Historical Analysis of a Puranic Verse (relating to the Sunga Dynasty)

Historical Analysis of a Puranic Verse Relating to the Sunga Dynasty [sumga vamsavisayakamekam pauranikam padyam] / By Dr. S. N. Roy, M.A., D. Phil. ; Deptt. of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaology, University of Allahabad / 67-72

[ asmin lekhe sungarajavamsaparamparam nirdisatah slokasyaikasya aitihasika- paddhatya tulanatmako vicarah prastuyate | etasya slokasya vayupuraniyah pathah " pusyamitrasutascastau bhavisyanti samah nrpah " brahmandapuraniyat "agnimitro nrpascastau bhavisyati sama nrpah " ityasmat pathat sabdato'rthatasca bhidyate | lekhaka mahodayena brahmandapuraniyah patha ucita iti matva vayupuraniyapathasya- pramanikata pradarsita | yatah kascitsampadakah "pusyamitrasutascastau bhavisyati sama nrpah " iti patham drstva vyakarananurodhena pascat tatha samsodhya aitihasikam tathyamavicayaiva suddhamapi purvam pathamanyatha krtavan | anyacca indiya praphisa laibreri hastalekhe'pi vayupuraniyah "tatsuto'gnimitrasto bhavisyati sama nrpah " iti pathah samupalabhyata eva | evam agnimitrasyastavarsikam sasanameva slokarthah dradhayati, natu samrajyasyastaputresu pusyamitrena samanam vibhajanam sucayatih vayu- puraniyah pathasca hastalekhasya brahmandapuranapathasya cadharena samsodhaniya ityadi svamatam drdham pratipaditam lekhakamahodayena | ] The Puranic verse which is being analysed here occurs in the dynastic section and has its reference to the account of the Sunga dynasty after Pusyamitra. The cluster of verses of which it forms a part and which concerns with the description of the Sunga-dynasty is no doubt found in other early Purana-texts,¹ but the particular details contained in the present verse seem to be found only in the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas. In these two 1. Matsya-Purana. Chapter CCLXXII Visnu Purana.msa IV. Chapter 24. Bhagavata. Skandha XII. Chapter 1. 2. Vayu-Purana. Uttara-bhaga XXXVI. 332. Brahmanda Purana, III. 74. 151 3. Thus late Dr. R. S. Tripathi remarks in 'History of Ancient India' that 'Pusyamitra appears to have made vertually a feudal division of his extensive territories, for one version of the Vayu Purana states: 'pusyamitrasutacastau bhavisyanti sama nrpah ' i. c. all the eight sons of Pusyamitra will rule simultaneously'. This suggestion was originally made by K. P. Jaiswal, see J. B O. R. S.; 1924, Vol X, Pt. III. PP. 205-207.

68 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XI., No. 1 texts, again, the details are not identical and the verse is not uniformly worded. Thus in the Vayu-Purana, the verse reads: ' vasto bhavisyanti sama nrpah " while the reading of the Brahmanda's version is : 'asimitro nrpascastau bhavisyati sama nrpah '. Relying on the version of the Vayu Purana, some scholars are inclined to suggest that Pusyamitra made a feudal division of the empire among his eight sons; who ruled simultaneously over its different units. It is proposed here to examine the amount of originality contained in the Vayu's version and find out whether or not a distinct conclusion of the above nature, even in a surmisable manner can be formed on its basis. The point which is of vital significance in the context of the present discussion is that the forms of the verse in the texts of Vayu and Brahmanda differ seriously not only in respect of their general wording but also in respect of the general historical information which is likely to be gathered from them. Thus exactly speaking the Vayu Purana's verse conveys a fantastic account that the empire which was built up by the prowess of his arms could not remain a single whole after his death, as there were eight aspirants to it. These eight aspirants were Pusyamitra's own sons. In order to avoid the possibility of a war of succession among them, Pusyamitra divided his empire into eight administrative units to be ruled over by his sons, whose number corresponded with the number of the territorial divisions. On the contrary, the text of Brahmanda-Purana supplies altogether a different information. According to it Pusyamitra left behind him only one successor, and he was Agnimitra ; whose rule continued for eight years. In view of the conflicting nature of the statements of the two texts one may look into the question as to which of these can refer to the real state of affairs. In consonance with the methodology that can be pursued while taking into account the value of the Puranic records, the relevant form of the present query seems to be the investigation as to in which of the two texts the stamp of earliness is more faithfully

Jan., 1969] HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF A PURANIC VERSE 69 preserved¹. The traditional style which contributed to the makeup of the Purana-texts has been addition and deletion of passages in them even after the latest stage of their reduction. It is, thus, very much difficult to become sure of the genuineness or otherwise status of a particular verse mainly on the basis of the source from which it comes. At such junctures, where the Puranas are not unanimous, the proper evaluation of their evidence is possible not so much by considering the period of the text containing it as by taking into account the period of the matter contained in it. In view of this, two broad facts come to the forefront: (1) The verse occurs in an early Purana-text. But its earliness has not been effectively maintained. There are not only late chapters in it, but the original passages and verses are likewise either omitted or transformed in its early chapters at various places. (2) As a rule original passages and early verses of the Vayu Purana are mostly found in the text of Brahmanda, because both of them have sprung from the same parent-stock i. e. Vayu Proktam Puranam. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful if the present verse of Vayu Purana is the same as was composed in the original text. The possibility of the above conclusion is made still more evident when it is observed that whereas the Brahmanda's form of the verse accords uniformly well with the general style adopted in the dynastic section of the Purana-texts, there is a 1. Early and late chapters are found in both the texts. Very often even early chapters have passages of spurious character in them. New verses are incorporated into them and the older ones do not seem to retain their early forms. The vast volumes of the Purana-texts are largely due to this trend and it has played an important role at the various stages of the Purana-compilation. 2. The original unity of the texts of Vayu and Brahmanda is too wellknown for any special remark. Hazra feels that the separation of the Brahmanda Purana from the original text of Vayu took place sometime in 400 A. D. (Puranic Records, p. 134). Analysis of this point has also been done by the writer of the present article in his previous two articles entitled 'On the Date of Brahmanda Purana (published in Puranam, Vol. V. No. 2. p. 305 ff) and 'Some Late Chapters of Vayu Purana' (Published in Puranam Vol. VI. No. 2. p. 366 ff). 10

70 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XI., No. 1 Attention may which have The usual distinct deviation from it in the version of Vayu. here specially be drawn to the words gt and c varied grammatical signification in the two versions. meaning of the word in the dynastic section is year and in association with the numeral figure it brings out the regnal duration of a particular king. The Brahmanda's version in which the words and are employed in order to denote the regnal duration of Pusyamitra's successor seems quite consistent with this style. On the other hand, these words in the Vayu's version present its make-up which has hardly any relevance in the set-up of the verses of which it is expected to be an essential part. The spurious character of Vayu's verse is fully exposed from the consideration of the fact that the reference to Agnimitra is missing in the entire list of the text and the only verse in which such reference could be made is the present one. It is to be noted that Agnimitra's name either occurs or is at least indicated even in the Puranas whose account with regard to the Sunga-dynasty is a bit condensed in comparison to the texts of Vayu and Brahmanda. This is a clear testimony to show that the verse has lost its original form in the text of the Vayu Purana. It may further be argued on the basis of the Vayu's verse that the compiler who prepared the edition of the Purana at some late stage did not take into full account the precise order of succession after Pusyamitra due probably very much to lack of historical sense in him. It appears that the original text which formed the basis of the new recension read the line as follows: 1. The irregular arrangement of Astau and Sama in the Vayu's version had already been pointed out by Mr. Pargiter (Ibid, p. 31. Fn. 10). The remark which he makes in his brief note on the present verse implies that the words : and : are erroneous conversions of their singular forms. Obviously in the converted forms of these words, and seem to be standing as adjectives in their relation; whereas the general arrangement of the verses of the group and the particular style followed in them suggest that it is a qualifying term in relation the noun samah

Jan., 1969] HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF A PURANIC VERSE 71 pusyamitrasutascastau bhavisyati sama nrpah | The reference of the verse was thus obviously to the regnal period of Agnimitra, son and successor of Pusyamitra. As the name of Agnimitra is only indicated in this verse instead of being directly mentioned and as the number of kings of the dynasty, whose names are enumerated hereafter is eight, the numeral figure was mistaken for a reference to the number of kings enumerated in the verses subsequent to the present one. The verse was thus reconstructed in accordance with the exegencies of grammar by a compiler who had little knowledge of historical traditions, as a result of which he was not well competent to realize that the verse was already correct and consistent in its original form. Even if we set aside the above consideration in view of its being too conjectural for the purpose of proper history there is, nevertheless, an evidence of positive nature to prove that the verse composed in the original text was in the same very form as it is found in the text of Brahmanda. Thus in a version of Vayu the verse reads : tatsuto'gnimitrasto bhavisyati sama nrpah It would be seen that so far as its general connotation is concerned this verse is very much similar to that of the Brahmanda text. It is found in the manuscript of Vayu, which is preserved in the India office library. According to the observation of Pargiter, this manuscript is very valuable, because it agrees with the Matsya-text where it differs from the printed text of Vayu.2 The unity of the Matsya-text with that of the present text of Vayu leads one to presume that the verses which are now missing in the Matsya had the same reading as the latter has got in it. From this it may also be adduced that the verse in the manuscript of Vayu has got original elements in it, because the Purana-text of the dynasties of the Kali Age is said to have its earliest form in the Matsya-Purana.³ The 1. See also notes on this verse by Pargiter (Ibid, p. 31) who is in favour of the similar corrected form. He also cites the parallels of other Purana texts which either refer to the name of Agnimitra or simply allude to his reign after the reign of Pusyamitra. In all these texts there is reference to only one son of Pusyamitra. 2. Ibid, p. XXXIII. 3. Ibid, p. XIV.

72 puranam - PURANA [Vol. XI., No. 1 loss of the verse under discussion in the available texts of the Matsya is evidently due to the revisionary trend of the Puranakaras; consequent upon which, as Hazra¹ shows, the text of Matsya-Purana has been subjected to repeated additions and losses. The various possible angles from which we have analysed the Vayu-Purana's verse in our humble attempt are tendentious to the following general remarks on it: (1) That the form of the verse which is found in the printed texts of Vayu points to its revision at a later date. When this revision took place, an attempt was made by the compiler at the readjustment according to his fancy without taking note of the meaning originally contained in it. (2) That the verse cannot be made the basis for the history of the Sungas unless otherwise it is corrected in the light of Brahmanda Purana and that of the manuscript form of the Vayu's text, cited above. (3) That in its genuine form the verse simply refers to the duration of the reign of Pusyamitra's son and successor, Agnimitra who ruled for eight years and not to the readjustment of the empire into eight feudal units. 1. Puranic Records, pp. 46-48