Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
Transcript of Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 1/32
Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, and SunahsepaAuthor(s): F. E. PargiterReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Jan., 1917), pp.37-67Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25189505 .
Accessed: 14/08/2012 10:52
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
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 2/32
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 3/32
38 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
tho A iksvaku dynasty, and we can well perceive that the
ksatriya ballad had a deep and lasting interest for tbo
Aiksvakus, so that it waspreserved
as apart of their
genealogy,as appears in six Puranas.
Two verses were cited assuggesting that this Vasistha
had the personalname
Devaraj. They say that a Vasistha
named Devarajor Bhutakrt had preserved all creatures
alive duringa
period of drought, and it waspointed out
that the allusion could not well apply to any time of
thought except this period. This identification may be
amplified. There are two other statements which connect
m Vasistha with such aperiod. One runs thus l:?Of
yore in the Tarakamayawar between the gods and asuras,
when the world was smitten with drought and the godswore
distraught, Vasistha maintained tho people by his
austerities; providing food, etc., he kept them alive.
That allusion appears in a brahmanical account of the
Vasistha famil}' and is purely fabulous, because that war
occurred in mythical time and connexion, and what is
apparently the oldest version connects it with Soma's
abduction of Brhaspatis wife Tara.2 That Vasistha
cannot be meant in the two verses
cited,because
theyplainly refer to some person who is historical according
to tradition, for the}'occur in two lists of kings and other
men who earned heaven by their signal good deeds, as
expressly stated at the end of the lists.3 The other state
ment relates to the Vasistha who wras priest to king
Saihvarana of the Paurava line much later. It says4?
1Brahmanda iii, 8, 88-90; Vayu 70, 81-82; Linga i, 63, 80-82;
which have almost the same statement.-
Hrahmanda iii, 65, 29-34 ; Vayu 90, 28-33 ; Brahina 9, 20-23 ;
Harivaihsa ,?J, 1341-5 ; Visnu iv, 6, 8-11 ; Pad ina vi, Sit, 10 22. Or
Soma's performance of the rajasuya, Harivaihsa 192, 11098. A different
story inMatsya 772, 10 IF. ; Pad ma v, 37, 116 IF. ;Harivaihsa /,3, 2379(1'.
Other accounts in Kralitnu-iida iii, 72, 79-80; Vayu 97, 80; Matsya
.;:, is-9.
Mahahharata xii, J3i, SOll-12; xiii, 137, 0272 4.4
Id. i, 173, 0015-30.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 4/32
HAKISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 39
Saihvarana, alter marrying Tapati, placed Vasistha as
regent of bis kingdom, and going to the hills devotedhimself to his wife ; a
drought occurred for twelve
years, the crops failed, and the people suffered dreadful
calamities and wasted away; so Vasistha brought the
king back to his capital Hastinapura, and then rain fell
and everything revived. That Vasistha did not keep the
people alive, and it wasonly the king's return that saved
thorn ; hence he is ruled out.
The Vasistha Devaraj or Bhutakrt mentioned in those
two verses can therefore bo only this Vasistha, who
governed the kingdom of Ayodhya in the twelve years'
drought during Satyavrata's exile.1 This identification is
corroborated by the remarkably simple and appropriate
explanation it offers, how the quarrel between Visvamitra
and Devaraj (Vasistha) was afterwards mythologized into
a contest between Visvamitra and Indra in the Ramayana.
aspointed
out in the former paper. It will be found also
to supplya
simple explanation of another incident, and
perhapsa third, regarding Indra in the story of Sunahsepa
discussed here.
It was also said that Visvamitra raised Satyavrata
Trisanku to the sky. After discussing tho various
versions of this statement, 1 offered the suggestion thai
Visvamitra as the royal priest may have given him on his
death celestial dignity by naminga constellation Trisanku
after him, as somepublic reparation for tbe indignities
inflicted on him by Vasistha. Wilson remarked on this
story2?"This legend is therefore clearly astronomical,
and alludes possibly to some reformation of the sphere by
Visvamitra, under thepatronage
of Trisanku, and in
opposition to a more ancient system advocated by the
school of Vasistha." This suggestion postulatesa
good
1Devaraj'was a name, for it is given
as such to the early Aiksvaku
king Vikuksi :Matsya 12, 20 ; Agni 272, 18.
*Translation of the Visnu Purana, Bk. iv, ch. 3, note.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 5/32
40 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
deal. To givea name to a celestial body
is far easier
than to reform the sphere, and celestial objects have beenhabitually named after terrestrial beings in India as well
as in other countries. There was a celestial body named
Trisanku,for,putting aside the absurd physical phenomenon
allegedin the Ramayana fable (i, 60, 18-32),1 another
passage therein speaks of Trisanku as agratia (planet ?)
situate with Mars, Jupiter, and Mercury in the moon's
path,2 and the last verse cited in the ballad in the former
paper also connects Trisanku as agratia with the moon.
We may nowproceed with the traditions. Satyavrata's
son was Hari^candra, and his son was Rohita, as mentioned
in the same six Puranas which give the former story, and
their text collated3 runs thus, referring to Satyavrata:?
tasya Satyaratha4nama
bharya Kaikaya-vaihsa-jii
kumaramjanayamasa
liariscandram a-kalmasam
sa vai raja Hariscandras Traisankava iti smrtah
aharta rajasuyasya samrad iti ha visrutah
Hariscandrasya tu suto Rohito nama viryavan.
Other Puranas sa}' briefly that Trisanku's son was
Hariscandra, and his son was Rohita, or, morefully,
Rohitasva5; but three erroneously turn Satyavrata'swife Sat3raratha into a son Satyaratha and interpose him,
making Hariscandra his son, and Rohita his son.6
It is wTell to make clear the position of affairs at
1Also alluded to in Mahabharata xiii, 3, 189.
2Ramayana ii, %l, 10?
Trisankur Lohitangasca Brhaspati-Budhav api
darunah Somam abhyetya graliah sarve vyavasthitah.n
Brahmanda iii, 63, 115-17; Vayu S8, 117-19; Brahma.?, 21-6;
llarivmiisa 13, 754-G ; Siva vii, 61, 20-2 ; and Linga i, 66, 10-11 (which
omits the third and fourth lines). Unimportant variations arc omitted.4
Satyaratd in Brahmanda and Vuyu ; ?rratd in Linga.Kiirinu i, 21 f
2 wills her Satyadhand.5
Visnu iv, 3, 15 and ('aruda, 13S, 2G-7 (which say Rohitasva); Karma
i, *?/, 2-3 ; Bhagavata ixf 7, 7-9.6
Matsya 12, 37-8 and Padma v. ,V, 142 (which agree); Agni 272, 20-7
(which says UohitdMa). Also Badma vi, 21, 10.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 6/32
HA1USCAND11A, AND SUNAHSEPA 41
Ayodhya when Satyavrata Trisanku died and Hariscandra
succeeded him,as revealed
by the ksatriya balladdis
cussed in the former paper. Vasistha had lost the office
of royal priest and was in disgrace. Visvamitra held
that office and wasall-powerful,
so that (as is said) he
raised Trisanku to the sky in spite of Vasistha (line 72).
Hariscandra had been brought up in the palace during
his fathers exile, because Satyavratawas banished alone
(II. 8-14, 48), and because Vasistha's proposal that hewould install the son in the kingdom (I. 50) implied that
the son wasliving and within his control. As Satyavrata
was a very young man when banished (11. 4, 35), Haris
candra was a child then. As Vasistha had charge of the
royal seraglio during the exile (II. 33, 34), Hariscandra
would have been educated completely under his control
and guidance, and would have been a youth when Satya
vrata was restored, and probably but ayoung man when
his father died. Vasistha was filled with rage and hatred
against ViSvamitra for the ruin of all his ambition ; and
one way in which he sought revenge was to deny ViSva
mitra's brahmanhood.
Certain inferences canobviously be drawn from these
facts according to the most ordinary motives and conduct.
Visvamitra, as the royal priest in power, would have
placed Hariscandra on the throne. But, as this prince
had been educated during twelve most impressionable
years of his boyhood under Vasistha's superintendence, he
could not have outgrown the inlluence which this stern
and domineering priest had exercised over him, and
Vasistha would have seen aprospect of achieving
vengeance against Visvamitra through him. Obviously,
therefore, Vasistha would have directed the most strenuous
efforts to preserve that influence and sow discord between
HariScandra and Visvamitra, in order to oust Visvamitra
and regain his old position. He would not, of course, have
been immediately successful, because of the odium of his
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 7/32
42 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
cruel behaviour to Satyavrata. Time would have been
necessary to mitigate that, ellect estrangement between
the king and Visvamitra, and secure Visvamitra's down
fall ; and till then Visvamitra remained the royal priest.
These inferences areelementary and patent on the facts
disclosed by the ballad, and they go further. Visvamitra
stood alone. The efficacy of his priestly functions
dependedon the validity of his brahnianhood, and every
brahman in Ayodhya would have followed Vasistha in
denying that, regarding him as aninterloper who was
robbing them, the true brahmans, of their rights and also
of their fees and livelihood. This constituted the sting of
his brahnianhood. Visvamitra's position, therefore, was
precarious, and could endure onlyas
longas HariScandra
could withstand the unanimous opposition of Vasistha
and tbe brahmans of Ayodhya?a very severe ordeal.
15very priestl}' act performed by him would have been
called in question by them, and obviousl}' they would win,
in nolong time. The break would probably
come over
someimportant religious ceremony. Visvamitra would
be obliged to go, and would depart inhigh displeasure.
What follows corroborates these inferences.
11ariscandra celebrated the rajasfiya sacrifice, as stated
in the fourth line of the genealogy set out above, and as
mentioned iu the Mahabharata and elsewhere.1 It con
stituted his consecration asking,2
or rather declared his
paramount sovereigntyas a samnlj* It was
performed
by Visvamitra, as is plainly implied in somepassages,4
aud as he wouldnaturally do, being
theroyal priest.
A story based on this ceremony is told in the Markandeya
1Mahabharata ii, 12, 488-98, which gives
aglowing account of his
majesty aud this sacritice. Also Harivaihsa 192, 11100; Markandeya 7,
_?."?.30, 40.-
Macdonell h Keith, Vvdic Index, ii, p. 210.
aMahabharata ii, 12, 401, 407-8 ; aud line 4 of tho
genealogy quoted
above.*
Markandeya 7, 25, 30,30 ;
S,9.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 8/32
IIARISCANDKA, AND SUNAHSEPA 43
Purana.1 It is a wild brahmanical fable on its very face :
its main incidents are absurd ; and its tenor is untrue,because it excludes and makes impossible the story of
Rohita and Sunahsepa which will be narrated. Yet it is
based on the true occurrence of therajasuya, and is
developed out of the statements made impliedly, that
HariAcandra had not given Visvamitra the fee therefor,
and that Visvamitra had not forgotten that slight.2 Those
statements appear as the background of the fable, and
allege what might naturally have occurred in the circum
stances described above. Visvamitra dealt implacably
with him, as if theywere
completely estranged, and his
severity is the dominant feature in the story. The rest
of the fable is just the absurdity produced when the
brahmans, with their lack of the historical sense, fabricated
edifying religious tales out of some incident in historical
tradition.3 Those statements give the general position,
that the king and Visvamitra had become estranged and
Visvamitra had quitted him in displeasure ; and this is no
doubt true, for it harmonizes completely with the natural
outcome of the conditions at Ayodhya described above.
Tho Markandeya adds the corroboration that the violent
hostility between Visvamitra and Vasistha arose out of
the rajasuya,4 culminating in a further fable of a terrific
fight between them as birds.5 This reference to the
rajasuya cannot mean the so-called rajasuya at which
1Ch. 7 and 8. Muir gives
an abstract of it, Sanskrit Texts, i. 88 ff.
It calls Rohita HohitCmya wrongly (,S\ 58, 170, 200).-
I'd. 7, 25, 30-41 ; <V,0, 40-3.a
Hariscandra's candalahood there (also alluded to in Padma ii, 12.
122) appears to be amisplacement of Satyavrata's degradation in exile,
which is called candalahood in the Kamayana (i, ?8, 10), Visnu (iv, 3, 13)
and Bhagavata (ix, 7, fi).4
Markandeya S, 270 ; 9, 27.6
Id. 9. Also alluded to else whore, as in Bhagavata ix, 7, 7 ;
IfiiriviiiiiHit 192, 11100, Tho statement in Miirkandcya 9, 0, that
Visvamitra destroyed Vasistha's hundred sons, is another instance of
the lack of the historical sense, for it does uot apply to these two rishis,
but to two of their descendants long afterwards in the reign of king
Sudas or Saudasa ; Brhaddevata vi, 28, 34.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 9/32
44 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
Sunahsepawas the victim (discussed infra), because no
enmityarose
therefrom; that ended amicably: andmore
over Rohita is a child in this fable, after the rajasuya,
not afull-grown young man as at that sacrifice. The
Mahabharata account shows that the mja/tuya had nothing
to do with Sunahsepa.1
Visvamitra had thus been ousted. The Ramayana
corroborates this, for it says that after he raised Trisanku
to the sky Visvamitra went away to Puskara and per
formed severe austerities2; and it isprobable that after
that discomfiture he returned with assiduity to the
performance of austerities. This would help to explain
the brahmanic stories of the extraordinary austerities he
underwent in order to establish his brahmanic status.
With his departure Devaraj Vasistha would naturally
have regained the royal priesthood, and have been the
chief counsellor of Hariscandra.
We come now to the well-known story about Hariscandra
and Rohita, which ends in the proposed sacrifice of
Sunahsepa,or
Sunahsephaas often written. Of this there
is noksatriya
version. All the accounts are more or less
of brahmanical complexion. The genealogies all pass it
over unnoticed, except that in the Bhagavata Purana,
which is largeljr brahmanical. The best-known version
is that in the Aitareya Brahmana (vii, 3, 1 ff.) and the
Sankhayana Srauta Sutra (xv, 17-25), which are almost
identical.3 Their version is given condensed concisely by
Sadgurusisya in the Vedarthadipikaon
Rigveda i, 24.
They all style Hariscandra an Aiksvaka rightly, and also
Vaidha-sa. This title is explained by the commentaryon
1Mahabharata ii, 12, 491-8.
-Kamfiyana i, 61, 3-4 ; 62, 1-2.
::The two texts are
published togetheras an Appendix in Max
Muller's History of A.S. L. The story is discussed thero, pp. 408-420;
by Roth in Indische Studien, i, 4*57; ii, 112; and in SBE. xliv, pp. xxxivff.
It i* noticed by Professor Macdonell in his Sanskrit Literature, p. 207 ;
and by Professor Keith in JRAS. 1911, p. 9S8.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 10/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 45
the Brahmana as "son of Vedhas, aking", though
no such
Aiksvaka king appears to be known ; and by that on theSutra as
"descended from Vedhas, Prajapati". Vedhas
and Prajapatiare both applied to the Sun, and Vaidhasa
seems to be anequivalent of Vaivasvata, stating rightly
that he belongedto the Solar race. Their story runs
thus:?
Hariscandra had no son, and by Narad as advice
besought the god Varuna for a son, promising to offera sacrifice to bim with the son. Varuna granted his
prayer and Rohita was born. Varuna immediately
demanded the sacrifice, but the king begged for arespite
till the child was ten days old, and Varuna consented.
After ten days Varuna repeated his demand, but the king
obtained a further respite till tiie child cut his first teeth ;
and similarly he obtained successive reprieves from
Varuna's reiterated demands till those teeth dropped out,
till the permanent teeth appeared and till the boywas
invested with the accoutrements of aksatriya. Then be
told his son of his vow, but Rohita refused to submit and
departed to the forest. Varuna then seized the king
and the king fell ill of dropsy. Rohita heard of that and
returned at the year's end, but Indra in human form met
him and advised him to return to the forest. So Rohita
went there and returned at the year's end, but Indra again
persuaded him to go back. This happened at the end of
every year, till Rohita went back to the forest for his
sixth year.1 There he met a risbi, Ajigarta Sauyavasi,
with a wife and three sons, all starving,2 and offered to
buy one of the sons for a hundred cattle. Ajigarta refused
to part with the oldest, and his wife with the youngest,
and they sold bim the second son, Sunahsepa. Rohita
returned with him, saw his father, and said ho had bought
1The Sutra sa}'S, the seventh year.
2The Sutra says Ajigarta
was about to eat one of his sons, apparently
Sunahsepa.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 11/32
46 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
Sunahsepaas a victim in his own stead. So the king
proposed the substitution and Varuna accepted it,a
brahman being better than a ksatrij'a. The king then
proceeded to celebrate the raj as 113'awith Sunahsepaas the
victim. Visvamitra, Jamadagni, Vasistha, and A3'asya
were the several priests. As no one would immolate
Sunahsepa, his father Ajigarta bound him to the post for
a hundred cattle, and proceeded to slay him for a hundred
more. Sunahsepa then uttered various verses and hymnsto various gods. Indra gave him a
golden chariot, his
bonds became loose and he was freed ; and the king also
was cured of his disease. Sunahsepa uttered morehymns
and completed the sacrilice. Then the question arose,
whose son he was to be, and the great rishis said he was
to choose for himself, so he chose Visvamitra as his lather.
He refused his father Ajigarta's entreaties to return to
his Arigirasa famity, and repudiated him because of his
unnatural conduct. He was then called Devarftta, as the
gods had givenhim to Visvamitra, and ViSvamitra placed
him above his own sons, making him his eldest son.
The Bhagavata (ix, 7, 7?27) tells the same stoiy,
curtailing greatlyall the final portion about the sacrifice.
It says Indra appeared as an aged brahman and persuaded
Rohita to go back to the forest 3'ear b3r year. It does not
call the sacrifice arajasuya, but merely says?"by the
human sacrilice beino* freed from his abdominal disease
Hariscandra sacrificed to Varuna and the other gods
";
and adds that Indra gave the kinga
golden chariot. It
makes no mention of Ajigarta's part at the sacrifice, nor
even sa3Ts explicit^ that SunahSepawas released. This
Purana also notices ViSvamitra's adoptionof SunahSepa
Ajigartain ix, 16, 30-32.
The Brahma Purana (ch. 104) tells much the same
story, but narrates it in connexion with certain tirthas on
the 11. Godavari in a mahatmyaof that river; and in their
laudation
says?HariScandrapropitiated
Varuna there
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 12/32
I-IAUISCANDKA, AND SUNAHSEPA 47
Rohita departing to the forest went there, he bought
Sunahsepa there, and there the sacrifice took place. That
is, of course, all misappliedfor the purposes of the
mahatmya, but in other respects the story largely agrees,
except that?it says nothing about Robita's returning
year by year and being persuadedto go back to the
forest, it does not call the sacrifice arajasuya,
nor make
mention of Ajigarta's partthereat or of Sunah.fsepa's
uttering hymns. On the other band, it says?a heavenly
voice declared beforehand that the sacrifice would be
complete without Sunahsepa; when be was bound to the
post, Visvamitra made an announcement about tbe sacrifice,
but added *' let the munis and gods preserve him ", and all
agreed; and the gods, especially Varuna,directed that the
sacrifice would be complete without slaying him.
The Mahabharata summarizes the story thus1 :?Rcika's
sonSunahsepa, who became tbe victim at Hariscandras
sacrifice, after earnestly propitiatingthe gods
was
delivered from the great sacrifice ; he obtained sonship to
wise Visvamitra.
The Ramayana (i, 61 and 62) tells the same story, but
in very different form, calling the king Ambarisa:?Some
time after king Trisanku was raised to the sky, king
Ambarisa wished to offer a sacrifice, but Indra carried off
the sacrificial victim, and the brahman told the king he
must bring that victim back or a man. The king searched
for it everywhere without success, and then came across
the Bhargava rishi Rcika with his wife and sons at
Mt.Bhrguturiga.2
He asked Rcika to sell one of the sons
as a victim. Rcika withheld the eldest and his wife the
youngest, and tbe second son, Sunalisepa, then offered
1xiii, 3, 180-7 ; the only passage where Sunah.4epa is mentioned. For
Hariteandrah in the Calcutta edition read Hariscandra-.
5Bhrguturiga is placed in the North region, apparently
not far wc?it
of the sources of the Ganges ; Mahabharata i, 215, 7812-13, iii, 90,
8394-0, and 130, 10555.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 13/32
4S VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
himself. The king bought him for a thousand cattle and
immense riches, and took him off in his chariot. Hehalted at Puskara, and Sunahsepa
saw his maternal uncle
Visvamitra there andbesought
him to save him. Visva
mitra asked his sons to otter themselves instead, but they
refused, and he cursed them. He then taught Sunahsepa
two hymns, which he should sing at the sacrifice and
whereby he would be saved. The. king tookSunahsepa
to the sacrificial ground and bound him to the post.
ThenSunahsepa praised India and Visnu. Indra granted
him long life, and the king completed the sacrifice.
This story is-manifestlya very distorted version. The
kingwas not Ambarisa, unless that was a second name
of Hariscandra; and that is possible, because the Linga
(ii, />, (>) narrates that Trisahku's son was Ambarisa, but
its tale is late and didactic. The name of the rishi
differs. The stoiy has obvioush' been tampered with,
the most objectionable incidents being removed. Thus it
says nothing about the vow, norconsequently of Varuna's
insistence on a human sacrifice, but instead makes the
trouble arise out of apiece of wanton mischief committed
by Indra, and the human victim is merely suggestedas
an alternative. It does away with the inhumanity of the
rishis selling his sonby making Sunahsepa offer himself
as a victim. This version may be certainly put aside as
aperversion, like its preceding story of Trisanku which
was considered in the former paper; and no other
authority,as far as I am aware, supports
it.1
The story asgiven bj' the Brahmana, the Sutra, the
Vedarthadipika, and the Brahma and Bhagavata Puranas,
which all agree substantially, may now be considered.
In all these books the story, though of brahmanical com
plexion, is not like many brahmanical tales, marred by
exaggerated, absurd, and impossible particulars. Its
1Vasistha's Lawbook, xvii, 30-2, says king Hari.4candra bought the
son ofAjigarta Sauj'avasi
: SBE. xiv, 87. See p. 01, note 4.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 14/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 49
incidents arc narrated in a matter-of-fact way and are all
possible, with nothing superhuman in them except the
references to Varuna and Indra (as to which suggestions
will be made), so that it may relate what actual^
happened. Hence it may rightly be reviewed in the light
of ordinary motives and conduct. Accordingly I shall
take the storyas the plain tale it professes to be, deal
with it stage by stage, set out the facts alleged in each
stage, pointout the inferences and conclusions that arise
naturally therefrom, and consider the circumstances,
motives, and conduct that they obviously suggest. So
treated, the story constitutes another interesting chapter
in the traditional history of A3'odhya.
King HariScandra was childless and made a vow that
if Varuna would bestow a son on him he would sacrifice
the son to him. Accordingly he obtained a son Rohita,and Varuna demanded the sacrifice as soon as the babe
was born. These are the facts alleged. It was certainly
au extraordinary vow, to promise to sacrifice his son at its
birth ; and it seemshardly credible he should have made
it, for the yearning of childless kings for sons is often
mentioned as intense, and the sacrifice of a son earnestly
prayed for would have violated that yearning with the
mostpoignant anguish.
It was not areligious rite, such
as the immolation of infants, but analtogether exceptional
vow. It is notcomparable with the
proposedsacrifice of
Isaac, because they differ radically in circumstances,
motives, and conduct. A king might sacrifice a son to
gainsome far greater benefit, and such a deed is alleged
of Sahadeva's son Somaka,1 king of North Paiicala, who
(it is said) sacrificed his onlyson Jantu in order that
he might obtain a hundred sons. That deed is com
parable with the sacrifice by Mcsha, king of Moab, of his
eldest son.2 The stor)' of Somaka is narrated in the
1Tlie knmdrah Sdhaderyah of Rigveda iv, 15, 7-10.
22
Kings iii, 20-7.
JKAS. 1017. 4
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 15/32
50 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
Mahabharata,1 and is briefly alluded to in five Puranas2;
but the present story is quite different, because the sacrificeof Rohita had no such ulterior object, and the vow was
purely disastrous like Jephthah's rash vow.3
However, let us accept the vow asalleged. The question
iminediatety arises, who suggested it ? It seems incredible
that the king himself could have conceived such a self
destructive idea, and it is moreprobable that someone
else suggested it. We cannot say who could have done
so4; but in areligious matter of this kind the king
would certainly not have acted without consulting his
great family priest Vasistha, and on\y strong influence
could have induced him to add the vow of sacrificing his
dearest hopes. One inference then appears clear, that
Vasistha knew of the vow and allowed it to stand till the
son was born.
When Rohita was born Varuna demanded the sacrifice,
but the king succeeded by repeatedexcuses in staving off
his reiterated demands, till Rohita was invested with the
accoutrements of aksatriya, which the Brahma says was
in his 115 h year. What are the obvious inferences from
those facts ? The demands would have been made by
somepriest speaking in Varuna's name. Could anyone
have gone onpressing such a demand on the king for
fifteen years without Vasisthas cognizance ? The king
did his utmost to escape from the sacrifice. Obviously it
was meant to be real ; otherwise, if it were only formal
and nominal and Rohita would not be actually immolated,
1Mnhabharata iii, 127, 10471-725, 10499.
-Tn the genealogy
of the North Pancala dynasty. The oldest version
is in Vfiyu 99, 209-10 and Matsya 50, 15-10, which ngree. The Visim
(iv, 19, 18) is brief, makes no mention of tho sacrilice, and modifies
Junius position. Brahma 13, 100 and Harivaihsa 32, 1792 3 (which
agree) modify tho version further, strike out tho reference to tho
sacrilice, and alter Jantu's position completely.:l
Judges xi, 30-5.
*Here we
probably
miss the aid a
ksatriya
version would have
given.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 16/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 51
there was no reasonwhy the king should not have corn
plied,
satisfied Varuna, and
regained
his son. It was thus
a matter of the greatest religious importance. Here
again he could not have gone ontemporizing all those
years without consulting Vasistha and seeking for
sympathy and aid from him. Vasistha was the priest
who, from his commanding position, could and should
have saved him by devisingsome means for
propitiating
Varuna withoutthe actual
performance of suchan
inhuman deed, because, as the story says, that was
actually done ultimately without much difficulty when
a brahman was substituted for Rohita. Yet the accounts
giveno
suggestion that he took any such line of conduct,
though the matter was a vital one to the king and the
dynasty. It is incredible that he could have had nothing
to do with it all those years. The inference then is
obvious, Vasistha either permitted the demand or acquiesced
in it ; he did nothing to propitiate Varuna, or save th?>
king; and thus he virtually supported the demand that
Rohita should be sacrificed.
This is not an argument from mere silence which is of
no import. The silence is extraordinary. This religious
matter concerned Vasistha most intimately as the royal
priest during fifteen years. We should expect to hear of
him in connexion with it; yet he is never even alluded to.
The silence is contrary to all ordinary conduct, unnatural,
and therefore highly significant. He cannot be absolved
from the ordinary inferences. Nor does this conclusion
do him injustice. As shown in the former paper, he had
acquiesced in the harsh punishment of Satyavrata, and
had sternly and relentlessly enforced it during twelve
years of famine. What he was now doingwas
precisely
similar; he acquiesced in an unwise vow and allowed the
demand for the sacrifice of Rohita during fifteen years,
makingno eflbrt to save Rohita. The sacrifice could not
be forced, for fear of the king and the ksatriyas. It couid
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 17/32
52 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
only be brought about by steady pressure on the king to
make him carry it out himself, and that steady pressureVasistha allowed and did nothing to
mitigate.
We now come to the third stage. When Rohita was
accoutred as aksatriya, the king told him of the vow.
Rohita refused compliance and departed to the forest.
The king then fell ill, as apunishment from Varuna.
Rohita heard of that and returned1 at the vear's end to see>
his father, but was dissuaded by India in human form
ami persuaded to go back to the forest. This wasrepeated
at the end of each year till Rohita departed to the forest
for the sixth or seventh year. Let usstudy these
incidents. Rohita's refusal was natural, and, boy though
he was, his best way of escapewas to face exile. Grief
for the departure of his only son, after all the anxiety of
the past years, would naturally have preyed on the king
and produced illness. The terms used denote dropsy ;
yet perhaps in the crude diagnosis of those days they
may not mean more than somecomplaint with abdominal
enlargement. It would be a natural remark to say that
Varuna badpunished
him for failing in his vow.
Rohita would natural!}' have returned to see his father,
and the hard forest life would have produced home
sickness. Someone met bim, dissuaded him and induced
bim to go back to the forest. The first question that
arises is, was this advice friendlyor
unfriendly ? The
advice was to go abroad and keepon moving about, as
that was in various ways bettor than remaining still,
according
to the Brahmana /md the Sutra. No doubt
1The Brahmana and Siitra say "returned to the village",
even when
he returned finally with Sunahsepa lu his father at Ayodhya. This
seems a brahmanical touch. The brahmans who composed such works
lived away in tho forcsl-9 nnd werepractically conversant only with
villages. Would aksatriya ballad have called Ayodhya
a grama*. Thin
word suggests that the author of this brahmanie version knew nothingof towns. The Bhagavata says "village" at lirst, hut afterwards
"city".
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 18/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 53
these statements must not be pressed too far, because they
maybe a late brahmanical
expositionframed to fill in
details; yet, looked at in any way, there was nothing
friendly in the advice. To urge on a very young prince,
who had been nurtured as anonly
son amid the best
conditions inAyodhya, indefinite years of hard wandering,
with nosuggestion of alleviation ultimately,
was little
better than mocking at his youthful feelings and natural
expectations. On the first occasion the adviser said Indrawould be his friend, but the story nowhere says or even
implies that Indra1 ever befriended him in any woy
during the exile. Indra never alleviated his hard lot nor
suggested any means of deliverance. Plainly the advice
was not friendly.
Who, then, was this adviser ? The Bhagavata says he
was an aged brahman, and the Vedarthadipika and thecommentaries on the Brahmana and Sutra say,
a brahman.
The circumstances corroborate this. He could not have
been anordinary person. Only some one of acknowledged
position, either a brahman or aksatriya, could have
turned aprince away. No one of the royal house nor
even aksatrij'a would have been likely to keep the boy
away from seeing his father, for Rohita might well have
seen him and departed again. That person could then
only have been a brahman, as is stated. He is said to
have been Indra in human form, but astrange brahman,
who professed to be Indra, would hardly have made
Rohita repress his filial longings and go back into exile.
The brahman must have been one whom he knew, and
whose advice he could not well have flouted. No brahman
could have done that five years and kept it secret from
Vasistha's cognizance, because the kingwas ill, the chief
power naturally devolved largelyon Vasistha, and Rohita's
movements would have been a matter ofgreat
concern at
Ayodhya. Vasistha, then, must have known that Rohita
1Nor if Indra means Dcvaiaj Vasistha himself, see p. 54.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 19/32
54 VISVAMlTltA, VASISTHA,
was sent back, and have at least acquiesced in it, for
reasons similar to those given above.
The circumstances point to Vasistha himself as this
brahman, for he was then of mature age, and the gratuitous
introduction of Indra, who bad no concern with this
matter, suggests that "India" here is amisunderstanding
of Vasistha's nameDevaraj, just
as it waspointed out in
the former paper that confusion between the two names
turned the contest between Visvamitra and Devaraj
(Vasistha) about Trisanku into tbe absurd Ramayana
fable of agreat conflict between Vis\umitra nnd Indra.
Vasistha could easily have kept himself informed of
Rohita/s movements by the well-known use of spies and
have met him on his return. It is not derogatory to him
to suppose that he did that, for he would have done only
what a god is said to have done. The fact that the story
brings in agod
as a brahman to intervene in a matter
that did not concern him, is animplied declaration that
this brahman was noordinary
orstrange person, but ono
of high position, just such indeed us Vasistha. Rohita
could not well have disregarded Vasistha's owninjunctions,
and only suchauthority could have sent him back to the
forest year after year, although his home-longings must
have grown strongeras his exile was
protracted. If
Devaraj did that, it was an easy piece of brahmanical
confusion to say that Indra appeared in human form and
did it. The introduction of Indra without cause into
these, otherwise matter-of-fact, incidents strongly suggests
some such misunderstanding. This conclusion does no
injustice to Vasistha, for it merely shows that he was
repeating towards Rohita much the same treatment as he
had dealt to Satyavrata, namely, keeping him away from
Ayodhya and in practical exile continuously.
A further consideration of the circumstances suggests
a reason for such conduct. Who was interested inkeeping
Rohita in exile ? No one but those who had been
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 20/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 55
demanding that he should be sacrificed. If he could not
besacrificed,
the next best course was tokeep
him in
exile. The kingwas ill and Vasistha was in power. If
the king died and Rohita was continuously absent to
escape being sacrificed, the kingdom would obviously fall
into Vasistha's hands, and it would be difficult for Rohita
to return and claim it with Varuna's demand impending
over him. Had Rohita been sacrificed, the kingdom would
have fallen into the hands of Vasistha or his family onthe king's death ; and so also if he
escapedbut were
kept
in continuous exile. Hither way the outcome would be to
Vasistha's advantageand no one else's. These are
simple
and obvious reflections. Vasistha therefore knew to what
result these manoeuvres tended, and, if he did not
actively direct them, he certainly did nothing to counteract
them. It is an elementary maxim, that a man intends the
results to which his actions naturally and obviously lead.
Plainly, then, Vasistha intended that Rohita should be got
rid of in one way or the other, and that he should recover
the kingdom which he had lost through Satyavrata's
restoration. His positionnow was
stronger, for Rohita's
predicamentwas worse than Satyavrata's,
because
Satyavrata had been only banished, but Rohita's very
life was forfeit under a demand asserted in the name
of agod.1
In the fourth stage Rohita went back to the forest for
his sixth or seventh year. There he met the rishi
Ajigarta with his wife and three sons, all starving, and
bought the second sou Sunahsepa for a hundred cattle.
A hundred cattle seem to have been an ordinary price
for a man, judging from other allusions. He returned
with him to Ayodhya, and the king proposedand Varuna
1This outcome would be even clearer if, as seems probable, there
was no other near heir to the throne ; lor Satyavrata had been an only
son, so was Rohita, and, though the story does nob definitely say so, yet
its general tenor suggests that Hariscandra also was anonly
son.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 21/32
56 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
(that is, his priest) accepted the substitution of Sunahsepa
as the victim. Rohita would have been anxious to findsome way of deliverance, and it would have been a very
natural thoughtou
meeting the wretched brahman family
to buy one of the sons as a victim in his own stead.
They in their starving condition might have clutched at
relief by accepting his ofter. By it one member would
die but all the rest would escape; otherwise death faced
them all. as thev wore.1 This time nothing kept Rohita
away from his father, though the old reasons were still
good for Indra:) trying to dissuade him. Varuna (thatis,
his priest) accepted the substitution, because sacrificially
a brahman was better than aksatriya. Nothing is said
about Vasistha here, and naturallyso ; for, whether he
had been at the back of all the schemingor not, neither
he nor anyone else could oppose the substitution without
betraying that the aim had been, not the offer of afitting
sacrifice, but the life of Rohita himself. Obviously there
was no choice for anyone but to consent.
We have now reached apoint where the foregoing
exposition of the facts alleged may be tested. If that
be sound, what would be tbe natural cousequences ?
Obviously Vasistha's interest in the performance of the
vow bad ceased. The immoiation of a poor brahman
youth could bringno benefit or
advantage to him or
anyone, and would be revolting to all the priests at the
ceremonj\ The substitution had complete!}' altered the
whole position. A human sacrifice was nolonger of any
1This is practically the view that. Manu takes when ho says,
"Ajigarta when famished approachedto kill bis boh, and did nob sin
because he was seeking relief from hunger" (x, 106)?evidently following
Ihe Siitra story (p. 45, noto 3). In commenting thereon Medhatil.hi
ineptly explains (as 1 understand it) that Ajigarta did not eat raw flesh
or carrion (krarythla) ; but Kullfika and Kaghavananda refer this to
Ajlgarta's preparingto slay his son at the sacrifice, quite forgetting
that he was nolonger
famished then, since ho had received a hundred
cattle for selling his son and another hundred for binding him. The
other commentators otTer no
explanation.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 22/32
HAKISCANDUA, AND SUNAHSEPA 57
use. Still, manifestly, that could not be openly declared,
becauseto avow
that would betray what tho real intentionhad been. The only course now
possiblewas to proceed
formally with the sacrifice, and yet devise someplan for
announcing that Varuna was satisfied without the
immolation, and forreleasing Sunahsepa. Further, since
the scheming had completely failed, it would be natural
for Vasistha to take noprominent part in the proceedings,
and prudent for him to propitiate the king, whose interestshe had betrayed, covertly if not overtly, all those years.
These conclusions arise natural 13' and obviously from
the foregoing exposition, and the sequel confirms it by
showing that such wasexactly what happened.
We come now to the sacrifice, the details of which have
been narrated above. The Brahmana, Sutra, and Vcdar
thadipikd call it a rajasuya, but that seems a clear
mistake. Therajasuya
marked HariScandra's consecration
asking,
orsamraj,
more thantwenty years earlier,
as
already explained. This sacrifice had nothing to do with
his consecration, but wasmerely the fulfilment of an
extraordinaryvow that he made after be had reigned
some time and no son was born to him. Accordingly, the
Bhagavata and Brahma rightly do not call it a rajasuya,
nor do the Ramayana and Mahabharata. The brahmanie
books have confused the two sacrifices.
The priests who officiated at it were Vasistha, Visva
mitra, Jamadagni, and Ayasya; and it may be noted that
Visvamitra's joining with those brahmans, and especially
with Vasistha who had denied his brahnianhood, shows
clearly that his brah manhood was now established.
Vasistha was naturally there as tbe royal priest. How
Visvamitra came to bo present is suggested by the
Ramayana, for it says (as mentioned above) that Sunah
sepa appealed to his maternal uncle Visvamitra at
Puskara for deliverance, and Visvamitra taught him two
hymns. Visvamitra may also, quite naturally, have
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 23/32
58 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
followed him to Ayodhya if theywere so related, not
withstanding his former discomfiture, for his brahmanhood
was now established ; hence the question of relationship,
which touches both him and Jamadagni, is of importance.
The Brali inana and Sutra make Ajigarta and Sunahsepa
Aiigirasas \ and also call Ajigarta Sauyavasi, said to
mean"
son of Suyavas". The Vedarthadipika says
nothing about these particulars,nor the Brhaddevata,
but the Brahma, apparently corroborates them about the
hitter, for it relates a fable about the punishments
inflicted ouAjigarta for selling his son and calls his
father St^ava* ; yet it may have borrowed this name
from them, for the fable is brahmanical. The brahman
vaiiisas in the Puranas throw nolight
on these points,
because they make no mention among theArigirasas2of
Suyavasor
Ajigarta,nor of course of Sunahsepa, because
he became a Kausika by Visvainitra's adoption of him.3
All the other authorities which notice Sunahsepa's
paternity declare, as far as I am aware, that he was a
Bhargava. Four Puranas support that statement with
a different genealogy, making him second son of Rcika
Aurva and
younger
brother of
Jamadagni,4
thus :?
Aurvasyaivam Rcikasya Satyavatyammaha-manah
Jamadagnis tapo-viryaj jajiio brahma-vidam varah
lnadhyamasca
Sunahs'epah Sunahpucchah kanisthakah.
1Brahma 150, 2, Snya vast/at ma jo : hence in this story in 104, 45,
fit Yayasah svtam should probably be Suyavasah sutam.2
Brahmanda ii, 32, 107-111 ; iii, /, 101-118; Vayu 59, 08-102; 65,
97-108 ;Matsya 196. Nor in the Bhargava variina, seo p. 59, note l.
3 So Brahma 10, (J4 ; and Harivariiya 27, 1470, 1774 explicitly.4
Brahmanda iii, 66, 63-4 ;Vayu 91, 92 ;Brahma 10, f>3-4 ;HarivaiMa
27, 145G-7. They add the following lines (immaterial mistakes and
variations being omitted), in which the Brahma ami HarivaiiiHa put tho
last line in front :?
Viavfiniitrasya putras tu Sunahsepo 'hhavnn munilt
llariscandrasya yajne tu pasutve niyutah8a vai
devair dattali Sunalisepo Vi.4vamitraya vai puuali
devair dattali sa vai yasmad Devaratas tato 'bhavat
Viivamitras3'a pntranaiii Sunalisepo 'grajalismrtah.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 24/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 59
The Ramayana and Mahabharata also say, as mentioned
above, that Sunahsepa was Rcika's son. Rcika wasa famous Bhargava rishil; hence this genealogy makes
Sunahsepaa
Bhargava, and four Puranas say soexplicitly.2
It seems therefore that all these authorities must out*
weigh the statement in the Brahmana and Sutra that
Sunahsepa was an Arigirasa, just asthey show that the
latter are wrong in calling the sacrifice arajasuya.
If the two statements about Sunahsepa's paternity be
put together (and a total mistake in so famous a story
seemshardly credible), it would follow that Rcika and
Ajigartaare one and the same person ; and the allusions
to them do not discredit this inference, because where
either appears the other is absent. Thus in the Vedic
literature Ajigarta is found in this story but Rcika not
at all/* Rcika is mentioned in the Mahabharata, and
Ajigarta never.4 Similarly in the Ramayana, I believe/
In the Puranas Rcika is often introduced, but Ajigarta
never, as far as I am aware, exceptin this story
of
SunahSepa.0 Only the Brahma and Bhagavata, I believe,
mention both, Rcika (besides other allusions) asmarrying
Giidhi's daughter Satyavati7 in the genealogy of the
Kanyakubja dynasty, and Ajigarta in this story ; and
the Brahma actual\y combines both versions by making
Sunahsepason of Rcika in that genealogy and son of
Ajigarta in this story. It seems that Ajigarta appears in
1Mahabharata iii, 115, 11040, 11055; xii, /,9, 1721, 1720, 1731.
Ramayana i, 61, 10-17. Brahmanda iii, 66, 37 8. Vayu 91, 60-8.
Brahma 10, 29 30. Hurivnriisa 27, 1431-2. Visnu iv, 7, 5-6. Also in
the Bhargava vaihsa, Brahmanda iii, /, 93-5 ; Vayu 65, 90-2 ; and byhis patronymic Aurva in
Mutsyu 105, 15, 10, etc.
2Brahma JO, 64; HarivuipHu 27, 1470, 1774 ;Visnu iv, 7, 17 ; and so
Bhagavata ix, 16, 30, 32, though it gives him the patronymic Ajigarta.n
Sec Macdonell k Keith, Vedie, Index.4
See Htircnseit'A Index.6
ltclka also in Kamayana i, 3//, 1, as Satyavati's husband.0
Unless possibl}' it may occur in a list of rishis of all periods jumbled
together, such as is sometimes introduced.7
Seo JRAS. 1910, p. 35 ; 1914, p. 279.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 25/32
()0 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
brahmanical tales, and Rcika in ksatriya traditions or
tales thatare
only partially brahmanical, so that Rcika
belongs to the Epics and Puranas, while Ajigarta is.
distinctly* brahmanic. Now it is a curious coincidence
that Rcika could appear as Ajiga in Prakrit form, just as,
inversely, the brahmanic Gtithi or Gatliin = the Epic
and Puranic Gddhi. Rcika could yield Ajiga, but not
conversely. Is it possible that, as the conduct narrated
of this rishi was shameful, the brahmans took tho Prakritnamo and modified it to
Ajigarta,"
he who has nothing
to swallow/' thus making it square with the condition
attributed to hiin ? It would be a less absurd name than
Sunahsepa.
It thus appears that of these two genealogies the
Ajigarta version is brahmanic and the Rcika version
ksatriya. The latter (but not the former) makes Visva
mitra maternal uncle ofSunahsepa,
as theRamayana saj's,
because he wasSatj'avati's younger brother ;but otherwise
it raises adifficulty, because Rcika and his princess-wife
Satyavati could hardly have fallen into such desperate
distress as is related of Ajigarta, and because Jamadagniwas of the same mature age as ViSvamitra,1 had married
a princess of Ayodli3Ta2 and had sons, so that he could
not well have been SunahSepas elder brother in the
wretched circumstances alleged?much Jess could he as
such have appearedas one of the great priests at this
sacrifice of his younger brother. One canhardly discard
this ksatriya version, however, which is better supported
than the brahmanic version, and the following suggestion
may be ottered, which solves all the difficulties except the
supposed patronymic Sauyavasi.?
Sunahsepawas not
Rcika's own son but agrandson, for the foregoing
verses
(p. 58) may have condensed the genealogy,as often
happens3;and his father Ajigarta
was a younger son
1.IRAS. 1910, p. 35.
2JRAS. 1914, p. 279.
:xThus Rama is called Rcika's son (nandana), instead of grandson,
in
Mahabharata iii, 99, 8658.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 26/32
HARISCAXDUA, ANI) SUXAIISEI'A GI
of Rcika and a younger brother of Jamadagni, since
Rcika had many sons.1 Thus Jamadagni would be ISunah
tsepa's uncle ; and Visvamitra would be bis grandmother's
brother, and might be colloquially styled bis maternal
uncle. Hunahs*epa would thus be ayouth
as befits the
story. If this were so, the presence of Jamadagni and
Visvamitra at the sacrifice would be quite natural.
Ayasyawas an
Angirasa2 and is mentioned several
times in the vaihsa of the Aug irasas.3 lie as a leading
Angirasa might have been invited and might naturally
attend, if Sunahsepawas an
Angirasa; but, it*ftunal.iscpa
was not such, noparticular
reason is apparent why he
waspresent.
Ajigarta also is said to have been present, and that
wasprobable, because be must have gone with Rohita to
Ayodhya to get the hundred cattle, since Rohita could
hardly (as the Brahmana and Sutra sa}r) have given them
in the forest where he bad none,4 and because be might
naturally have been there to see the end of these incidents.
The ceremonies werebegun, but no one was
willing,
according to the Brahmana and Sutra, even to bind
Sunahsepa to the post. Whywas there that great
reluctance even to prepare for the sacrifice, after Varuna
had been demanding it twenty years, and for failure in
which he had stricken the king with illness ? Manifestly,
no one wanted this sacrifice, even those who had been
demanding the sacrifice of Rohita. Ajigarta may have
1Brahmanda iii, /, 08-9; Vayu 65, 9"> ; Mahabharata i, 06, '2013.
This does not preclude some etymological connexion between Ajigartaand llclka.
2Macdonell & Keith, Vedic Index, i, |>. 32.
liBrahmanda ii, 32, 110; iii, /, 105, 10(1, 110; and the corresponding
passages in Vayu 59, 101 ; 65, 100, 101, 100, where the name is more or
less corrupted. Also Matsya 196, 4, where he is called Ajasya. He is
not mentioned in the Mahabharata, vide Sorensens Index.4
This may explain the statement that Hariscandra alias Amharisa
bought SunahSepa (p. 48), because the cattle would have been the
king's, and he would have ratified the transaction.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 27/32
62 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
bound Sunahsepa and preparedas if to slay him for a
consideration, as the Brahmana and Sutra say, but theirwhole account of the proceedings
seems rather to be
a brahmanie dilatation on the congenial topic of a sacrifice,
because the Bhagavata passes over this stage very curtly,
and the Brahma contradicts it by saying that a celestial
voice declared beforehand that the sacrifice would be
complete without Sunahsepa. The Brahma's statement
accords with the circumstances, for it is not probable, if(here was a real intention at first to immolate Sunahsepa,
that Jamadagni and Visvamitra would have joined to
sacrifice hi in if he was their near kinsman; nor that
A yasya would have joined, supposing Sunahsepawas an
Angirasa. The presence of these great rishis is thus, on
either supposition, material corroboration of tho Brahma's
statement, that it had been decided beforehand that
Sunahsepa would not be immolated. The Brahmas further
statement seems therefore true, that Visvamitra, after
makinga formal announcement, added,
"Let the munis
and the gods preserve him"
;and all agreed.
It is manifest, then, that the sacrifice of Sunahsepawas
from the first purely nominal and formal.1 He was
bound, he uttered one or more hymns (the Ramayana
says Visvamitra had taught him two in anticipation),some one or all of the rishis declared on behalf of Varuna
and the gods that they were satisfied, and he was freed
from his bonds.2 This confirms the inference drawn
above from the substitution (p. 57) that the ceremony
would be carried out only in form.
1There is
nothing inRigveda i, 2//, 12, 13, and v, 2, 7, inconsistent
with this.J
The Taittirlya (v, 2, 1, 3) and Kathaka (xix, 11) Samhitas say
Varuna seized Sunahsepa, and he obtained deliverance from Varuna's
bond. If this means moro than that Varuna accepted and took him (as
a substitute) and SunahSepawas freed, it is a brahmanical mistake, for
there was no reason whatever why Varuna should afllict this hapless
and innocent brahman youth.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 28/32
HARISCANDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 63
The introduction of the gods is, of course, apiece of
brahmanic elaboration;
but thestatement calls for
notice, that Indra gave agolden chariot, to SunahSepa
according to the Brahmana, Sutra, and Vcdarthadipika,1or
to Hariscandra according to the Bhagavata. The latter
is far moreprobable, because a
golden chariot would havo
been astrange and useless present to the poor youth, but
a very appropriate gift to the king. Why should Jndra
be said to intervene and make the present ? The matterdid not concern him but Varuna. If, then, the more
reasonable Bhagavata version be accepted, it may be
suggested that Indra here is another misunderstanding
of Devaraj. That Devaraj should presenta
golden
chariot to the king wasquite probable, because a
costl}'
offering was his best means of inducing the kino;, to
whose interests he had been false more than twenty years,
to condone his conduct. As the great priest and minister
of Ayodhya-, who had heid the kingdom twelve years
during Satyavrata's exile, he must have been avery
wealthy noble, well able to make such apresent. The
Bhagavata is no doubt right, and the brahmanical books
have probably made a mistake in this point justas in
calling the sacrifice a rajasuya: if so, this explanation
agrees with the third inference made in anticipation
above (p. 57).
The Brahmana and Sutra say the kingwas freed from
his illness after SunahSepa's release, but the Bhagavata
implies he was cured before the sacrifice. The difference
is not important, for intense relief and joy at the
deliverance of his son may quite possibly have brought
about aspeedy restoration of his health before and after
the sacrifice.
No action is attributed to Vasistha at the sacrifice
(apart from his status at it), though he was the royal
priest. That was natural, if the foregoing estimate of
1So also Brhaddevatii iii, 103, adding ineptly the epithet "celestial".
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 29/32
G4 VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
his conduct be sound, but hardly otherwise. He avoided
prominence, according to the second inference suggested
above (p. 57). The leading part is assigned to Visvamitra
iu the Brahma, and the Bhagavata adds that he bestowed
ablessing
on the king. It looks as if he had been the
moving spirit in the happy denouement. He would have
brought deliverance here justas he had
brought it to
Satyavrata.
Visvamitra adopted Sunahsepa as his son. The account
of this in the Brahmana and Sutra maybe true generally,1
but reads rather as anamplification of the statement
made in the story and elsewhere,2 that the gods (that is,
their priests) gave Sunahsepa to him; and two expressions
indicate as much. They make Sunahscp'a address Visva
mitra asraja-putra aud Bharaia-rsabha. Tho latter is
a mistake, an excellent instance of the lack of the
historical sense among brahman authors. Bharata was
son of Sakuntala, who wasdaughter of a Visvamitra, and
it is impossible that this, the first, Visvamitra (even if she
were hisdaughter) could have been called
"leader of the
Bharatas"3 before they had come into existence. The
term maybelong
to a much later Visvamitra,probablythe Visvamitra who was
priest to king Sudds4 (Sudasa)
of the North Pancala dynasty which was descended from
Bharata.5 The Brahmana and Sutra have confused the
two, thus betraying the touch of a hand not ancient.
The other term raja-putra, though true, is wholly in
appropriate in SunahSepa's mouth. ViSvamitra was much
older than he, had been a
king,and was now an acknow
ledged brahman of the highest position, the chief actor
1Vasistha's Lawbook goes further and says (xvii, 335) at lirst tho
olliciating priests each wanted to have Sunahsepa as his son?very
improbable considering his condition. SHE. xiv, 87.2
See p. 58, noto*
; and Hhagavata ix, 16, 31-2.9
Max Muller, History of A.S.L., pp. 4111-17.4
Rigveda iii, 53, 9, 12. Hrhaddcvata iv, 100 ; perhaps 11*2.5
J MAS. 1910,pp.
23, 20, 28 ; 1914,pp.
284, 288, 290.
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 30/32
HAR1SCAXDRA, AND SUNAHSEPA 65
here. To make this poor brahman youth, who desired to
beadopted by him,
call him
by
the
ksatriya title, merely"king's
son ", is similarly significant.
The Ramayana (i, 63, 4) makes Sunahsepa say in his
appeal to Visvamitra for deliverance at Puskara, "I have
no mother, nor father, relations or kinsmen"; implying
apparently that he had by the sale lost his status in his
ownfamily. This is also implied by the question that
was asked, whose son he was to be (since he merited everyone's pity), for it could hardly arise unless he had lost his
status. If so, it was necessary that he should be adopted
into another family. As he was a brahman bought bya
ksatriya, and his deliverer Visvamitra was a brah man
of ksatriya origin, there was anappropriateness in
Visvamitra's adopting him. If thisopinion
on the question
was expressed, it would be natural to say that he had
been given by the godsto Visvamitra, and for Visvamitra
to give him agood
new name in his newfamily instead
of his repulsive old name"Dog's-tail"; hence he was
eai led Deva-rata,"
(Jod-given." Moreover, as be was
a brahman by birth, there was a certain propriety in
Visvamitra's giving him precedenceover his own sons,
who were ksatriyas by birth, and constituting bim the
eldest son?exalting him, not so much as a defender
and voucher of their brahnianhoodl
(for that was now
established) as in acknowledgment of his superior right
by birth.
This examination of the story according to ordinary
motives and conduct shows that it is quitea
possibleone
and, when read in continuation of the story of Satyavrata
Trisanku discussed in the former paper, quitea
probableone. The earlier
storyis narrated in a
ksatriyaballad.
Of this story there is unfortunately no truly ksatriya
account. It is related in versions that are of brahmanical
1Max Mullcr, History of A.S.L., p. 410.
jras. 1917. 5
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 31/32
GO VISVAMITRA, VASISTHA,
complexion, patently brahmanical in the Aitareya Brah
mana, Sankhayana Sutra and Vedarthadipika, and lessso in the other versions yet brahmanical even there,
because the Brahma has utilized it for a brahmanical
mahatmya, the Bhagavata is late and sectarian, and the
Ramayana has recast it and removed from it incidents
that discredited gods and rishis. Notwithstanding this
coloration, the two stories harmonize remarkably in
what they say and reveal about events at Ayodhya and
especially about Devaraj Vasistha, the most powerful
person there then. Hence this story docs appear to relate
incidents that really happened,as tested by probability
and consistency. HariScandra was a well-known king,
often alluded to, and Rohita built Rohitapura according
to the IlarivaihSa {IS, 756).
The Brahmana and Sutra have probably best narrated
the various incidents exceptas
regardsthe sacrifice. In
this matter they have indulgedin fanciful amplification,
and have erred in calling it arajasuya and in styling
ViSvamitra a leader of the Bharatasl ; apparently also
in assigning the gift of the chariot to SunahSepa and in
calling him anArigirasa: while the Brahma and Bhaga
vata give asimpler and more
probable account here.
Tho Brahma especially shows the existence of a different
tradition that the sacrifice was formal and nominal. It
has indeed taken liberties in transferring important
incidents to the (lodavari ; still, that was a device of
priestcraft,common and deemed legitimate, in working
up the mahatmyas of new tirthas: but its toning down
the sacrilice to be formal and nominal goes counter to
the general tendency towards progressive elaboration, and
is remarkable in its disagreement with the authoritative
brahmanic version in the Brahmana and Sutra on apurely
priestljr matter. Its deviation therefrom could hardly
1Quite intelligibly,
as the author of this version apparently lived
away in the country and knew nothing of city life (p. 52, note).
7/30/2019 Visvamitra, Vasistha, Hariscandra, And Sunahsepa
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visvamitra-vasistha-hariscandra-and-sunahsepa 32/32
HAltlSCANintA, ANI) SUNAHSEPA G<
have arisen later than and iu disregard of these two books,
and was unnecessary for the purposes of its mahatniyawhile it certainly accords better with the circumstances
described : hence it seemsintelligible only
on the view
that it preserves a true and ancient tradition. All the
versions show the probable confusion of Devaraj Vasistha
with Indra, except the Ramayana, which has re-shaped
the story. There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore,
that tbis Vasistha's personal name was Devaraj.