The Legend of Cirakarin

The Legend of Cirakarin in the Skanda Mahapurana and the Mahabharata (a comparative study) [skandamahapurane mahabharate ca cirakarikopakhyanam] / By Prof. V. M. Bedekar, M.A., Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona-4 / 197-214

[ skandapurane mahesvarakhandantargata kimarakhandasya sasthe'dhyaye mahabharate ca moksadharmaparvani 258 sradhyaye cirakarikopakhyanam vartate | cirakari nama medhatithergotamasya putra srasit | sa svabhavadeva vimrsyakaritvaccirakariti namna prasiddho babhuva | skandhapurana- nusarena tasya mata kausikitire baॉla rajanamiksitavati | asmad vyabhicaraddhetoscirakari svamaturvadhaya gautamenadistah, matrvadham svikrtyapi svabhavadeva ciram vimrsyakaritvat matrvadhe dosan vimrsan matusca mahantam gauravam vicarayanneva ciramatisthat | etasminnantare brahmanavesadharina sakrena gautamah strinamaparadhah upeksaniya ityupadistah | gautamo'pi svapalya vadho naicchat | atah sa cirakarinam vimrsantam svapatnim ca jivantimeva drstva param sukhi vabhuva | mahabharate gautamapatni gautamavesadharinendrena saha vyabhicaram caritavatyapi cirakarina gautamena sa mata | atra niraparadha cobhabhyameva skandapurane cirakarikopakhyanasya jamadagni- renuka- parasuramopakhyanam mulam, mahabharate ca gautama-ahalya-indropakhyanam jamadagni-parasuramopakhyanam cobhayameva mulam | ityadirupenasminnibandhe lekhaka mahodayena tulanatmakadrstva' tivopayogi vimarsah prastutah, dvividhamidamakhyanamasritya ca tadanintanasya lokasya strinam visaye ka drstibambhuvetyadivisayo'pi samalocitah | ] There are many legends which are common to the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Puranas and other old Sanskrit works. Though many of these legends, appearing in common in these works, seem to be broadly identical, they are likely to show, on a closer comparative study, significant difference in details indicative of the different versions handed down by different old traditions. Though the general frame-work of the story and persons appearing in it may be identical in these several works, there may be found from work to work

198 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 a new adaptation and orientation given to the drift of the original story and to the characterization of persons figuring in it, indicative of the change in the temper and outlook of the society in which the story was retold. It is proposed, in this article, to make a comparative study of the legend of Cirakarin from this point of view. The story of Cirakarin ('one who acts late' i.e. one who reflects long before doing anything) occurs in two worksthe Skanda Mahapurana (SK) and the Mahabharata (Mbh.). The story is significant from many points of view; it also differs in many important details in the two works. Before we mark the points of difference in the presentation of the story in these two works and its significance, we shall first present the story in accordance with its version occurring in the SK. The story of Cirakarin is found in SK. 1. 2. 6. ie. in the 6th adhyaya of the Kaumara-khanda of the Mahesvara-Khanda of the Skandamahapurana. Narada¹ is desirous of settling a colony of Brahmanas in a holy place called Stambhatirtha which is said to be situated 'at the meeting-place of the earth and the sea' (). He wanted to make a free religious gift of that holy place to the Brahmanas. He, therefore, took with him twentysix thousand Brahmanas belonging to Kalapa and other adjoining villages in the north to the Stambha-tirtha, on the sea-coast in the South. The leader of those Brahmanas was Harita who readily accepted Narada's offer to go and settle in the Stambha-tirtha. Narada 1 sraham hi brahmano vakyadvipranam sthanakam subham | datukamo mahatirthe mahisagarasamgame || 9 || 2 Harita Says: -SK. 1. 2. 6, (Venkatesvara Press edition, Bombay) kalapadisu gramesu ko vaseta vicaksanah | yadi vasah stambhatirthe ksanardhamapi labhyate || 24 ||

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 199 arrived at the Stambha-tirtha with the host of the Brahmanas and proceeded to wash the feet of the Brahmanas as a preparation previous to the announcement of his proposed gift, when there arrived on the scene a sage named Kapila. Narada treated this distinguished guest with great hospitality and gave over to him, according to the latter's desire, eight thousand Brahmanas from among the Brahmana inhabitants of Kalapa, with a piece of land at the Stambha-tirtha, announcing that this small colony would be called the kapilam sthanam . ' - Then Narada with a view to carrying out his original proposal of giving away in charity the gift of the Stambha trtha to the Brahmanas, invited their leader Harita to accept at his hands the 'washing of feet'. Accordingly Harita came forward and stood, bringing his left foot in front to be washed, instead of his right foot. At this fault of Harita, the sages, the celestial damsels and the gods who had assembled there, burst into a laughter of ridicule. Narada was offended and he cursed Harita and his Brahmana followers that they would be block- sadvisatisahasrani brahmana me parigrahe | satkarmaniratah suddha lobhadambhavivarjitah|| 27 || taih sardhamagamisyami mamedam matamuttamam | 11 28 11 SK. ibid. 1 naradah- dhanyo'ham yadihayatah kapila tvam mahamune | nastyadeyam tavasmabhih patram nasti tavadhikam || 53 || kapila uvaca - astau viprasahasrani mama dehiti narada || 57 bhumidanam karisyami kalapagramavasinam | brahmananamaham caisam tadidam kriyatam vibho || 58 || naradah- tatte maya pratijnatamevamastu mahamune | tvayapi kriyatam sthanam kapilam kapilottamam || 59 || SK. ib.

200 puranam -- PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 heads and reduced to penury . ' Harita retorted : "Oh sage, it is you who stand to lose by cursing us thus. I committed this fault in a fit of absent-mindedness. Hear why I was absentminded. I was all the while thinking hard in my mind about accepting your gift. The acceptance of gift is very painful for a Brahmana, because the acceptance of gift diminishes his spiritual power. That is why you should not be angry with me for a fault which I committed in a flt of absent-mindedness."2 At this explanation of Harita, Narada was stung with repentance for his hasty pronouncement of the curse and openly blamed himself in the presence of the Brahmanas for his foolish rashness. He said: One should not do actions rashly. Rash action is the abode of calamities. All the goods and riches of life come to a wise man who does things only after 1 tato mahamunih sriman harito hvayatastada || 6 || padapraksalanarthaya siddhadevasamagame | haritasca puraskrtya vamapadam tatha sthitah || 3|| tato haso mahajajne siddhapsarah suparvanam | || 64 || tato mamapi manasi sokavego mahanabhut | 1 65 1 tato'hamabruvam vipran yuyam murkha bhavisyatha | dhanadhanyalpasamyukta daridrayakalalavrtah || 67 || 2 evamukta े prahasyaiva haritah prabravididam | SK. ibid. tavaiveyam mune haniryadasmanchapate bhavan || 68 || srnu tatkaranam dhimanchunyata me yato bhavet || 71 || iti cintayatascitte ha duhkho'yam pratigrahah | pratigrahena vipranam brahmayam tejo hi samyati || 72 || iti cintayato mahyam sunyatabhuddhi narada | ---- || 75 | tadesu matiman kopam na kurvita || 76 || - 8K. ib.

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 201 reflection.!" In this context, Narada remembered the old story of Cira karin and told it to the Brahmanas. The following is the close summary of the story as Narada told it to the Brahmanas (SK. ib. 80-131). Gautama had a son named Cirakarin (C.). He was very intelligent. He did all actions after long reflection. He was called C. because he reflected long before doing anything. People, who had small minds and could not see far, called him an idler and a fool. 3 Once his father was angry with his wife (C.'s mother) for some moral transgression (vyabhicara) on her part. Leaving aside all other sons, the father asked C. to kill his mother. C., according to his wont, said 'Yes' after a long time. Then he thought long: "Oh! shall I sink down like a wretch under this dilemma and quandary of duties. To obey the father's command is the highest duty. Still who can hope to be happy after having killed a woman and a mother ?"3 1 tanvipranabravam punah | dhin mamastu ca durbuddhimavimrsyarthamkarinam || 78 || sahasa na kriyam kuryatpadametanmahapadam | vimasyakarinam dhiram vrnate sarvasampadah || 79|| 2 cirakari mahaprajno gautamasyabhavatsutah | cirakaryabhisampattesvarakari tathocyate | - SK. ib. alasagrahanam prapto durmedhavi tathocyate || buddhilaghavayuktena janenadirghadarsina | 81-33 | 3. vyabhicarena kasmin sa vyatikramyaparan sutan | pitroktah sa tatheti vimrsya katha kupitenatha jahimam jahimam jananimiti | cirenoktah svabhavaccirakarakah || cirakaritvacitayamasa vai ciram | dharmacchalenasminnimajyeyamasadhuvat | piturajna paro dharmah - SK. ib. striyam hatva mataram ca ko hi jatu sukhi bhavet || 83-87 || 26 SK. ib.

202 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 Then C. thought of arguments in favour of the claims. of the father: One who disregards one's father is not an honourable man. The father bodies forth his own self in his son. One owes one's body to the father, When father is pleased, all gods are pleased. If the father approves, one gets free from all sins, as a flower or fruit gets free from its stem, So the father occupies a big place is our mind. But then let me think of my mother.''1 The whole And C. thinks of arguments in favour of his mother and sings of the glory of having a mother: "This assembly of five elements in me is due to my mother as the birth of the fire is due to the fire-stick. In the presence of the mother, one is not affected by grief or old age. Even a poor man, when he comes home and calls 'mother'-even if he be hundred years old, he behaves like a baby of two years. world becomes a void in the absence of mother. shady shelter, refuge or protection or watering place like the mother. She is a because she sustains her baby in the womb, janani because she gives birth, amba because she nourishes the limbs, virasu because she produces a vira, svasru because she attends to and nurses her baby and a because she thinks 1. pitaram capyavajnaya kah pratisthamavapnuyat | pita hyatmanamadhatte jayayam jajnivaniti || parikalpitah | tvekah prayacchati | so'hamatma svayam pitra putratve sariradini deyani pita tasmatpiturvacah karyam na vicaryam kathamcana || sarvapapanam pita yadabhinandati | niskrtih mucyate bandhanatpuspam phalam pita nalpataram sthanam vrntanpramucyate || There is no citayisyami mataram | 88-97 2. yo hyayam mayi samghato martyatve pamcabhautikah || asya me janani hetuh pavakasya yatharanih | SK. ib. matrlabhe sanathatvamanathatvam viparyaye | na sa socati napyenam sthavaryamapakarsati || 97-99 || SK. ib.

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 203 highly of her child." Then at last, C. concludes that the mother is worth more than the whole world of men and gods and that, therefore, though other elders fallen from virtue may be abandoned, the mother though fallen from virtue should never be forsaken as she is greater than all others on account of her bearing the foetus and nourishing it." The father of C. had seen his wife staring, according to the nature of women, at King Bali on the bank of the river Kausiki and had therefore asked his son to kill her. After having given the order, the father was uneasy and thought for a long time and could not overcome his uneasiness.3 While he was brooding over the matter, there arrived, at his hermitage, Indra in the guise of a Brahmana. He cited to the father of C. certain old verses (gatha ) which meant : "False and frail 1. sriya hino'pi yo gehe ambeti pratipadyate | dvihayanavaccaret | api varsasatasyante sa tada sunyam jagattasya yada mata viyujyate | nasti matrsama chaya nasti matrsama gatih | nasti matrsamam tranam nasti matrsama prapa | kuksisamdharanaddhatri jananajanani tatha || anganam vardhanadamba vardhanadamba virasutve ca virasuh | sisoh susrusanacchvasrurmata syanmananattatha || 100-105 || SK. ib. Up to this point, the Mbh. version of the story of C. is almost common. But at this poiut, there intervenes in the Mbh. a passage of about 16 lines which, in effect, exculpates the mother, even though she is guilty of sexual infidelity. We shall summarize this passage in the sequel of this article when we deal with the differences which the Mbh. has from the SK. 2 martyanam devatanam ca pugo natyeti mataram || patita guravastyajya mata ca na kathamcana | garbhadharanaposabhyam tena mata gariyasi || 106-107 || 3 evam sa kausikitire bali rajanamiksatim | SK. ib. strivrtti cirakalatvaddhantum distah svamataram || vimrsya cirakalam hi citantam nabhyapadyata | 108-109 | SK. ib.

204 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 are women: That is how the ancient author of the Sutras describes them. Fruit should be gathered from them. A wise man should not be fault-finding in their respect."" Hearing these wise words, Medhatithi Gautama (the father of C.) -It appears that Gautama was the family name and Medhatithi was the personal name of C's father-honoured that Brahmana. He was sorry and full of tears. In this repentant mood he thought to himself" : "Oh! on account of jealousy, I have come to such grief! Now who would save me from this sin ? How good it would be, if my son Cirakarin would be late, according to his wont, in executing my command! O Cirakarin, if you would be late today, you would be true to your name. Save me from this sin which I have earned!" Thus brooding, Gautama, C's father, sought out C. and found him weapon in hand, with his mother. At the sight of the father, C. threw down the weapon, bowed at the feet of his father and sought his mercy and favour for having failed to discharge his order. Medhatithi, however, when he saw his son prostrate at his feet 1 etasminnamtare sakro brahmanam rupamasthitah || gayan gathamupayatah pitustasyasramantike | sranrta hi striyah sarvah sutrakaro yadabravit || atastabhyah phalam grahyam na syaddoseksanah sudhih | iti srutva tamanarca medhatithirudaradhih || duhkhitascintayan prapto bhrsamasruni varsayan | 109-112| 2 aho'hamiyamyaksipto magno'ham duhkhasagare || ||| SK. ib. hatva narim ca sadhvim ca ko nu mam tarayisyati | yadyayam cirakari syat sa mam trayeta patakat | cirakarika bhadram te bhadram te cirakarika || yadadya cirakari tvam tato'si cirakarikah | trahi mam mataram caiva tapo yaccajitam maya | evam sa duhkhitah prapto gautamo'cintayattada | cirakarikam dadarsatha putram maturupantike || (cirakari tu ... ) sastram tyaktva sthito murdhna prasadayopacakrame | # 112-118 # SK. ib.

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 205 and the wife alive, was mightily pleased, kissed and embraced his son and wished him long life. In that joy, he burst into a paean in praise of the action of C., i.e. of his long reflection before doing an action: "One should hold counsel for a long time, give it up only after a long time. One should make friendship after a long time and should maintain it long. In matters of ill health, acts of arrogance, pride and hatred, in matters relating to any unpleasant action, in the case of friends, servants and women whose crimes are not obvious, it is the Cirakarin- one who reflects long before action, who is praised. On the other hand, in matters of urgent religions duties, in the presence of an enemy with weapon in hand, in imminent danger and in honouring good men Cirkarin i.e. one who takes time for long reflection before acting, is not commended". With these words Medhatithi Gautama accompanied by his wife and son, lived a holy life long in his hermitage and went finally to heaven. The story of C. appears in almost identical verses in the Mbh. The Mbh. version of the story runs into about 150 lines 1 medhatithih sutam drstva sirasa patitam bhuvi || patnim caiva tu jivamtim paramabhyagamanmudam | tatah pitra ciram smrtva ciram caghraya murdhani | ciram dorbhyam parisvajya ciram jivetyudahrtah || gathascapyabravidvidvan gautamo munisattamah | cirerana mamtra samghiyat cirena ca krtam tyajet | cirena vihitam mitram ciram dharanamarhati || roge darpe ca mane ca drohe pape ca karmani | apriye caiva karttavye cirakari prasasyate || bandhunam suhrdam caiva bhrtyanam strijanasya ca | avyakta svaparadhesu cirakari prasasyate || 118-126 || 2 dharme satrau sastrahaste patre ca nikatasthite || bhaye ca sadhupujayam cirakari na sasyate | evamuktva putrabharyasahitah prapya casramam || tatasciramupasthaya divam yatasciram munih | 129-131 | SK. ib. SK. ib.

206 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 of the Anustubh, while the SK. version into about 100. On a comparison of the texts of the two versions, we find that the SK. version drops about 63 lines appearing in the Mbh., while it shows additional 15 lines. These differences are, however, very important from the point of their contents. We are here concerned with the differences. Before we discuss the contents of these differences and their implications in the light of the text of the Mbh. version, we shall recapitulate and emphasise certain important points in the story as told in the SK. version above. They are as follows: (i) Narada introduces the story of C. in his mood of selfcondemnation for having pronounced a hasty impatient curse on Harita. By telling the story of C, he means to suggest that he ought to have reflected a long time like C. before hurrying into the pronouncement of the curse. (ii) C., while cogitating between the claims of the father and the mother on his affection, decides ultimately in favour of the mother. It seems that he feels more deeply attached to the mother and is overwhelmed by the feeling of gratitude for her on account of her sustained and patient care of the children. (iii) The fault of the wife of Medhatithi Gautama lies in the fact that she once remained staring for a while at King Bali. The part that Indra plays in the affair is that of an adviser who impresses on Gautama that the latter should take a lenient view of his wife's laxity in view of the fact that women are constituted that way. Now, when we come to the version of C.'s story as told in the Mbh, the first difference which strikes us is in the matter of the introduction of the story. In the Mbh., Yudhisthira asks Bhisma: "How should one decide in the matter of doing a duty-whether speedily or late after a long time ? This is by all means a difficult matter in which I regard you 1. vide Appendix II, passage no. 5, page 2126 of the Santiparvan of the Mahabharata (the critical edition of the Bhandarkar Oriental R. Institute).

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 207 as our greatest guide."1 In reply to Yudhisthira's query, Bhisma recounts the 'ancient story of C." The diaskeuast who inserted this story as it stands in the Moksadharmaparvan of the Mbh. was perhaps led to insert it in this place i.e. as chapter 258 under the impression that the story highlights the doctrine of non-injury or non-killing (c). For, the chapter 257 viz. f and chapter 259 viz, satyavadadyumatsenasamvada respectively preceding and succeeding the faf (ch. 258) are, in their import and significance, mainly concerned with non-violence. Nilakantha, the famous commentator of the Mbh. takes it in this sense; for he prefaces his commentary to this chapter by remarking that the doing of violence imposed at some body's behest should be avoided by delay.3 The second difference which the Mbh. shows from the SK. is in the matter of an additional argument which C. puts forth in favour of the mother. After advancing the argument of the SK. in identical words that the mother, as,, has stronger claim over her children's affections, the Mbh. sets forth in an additional passage an interesting additional "The couple copulate together. But argument as follows: 1 yudhisthira uvaca - katham karyam parikseta sighram vatha cirena va | sarvada karyadurge'smin bhavannah paramo guruh || - Mbh. 12. 158. 1. 2 bhisma uvaca - atrapyudaharantimamitihasam puratanam | cirakarestu yatpurvam vrttammangirase kule || - Mbh. ib. 2 The SK. also says that C. was born in the Angirasa family. "f | pura hi brahmanah kascitprakhyato'ngirasam kule || " 1.2.6. 80. 3 'evamahimsadharmasyavasyanustheyatvamuktva kadacitpara nibandhaddhisamupasthitam kalavilambadina pariharediti prasnapurvakamakhyayika mukhenaha | ' - on Mbh. 12. 266. (Chitrashala press edition, Poona, 1932, page 501)

208 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 the fact (of the identity of the father of the child) rests on the mother. The father's family is that alone which the mother knows. Again, when the husband takes the hand of the wife in marriage, he alone becomes responsible for the lapse, if any. The wife is never responsible for the lapse. The husband is called the cf because he feeds and sustains the wife; he is called cf because he protects her. If he fails to do both these things, he is no longer the husband. Thus if there is any fault, it is the man's and never the woman's; for it is ultimately on account of the man's incompetence that the lapse, if at all, occurs on the part of the woman." The above argument is interesting because it exculpates the woman from the guilt of her lapse, holding her husband responsible for it, inasmuch as he could not protect her against temptation. In the S K. Version, however, the son does not raise the point of his mother's guilt at all. The sense of love and gratitude for the mother so much overwhelms him that the idea of guilt on the part of the mother does not at all weigh with him and he decides that the mother always deserves a place of honour. In the Mbh. version, however, the question of mother's guilt vis-a-vis the father is squarely faced and most ingeniously answered: Here the tables are turned against the father who, in a patriarchal system, is held to be the absolute custodian of the mother's morals. The next point of difference-and the most important of all of the Mbh. version from the SK. version is in respect of 1 dampatyoh pranasamslese yo'bhisamdhih krtah kila | a frat ar fgar az yard qafe fega: 11 mata janati yad gotram mata janati yasya sah | panibandham svayam krtva sahadharmamupetya ca | yadi yapyanti purusah striyo narhanti yapyatam || bharanaddhi striyo bharta patyaccaiva striyah patih | gunasyasya nivrttau tu na bharta na patih patih || evam stri naparadhnoti nara evaparadhyati | 32-36 -Mbh. ibid. The main import and not the literal translation of these verses is given above, on the basis of the interpretation given by Nilakantha and Pratap Chandra Ray who has followed Nilakantha.

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 209 the nature and magnitude of the mother's guilt. We have seen above in the SK. version that the mother's guilt lay in her lapse of merely having gazed at King Bali. There Indra merely played the part of an adviser who advised Gautama to take a lenient view of the affair. In the Mbh. version, however, in a passage which is found dropped in the SK., Indra plays the active and principal part in seducing and ravishing the wife of Gautama (the mother of Cirkarin). Both Gautama and Cirakarin know it and still hold the wife and the mother respectively as guiltless in the exigency of that particular situation, of course, on different grounds. C. argues that Indra approached his mother in the guise of Gautama, his father, and that, therefore, it was no fault of his mother, if she answered the overtures of Indra, in her husband's guise. Further he says that if it was anybody's fault or sin, it was Indra's; for it was Indra who had put sexual passion in women's nature and who now took advantage of that trait in the particular case. C.'s words in the Mbh. passage are as follows: "A husband is the highest object with the wife and the highest deity to her. My mother gave up her sacred person to one that came to her in the form and guise of her own husband. Then again the sinfulness (in this case) is evident of Indra himself who (by acting in the way he did) caused the recollection of the request that had been made to him in days of yore by women (when a third part of the sin of Brahmanicide of which Indra himself was guilty, was cast upon her sex)." 1 striya hi paramo bharta daivatam paramam smrtam | tasyatmana tu sadrsamatmanam paramam dadau || yasvanokto hi nirdesah striya maithunatrptaye | tasya smarayato vyaktamadharmo natra samsaya || 37-38 Mbb. ib. 1 The translation given above of these two verses is that of Pratap Chandra Ray who has followed Nilakantha's interpretation of the verses. In view of the importance of these obscure verses, we give below Nilakantha's relevant commentary (on these verses) which forms the basis of the translation above: "striya hi iti | tasya atmana sarirena sadrsam indram alaksyeti sesah | sratmanam sariram paramam srestham dadau | svapativesenagataya parasmai patibuddhya sariram prayacchantya 27

210 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 In the same Mbh. version Medhatithi Gautama, C's father, holds his wife not guilty on quite different grounds from those of C. In his words, they are as follows : 1 arrived at my "Indra, the lord of the three worlds hermitage as a guest in the guise of a Brahmana. He was comforted with words and honoured with welcome by her who treated all guests equally. She also gave him, as was customary, water to wash his feet and usual offerings of Arghya. She said to him that she was a dependant (being a wife to another) and that she would honour him only according to the requirements of ordinary courtesy. If in such a situation, something untoward happens, it is not the woman's fault. So none is at fault - neither my wife, nor I, nor the guest Indra." It will be clear from the above summary that the Mbh. version of C.'s story shows a very significant difference from mama maturna vyabhicaradoso'sti | garbhanutpatteh kulasamkarabhavanneyam vadhyetyarthah || yascaneti | canasabdo'pyarthe yo'pi maithunajanyatrptaye nirdeso vacanam ukta indram prati iti sesah | evam hyupakhyayate - tvastuh putrastrisirah indrena hatah taddhatyayah trtiyamsah strisu rajorupena sthapitah dvau vrksabhumyoh niryasosararupau sthapitau tada stribhirvarah prarthitah - kamamavi - janitoh sambhavameti | asmakam jananaparyantam purusasamgo'stviti | so'yam nirdesah striya uktah tasya tam smarayatah svahatyamsanidhanena tatsmaranaprayojakasyendrasyaiva vyaktam adharmah tasmadindrasyaparadhanmama maturvadho na nyayyah na tu mama matuh atra samsayo nasti | iti bhavah || " Mbh. 12.266, 39-11 1 (Chitrashala Fress edition, p. 503 ) srasramam mama sampraptastrilokesah purandarah | atithivratamasthaya brahmanam rupamasthitah || samaya santvito vagbhih svagatenabhipujitah | arghyam padyam ca nyayena tayabhipratipaditah || paravatyasmi capyuktah pranayisye nayena ca | sratra cakusale jate striyo nasti vyatikramah || evam na stri na caivaham nadhvagastridasesvarah | aparadhyati dharmasya pramadastvaparadhyati || 44-47 Mbh ib. On the last quarter of the above verse 47, Nilakantha has the following interesting comment. "dharmasya yogasambandhipramado'navadhanata | indrasyanaparadhatvam dvesarahityanmunineोktam na tu vyavaharatah | " (Chitrashala Press edition, p. 534.)

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRAKARIN 211 the SK. in a very important detail. Indra, in the Mbh. version, does not play the part of an adviser but he actually makes overtures to C.'s mother and ravishes her chastity. Both C. and his father hold her not guilty because she has committed the offence unawares. Though the lapse on the part of Gautama's wife appears to be more serious than the one described in the SK. version, it is condoned on account of the extenuating fact that she naturally took Indra in Gautama's guise as her husband. The Mbh. version nowhere mentions the name of C.'s mother. Nilakantha, the commentator, however, repeatedly mentions her in his commentary by the name of Ahalya. He appears to think that this story refers to the same famous Gautama-Ahalya-Indra episode described in works like the Ramayana and the Puranas only with a different conclusion." In the usual Gautama-Indra-Ahalya story, Ahalya is cursed by Gautama as a result of which she is turned into a stone to be eventually restored by the touch of Rama's foot. But in the C.'s story in the Mbh. the plot of the story has a different denouement. It may be further pointed out that the C. story in the two versions viz. the Mbh. and the SK. adapts and modifies two different ancient stories. The C. story in the Mbh. incorporates and adapts and alters the old Gautama-AhalyaIndra story; In the old Gautama-Ahalya-Indra Story Gautama does not ask his son to kill Ahalya but curses her himself. In the Mbh. version of the story, however, a son is brought in on the model of the Jamadagni-Parasurama episode to do the behest of the father. Thus the Mbh. version adapts and alters the two ancient stories-that of GautamaAhalya-Indra and that of Jamadagni-Parasurama. The C. 1 On the following line in the Mbh. version; patnim caiva nirakaram paramabhyagamanmudam | 58 (Mbh. ibid.) Nilakantha comments as follows: nirakaram lajjaya pasanabhutam | puranantare gautamasapenaiva pasana- | ' bhutamiti smaryamte | - Shantiparvan. (Chitrashala Press edition, p. 504.)

212 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 story in the SK. version, however, embodies and adapts a quite different story viz. the story of Jamadagni, Renuka and their son Parasurama. It will be recalled that in the original story Renuka was accused of guilt similar to that of the mother of C.: Renuka was found guilty of gazing at a Gandharva King for which the indignant Jamadagni ordered Parasurama, one of his sons, to behead his mother. Parasurama instantly carried out the command of his father. Parasurama was not, however, devoid of filial love towards his mother; for, he asked a boon from his father who was pleased with his dutiful son that his mother should be restored back to life, without retaining any memory of her having been beheaded by her son. The SK. version, while following the Jamadagni-Renu ka model, deviates from it in putting C. in place of Parasurama and in making him put off the execution of the father's order until the father arrives on the scene. The main import of the C. story is, no doubt, its impressive emphasis on the advisability of reflection before action or of thoughtful action. It may be said to be a good illustration of the famous verse in this behalf of Bharavi:1 sahasa vidadhita na kriyam avivekah paramapadam padam | vrnate hi vimrsyakarinam gunalubdhah svayameba sampadah || In fact Narada, in the version of the SK. given above, while setting out to relate the story of C., appears to echo the very words of the above stanza in the verse- sahasa na kriyam kuryat padametanmahapadam | vimrsyakarinam dhiram vrnate sarvasampadah || already quoted in Footnote 6. The above verse in the SK. followed by the story of C. in the sequel equates, in effect, cirakarin with vimrsyakarin and sets forth an opposition, as in Bharavi's verse, between sahasa kriyam kuryat and vimrsyakaritva . It may be pointed out that Mbh. version nowhere expresses such opposition in explicit terms. 1. Kiratarjuniyam II. 30.

Jan. 1962] THE LEGEND OF CIRARARIN 213 The story of C. in both the versions-the Mbh. and the SK-may be said to indicate a significant change in outlook towards moral lapses and the individual's responsibility (for the moral lapses). In the old Gautama-Ahalya (Indra) and Jamadagni-Renuka-(Parasurama) stories there is found little regard and understanding for the moral position and the psychological condition of the wife and the son. The will of the patriarch is supreme and his command is to be carried out peremptorily. There is, however, a refreshing humane change in this outlook in the C. stories. The son is, no longer, an automaton involuntarily carrying out the command of the father but an intelligent thinking individual weighing the pros and cons of the situation. He thinks that the mother is also an individual having her own moral dignity and self-respect and has with the father equal, if not more, claims on his love and affection. The father or the patriarch of the family, after issuing his peremptory command, has also his second thoughts and develops an understanding sympathy for the wife and the son and a humane discernment between major and minor lapses (as in the case of the SK. version) or between witting and unwitting lapses (as in the Mbh. version). We have dealt with the important differences between the Mbh. and the SK. versions of the C. story and pointed out Before we some of the implications stemming from them. conclude, it would be advisable to touch on the time-relation between the texts of the two versions. The SK, as it stands at present, is judged by competent scholars as not being earlier than 700 A.D.¹ The Mbh. in its present size is generally believed to have existed by the 4th century A.D. Judging by these dates, one may be tempted to say that the SK version of the C. story may have been the direct borrower from the Mbh. version. In fact, more than half the verses bearing on the C. episode are common to both. But if one takes into consideration the remarkable differences discussed above between 1. vide R. C. Hazra Studies in Puranic Records etc.' p. 165: "There seems to be little in it (the present Skanda) which can be dated earlier than 700 A. D."

214 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 the two versions, one may not be sure whether there was a direct borrowing of the SK from the Mbh. The differences are so remarkable that they may lead one to conclude that both the versions drew upon a common floating version of the story, adapting the material with suitable changes. Even so, one can not resist the impression that the version of C. story retained after adaptation by the Mbh. appears to belong to an earlier time than that of the SK. The impression is based on two reasons: one, in contrast to the Mbh., the SK. introduction of the story, as already pointed out above evidently appears to echo words of Bharavi (6th century); the second reason is that the Mbh. version works up into its story the motifs of two ancient stories-that of Gautama AhalyaIndra and of Jamadagni-Renuka (Parasurama). The mixing of the two motifs makes the story unnecessarily complex and introduces elements which detract from the telling effect of the C. story. The auther of the SK version must have realized the awkward complexity caused by the mixing of the two motifs and must have thought it advisable to economize in the interest of the story by retaining only one motif viz. that of Jamadagni-Renuka-Parasurama and thus make the story simple, direct and more telling.