visvamitra and vasistha

7/30/2019 Visvamitra and Vasistha

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-and-vasistha 1/21

Visvamitra and VasisthaAuthor(s): F. E. PargiterReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Oct., 1913), pp.885-904Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25189070 .

Accessed: 19/07/2012 19:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25189070?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25189070?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



XXIX

VISVAMITRA AND VASISTHA

By F. E. PARGITER, M.A.

rpilEstories about Visvamitra and Vasistha and their

contest are often narrated and alluded to in Sanskrit

writings, and are intimately connected in ancient tradition

with two kings of Ayodhya, Ti^yaruna and his son

Sat3'avrata Trisaiiku. TJ1C3'are sometimes mixed up,

especially in brahmanic descriptions, with extraordinary

and marvellous incidents, but are narrated in the course

of the genealogies of Ayodhya and KFinyakubja in some

of the PurFinas in assimple and natural a manner as if

they wereplain

'historical' tradition. Such being their

character in the PurFinas, it is not unreasonable to

examine them as such, review them according to ordinaty

feelings and conduct, and see whether, when so scrutinized,

they may not yielda natural and probable explanation of

a series of incidents that have attracted much attention,

both ancient and modern. This has been my endeavour

in this paper, and the results appear to reconstruct

a most interesting chapter in ancient Indian traditional'histoiy '.

The PurFinic accounts that are dealt with here are

found in two genealogies, the notice of Visvamitra in the

KFinyakubja genealogy, and the story of Sat3'avrata

TriSariku,Vasistha and Visvamitra in the

AyodlyFigenealogy. The chief accounts are

given by the Vayu,

Brahmanda, Brahma and Harivaihsa. The texts for each

storyare cited. The3r are all obviously based on a

common original metrical tradition, and l:y collating them

a revised text may be framed. This I have done, and

I give the collated version here with such variant readings

only as are material, omitting for the sake of brevit\r all



886 VISVAMITRA AND VAS1STHA

unimportant variations that do not affect the meaning.

In each story the

'

facts' stated will be first set out anddiscussed, and then will be drawn the inferences that they

naturally suggest.

For the first account regarding Visvamitra alone, it is

sufficient to cite portions only from the Kanyakubja

genealogy, which is found in those four Puranas and the

Mahabharata.1

Kusika was king of Kanyakubja and his queen was

Paurukutsi, who was aprincess of Ayodhya descended

from Purukutsa king of Ayodhya.2 They had a son

Gadhi or Gathin,3 who was a famous king of Kanyakubja

and was fabled to be Indra incarnate. He had adaughter

Satyavati. She married Rcika Bhargava, and had a son

Jamadagni.4 Visvamitra was born to Gadhi at the same

time. His ksatriya name was Visvaratha, and he succeeded

1The following abbreviations are used in the notes: Va =

Vayu ;

Bd = Brahmanda ; Br = Brahma ; Hv = Harivathna ; Sv = Siva ;

Lg=

Liiiga : Vs = Visnu ; Ag=

Agin ; Gr = Garuda ; Bh =Bhagavata ;

MBh = Mahabharata. I treat the Harivamsa as a Purana, which is

what it is really.2

See JRAS, 1910, p. 33; but the Bd appears to make her Gadhi's

wife, see infra, n. 4, v.r. f.3

Gildhi in the Epics and Puranas, Gdthin in brahmanical books. Theformer seems to be merely the Prakrit form of the latter.

4This portion is given in Va 91, G5-GG, 85; Bd iii, 66, 35-37, 56 ;

Br 10, 27-29, 48 ; 13, 91 (only first line) ; Hv 27, 1429-1431, 1450 ; 32,

17G5 (only first line) ;MBh xii, 40, 1720, 1721, 1744. The toxt collated

therefrom runs thus :?

Paurukutsy abhavad*

bharya Gadhisf tasyatn ajuyata

Gadheh X kanyii inahabhaga namna Satyavati ?ubha ?

taiii Uildhili Kavya-putrayaH Rclkaya dadau prahhuh H

tatahSatyavati putraih janayamasa Bhargavam

tapasy abhiratam dantatii Jamadagnhh samiltmakam :

where*

Va Paurukut8ttbh?, Br generally Paurd yasydbh0, MBh omits

this line : f Bd Gddhes : %Bd piirvarii, Va purva : ? Va all accusatives :

|| So Br; Va putrah Kdvydya, Bd pittra-kdmdya, MBh and Hv Bhrgu

putrdya : ITHere follows the story of the two car us toexplain why

the ksatriya Visvamitra became a brahman, and why the brahman

Jamadagni, who was born at the same time, had for a son the terrible

warrior Rama. Vs (iv. 7, G, 1G) gives the account in prose, and Bh (ix,

15, 4, 5, 11) briefly ; theyare of no value for collation.



VISVAMITRA AND VASISTHA 887

his father in the kingdomas is implied by the word

ddydda which means " successor" in the genealogies.1

He resolved however to become a brahman, and after

qualifying himself bya course of arduous austerities for

some years assumed the status of brahmanhood.2

Tradition in the Mahabharata and Puranas is clear and

positive about these 'facts' regarding Visvamitra. There

is, it is true, no trace of his

kingship

in the

Rigveda3,

but

that negative fact does not invalidate the tradition, because

silence is not evidence of any weight unless it is unnatural,

that is, unless the matter unmentioned should have been

mentioned according to ordinary human motives and

conduct. In fuller words, when circumstances are such

that aparticular matter has a direct relation to them, it

wouldnaturally be mentioned

inconnexion with them

and weexpect it to be mentioned, so that, if it is not

mentioned, the silence is strong evidence against that

matter: but, if circumstances are such that aparticular

matter has no concern with them, then to mention it

would be irrelevant, and we do not expect it to be

introduced, so that silence in this case is natural and is

to be expected and proves nothing against that matter.This maxim must always be observed when ex silentio

arguments are drawn from the Veda, just as well as in

any other case.

1This is positively stated in MBh ix, /t1, 2300.

aThis portion is given in Br 10, 55-57 ; Hv 27, 1457-9: 11. 1, 3, 5

disconnectedly in Va 91, 87, 93 ; Bd iii, 00, 58, 05 (and differently hut

equivalent^ in MBh xiii, /,, 240-7) : 11. 1, 3 in MBh xii, 49, 1745. The

collated text runs thus :?

Vi?vamitnuii tu diiyadaiit Giidhili Kusika-nandanah

jauayamasa pu train, tu tapo-vidya-.sanmtinakam

prtipya brahmarsi-samatfuu yo ?yam brahmarsitfuh* gatahVinvilmitras tu dharnuitma namna Visvarathah smrtah

jajfie Bhrgu-prasadena Kausikad vaihsa-vardhannh

where* Hv saplarsitdUi, Va and Bd read this half \'u\c jar/dma Brahmana

vrtah, MBh corrupt: Vs iv, 7, 10 ; Gr i, 139, 5 ; Ag 277, 17 ; Bh ix, 10,

28, 29, sny Vlsvamitra was Giidhi's son.

3Macdonell & Keith, Vedic Index, ii, 311-2.



888 VISVAMITRA AND VASISTHA

Now Visvamitra, having renounced his ksatriya status

and become a brahman, and having apparently relinquishedhis kingdom,1 would naturally have had no motive to refer

to his kingship in ai^ Vedic hymns that he may have

composed in his capacit3ras a brahman rishi, nor would

his descendants when composing lymns in the same

capacit3' ;while other rishis would have had no concern

with Visvamitra. The absence of any allusion thereto in

the hymns composed by the VisvFunitras is then in entireconsonance with natural feelings and conduct. It would

have been surprising and contraiy to ordinaiy experience,

if Visvamitra or his descendants had alluded in their

h}rnins to apast that he had absolute^ discarded, when

the3rwere

acting solely as rishis in circumstances that

had nothing to do with that past. The argument

ex silentio has therefore no force here, and the non-mention

of his kingship in the hymns is not onlyno reason for

discrediting the tradition, but is just what would be

natural if the tradition were true. The tradition therefore

stands unrebutted.2

I take now the stoiy of Satyavrata TriSariku.3 It is

narrated in the genealogical account of the AyodhyFi

d3>nast37, fully by the VFiyu, Brahnmnda, Brahma and

1The genealogies suggest that he was succeeded by his son Astaka,

since the two following lines aro found iu Va 91, 103 ; Bd iii, 00, 75 ;

Br 10, 07-8 and 13, 91 2 ;Hv 27, 1473 and 32, 1775-0 ; where theyare

placedas a

separate statement. They appear to refer to the dynastic

succession, because thcjr are given as such in Br 13, without noticing

Visvamitra's other sons.

Drsadvatisutas capi* Visvfiniibratt tathAstakah

Astakasya suto Lauhih %. Prokto Jahnu-gano maya :where

*Br 13 reads Visvdmitraa tn

Gddheyo ; \ Br 10 VaUvdmilraa ;

t Va corruptly yo hi. Vs iv, 7, 10-18 ; Ag 277, 18 ; and Bh ix, 10, 30

merely name Astaka as a son.2

If Vilvamitra had not been a ksatriya of the highest rank, could he

have ventured to contend with the great brahman Vasistha, and have

successfully established his claim to hrahmanhood ? Otherwise, the

immense body of tradition (and marvel) concerning his contest with

Vasistha could never have grown up.3

Muir gives this story in his Sanskrit Texts, I, 87.




Harivaihsa, less fully hy the Siva and briefly by the

Linga.1 All are closely alike. The Brahma, Harivaihsa

and Siva agree in the main. The Vayu and Brahnmnda

agree general^, and so also the Liiigaas far as it goes.2

All these areobviously based on one common

original;

but the Vayu text shows unmistakable traces, and the

Brahnmnda some traces, of having been tampered with,

with the result that Satyavrata's misconduct is exaggerated

and Vasistha's severity extenuated, as will appear in the

discussion of the'facts'. The PurFinas, as we have them

now, are brahmanic compilations. It would be natural

therefore that statements which presented the famous

rishi Vasistha in anunpleasing light should be toned

down, and consequently that he should gain at Sat3*avrata's

expense.The reverse is not credible. Hence it is

clear that the VFiyu and BrahmFinda texts are less trust

worthy than those of the Brahma, Harivaihsa and Siva.

The story is narrated disconnectedly, hence to discuss

it concisely it is necessary to set out the whole text of it

and then bring together into consideration the various

statements that occur in it. The collated text runs

thus?

Br, Hv, Sv Vd, Bd (with Lg)

Tasya Sat3ravratonaina kumFiro 'bhiin mahfibalah

pani-grahana-mantrFiiiFim tena bhFiryFi Vidarbhas3ra

vighnaih cakre sa dur- hrtfi hatvFi divaukasali4

matih3

yena bhFuyFi hrta purvaih pFini-grahana-mantresu

krtodvaha6 paras3*a vai nistlnlm a6-prFipitesv ilia

1Va SS, 78-110 ; Bd iii, 03, 77- 114 ; Br 7, 07-.9, 23 ;Hv 12, 717-53 ;

Sv vii, GO, Sl-Gl, 19 ; Lg i, 00, 3-10(giving only 11. 1-3, 0, 8, 9, 11, 13,

14, 00, 09-71).2

Vs iv, 3, 13, 14 and Bli ix, 7, 5, 0 mention the story curtly .and also

agree generally so far asthey go, but are of no use for collation here.

y Sv mahatmabhih.4

So Bd ; Va ?sdn ; Lg hatvthnitavjaaam : see p. 897, n. 2.

6 Br krtdd valid hrtd caiva. r' So Lg ; Bd na ; Va sam-.




balyat kamac ca mohFic ca I kamad balFic ca mohac ca

samharsFic1 capalena ca saihharsena2 balena ca

jahFira kanyFuh kamac ca3 bluivino 'rthasyaca balat

kas3racit pura-vasinal.i | tat krtaih tena dhimatFi 5

tarn adharmena saihyuktarii4 raja6 Trayyaruno 'tyajat

apadhvaihseti bahuso vadan?

krodha-sainanvitah

pitaramso 'bravit tyaktal.i7 kva gaccham iti vai muhul.i

pita cainam athovFica Svapakaih saha vartaya

naham putrena putrarthi tva3>&d3ra kula-paihsana 10

ifcy uktal.i sa liirFikrFiman nagarad vacanat pituhna cainaih vFirayamasa8 Vasistho bhagavFin rsili

sa tu Satyavrato dhimFui ChvapFikav&sath&ntike?

pitra tyakto10 'vasad viral.i pita ca\sya vanaih yayau.

tasmiiiis tu visaye tasya navarsat PFika&lsanah 15

sanul dvFidasa sampiirnFis temldharmena vai tad ft.

DarFuhs tu tasya visaye VisvFimitro maliFitapFih

sannyasya sagariinupen cacFira vipulaih tapah

tas3^a patni gale baddhvFi madhyainam putramaurasam

sesas3^a12 bharanarthaya vyakiinFid go-satena vai 20

tarn tu baddhaih gale drstva vikrayarthaih narottamah13

maharsi-putramdharmFitma

inoksayamFisasuvratah

Sat3favratomahabFihur14 bharanaih

tasyacakarot

Vis\'Funitras3ra tusty-artham anukanipartham

weva ca

so 'bhavad (JFilavo namagale bandhFin

lflmahatapFih

25

maharsih Kausiko dhlniFuhs tena virena17 moksitah

Satyavratas tu 18bhaktyFi

cakrpayFi

capratijnayFi

VisVFunitra-kalatraih ca babhFira vinaye sthitah10

1Br sdhasdc.

JVa sankarsana-.

9 So Sv ; Br kdmdrtah ;Hv kdmdt kauydiii sa.4

Br, Hv adharma-.'lankund tena ; Sv adharma-sanyinarii taiiv tu.

sVa pita ; Bd taih sa.

?Va, Sv 'vadat.

7Va, Bd ekah,

8Va dhdr?.

9One Br MS purasya svasya cdntike.

,0Va mukto.

11Br sdgartbitc tu.

12Va, B?ji tLstdndm.

13Sv rikrlnanthli svam atmajam.

uVa, Bd ?buddhir.

15 Sv amikroSdrtham.uVa, Bd batldho.

17 Va viryena.,8

Va, B<J tasya vrateiia.

19

Sv posaydmdsa vai tadd.



VISVAMITHA AND VASISTIIA 891

hatva mrgan varahfuhs ca mahisams ca vanccaran

Visvamitrasramabhyase tan-mfuhsam anayat1 tatah 30

upamsu-vratam asthayadiksani dvadasa-varsikim

pitur niyogiid abhajan2. Nrpe tu vanam as thito3

Ayodhyaiii4 caiva rastraih ca tathai van tali pu ram munih

yajyopadhyaya-samyogad Vasisthah paiyaraksata

Satyavratas tu balyat tu bhavino Ythasya vai balat 35

Vasisthe 'bhyadhikam manyuih dharayamasa nityadfi5

pi tra hi taiii0 tada rastrat parityaktarii7svam

atmajam

navaniyamasa8

munir Vasisthah0 karanena vai10

pani-grahana-mantranariinistha

syat saptame pade

na ca nSatyavratas tam vai12 hrtavan saptame pade 40

janandharmfinl3Vasisthastu janan dharman Vasisthas tu

namamtratiti14bhodvijah15na ca mantrfin ihecchati

itiSatyavrato10

rosarii Vasisthe17 manasakarot

guna18-buddhya tu bhagavan Vasisthah krtavaiiis tada19

na tu20 Satyavratas tasya tam upaihsutn abudhyata21

tasminn aparitoso yah22 pituriisln mahatmanah 45

tena dvadasa varsani navarsat PakasTisanah

tena tv idannh vahatii23 diksani tam durvaham bhuvi

kulasya niskrtih svasya krta sa vain

bhaved iti

na taiii25 Vasistho bhagavan pitra tyaktaih nyavarayat2G1

So Bd ;Va apacat; Sv cdksipat. Br, Hv read this half line, mdihsaiii

vrkse babandha sah, which is good.2

Hv arahat, Br avasat.8

Br, Hv Tasmin vana (fate nrpe, whieh is good.4 Sv tirlhaih (/dm.

?Vii, Bd manyund.

GVa rndaihs. 7

Br, IIvtyajyamanaih, which is good.

8 Br nivai'0.9 Br hah nnd.

10Hv, Sv ha ; Br na. n

Va, Bd evam.

12So Bd. Va tdn vai.

Br,Hv tasmdd.

13So Hv. Br. dharmath.

M Sv Vatisfhdt tu na tarii .samsati.

}* So Hv. Br Bharata. These vocative expletives have probably

ousted some such expression as .so 'rodat or acintayat.10

Va ?vrate.17

Va, Sv ?stho.8

Va auru.

19Bd tapah.

20 Sv m ca.21

Va, Bd 'budhyad npdmsu-vralam asya rai.22

So Hv. Sv hyapur itowl ya, Br aparitosas ca, Va coparatc yo yat,

Bd tu paramo rosah.

23Br rihitdih ; Va bahndhd.

24 Sv krtavdn rai ;Va, Bd krtcyaih ca.

25Va, Bd tato. ~'5Bil na rdrayat.



81)2 VISVAMITRA AND VASISTHA

abhiseksyFimy aham putram Iabhiseksyamy ahaih rFijyel

asyety evammatir munch2 | pascFid nam itiprabhuh 50sa tu dvFidasa varsFini diksFiih tfiui udvahan3 ball

avid3TaniFine niFuiisc tu Vasisthasya nialiFitmanah

sarva-kFiina-dugliFirii dogdhriih4 sa dadarsa nrpatmajahtFuii vai k rod 11ic ca lnohFic ca sramFic caiva ksudhanvitah

das3rur,-dharma-gato rFijFi6 jaghana balimlih varali 55

sa tan-niFimsaihsva3^aiii

caivaVisvFunitrasya eatmajFin

bhojayFimasa tac chrutvFi Vasistho 'py asya cukrudhe7

provaca caiva bhagavFin Vasist.has tain nrpatmajain8

pFitaye 'yamahaih krfira9 tavra saiikum a3^oma37am

10

yadi te dvav imau sariku Iyadi te trii.ii sailkuni

nasyFitFuh

n vai krtau na syur hi purusadhama

punah12 j0

pitus caparitosena guror dogdhri-vadhenaca

aproksitopayogFicca tri-vidhas te vyatikramah

evaiii sa trini saiikuni drstvFitas3ra malultapFih

tri-saiikur iti hovFica Trisaiikus tena sa sinrtah.13

VisvFunitras tu dFirFiuFim Figato14

bharane krte 65

tatas tasmai varamprFidFin niunih

15pritas Trisarikave

chandyamauo varentltha vararii10 vavrenrpatmajah

1 Bd naste (for rdstrc). ~ Sv asya nte vai 'bravin munih.3 Sv udvahad, l\v arahad.

4Va, Bd dhcnurii.

5So Va, Bd. Sv dttta ; Br desa; Hv misreading it as dasa, "ten,"

inserts two lines of mistaken explanation?

mat tali pramatta unmattali srantah kruddho bubhuksitali

tvaramanas ca bhirun ca lubdhah ktlini ca te dasa.

,!Va, Hd drsird.

7Va, Bd tarii taddfyajat.

sHv different but equivalent. Br, Sv merely Vasistha uvdca.

9 Sv krilraih.10

So Va, Sv. Bd apohya vai ; Br, IIv azatitmyam.11 Sv imsyetdtii.

12 Sv pura.13

Lg reads?

sarva-lokesu vikhyiitas Trisarikur iti vlry avail

Vasistha-kopat puuyatma raja Satyavratali pura.u

Br ancna.15

Va, Bd tadd.

1,5So Br, Hv and Sv and add the line?

sa-sariro vraje svargam ity evaiii yacitovarali

ButVii,

Bd readguruiii

for vanuh.



VISVAM1TKA AND VAS1STIIA 893

anavrsti-bha}^ tasmin gate1 dvadasa-varsike

pitrye 'bhisicya rajye tu2 yajayamasa3 tain munih

misatam devatanaih caVasisthasya

ca Kausikah4 70

sa-sariraih tada taiii vai divani aropayat prabhuh5

misatas tu Vasisthasya tad adbhutam ivabhavat0

Atrapy udaharantimau slokau7 pauranika janah

Visvamitra-prasadena Trisaiikur di vi rajate

devaih sardham mahateja 'nugrfihat tasya dhimatah8 75

sanair yaty Abala rainya heinante candra-ma nclita

alarikrta tribhir bhavais Trisanku-graha-bhusita.0

The first part of the story is narrated in lines 1-14,

Satyavrata was son ot' Trayyaruna king of Kosala. In

an outburst of youthful wantonness heinterrupted the

wedding ceremony of one of the citizens10 and carried off

the bride. His father in great anger disowned him and

banished him to the degradation of herding with outcaste

dog-eaters. Vasistha, who was theking's priest, did not

interpose but allowed the severe sentence to stand (1. 12).

Satyavrata then quitted the capital Ayodhya and made

hisdwelling

near a hamlet ofdog-eaters11.

IBd, Svjdtc.

-So Hv : others different but equivalent.

3Bd yoj?.

4 After this Va inserts two lines?

Vindhya-parsve mahapunya nini naga giri-kanane

tasya snanena sambhuta Karmana&i subha nadi.5

Br differently but equivalently. Here Br, Hv end.6 This line is only in Va, Bd. 7

So Va. Bd ?timaifi Hokam.8

This verseonly in Va, Bd.

?This verse

only in Va.10

The name Vidarbha. mentioned in the Va, Bd and Lg, cannot mean

"king or prince of Vidarbha", because (1) the kingdom of Vidarbha did

not come into existence till later ; (2) such an insult offered to aking

or

princewould have been

avenged by war, yetthere is no

suggestionof

any such reprisals being feared, while it is distinctly suggested that

Vasistha might have mitigated the punishment ; and (3) the term knla

pdmsana implies that the prince had dishonoured his rank, and the rape

of a merecity maiden was a

disgraceful offence. Vidarbha may be the

name of the citizen, if it is possible it might have been handed down.II

They lived not far from the cit}' presumably (see p. 890, n. 9),

because the}' would have found their livelihood asdog-killers and dog

eaterschiefly by being

near the city. At this day there are. castes, who

are employed to kill off the dogs in a town that have

multiplied

and

become a nuisance.




These incidents are commented on and explained in

lines 35-45. Thewedding

mantras becamecomplete

(uisthd) when the bride took sevensteps, and Satyavrata

did not seize her after she had taken the seventh step

(II. 39, 40), but interfered before the ceremony was

completed (11. 2, 3).1 To carry off a betrothed maiden in

that way was of course a gross offence, but it was not so

heinous and impiousas to carry her off after the ceremony

had made her a wedded wife. Satyavrata had committed

the former offence and not the latter, and Vasistha knew

it, for this is clearly implied (1. 41),2 and the statement

thrice made (II. 12, 38, 49), that he did not interpose to

prevent the banishment, plainly suggests that he might

and even should have interposed. Hence it manifestly

follows that the king did not know the true facts, but

believed his son had committed the greater sin and

condemned him for that. These conclusions are

corroborated by the statement that Sat37avratawas

indignant with Vasistha, because Vasistha knowingly

abstained from saving him (11. 41-2). Satyavrata had

offended througha

3'outhful outburst, and resentment

rankled unceasingty in his mind against Vasistha, because

Vasistha might (and should, impliedly) have taken that

into consideration and have interposed when the father

banished his own son, apparent^ his onlyson and heir

(11. 35-8 ; see p. 895).

Vasistha had a reason for behavingas he did (1. 38),

and acted deliberately (1.43). What he did at the time

1So Br, Hv, Sv, Lg and Bd. Va has altered the meaning to the

absolute opposite by reading samprdpite?u, showing that it has been

deliberately tampered with, bo as to exaggerate Satyavrata's guilt and

consequently to justify Vasistha's want of pity: and it and Bd imply

the same in 1. 40. Compare also divaukasah in 1. 2; where Lg reading

amitaujasam refers no doubt to the officiating priest (seo p. 897, n. 2),

but Va and Bd by reading"

gods

"have given

an impossible exaggera

tion to Satyavrata's violence.2Where tho alteration of the latter half iu Va and Bd yields little

sense, and Sv is obviously corrupt.



V1SVAMIT11A AND VASISTHA 895

was to mutter prayers in a low voice, and Satyavrata

naturallydid not

comprehendwhat he did

(1. 44);

and the

king (misunderstanding the matter) gave the reins to

his displeasure against his son (1. 45). It is said that

Vasistha s purpose was, that Satyavrata should work out

the expiationof his own

family by undergoing the

punishment;but that was no

justification, because the

family had done no wrong and needed noexpiation.

However it was on that ground that Arasistha did not

interpose,1 that is, he took no open part but allowed

the sentence to stand. He had, it is said, the intention,

that he would anoint Satyavrata'sson to the throne in

the future.2

The king then departed to end his days in the forest

(1. 14)?a natural course, for he must have been heart

broken. When he had gone, Vasistha held charge of the

capital Ayodhya, the kingdom and the royal seraglio

(11. 32-4)?whence it seems that the king had no other

son to succeed him. Vasistha governed (it is said

pointedly) in association with the sacrificing priests and

religious teachers (1. 34). This is noteworthy. Nothing

is said about councillors or ksatriyas. The administration

evidently passed into a religious regime.

The*

facts'

stated then are these. Satyavrata

committed a gross oflence. The king misunderstanding

its real nature disowned and banished him, his onlyson.

Vasistha knowing the true facts made noattempt to set

1The Va omits the negative in 1. 49, and reads

falsely that he did

oppose the banishment.2So Br, Hv and Sv. Tho Va and Bd say he proposed to anoint

Satyavrata himself afterwards, but it is hardly probable that Vasistha

would anoint the prince whom he had allowed to be degraded by years

of association with the lowest outcastes, and would thus lay himself open

to possible vengeance from that prince. The difference however does

not affect the story, for he never curried out his proposal, whichever it

was.Satyavrata's son would have been growing up in the royal

seraglio, completely under Vasistha's custody and training, for the

story implies

that

Satyavrata

was banished alone.

jiias. 1913. 59




the king right, but allowed the sentence to stand. The

obvious results were ruin to Sat3'avrata and a broken

heart to the king. The king handed over the kingdom

to Vasistha and departed to end his days in the forest,

without apparently any objection from Vasistha. Satya

vrata led adegraded, precarious and miserable life.

Vasistha ruled the kingdom himself. He made no

attempt to alleviate matters, but resolved that Satyavrata

should undergo his expiation to the utmost, while

expressingan intention of anointing Satyavrata's young

son to the throne at some future time. On these*facts'

there can be only one conclusion, that Vasistha deliberately

connived at the ruin of Satyavrata and of the king, got

the kingdom into his own hands, turned it into apriestly

regime,

and evinced no intention of relinquishing it soon.

Then followed aperiod of drought, which lasted twelve

years (11. 15, 16, 46, 68), and that forms the second stage

in the story. Vasistha ruled the kingdom during the

whole period (1. 68).

Two passages of tradition have preserved the personalname of this great brahman, the first and perhaps the

greatest

of the Vasisthas of traditional*

history

\

Theyare thesel:?

(1) avarsati ca Parjanye sarva-bhutFini Devarat

Vasistho jivayamasa yena yato 'ksayaih gatim.

(2) avarsati caParjanye sarva-bhiitFini Bhutakrt

Vasistho jivayamasa Prajapatir iva prajah.

These verses are manifestly identical. They speak of

(as something well known) a period of drought during

which Vasistha administered acountry?that is, obviously

duringan

interregnum, for he could not have held that

positionotherwise : and they

canonly refer to this period

and this Vasistha, because there is no mention of any

other such occurrence. In these verses Devarat and

1

MBh xiii, 137, 6257 ; and xii, 234, 8001.




Bhutakrt can be nothing but a name, the personalname

of this Vasistha, and they are obviousty S3'non3'ms.

Devardj is a synonym of Indra, and Bhutakrt,"

the

creator," might well mean Indra who was the chief god in

that early age. It would seem therefore that his personalname was Indra, probably in combination with some other

word;1 and we have a very close example in Indra

pramati Vdsi^ha, one of the reputed authors of Rigveda

ix, 97. We need not however speculate on that. It is

sufficient that the synonymous namesDevaraj and

Bhutakrt are clearly given to this Vasistha, and we may

well accept Devarajas his personal name,2 a name which

will distinguishhim from other Vasisthas.

At that time Visvamitra had placed his queen and his

children in ahermitage in the Kosala

country,3

and had

departedto the sdgardnupa

4 to performa

longcourse of

austerities (11. 17, 18), the ordeal by which apparently he

attained brahmanhood.6 It is said his queen proceeded1

Indra alone was considered apossible personal name, if the ascrip

tion of Rigveda x, 38 can supply any testimony.2

The suggestionon p. 903 would support this inference. In this

connexion 1. 2 of the text of Va, Bd and Lg is noteworthy (p. 889).

Satyavrata,when

interruptingthe

wedding ceremony,assailed "the

gods" (Bd divaukasah; Va divaukasdn) oramilaujasam (Lg). The

former reading is absurd, but the latter is intelligibleas

referring to

the priest who wasperforming the ceremony, and suggests that the

former reading should be Divaukasam. Divankas is nearly equivalent

to Devardj, and its use here (for the sake of tho metre) would be

intelligible,if the priest

were Vasistha himself and his name was

Devaraj. The name Devaraj would thus elucidate acorrupt word ; but

this touch to the story occursonly in Va and Bd which exaggerate

Satyavrata's misdeeds, and Br, Hv and Sv, which are moretrustworthy,

know nothing of it.3

This is probable. He wasobliged to leave them when undertaking

along

course of austerities, yet would not have deserted them nor left

them unbefriended. Kosala was one of the most powerful and safe

kingdoms, and he could expect good treatment for them there since he

was related to the royal house of Ayodhya ; see p. 88G.4

"Marshy regionnear the sea"; several are mentioned in East,

South and West India.5

But MBh says he gained brahmanhood atRusangu's tlrtlia on the

SarasvatI (ix, 40, 2270-9; 41, 2307).




to sell her second son Galava in order to provide main

tenance for the rest during the famine. Her residencethere must have been known far and wide. Satyavrata

interposed, and rescued and supported the son ;l and his

motives were two, a desire to please Visvamitra and

compassion for the D03' (1. 24). ViSvamitra's favour was

obvious!)' worth winning in Sat3'avrata's desperate plight,

for Visvamitra was a man of commanding position and

character, both as king of Kanyakubja and as one who

aimed at brahmanhood. SiUyavrata assumed the burden

of supporting ViSvamitra's family, and provided them

with food from the spoilsof his hunting, showing them

the highest respectas befitted their rank and his own, for

he had become king by righton his fathers abdication

(11. 27-30).

During the intensity of the famine Sat3'avrata, it is said

(11. 52-57), killed Vasistha's cow to obtain food for himself

and ViSvamitra's family. Whenever mention is made of

a brahman's wonderful cow, it is natural to suspect

a brahmanical touch to the story; and here the description

of the cow as sarva-kdma-duglid with the almost implied

suggestion that she was Vasistha's only cow is absurd, for

Devaraj Vasistha was then priest and king of Ayodhya

and must have possessed large herds of cattle. In other

respects the incident is not improbable. The priest-king's

cattle would certainly have been well cared for, and

Sat3'avrata, who was residing not far from the city,2 may

natural^, when famine pressed heavilyon him and

ViSvFunitra'sfamily,

have retaliated on Vasistha

by takingone of his cows, and quite possibly

even the finest of them.

Sat3'avrata, in adoptingthe methods of an

ordinary

1It is explained (1. 25) that the boy got the name Qdlava because his

mother bound him bytho neck {nala). This is no doubt one of the

many fanciful derivations to be found in the Puranas, and indeed the

whole of this incident may have been made up as an explanation for

the name.

2

Seep. 893,n. 11.




robber (1. 55), aroused Vasisthas wrath. Vasistha

threatened him with vengeance (1. 59), yet did nothing.

All that came of it is said to have been, that Vasistha

stigmatized him as the man of three saiikus or sins,

whence the name Tri&iriku wasgiven to him (11. 60-4).1

We come now to the third stage of the story (II. 65-70).

At the end of the twelve years Visvamitra returned after

completing his austerities and was then a muni. In

gratitude he ottered Satyavrataa boon. Satyavrata

chose him as his guru according to the Viiyu and

Brahmanda. The Brahma, Harivamsa and 6iva do not

really say what the boon chosen was,2 but the sequel

suggests that it was restoration to his kingdom?which

must have been the overpowering desire in his mind.

Thesequel

also shows that he secured bothboons,

for

Visvamitra inaugurated him in the kingdom and ottered

sacrifice for him, in spite of the gods and Vasistha

(11.69, 70).These are the bare

'facts' mentioned, but what they

imply is highly significant. Now Devaraj Vasistha as

priest and king of Ayodhya had all the religious and

political power of the kingdom in his hands, and againsthim was

only Visvamitra as a brahman single-handed

espousing Satyavratas rights, yet Visvamitra succeeded

in spite of Vasistha (1. 70). The account nowhere hints

that there was any positive conflict. Devaraj Vasistha's

supremacy evidently collapsedas soon as Visvamitra

championed Satyavratas cause. This admits of only

one explanation, namely, that Vasistha could commandno

support either from the army or from the people

1This explanation of the name may be doubted, just like that of

Gala-vain p. 898, n. 1.%

The line which the Br, Hv and Sv insert (see p. 892, n. 1G) is

obviouslyan

interpolation, for all three proceed to say that Visvamitra's

response was, not to raise Satyavrata to the sky (a priestly nolion), but

to restore him to the throne and oiler sacrifice for him (the natural

desire of an heir-apparent).




generally?whichmeans that all the people and especially

the whole of the ksatriya power must have disapprovedof the exile which he enforced relentlessly against

Satyavrata, while he sought to justify his own retention

of the kingdom by the proposal (which he showed no

alacrity to carry out) that he would anoint Satyavrata'sson to the throne.1 The whole kingdom

wasevidently

ill-affected towards him,2 and as soon as Visvamitra, who

combined in his person both famous kingship and

brahmanical eminence, advocated Satyavratas right,

Vasistha's dominance crumbled to pieces. Devaraj

Vasistha appears to have asserted his spiritual authority

and invoked the gods (1. 77), but all to no avail, for"

in

full view of the gods and Vasistha"

Visvamitra placed

Satyavrataon the throne and as the royal priest ottered

sacrifice for him. Visvamitra's predominanceover

Vasistha's authorityeven on the religious side indicates

that his position was regarded asindisputable and

Vasistha's positionas

unjustifiable.

Devaraj Vasistha thus lost both the kingdom and the

position of the king's priest, and must have been

transported

with rageagainst

ViSvamitra. He could not

openly resent the former loss, but the latter indignity

resulted from ViSvamitra's assumption of brahnianhood

which might be disputed. Hence the only way of revenge

open to him would have been to deny Visvamitra's

brahnianhood, and that was (as my study of the traditions

goes) the origin and explanation of the stories about

Visvamitra's difficulties inestablishing

his brahmanie

status. Had ViSvamitra not crossed Vasistha's path and

foiled his ambition, no more would probably have been

1His position

was the same in tho eyes of the people, if he proposed

to restore Satyavrata (as Va and IM say); see p. 895, n. 2. It may be

added that his priestly regime could hardly bo pleasing to the ksatriyas.2

This would explain why he did nothingmore than threaten

Satyavrata for tho personal alfront in killing the cow, if that incident

betrue.




said about ViSvamitra's assumption of brahmanhood than

is said about such assumption in other cases that

tradition refers to.1 As regards Visvamitra, the simpler

the tradition is, the less (as far as I canperceive) does it

say about difficulties beyond the course of austerities by

which he initiated himself into brahmanhood (see p. 897).

It is in stories that aremanifestly of brahmanical

complexion that we read of extraordinary difficulties,

until the tales degenerate into brahmanical fables of

aportentous struggle.2

It is unnecessary to discuss those fables here, and it is

sufficient to compare this account with the famous story

told in the Ramayana.3 This is related in the genealogy

to which it naturally belongs; that is related as

a marvellous

story.

This deals with

Satyavrata primarily,and introduces Vasistha and ViSvFtmitra inasmuch as theycame into conflict because of him; that reverses the

"plot". This takes the ksatriya standpoint; that the

brahmanical. Here the incidents are natural and are told

simply; there the incidents areextraordinary and the

description extravagant. This conforms to probability;

thatruns riot in

improbabilities. In short, this isa

plain ksatriya ballad; that aglaring brahmanical fable.

1e.g. Sindhudvlpa and Devapi, MBh ix, 41, 2294. The genealogies,

even in tho Vayu, say that Kanvas, (liirgyas, Sankrtis, Maudgaryasand Rathltaras were of ksatriya origin.

*Vasistha and Visvamitra are discussed in Muir's Sanskrit Texts,

I, 75 ff., but the various Vasisthas and Vinvamitras aro not distinguished

clearly. It is hopeless to discuss them except with the chronologicalaid of the genealogies. Many Vasisthas are mentioned in tradition,

and four arcprominent) in ksatriya tradition, namely, in chronological

order, (I) this Devaraj, (2) the priest toSagara, king of Ayodhya,

(3) the priest toKalmfisapftda Saudiisa, king of Ayodhya, and (4) the

priest who helped Samvarana to recover the Paurava kingdomfrom

the successors of Sudasa, king of Bancala : but in some stories the first

two are not always distinguishednor the second two in others, while in

brahmanical stories they are often jumbled up together. Similarly with

this, the first and greatest, Visvamitra, and his descendants. There

wasrivalry between the later Vasisthas and Visvainitras.

3Narrated in Muir's Sanskrit Texts, I, 98.




That is manifestly fabricated; this cannot have been

afabrication, for who could have composed in later times

such asimple and natural story, making Satyavrata the

chief figure and Vasistha and ViSvFunitra secondary

figures, in Hat disagreement with the other version in

both the famous Epics;1 and how (if it could have been

sofabricated) could it have gained admission into six

Puranas ? If it had not been considered to have some

inherent importance, why should the VFiyu, and in a lesser

degree the Brahmanda, have admitted it at all, when

they deemed it necessary to tamper with the passages

that told against Vasistha ? This story must therefore

be an ancient ksatriya ballad, composed before the Epic

and Puranic literature passed wholly into the hands

of the brahmans. It gives Satyavrata the chief position

of interest and pity according to the view in which the

events would have been regarded by the kings and

ksatriyas of AyodhyFi,2 and appears in its natural place,

in the genealogy of Ayodhya. That dynasty lasted till

after writingwas introduced into India. This ballad may

well have been handed down by Court bards and then put

into writing six or seven centuries B.C.3

Nothing is said about Satyavrata after he regained the

throne, except that ViSvFunitra raised him in bodily form

to the sky (1. 71).4 This is the only marvellous statemnet

1Tho MBh fable is narrated in id. p. 95.

2Let us put ourselves into their position. What would have con

cerned and interested them was prince Satyavrata's touching story,

his sufferings at Vasistha's hands and his ultimate success through

Visvamitra's aid?not a portentous conflict between Visvamitra and

Vasistha about brahmanhood, wherein he was but a puppet. The latter

is a brahmanic view ; and a late one too, embodying the strict brahmanic

ideas of asubsequent age (see p. 901, n. 1).

9Fortunately the general disregard of history, which the brahmans

entertained, though it has suppliedno real history of ancient times, has

permittedthem to preserve

alarge

mass of ksatriya tradition, the

bearing of which on their own stories they did not perceive.4

This may imply that he did not survive long,and it is probable,

because he must have been shaken in mind and body by the ordeal he

had undergone.




in this account, and onenaturally suspects that it is an

exaggeration of some probable act. Some clue is supplied,

if we notice the three grades in which the incident is

described. The closingverses (II. 73-7), which the Vayu

(and the Brahmanda partially) quotesas

having been

recited by old-time bards who knew the ancient stories,1

say merely that Trisanku shines as a constellation in the

sky through Visvamitra's favour ; this account says

ViSvamitra raised him in bodily form to the sky in spite

of Vasistha (II. 71-2); and the Ramayana fable develops

the deed into anawe-inspiring conflict between Visva

mitra and Indra in which ViSvamitra triumphed. The

statement has obviously grown, and the earliest form

of it is in those closingverses. If one may venture on

a

conjecture

in theseconditions, possibly

Visvamitramayon Trisanku's death have proposed to do him honour2 and

may have given him celestial dignity by naminga con

stellation TriSariku after him?a step to which Vasistha

may naturally have objected, especially if he really be

stowed that name on Satyavrata in opprobrium (11.57-64).

Whatever may be the worth of this suggestion, the change

of this contest between Visvamitra and Devaraj Vasisthato the Ramayana version of a conflict between Visva

mitra and the god Indra may easily have grown out of

a misunderstanding by later narrators of Vasistha's

personalname Devaraj ; which would naturally be taken

to mean Indra when the distinction had been forgotten.3

It is obvious that this incident has grown from the

simple statement in the ancient verses to the absurd fablein the Ramayana and Mahabharata. This account from

1This is what paurdnikd jandh (1. 73) must mean. These words

obviously cannot refer to the Purana compilers, because the Va and IM

cite the verses as more ancient than themselves.2

Especialtyif Trisaiiku died soon after his restoration, in consequence

of the hardships inflicted on him by Vasistha.3

The reverse is notprobable. If Vasistha's name was really Indra

(see p. 897), the misunderstanding was inevitable.




the A3'odli3'a genealog3' givesan intermediate description

of it and is therefore obviously older than the version inthe Epics?indeed it must be so much older as to allow

of the transformation of this Devaraj into the god Indra.

This seems to be about asgood evidence, as is possible in

matters of this kind, to show that this Puranic story is

really ancient, and that the genealogical accounts in the

PurFinas do contain really ancient tradition. This whole

story about Satyavrata, Vasistha and ViSvamitra has

therefore more claim to consideration than all the fables

which describe aportentous struggle between ViSvamitra

and Vasistha about brahmanhood.

The course of all tradition is from the simple and

natural to the extravagant and marvellous. Here we

have, on the one hand, an ancient ksatriya tradition,

simple, natural and probable, about Sat3'avrata, Vasistha

and ViSvamitra, and, on the other hand, various improbable

and marvellous stories culminating in the brahmanic fable

in the RFimayana. The conclusion is obvious, and supplies

agood estimate of the comparative worth of ksatriya and

brahman tradition.

TriSanku,the

religious teacher,mentioned in the

Taittirlya Upanisad, i, 10, 6, is manifestly different from

and later than this king TriSanku ; 3^et it is said in the

Vedic Index, i, 331, with reference to both of them : "The

confusion of the chronolog3' in the tales of TriSanku is

agood example of the worthlessness of the supposed epic

tradition." The soundness of this comment may be tested

ly dealing similarly with Saul the king and Saul the

religious teacher. It is impossible to treat brahmanic

tradition as a critical standard, when notoriously the

brahmans had little or no notion of histoiy.

visvamitra and vasistha

Documents