः । यस्यापि च न तौ स्यातां किं नु दुःखतरं ततः ।।’ The coṃ makes this clear: द्वयोर्भे- हिप्योरिव युध्यतोर्णे रण मध्यस्थस्य मम महद्दुःखं तयोः सुहृदोस्त्वगोपि इत्लाह स्यातामिति. Verse 11 is apt : सोहं कितमतवे द्वयोरपि महा- मते । एकस्य जयमाशांसे द्वितीयस्यपराजायम्. ↩
असंभवे हेमसम्मय जन्तोऽस्तथापि रामो लुब्धे मृगाय ॥ सभा. 76. 5; श्रूयते शम्बुके शूद्र हते बाह्मणदारकः | जीवंतो धर्ममासाद्य रामात्सल्यपराक्रमात् ॥ शान्ति 153. 67; पुरा वै दण्डकारण्ये रावणेन महात्मना । ... जनस्थाने शिर- च्छिन्नं राक्षसस्य दुरात्मनः ॥ शल्य 39. 9-10. II. D.—46 ↩
स्थूला मी शिपिविष्टेति यास्क ऋषिददारधीः । मत्प्रसादादाघो नहि निरुक्तमभि- जमान् ॥ शान्ति 342-73. ↩
श्लोको चैशासनां गीतौ पुरा तान महीषिणा । ... उद्यश्व शस्त्रमायान्तमेपि वेदान्तरणं रेण । निगृण्हीणायस्वधर्मेण धर्मर्धिक्षी नराधिपः । ... न तेन धर्महा स स्यान्मन्युस्युस्तं मन्युमुच्छति ।। शान्ति 56. 28-30. Compare मनुस्मृति 8. 348-351 (where in verse 351 we have the words मन्युस्युं मन्यु- मुच्छति ‘. ↩
सत्यं दमस्तपो दानमहिंसा धर्मनिलयाः। सायंकानि सदा पुसां न जातिर्न कुलं नृप ।। वनपर्व 181. 42-43 ; न विशेषोऽस्ति वर्णानां सर्वे ब्राह्ममिदं जगत्। ब्रह्मणा पूर्वसृष्टं हि कर्मभिर्वर्जनां गतम् ।। शान्ति० 188. 10; सत्यं दानसथाद्रोद् आनृशंस्यं ऋषा तृणा। तपश्च दृश्यते यत्र स ब्राह्मण इति स्मृतः। ... शूद्रं चैतद्द्वलक्ष्मं ( क्षमं ? ) द्विजै तथ न दृश्यते। न वै शूद्रो भवेच्छूद्रो ब्राह्मणो न च ब्राह्मणः ।। शान्ति 189. 4 and 8; Compare Vanaparva 180. 21, 216. 14-15; उद्योगपर्व 42.49 ( य एवं सखाजापपैनि स ज्ञेयो ब्राह्मणस्स्वया ); अनुशासन 143. 48-49 ( कर्मभिः शुचिभिर्दैव शुद्धात्मा विजितेन्द्रियः । शूद्रोऽपि द्विजवत्सेव्य इति ब्रह्मा- ब्रवात्स्वयम् ।। ). ↩
a passage here stands at अनुशासनपर्व P13_U01_A143.48
एवमेव च नैनं च नोभयं न च । कर्मस्था विषयं व्युत्सुः सरस्स्थाः सम द्रिनिः । शान्ति 232. 21 ; ऊर्ध्वं देहान्तरस्थे नैनस्तरन्ति चापरे । केचिच्छशयन्ति सर्वं निःसंशयमथापरे ॥ आश्रमे० 49. 2. ↩
On Vārtika 6 on Pāṇ. III. 1.26 the examples are: कंसवधमाचष्टे कंसं घात- यति बलिबन्धनमाचष्टे बलिं बन्धयति. Then on Vārtika 15 on the same sūtra the Mahābhāṣya has ' इह तु कथं वर्तमानकालत्रा कंसं घातयति बलिं बन्धय- तीति चिरकृते कंसे चिरबध्दे च बळी |; then Patañjali justifies it in the words ' अत्रापि युक्ता ' etc. ↩
On Pāṇ. III. 3. 167 (Kielhorn vol. II. p. 167) we have the half verse काल: पचति भूतानि काल: संहरति प्रजा: ; this occurs in स्त्रीपर्व 2.24; on Pāṇ. V. 1.115 the Mahābhāṣya remarks ' सर्वे एते शब्दा गुणसमुदायेश्व वर्त्तन्ते ब्राह्मण: क्षत्रियो वैदय: शूद्र इति । अतश्च गुणसमुदाय एव स्यात् ' and quotes a verse; तप: श्रुतं च योनिष्च एतद् ब्राह्मण्यकारणम्। तप:श्रुताभ्यां यो हीनो जातिब्राह्मण एव सः॥'. The अनुशासनपर्व 121.7 has ' तप: श्रुतं च योनिष्चाऽत्र ब्राह्म‌ण्यकारणम्। त्रिभिर्गुणै: समुदितत्तो भवति वै द्विज:॥ ↩
किष्किन्धा is described as the capital (in Kiṣkindhā-kāṇḍa chap. 25.5) and also a cave (same chapter verse 10 and elsewhere). In modern days it is said to be a village on the north bank of the Tuṅgabhadra near Hampi in Bellary District (Madras State). Two verses on Vārtika 1 (उपाद्देवपूजासङ्गतकरणयोः) on Paṇ I. 3. 25 (उपात्मन्त्रकरणे) are (Kielhorn’s eḍ vol. I p. 281): बहुनामण्याचिता- नामेको भवति चित्तवान् । पश्य वानरसेन्थेऽस्मिन् यदद्भुतमिछति ॥ सेवं मत्वाः सचित्तोयेषोप हि यथा वयम् । एतदध्यक्ष्य काव्ये यदद्भुतमिछति ॥ These illustrate the rule that ‘Sthā’ with ‘upa’ takes Ātmanepada when it means ‘to worship’ but if there is no question of worship but there is an action natural to some one if it takes only Parasmai- pada. ↩
न हन्तव्या: स्त्रियश्चेति यद्व्रवीषि दृढव्रगम् । पीडाकरमित्राणां यश्च कर्ते- व्यमेव तत् ॥ युद्धकाण्ड 81. 29-30; Compare अवध्यां स्त्रियमित्याह धर्म- सार्थमनिश्चये । आदि 158. 31; अवध्या: स्त्रिय: सूक्ष्मा मन्यन्ते धर्मचारिण: । आदि 217. 4; vide also वनपर्व 206. 4*. ↩
आख्याते रामचरिते नृपति प्रति भारत ॥ राजानं प्रथमं विन्देत्ततो भार्यां ततो धनम् । राजन्यसनि लोकस्य कुतो भार्या कुतो धनम् ॥ शान्ति 57. 40-41; अयोध्याकाण्ड 67. 11 is 'अराजके धनं नास्ति नारित भार्याप्यराजके । इदमित्याहितं चान्यक्त: सत्यमराजके ॥ '; राज्येऽसति कुतो धर्मो धर्मोऽसति कुतः परम् । शान्ति० 320. 59. ↩
शुक्रो दैत्यगुरु: काव्य उशना भार्गव: कवि: । अमरकोश. ↩
भार्गवी नीतिशास्त्रं तु जगाद जगतो हितम् । शान्तिपर्व 210.20. एतत्ने राजधर्माणं नवनीतं युधिष्ठिर । बृहस्पतिर्हि भगवव्यान्यायं धर्मं प्रशंसति । विशाल्लाक्षश्च भगवाक्काव्यश्चैव महत्तपा: । . . . राजशास्त्रप्रणेत्तारो ब्रह्मण्या ब्रह्मवादिन: ॥ शान्ति० 58. 1-3. ↩
उशना च प्रसन्नाच्चिरनु त्वां भार्गवो गतः । युद्धकाण्ड 4. 49 ( 48 in some editions ). ↩
भ्राता मम गुणश्लाघ्यो बुद्धिसत्वबलाञ्चितः । रामायणेऽतिविख्यात: श्रीमान्वा- नरपुङ्गवः ॥ वनपर्व 147. 11. ↩
वेदे रामायणे पुण्ये भारते भरतर्षभ । आदौ चान्ते च मध्ये च हरिः सर्वत्र गीयते ॥ हरिवंश 132. 95 (भविष्यपर्व ). ↩
a passage here stands at हरिवंशः P19_U03_A132.95
सर्वं बलवतां पथ्यं सर्वं बलवतां शुचि । सर्वं बलवतां धर्मः सर्वं बलवतां स्वक्रम् ॥ आश्रमवासिक 30. 24. . ↩
a passage here stands at आश्रमवासिकपर्व P15_U02_A030.24
सूक्ष्मौ धर्मो महाराज नास्य विद्मो वयं गतिम् । पूर्वेषामानुपूर्वेण यातं वर्त्मानुयामहे ॥ न मे वागनुतं प्राह नाथर्मे धीयते मतिः । एवं चैव वदत्यम्बा मम चैतन्येनोगतम् । एष धर्मो ध्रुवो राजंश्चेरनवविचारयन् । आदि 195. 29-31. ↩
यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धस्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि । तथाहि यः शक्यतरः प्रजानां न नास्तिकेनाभिसुखो बुधः स्यात् । अयोध्या 109. 34. ↩
मितं ददाति हि पिता मितं भ्राता मितं सुतः। अमितस्य हि दातारं भत्तारं का न पूजयेत्॥ शान्ति 148. 6-7, अयो० 39. 30-31 (in this latter the Madras eḍ reads माता for भ्राता ). It is noteworthy that Mitākṣarā on Yaj. I. 86 refers to this Kapotikākhyāna, quotes verses 10 and 12 of Śānti 148 and remarks that in the guise of this story Vyāsa recommends ‘anvārohaṇa’ (burning oneself on the deceased husband’s funeral pyre) as most meritoriouṣ I am inclined to hold that it is the author of the Rāmāyaṇa that probably borrowṣ Rāma was only going to a forest (no question of dying arose) and so the words are not so appropriate in the Rāmāyaṇa as they are in the Mahābhārata. ↩
a passage here stands at काशीखण्डः 4.47
गुरोरप्यवलिप्तस्य कार्याकार्यमजानतः। उत्पथं प्रतिपन्नस्य दण्डो भवति शाश्वतः॥ शान्ति 57. 7; also in शान्ति 140. 48 (reads शासनम् for शाश्वतः ); उद्योगपर्व 178. 48 reads last pāda as परित्यागो विधीयते; कार्यं भवति शासनम्। अयो० 21. 13. ↩
a passage here stands at शान्तिपर्व P12_U02_A140.48the Smṛtimuktāphalam quotes a passage here, printed 429 →
सर्वे क्षयान्ता निचयाः पतनान्ताः समुच्छ्रयाः। संयोगा विप्रयोगान्ता मरणान्तं च जीवितम्॥ शान्ति 27. 31, 330. 20, स्त्रीपर्व II. 3; अयो० 105. 16. ↩
a passage here stands at स्त्रीपर्व P11_U01_A002.3 →the Smṛtimuktāphalam quotes a passage here, printed 253 →
Vide Amarakosa which says ‘रेवा तु नर्मदा सोमोद्भवा मेकलकन्यका’. ↩
Several scholars have written about the location of Laṅkā. Mr. M. V. Kibe locates Laṅkā in central India (vide ABORI Vol. XVII pp. 371–384; F. W. Thomas presentation 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 Laṅkā must be some island in the midst of the sea off the southern or south-eastern coast of the present island of Ceyloṇ Mr. G. K. Ramdas holds that ‘Rāvaṇa’s Laṅkā’ was near Amarakantaka (vide I. H. Q. vol IV pp. 338–346). In A. B. O. R. I. Vol. XIX at p. 86 it is pointed out that a portion of Orissa was known as Laṅkā. Shri M. S. Aney in his paper ‘The Rāmāyaṇņa tradition in the present (Continued on the next page) ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) day Ceylon¹ in the Proceedings of the A. I. O. Conference at Dar- bhanga (1948), pp. 206-218 tries to show that Laṅkā is the present Ceylon and supports his view by referring to the Sundarakāṇḍa, Mahāvaṁśa, Rājāvali and some similar workṣ I regret that his arguments are far from convincing. In the Sundarakāṇḍa Laṅkā is not an island but is described as the capital of Rāvaṇa situated beyond the sea on the slopes of Trikūṭa and surrounded by a wall as the verses quoted below testify. The Mahābhārata mentions Siṁhala and Laṅkā separately (Vanaparva 1. 23 Siṁhalān Barba- rān mlecchān ye ca Laṅkānivāsinaḥ ). The Dīpavaṁśa is the ear- liest chronicle (about Ceylon) and it is not earlier than the 4th century A. D. and the Mahāvaṁśa is much later (6th century or later). They are not reliable authorities for events that are suppo- sed to have happened several centuries before Christ. स सागरमनुव्यतिक्रम्य महाबलैः । त्रिकूटस्य तटे लङ्कां स्थिताम्ः स्वस्थो ददर्श ह ॥... समासाय च लक्ष्मवोलङ्कां रावणपालिताम् । परिखाभिः सप्राभिः सौधप्रामिरलङ्कृताम् । सुन्दरकाण्ड 2. 7-8; तो समीप्य पुरी लङ्कां राक्षसाधिपतेः शुभाम् । सुन्दर० 3. 13. ↩
Hopkins in ‘Great Epic of India’ pp 403–445 (Appendix A) sets out 337 cases of parallel phrases in the two Epicṣ Vide also JOR (Madras) vol. XI pp. 22–26 on the same topic. ↩
महाप्रस्थानिकं पर्व स्वर्गारोहणिकं ततः ॥ हरिवंशशतः पर्वं पुराणं खिल- संज्ञितम् । विष्णुगर्भं शिशौश्वर्या विष्णोः केशवस्यथा ॥ भविष्यपर्व चाप्युकं खिलेष्वेवाद्रुतं महत् । एतत्वर्षशतं पूर्ण व्यासेनोनकं महात्मना ॥ आदि 2. 81–83. The commentator explains the word ‘Khila’ as follows; शाखानान्तरे यदपेशावशात्पद्यते तत्खिलमिति वैदिकी प्रसिद्धिः । यथा बहूनानां श्रीसूक्तेमेधासूक्तादीनां संहिताकाले पाठो दृश्यते । एममस्मिन्नितिहासे यत्पुराणान्तरस्थमाकांशावशात्पद्यते तत्खिलं हरिवंशास्यमित्याह । ... अत एवास्य खिलस्य पुराणमिति विशेषणम् । तथाहि अत्र विष्णुचर्या विष्णुपुराणोक्तो साकल्येन दृश्यते । एवं भविष्यपुराणकथा च । ↩
That paper shows that formerly it was believed that the Denarius was introduced in 269 B. C. But on a fresh appraisal it is stated ( on p. 214 ) that we may regard 190 B. C. as a close approximation to the true date. Oṇ p. 254 it is shown that the first issue of the paper denarius was in 187 B. C. In plate III accompanying the vol. No. 32 is a denarius 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 the words ‘ उक्ते च महाभारते शतसाहस्र्यां संहितायां परमर्पिणा पराशर- सुतेन वेदव्यासेन व्यासेन । पूर्वेत्तां द्विजाति ... पालनम् ॥ प्रायेण हि ... वसुन्धराम् ॥ बहुभिर्वसुधा ... तदा फलम् ॥ षष्टिवर्षस... नरके वसत् ॥ स्वदत्तां (Continued on the next page ) ↩
‘ न पृथिव्यां त्रीहियवं हिरण्यं पशवः स्त्रियः । नालमेकस्य तत्सर्वमिति मत्त्वा शं व्रजेत् ॥ The Ch. eḍ reads this as ‘पृथिवीरत्लसम्पूर्णा हिरण्यं...व्रजेत्’ (आदि 75. 51); आश्रमा विहिताः सर्वे वर्जयित्वा निरामिषम् । शान्ति 63. 13. ↩
a passage here stands at आदिपर्व P01_U07_A075.51 →
सर्वानिवागमिनाः पार्थिवेन्द्राद् भूयो भूयो याचते राजसिंहः । सामान्यं धर्मसेतूनराणां काले काले पालनीयो भवद्विः ॥ It is the same as ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) No. 10 on p. 1273 of the H of Dh. vol II, with this difference that the order of the two halves is reversed and that the words underlined are differently read is this inṣ namely राजसिंह: for रामचन्द्र:, नराणां for नृपाणां and सर्वानैवागा...न्द्रात् for सर्वानैतान्-भाविनो भूमिपालान्. ↩
चतुःषष्टिषु कलासु विशारदाः । काञ्जनामानि तु श्रीमद्भागवतदशमस्कन्धटी-कायां श्रीधरस्वामिभिर्दर्शितानि; । on सभा 61. 9. अत एव श्रीमद्भागवतेपि हरिनिम्नग्रन्थः स्तुतिपरत्वेनैव व्याख्यातः श्रीधरस्वामिभिः । on सभा 41. 1. . ↩
वेदान्ते लक्ष्मणायं कृतविविवितृनो तीर्थ-नारायणायं तर्कै धीरेशमिश्रान् फणिपतिभगिनौ पोलङ्गद्धरायरम् । वेदे साङ्ग पि तृव्यं शिवमथ पितरं दक्षिणामूर्त्यास्तौ श्रोते चिन्तामणि य: शरणमुपगतौ भूरि गोपालदेवम् ॥ (at end of शान्तिपर्व); गोपालं भूरि वेदे शिवमृगानिपरौ ब्रह्मविलक्षणायें फणिपतिभगिनौ पोलङ्गद्धरायरम् । महि नारायणं यो गुरुमकृत तनं दक्षिणामूर्त्यास्तौ श्रोते चिन्तामणि च व्यभजत स महाभारते दानधर्मान् ॥ ततं appears to have been used for reasons of metre instead of the usual word नातं. In the Kathopaniṣad Naciketas asks his father ‘तत् कस्मै मां दास्यसि’ (I. 1. 4) and in the Rg. IX. 112. 3 (काहरद्द ततो भृगुषत्प्रापिणो नना ). ↩
इत्याद्यरोपिमेह वस्त्विभेदजातं रामायणादि च विभाव्य बृहत्यर्था च । आसुः- त्रयेतदनु नेतुरसानुगुण्याच्चित्रां कथामुचित्वाचरवच:प्रपञ्चैः ॥ दशरूपक I. 67, ↩
शिवॉय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे । दशयज्ञविनाशाय हरिरुद्राय वै नमः ॥ वनपर्व 39. 76-77; vide also शान्ति 342. 33 यस्त्विाँ वेत्ति स मां वेत्ति यस्त्वमामु स मामनु । नावोर्यरन्तरं किञ्चित्ते न भूद्बुद्धिरन्यथा । निष्कळं सकलं कृत्य- निर्गुणं गुणोत्तमम् । योगिनां परमानन्दमक्षरं मोक्षसंज्ञिनम् ॥ अनुशासन 16. 8. Compare निष्कळं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम् ॥ अमृतस्य परं सेतुं दग्धन्धनमिवाऽनलम् ॥ श्वेताश्व० VI-19; शान्तप्रसोदन विशुद्धसत्त्वस्तत्त्पु तें पश्यते निष्कळं ध्यायमानः ॥ मुण्डकोप. III 1. 8. ↩
मिषतां सर्वयोधानां समस्ताः प्रमदोत्तमाः । समन्ततोऽभ्युत्थन्त कामाभ्यान्‍याः प्रवव्रजुः ॥ मौसल० 7. 59. ↩
दुर्योधनो वासुदेवं वाग्भिरभ्युधिरादयत् । कंसरासस्य दायाद न ते लज्जास्तयनेन वै ॥ अयर्मेण गदायुद्धे यदहं विनिपातितः । ऊरू भिन्यति भीमस्य स्मुति मिथ्या प्रगच्छता । ... शिखण्डिनं पुरस्कृत्य घातितस्ते पितामहः । अश्वत्थाम्नः सनामार्नं हत्वा नागं सुदुर्मते ॥ आचार्यो न्यासितः शङ्क० । शल्यपर्व 61. 27-32, ↩
a passage here stands at शल्यपर्व P09_U03_A061.31
( 1 ) नास्य गुह्यं-कौ. I. 15.60, मनु VII. 105, शान्ति 140.24. ( 2 ) नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यात्-इत्याचार्याः । कौ. I. 4. 5-6, मनु. VII.102-3, आदि 140. 6-7, शान्ति 140. 7-8. ( 3 ) मात्सस्यन्यायः- कौ. I. 4. 13, I. 13. 5, शान्ति 15. 30, 67. 16, मनु VII.20. ( 4 ) संवत्सरेण पतन्ति०- मनु XI. 180, शान्ति 165. 37. ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) ↩
(5) एकं हन्यान्न वा हन्याद्विषो धनुष्मता । प्राज्ञेन तु मतिः क्षिप्रं हन्याद्- भंगतानपि ।। कौ. X. 6. 51, उद्योग. 33. 43. ↩
(6) इन्द्रस्य हि स प्रणमति यो बलीयसो नमतीति भारद्वाजः । कौ. XII. 1-2; उद्योग 34. 37 and शान्ति. 67. 11 (इन्द्राय स प्रणमते नमते यो बलीयसेः ।।). ↩
(7) कल्याणी बत गायेयं लौकिकी प्रतिभाति मे । एति जीवन्मानन्दो नरं वर्ष- शतादपि ।। सुन्दरकाण्ड 34. 6, युद्धकाण्ड 129. 2 (Gorrecio's eḍ 126. 2); the महाभाष्य quotes the quarter एति जीवन्तमानन्दः on Pāṇ I. 3. 12 (Kielhorn vol. I. p. 277) and on III. I. 67 वार्तिक 5 (Kielhorn vol. II. p. 59). ↩
ततश्च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ। नक्षत्रेऽदितिदैवत्ये स्वोच्चांशसंस्थेषु पञ्चसु । ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पतिनाविन्दुना सह । प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथं सर्व-कौसल्यानयन्नयन्नाम् ।। पुष्ये जातस्तु भरतो मीन लग्ने प्रसादधीः। ... सार्पे जातो च सौमित्री कुलैरिड्यमुदिते रवौ । बालकाण्ड 18. verses 8-10, 13-14. Aditi is the presiding deity of ( Punarvasu nakṣatra ), Sarpāḥ (serpents) of Āśleṣā ; Karkaṭa (and Kulira also) is Cancer sign and Mīna is ‘ Pisces’ ; the ucca signs (signs of exaltation) are Meṣa, Vṛṣabha, Makara, Kanyā, Karkaṭa, Mīna and Tulā and are respectively the ucca signs of the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturṇ For the horoscope of Rāma and his brothers as described in the Rāmāyaṇa, vide the present author’s paper in J. O. I. (Baroda) vol. I pp. 5-7; vide the Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa (15. 3) where there is a reference to the Karkataka sign ‘ उदिते विमले सूर्ये पुष्ये चाभ्यागतेऽद्रलि । लग्ने कर्केटके प्राप्त चन्द्रे (v. l. जन्म) रामस्य च स्थिते।’ (the Madras eḍ). It should be noted that the astrological details about five planets being in exaltation ( ucca ) are associated in the Raghuvaṁśa (III. 13) with the birth of Raghu and not at all with the birth of Rāma ( Raghuvaṁśa X. 66-67 ). ↩
अङ्गमारोप्य तु पुरा रावणेन बलाद्गृत्ताम् । लङ्कामपि पुरा नीतामशोकवनिकां गताम् । रक्षसां वशमापन्नां कथं रामो न कुत्स्यते । अस्माकमपि दोषो सहनीयं भविष्यति । यथा हि कुरुते राजा प्रजा तमनुवर्तते । उत्तरकाण्ड 53. 16-19; Compare ‘स किंवनस्तीं वदतां पुरोगः स्ववत्सुहृदिष्य विशुद्धवतः । सपार्थिव-राजोऽनुमुने (ऽपमर्ष) पृपच्छ भद्रं विजितापरिमर्दः ॥’ रघु. 14. 31. ↩
निष्पाद्यविद्धान्जदर्शनोरथः श्लोकत्वमापयथ यस्य शोकः । रघु० 14. 70; Compare बालकाण्ड 2. 18 शोकार्त्तस्य प्रवृत्तो मे श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा। and 2. 41 सोनुव्याहरद्भूयः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः । ↩
Vido युद्धकाण्ड chap. 131 (Madras eḍ) versus 111-124 and उत्तरकाण्ड chap. III verses 11-25 for phalasrutī. . ↩
असंभवे हैमस्य जन्मोत्थापि रामो लुलुभे मृगय-सभा 76.5; दश-वर्षसहस्राणि दश वर्षशतानि च । राज्यं कारितवान् रामस्ततः स्वभवनं गतः ॥ द्रोणपर्व 148.19; द्रोणपर्व 59. 21–22 (2nd half is सर्वभूतमनःकान्तो रामो राज्यमकारयत् ); दशरथजातक (p. 130) has दससहस्राणि षष्टि वत्स-शतानि च । कम्बुग्रीवो महाबाहु रामो तञ्जु अकारयति । verse 93. ↩
a passage here stands at वनपर्व P03_U07_A148.19 →
श्रूयते शाम्बुके हते ब्रह्मणदारकः । जीवनं धर्ममासाद्य रामात् स्व-पराक्रमात् ॥ शान्ति 153. 67. ↩
रोषस्य हि दशां गत्वा दशग्रीवः प्रणतवान् । तथा शक्रप्रतिस्पर्धो हतो रामेण संयुगे ॥ शान्ति 360. 15. ↩
यथा फलानामं पक्कानां नान्यत्र पतनाद्भयम् | एवं नराणां जातानां नान्यत्र मरणाद्भयम् || ↩
क्षुमत्संस्तुतं वीरं मत्स्यवन्तममृतम् | सावित्रीमिब मां विद्धि त्वमात्म- शर्वनीम् || अयोध्या 30. 6. ↩
लोपामुद्रा यथागस्त्यं सुकन्या च्यवनं यथा | सावित्री सत्यवन्तं च कपिलं श्रीमती यथा || सोदासं मदयन्तीव केशिनं सगरं यथा | नैषधं दमयन्तीव भैमी पतिमनुव्रता | सुन्दर० 24. 11-12. The हर्षचरित ( I उच्छ्वाम pp. 11-12 of the author’s edition ) refers to सुकन्या, daughter of king शर्याति and her marriage with sage च्यवन who had his her- mitage about two krośas beyond the Sona (river). ↩
तारितोऽहं त्वया पुत्र सुपुत्रेण महात्मना । अष्टावकेण धर्मज्ञमा कहोळे ब्राह्मणो यथा ॥ युद्धकाण्ड 122. 16. The verse that Kahola repeated was: इत्यधर्मस्थिते सुताज्ज्ञना जननकर्मणा । यदहं नासकं कर्तुं तनुपुत्रं कृतवान्मम ॥ वनपर्व 134. 33. ↩
अर्वो सुभगे भव सीते वन्दामहे त्वा । यथा नः सुमगाससि यथा नः सुफळाससि ॥ इन्द्रः सीतां नि गृह्णातु तां पूषानु यच्छतु । सा नः पयस्वती दुहामुत्तरामुत्तरां समाम् ॥ ऋ. IV. 57. 6-7. सीता means the furrow left by a plough. ↩
a passage here stands at ऋग्वेदसंहिता 4.57.7
वाल्मीकिनादश्च जगाद पद्यं जग्रन्थ यत्र व्यवनो महर्षिः । बुद्धचरित I. 43. ↩
श्रूयंत मनुना गीतौ श्लोकौ चारित्रवत्सलौ । गृहीतौ धर्मकुशलस्तथाचरितौ मया ॥ राजभिः धनदण्डास्तु कृत्वा पापानि मानवाः । निर्मलाः स्वर्गमायान्ति सन्तः सत्कृतिनो यथा ॥ शासनाद्वा विमोक्षाद्वा स्तेनाः सेयाद्विमुच्यन्ते । राजा स्वशासनाप्यस्य तदद्वान्नोति किल्बिषम् ॥ किष्किन्धा 18. 31-33. Vide Manu VIII. 318 and 316. The first occurs in Vaṣ Dh. S. 19.45 also and for the 2nd compare Vaṣ Dh. S. 19. 46. ↩
श्रूयते हि पुरा तात श्रुतिर्गीता यशस्विना । गयेन यजमानेन गयेष्वेव पितृन् प्रति । पुंनाम्नो नरकाद्यस्मात् पितरं त्रायते सुतः । तस्मात्पुत्र इति प्रोक्तः पितृभिः पाति सर्वतः ॥ एष्वद्या बद्धः पुत्रा गुणवन्तो बहुश्रुताः । तेषां वै समवेताना- मपि कश्चिदयां व्रजेत् । अयोध्या 107. 11-13. The first verse (पुंनाम्नो) occurs in Manu IX. 138 (last pāda is स्वयमेव स्वयंभुवा, आदिपर्व 229. 14 (first half), विष्णुधर्मे० 15. 44; part of the 2nd verse occurs in वनपर्व 87. 10. ↩
a passage here stands at ब्रह्मकाण्डः (मोक्षकाण्डः) 21.32the Smṛtimuktāphalam quotes a passage here, printed 674 →
तथा च प्रकाळभोजनेपि विधिमेतं स्प्रन्ति। यदचः पुरुषो राजंस्तदञ्चास्तस्य देवताः। इति। मेधा॰ on मनु V. 7. Vide: अयोध्याकाण्ड 102. 29–30 येषां बदरीमित्रं पिण्याकं दर्शसंस्तरे। न्यस्य रामः सुदुःखतो रुदन् वचनम- ब्रवीत् ॥ इदं भुंङ्क्ष्व महाराज प्रीतो यदशना वयम् । यदन्नः पुरुषो भवति तदन्नास्तस्य देवताः ॥. The same half is repeated in अयोध्या 103. 14 येषामेषादीपिण्याकं पितुर्दर्श समीक्ष्य मे। यदन्नः. देवताः ॥ It is called there लौकिकीश्रुति. ↩
रविसंक्रान्तोभौमग्रस्नुव्वारुवमण्डलः । निःश्वासान्तु द्वादशेंद्रचन्द्रमा न प्रकाशते ॥ अरण्यकाण्ड 16. 13 (the Madras edition of रामायण reads तुषारावृतमण्डलः ). ↩
विनष्टः पद्यतो यस्य रक्षितुः शरणागतः। आदाय सुकृतं तस्मात्सर्वं गच्छत्व- रक्षितः ॥ अयोध्याकाण्ड 18. 30 q. by अपरार्क p. 385. ↩
नहि राज्ञः सुता सर्वे राज्ये तिष्ठन्ति भामिनि । स्थाप्यमानेषु सर्वेषु सुमहा- नयो भवेत् । तस्माज्ज्येष्ठे हि कैकेयि राज्यतन्त्राणि पार्थिवाः । स्थापयन्त्य- नवद्याङ्गि गुणवन्तितरेष्वपि ॥ रामायण, अयोध्या 8. 23–24 q. by राजनीति- रत्नाकर p. 76, which quotes also Vasiṣṭha's words in Ayodhyā 110. 36 ( on p. 77 ) 'इक्ष्वाकूणां हि सर्वेषां राजा भवति पूर्वजः । पूर्वजे नावरः पुत्रो ज्येष्ठो राजा भविष्यति' ॥ ↩
रामायणे जलप्रदानवाक्यं राम आह । इदं पुरुषशार्दूलं विमलं दिव्यमक्षयम् । पितृलोकंतु पानीयं महदुत्तमृपार्णताम् ॥ अपराके on या. III. 5. p. 875. The verse occurs with slight variations in अयोध्या 103. 27: एतत्ते राजशार्दूल विमलं तोयमक्षयम् । पितृलोकगतस्याद्य महदुत्पार्गंतष्टृणु ॥ ↩
यलवन्तौ यवद्वीपं सराज्योपशोभितम् ॥ सुवर्णरूप्यकंचैव सुवर्णकरमण्डितम् । यवद्वीपमतिक्रम्य शिशिरो नाम पर्वतः ॥ किष्किन्धा 40. 29–30. ↩
For the Mahābhārata the Citraśālā edition and for the Rāmāyaṇa the one volume edition published in 1933 by Mr. R. Narayanswami Aiyar have been used; A or. Ay. = Ayodhyākāṇḍa and S = Sabhāparva, being used in the verses having ‘Kaccit’ in theṃ ↩
A. 100.17 – S.5.29 reads ‘arthavit’ for ‘arthanaipunaṁ’ of A ; ↩
A. 100.62–63 – S. 5.19–20 ( A reads ‘priti- lobhena’ for ‘pritisāreṇa’ of S. ); ↩
A. 100.52 – S. 5.32 ( reads in last pāda ‘saṁsṛṣṭam cātra’ for ‘madhyamevatra’ of A ); ↩
A. 100.22 – S. 5.35 ( reads in first half ‘sahasrair-mūrkhānamekam ’ for ‘sahasrān- mūrkhānām-ekam-icchasi ’ of A ); ↩
A. 100.24 – S. 5.37 ( reads ‘Dānto’ for ‘Dakṣo’ of A ); ↩
A. 100.36 – S. 5.38 ( reads ‘cārakaiḥ’ for ‘cāraṇaiḥ’ of A which is a misreading and makes no sense ). ↩
A. 100.11–12 – S. 5.40–41 ( reads ‘anuprastā’ for ‘anudraṣṭā of A ); ↩
A. 100.25–28 – S. 5.43–46 ( S reads ‘udvijase prajāḥ’ for ‘udveditaprajam’ in A ); ↩
A. 100.30 – S. 5.46 ( Senāpatiguṇas ); ↩
A. 100.31 – S. 5.47 ( A reads ‘dṛṣṭapadānā for ‘dhṛṣṭāvadatāḥ’ of ( ṣ ) ↩
A. 100.32–34 – S. 5.48–50 ( A reads ‘vilambase’ for ‘vikarsasi’ in S ( A reads ‘bhartuḥ kupyanti ‘dusyanti’ in 33 and ‘samāhitāḥ’ for sadā yudhi ) ↩
A. 100.47 ( half ) and S. 5.79 ( A reads ‘Vārtāyām saṁsritas-tāta loko hi sukham-edhate’ and S. reads ( lokoyam sukham &c. ’ . ↩
A. 100. 53 - S. 5.36. ↩
A. 100.49 - S. 5.83 ↩
A. 100.56 - S. 9.104 (A reads ‘adrṣṭah... lopād’ for ‘adrṣṭaśāstra’ and ‘lobhād’. ↩
A. 100.57 - S. 5.105 (A reads ‘gṛhītaścaiva prstaśca kāle’ and S reads ‘dṛṣto gṛhītatatkārī’). ↩
A. 100. 65-67 - S. 5.107-9 (A reads ‘mangalasvāprayogam &c’ and S. reads ‘mangalādyaprayogam’. ↩
A. 100. 62-63 - S. 5.19 20 (A reads ‘pritilobhena’ for ‘pritiśareṇa’ and ‘sarvān varada’ for ‘sadā’ varada in S. ↩
A. 100.72 - S. 5.110 (A reads ‘saphalaḥ kriyāh’ for ‘saphalani dhanam’ of S. ↩
It is Kielhorn's eḍ of the Mahābhāṣya that is referred to : (1) यदुडुम्बरवर्णानां (vol. I, p. 6); (2) एति जीवन्तमन्नम्‌: (vol. I, p. 277 on वार्तिक 6 on II. 7. 6), vol. II, p. 59 on वार्तिक 5 on III. 1. 67); (3) तपः श्रुतं च योनिश्च (vol. I, p. 41) on II. 2. 6 and vol. II. p. 363 on V. 1. 115; (4) सङ्कर्षणद्वितीयाय (vol. I, p. 426); (5) वाताप कर्णेला वियुत (vol. I, p. 449 on वार्तिक 3 on II. 3. 13); (6) दूरादावसथान्मूत्रं (vol. I, p. 457 on वार्तिक 2 on II. 3. 35); (7) वर्मणि द्वीपिनं हन्ति (vol. I, 458 on वा. 6 on II. 3. 36); (8) कालः पचति भूतानि (vol. II, 167); (9) त्रीणि यस्यावदातानि (vol. II, 220 on वा. 9 on IV. 1. 48); (10) महीपालवचः श्रुत्वा (vol. III, 288 on VII. 2. 23); (11) साधूतैः पाणिभिरग्रन्ति (vol. III. 367 on वार्तिक 1 on पा. VIII. 1. 8). ↩
अहमतिवितनुध्रुवैष वानरश्च विशेषतः। वाचंचोदाहारिष्यामि मानुषीमिह संस्कृताम्‌॥ यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिव संस्कृतम्‌। रावणं मन्यमाना मां सीता भीता भविष्यति ॥ वानरस्य विशेषेण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम्‌। अवरयमेव वक्तव्यं मानुषं वाक्यमर्थवत्‌। सुन्दर० 30. 17–19. ↩
यस्मिन् धर्मविधिः साक्षात्प्रतिवन्ध्य तु यस्थितन् । आतुरुस्नेहो महान्नव गुरु- भक्तिस्तथैव च ।। खामिसिवकयोर्यचेय नीतिर्मूर्तिमती किल । अपूर्वकरशास्त्रिर्व यत्र साक्षात्प्रदृद्वान् ।। पद्मपुराण. ↩
Introductory verse 16 of the commentary is ‘ नत्वा रामं शिवं साम्बं रामो रामप्रवर्तकः। रामायणस्य तिलकं कुरुते रामतुष्टये ॥’. At the end of the Bālakāṇḍa and some other kāṇḍas the commentary states ‘ इति श्रीरामाभिरामे श्रीरामीये रामायणतिलके आदिकाव्ये बालकाण्डे सप्ततितमः सर्गः ’ . ↩
निर्मलं कतकक्षीरादावि रामायणार्णवम् । अयन्तं निर्मलं चक्रे रामः स्वमति-वासना ॥ भग्नाशेषपूज्येन सेतुः श्रीरामवर्णना । कृतः सर्वोपकृतये श्रीमद्रामायणा- ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
( Continued from last page ). म्बुधौ ॥ The first verse alone occurs at the end of the Uttara- kāṇḍa. There is a reference in the first verse to the commentary called Kataka. There is a pun on the word Kataka (name of a commentary and also the cleansing pot which clarifies muddy water or cleanses soiled clothes ). फलं कनकतक्षयं यद्यप्यधु- प्रसारदद्‌भू न नामग्रहणादेव तस्य वारि प्रसीदति ॥ q. by कल्पतरु on मोक्ष (p. 64). This is मनुस्मृति VI. 67. There is a commentary on Rāmāyaṇa called Kataka or Amita-Kataka composed about 1650 A. D. ↩
447. ऋगादयश्चत्वारो च भारतान् । मूलरामायणं ब्रह्मसूत्रं मानं स्वतः स्मृतम् । I, 30. ↩
इत्यशेषपुराणेभ्यः पञ्चरात्रेभ्य एव च । भारताच्चैव वेदेभ्यो महा रामायणादपि ॥ परस्परविरोघस्य ह्यनानिर्णाय तत्त्वतः । युक्त्या बुद्धिवलाच्चैव विष्णोरेव प्रसादतः ॥ बहुकल्पनुसारेण मयैवं सङ्कथोडिता । नैकग्रन्थाश्या तस्मा- नाशंक्यात्र विरुद्धता । I. IX. 125–127. ↩
It may bo stated that the writer of this paper failed to note that the same verse is quoted by an earlier writer viz. Aparārka (p. 385 on Yaj. I. 211 ) and that Aparārka also quotes on p. 877 the verse ‘इदं...विमलं दिव्यमक्षयम् । पितृलोकेषु पानीयं महत्तत्सुप- तिष्ठताम् ॥’ ( अयोघ्या० 103. 27. Nir. eḍ ). ↩

31. The Manusmriti 33. The Purānas