34. Appendix 5.1: Introduction to the History of Ferishta to the Era of Alexander (§§627-781)

The Six Days of Creation www.christianhospitality.org Online Index Feedback/Discussion

34. Appendix 5.1: Introduction to the History of Ferishta to the Era of Alexander [Continued] (§§627-781)

682.1. Note on the chronology of the Hindus: 1) In the original Zoroastrian scheme Zoroaster appeared half-way through the second cycle of 6000 years, that is, the latter portion of the 12000-year Long Period. Thus a date c 800 BC for Zoroaster (Xuartes) takes one back to 3800 BC (800 + 3000) for the beginning of the second cycle of 6000 years and to the era of Gayomart (Adam), who flourished then according to the Biblical chronology also.

2) In the traditional king-lists of India, employing multiple sources, Pargiter (ut cit. infra, p. 144ff.) reckoned a total of 95 kings inclusive from the first, Manu, to Abhimanyu son of Arjuna son of Pandu at the time of the Mahabharata war. From Abhimanyu’s son Parikshit to Chandragupta, the contemporary of the Greek historian Megasthenes, the traditional king-lists give approximately 60 reigns, making something like 155 reigns in total to the time of Megasthenes. Megasthenes himself records there were 153 kings before his time going back to the first king of India, “Dionysus,” comprising a period of 6042 years (apud Arrian, Indica IX) or 6451 years 3 months till the 154th king, the invader Alexander of Macedon (apud Pliny Nat. Hist. VI. xxi. 4-5). This is confirmation of the antiquity of the traditional king-lists as regards the number of kings, and, at the same time, a corrective to the fantastical chronology of the yugas within which the kings are located in the extant native Indian sources. Placing the Mahabharata war at an era proportionate to that reported in the traditional Hindu accounts, but employing the scheme of Megasthenes, one would date it two fifths of the total period before Megasthenes’ era (60 out of 155 kings), viz. around 2700 BC (one fifth = 1200 years, two fifths = 2400 years, Megasthenes c. 300 BC, 300 + 2400 = 2700 BC). Vyasa and Zoroaster, being older contemporaries of the war, might be dated in this chronological system, c. 2700 BC.

3) What is noticeable about this date is it is roughly half way through a cycle of 6000 years, which is Zoroaster’s position in the (second) 6000-year cycle in the Zoroastrian Long Period. Vyasa was a pupil of Zoroaster, according to the Parsi tradition recorded supra, and this implies the Zoroastrian cycle, the Long Period, was adopted in India in the circle of Vyasa, and thus passed down to the era of Megasthenes. One has then to consider how the historical date for Zoroaster (Xuartes-Zoroaster, Munir Suarta) c. 800 BC came to be exchanged for the earlier date c. 2700 BC. A clue may be found in the Majmal (§687, below, >>), which dates the Pandavas and Mahabharata war to the time when Ham son of Noah died. At the very moment of his death, according to the Majmal’s mysterious account, Ham generated Pan the eponymus of the Pandavas. Ham was a more specifically Hindu Zoroaster, being the ancestral patriarch of the Hindus, and long preceded the sage Xuartes. The conclusion would seem to be warranted that at some point in the transmission of the Zoroastrian chronological tradition before it reached Megasthenes, the prophet Zoroaster c. 800 BC dropped out of consideration, and Ham took his place. This is likely to have occurred when the Hindus, or, rather, certain Hindu schools, abandoned Zoroastrianism in its pristine form. Zoroaster (Ham) might now be dated c. 2700-3600 BC: as this was Ham’s era according to the LXX chronology favored by the Egyptians and Ethiopians (Ethiopians = Sabaeans, including Hindus). The details of that chronology are as follows: Ham was born 500 years before the Flood (Hebrew and LXX text of Genesis), the Flood being dated to c. 3100 BC in the LXX. Ham died at some time (not specified in the Biblical text) following the dispersion of the sons of Noah to their respective territories. In the same stream of tradition which identified Ham with Zoroaster, Ham was also identified, as in the pseudo-Clementines (§92ff., above, >>), with Egyptian Ptah, the Greek Hephaistos, the first god-king of Egypt, and Ptah-Hephaistos is said to have flourished after the Dispersion from the Tower. (§626.30, above, >>.) The date for the latter event, according to the LXX chronology, was c. 2727/6 BC (§253, above, >>), and that means Ham was thought to have been alive as late as c. 2700 BC. By the same calculation, Zoroaster (that is, Ham) could be dated between c. 2700 (death) and c. 3600 BC (birth).

4) Given further the dating of Zoroaster in that same Zoroastrian scheme half-way through a 6000-year cycle, this would lead to a date c. 5700-6600 BC for the beginning of the cycle (2700-3600 + 3000). In the original Zoroastrian scheme the cycle began with Gayomart (Adam). In the revised Hindu scheme it began with Manu (= “Man, Adam”). In the LXX chronology Adam could be reckoned to have preceded Ham by approximately 2400 years (Adam c. 5500 BC and Ham at the time of the Flood c. 3100 BC), and Manu (Adam) could be held to have preceded the generation of Zoroaster (Ham), by a similar interval (c. 3100 [Zoroaster] + 2400 = 5500 [Adam/Manu]). In some variation on this scheme, Noah, the post-diluvian Adam, might be exchanged for Adam himself, and the ninth-century BC prophet, Xuartes-Zoroaster, for Ham, without much affecting the relative, as opposed to the absolute, chronology (original scheme: 800 BC [Xuartes-Zoroaster] + 2400 = 3200 BC [Noah-Manu], revised chronology c. 3100 [Zoroaster] + 2400 = 5500 [Manu]). To one who believed the theory of metempsychosis, Noah was simply Adam in another form, and Xuartes, Ham in another form. Zoroaster’s identification with Ham son of Noah seems eventually to have been forgotten, abandoned, or rendered irrelevant, through the theory of metempsychosis, for the majority of Hindus. The Hindu date hypothesized for Zoroaster’s traditional contemporary Vyasa, the more important figure in Hinduism, was now c. 3100-3600 BC, and the scheme would therefore begin c. 6100-6600 BC with Noah (= Manu, the reincarnated Adam), and it would date the contemporaries of Vyasa, viz. the participants in the Mahabharata war, c. 3100-3600 BC. The date for Manu (Noah) c. 6100-6600 BC coincides with the Indian date for Dionysus in Megasthenes, where Noah may be presumed to be Dionysus (as in Tzetzes §125, above, >>) and Dionysus is dated c. 6400 BC. In this system Dionysus is the ancestor of all the subsequent kings of India as is Manu in Hinduism. Similarly in Plato and other Classical Greek writers (Xanthus, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Hermippus, Hermodorus) Zoroaster himself is dated c. 6200-6500 BC, and here, according to those same assumptions, Zoroaster would have originally been Ham, the contemporary of Noah. If likewise, with Troyer, one took the traditional Hindu genealogies and a modern estimate for the average length of each generation as the bases of the calculation, and c. 3100 BC as the date of the Mahabharata war, then Manu (Noah) and his son Ikshvaku would be dateable c 6100 BC.

5) The difficulty would be that the end of the cycle in the original Zoroastrian scheme (that is, the end of the final cycle of 6000 years) and consequently the end of the world, should then have occurred in the late first millennium BC or early centuries AD about Megasthenes’ own era (5800-6600 BC minus 6000 = c. BC 600 to c. AD 200, Megasthenes’ floruit being c. 300 BC) which was not how things materialized. So a refashioning of the Zoroastrian 12000 years (6000 + 6000 years) scheme would be required, extending the final 6000 year cycle well into the future, rather than having it terminate at the end of the first millennium BC or the beginning of the Christian era. Such a solution was achieved in what is now the standard Hindu scheme of 4 yugas:

a) The 12000 years (two cycles of 6000 years) of the Zoroastrian scheme were converted into 12000 divine years, each divine year being composed of 360 human years, and the whole period was divided into 4 yugas, of 4800, 3600, 2400 and 1200 divine years each (in 4:3:2:1 ratio): the last yuga of 1200 divine years comprises in this scheme 432,000 (1200 × 360) human years. The inspiration for the Hindu reconstruction was almost certainly the earlier Mesopotamian scheme found in Berossus. Berossus’ “daughter,” it should be noted, was the Sibyl Sambethe, the “Queen of Sheba,” and Sheba = Hind/India. In Berossus’ scheme the last corrupt age before the Flood (120 years in the Biblical account) was converted into the same sum of 432,000 years: 432,000 = 3600 × 120. That is, 120 years of 360 days each in the Biblical scheme, which was the 120 years leading up to the Inundation of Noah, was exchanged for 120 Babylonian “shars,” each “shar” or “cycle” being 3600 (360 × 10) years long. These are simply different mathematical ways of visualizing the same era. Another way of visualizing it would be: 1200 (120 × 10) × 360 = 432,000 years, that is 1200 “divine years,” each “divine year” comprising 360 human years. The Hindus adopted the latter figure of 1200 “divine years” as their sum for the duration of the last, corrupt, age. This period ended in the Mesopotamian scheme with the Flood of Xisuthros-Noah, who was Manu in the Hindu scheme. It was the final yuga of an earlier cycle in the Hindu conception, terminating in an universal destruction, to be followed by a new cycle of 4 yugas ending likewise with a final age (yuga) of 432,000 years. The end of the newer cycle, that is, the last yuga of 432,000 human years, would allow sufficient time for the consummation of world history, given its commencement, as explained infra, c. 3100 years BC. This consummation would be analogous to the destruction of the Flood at the end of the preceding cycle. The 4 yugas in this scheme are called the Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali Yugas.

b) The last (Kali) age commences c. 3100 BC in the new Hindu scheme, and the Mahabharata war is dated to that pivotal point in history. As explained supra, an earlier scheme, in which Zoroaster (Ham-Zoroaster) was dated c 3100 BC, has been taken as the basis of the new scheme, but the contemporaries of the later Zoroaster (Xuartes) in the Mahabharata war era have been relocated to the era of the earlier Zoroaster (Ham), as evidenced in the Majmal, on the abandonment of Zoroastrianism by the Hindus. A rationale for this relocation may have been that the nephilim who fell in the time of the Flood, the era of Ham-Zoroaster, were still present in the era of the later Zoroaster (Xuartes) at the time of the Mahabharata war, and the latter reduplicated on earth, according to the theory of metempsychosis, the cosmic battle between good and evil evidenced in the original fall of the nephilim. Remnants of the process of rationalization may be traced in the extraordinary long life ascribed in the Hindu accounts to Parashurama, the “Brahmin” of the Majmal’s account, who was held to have slaughtered the Haihaiya kshatriyas no less than “twenty-one times,” and was considered one of the “Immortals,” and the sixth incarnation of Vishnu. His victorious career began in the Treta Yuga (the era of Ham and the immediate post-diluvian nephilim, the Emim, see infra) and continued over the vast interval which lay between, according to the Hindu conception, to the transition between the Dvapara and the Kali Yugas at the time of the Mahabharata war. In that later era he interacted with Bhishma, Drona and Karna. Thereafter he retired to the mountains in order to pursue a life of devotion and ascetic austerities, and is believed still to be so engaged, having left the succeeding incarnation of Vishnu with whom he briefly conversed before his departure, Rama Dasharathi, the hero of the Ramayana, to continue his salvific work amongst men.

c) Any historical period of 360 years could be converted mathematically into an era on the scale of a Kali Yuga by multiplying the total 360 by 1200 to produce the sum of 432,000 human years. This evidently is what was done in the Hindu scheme, the notional commencement for that era being the Mahabharata war c. 3100 BC (originally c. 800 BC). The vast time-span of the Kali Yuga in the Hindu scheme replaced the last period in the original Zoroastrian scheme, running from Xuartes-Zoroaster to the consummation of history. The 3000 or so historical years preceding the Mahabharata war, that is, the period reaching back to Manu (Noah) and Ikshvaku (the Cushite eponymus) c. 6100 BC (around 3000 years before c. 3100 BC), was now likewise conceived of as comprising so many cycles of 360 years each, making a total of 9 cycles or, more precisely, 3240 years (360 × 9). These were portioned out into three yugas in a ratio of 4:3:2, the fourth, last, or Kali Yuga, which postdated the Mahabharata war, being the basic unit (1). Thus from earliest to latest, the first or Satya Yuga (also known as the Krita Yuga), the “golden age,” was 4 cycles long (360 × 4 = 1440 years [× 1200]), the second or Treta Yuga, the “silver age,” was 3 cycles long (360 × 3 = 1080 years [× 1200]), and the third or Dvapara Yuga, the “bronze age,” was 2 cycles long (360 × 2 = 720 years [× 1200]). The fourth or Kali Yuga, the “iron age,” as already explained, was a single cycle long (360 years [× 1200]). In the original historical scheme, the years were simple historical years. The idea of larger cycles had been adopted secondarily, as aforesaid, to remove the end of the final age (the present age) to a far-distant future. For a restoration of the historical scheme underlying the Hindu modification, we should replace the standard chronology of the Hindu scheme dating the Mahabharata war c. 3100 BC, with the historical chronology which dates the same event c. 800 BC, and exchange the artificially inflated cycles of the Hindu yugas, with the historical cycles of 360 ordinary years. The result is then as outlined infra. The first figures are based on a chronology like that of the LXX, which was favored by the Sabaeans, dating the Flood of Noah c. 3100 BC. The Biblical chronology dating the Flood to 2435 BC reduces the whole period by a factor of 1.27, for which the equivalent Biblical estimates are given following.

Dvapara Yuga = 720 years (360 × 2), LXX-like chronology, c. 800-1520 BC = Biblical chronology 567 years, c. 800-1367 BC.

Treta Yuga = 1080 years (360 × 3), LXX-like chronology, c. 1520-2600 BC = Biblical chronology 850 years, c. 1367-2217 BC.

Satya (Krita or Dharma) Yuga = 1440 years (360 × 4), LXX-like chronology, c. 2600-4040 BC = Biblical chronology, 1134 years c. 2217-3351 BC.

Some form of historical verification can be achieved by comparing the sparse data given in the Hindu accounts preceding and following and comparing them with the Biblical, historical chronology. For example: 1) Noah was born at the end of the 4th millennium BC and Manu flourished at the beginning of the Krita Yuga, that is (according to the reconstruction supra) c. 3300-3000 BC; 2) The war between the devas and asuras just after the Flood of Manu is dated in the Vishnu Purana to the Treta Yuga, and that corresponds to a date for the same period (reconstructed supra) c. 2200 BC (shortly after the Noachide Inundation in 2435 BC); 3) Bharata is dated to the Dvapara period in Ferishta and the Mahabharata war traditionally to the transition between the Dvapara and the Kali Yuga c. 800 BC; implied further on account of the number of reigns between those eras (15 reigns = 15 × 14.5 or 15 × 18 years [see infra] = approx. 217.5-270 years) is a date for Bharata towards the middle of the Dvapara c. 1018-1070 BC, which is where he is placed in Ferishta. The chronology is further confirmed by Pargiter’s calculation in the 20th century (Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, 1922, p. 179ff.), working back from the Maurya king Chandragupta in the era of Alexander of Macedon, and employing traditional king-lists and modern regnal averages as means to calculate the interval from 382 BC, that the Mahabharata war occurred around the turn of the 9th century BC. Pargiter himself selected a date c. 950 BC for the war, using a “liberal” average reign of 18 years and 26 reigns for the later period in that interval, plus an average of 20 years and 5 reigns for the earlier period in that same interval immediately after the war. He admitted, however (ibid., p. 182), the preferred modern regnal average for oriental monarchs is 14.5 years, and he offered no adequate, historical explanation for the higher average of 20 years in the earlier period, except perhaps that there was more violence and therefore reigns were shorter in the later period: thus on Pargiter’s own evidence a consistent average of 14.5 years and 31 reigns in all takes one back to c. 832 BC as a more credible date for the Mahabharata war. This accords with the evidence adduced elsewhere in this study.

d. From the Majmal al-Tawarikh (footnotes in round brackets supplied at the end of each section).

683. Op. cit., p 104ff.:

“<p. 104> The Jats and Meds(1) are, it is said, descendants of Ham. They dwelt in Sind and (on the banks of) the river which is called Bahar. By the Arabs the Hindus are called Jats. The Meds held the ascendancy over the Jats, and put them to great distress, which compelled them to take refuge on the other side of the river Pahan, but being accustomed to the use of boats, they used to cross the river and make attacks on the Meds, who were owners of sheep. It so came to pass that the Jats enfeebled the Meds, killed many of them, and plundered their country. The Meds then became subject to the Jats.

684. “One of the Jat chiefs (seeing the sad state to which the Meds were reduced) made the people of his tribe understand that success was not constant; that there was a time when the Meds attacked the Jats, and harassed them, and that the Jats had in their turn done the same with the Meds. He impressed upon their minds the utility of both tribes living in peace, and then advised the Jats and Meds to send a few chiefs to wait on king Dajushan [Duryodhana], son of Dahrat [Dhritarashtra {spelled Dhrita infra}], and beg of him to appoint a king, to whose authority both tribes might submit. {We are at this point of the narrative in the Hindu Heroic Age.} The result of this was satisfactory, and his proposition was adopted. After some discussion they agreed to act upon it, and the emperor Dajushan nominated his sister Dassal [Duhshala], wife of king Jandrat [Jayadratha], a powerful prince, to rule over the Jats and Meds. Dassal went and took charge of the country and cities, the particulars of which and of the wisdom of the princess, are detailed in the original work. But for all its greatness, and riches and dignity, there was no brahmin or wise man in the country. She therefore wrote a long letter to her brother for assistance, who collected 30,000 brahmins from all Hindustan, and sent them, with all their goods and dependents, to his sister. There are several discussions and stories about these brahmins in the original work.

685. “A long time passed before Sind became flourishing. The original work gives a long description of the country, its rivers and wonders, and mentions the foundation of cities. The city which the queen made the capital, is called Askaland.(2) A small portion of the

————–

1. [See note in Appendix on “the Meds.” {not included here}]

2. This is no doubt the Ashkandra of Pottinger and others. See note in Appendix K{not included here}.

————–

“<p. 105> country she made over to the Jats, and appointed one of them as their chief; his name was Judrat. Similar arrangements were also made for the Meds. This government continued for twenty and some years, after which the Bharat{a}s lost possession of the country,

{A large section of the original is omitted here in the extract of Elliot-Dowson. The following is the missing section, supplied from the French of Reinaud:}

686. “which is the subject of the next chapter.

“The Rule of the Bharatas and the Pandavas.

687. “It is found in this book that Fur {Poros}, king of the kings of India, was one of the sons of Mahran, who lived in the time of Dhohhak and Feridun, and were descended from Ham. At the moment of his death Ham (sic) had two sons; one of them was called Dhrita and the other Pan.

{Note: The wording here might might merely be loose. Hind and Sind were the two sons of Ham, and their descendants, the “sons of Mahran,” whose ancestral roots went back to the Abrahamic era of Zohak and Feridun, included in a much later generation Dhrita and Pan, and, later still, Fur, the contemporary of Alexander of Macedon. However, the curious detail that Ham begot two sons “at the moment of his death” suggests a mystical interpretation of the event: viz. Ham, being an incarnation of Zoroaster (note the mention of the Iranian figures Zohak and Feridun), is a form of the Immortal Al Khidr, and therefore also of Vishnu, Buddha and Hermes. Hermes is Adam, the Iranian Gayomart, and Gayomart had two children, Mashya and Mashyana, precisely at the moment of his death, these two children being the ancestors of the human race. Here Ham (= Al Khidr = Gayomart) has two children at the moment of death, and they are the ancestors of the Indian race (Sind and Hind). Al Khidr as Vishnu (Ham in the present episode), had another incarnation, and that was the Immortal sage Vyasa, who was the father of Dhrita and Pan. These are the children “of Ham” mentioned here. In other words, three personalities have been fused into one through their identification with Al Khidr/Vishnu/Buddha/Hermes: 1) Gayomart (Adam), who had children at the point of death, 2) Ham himself, ancestor of Sind and Hind, and 3) Vyasa, father of Dhrita and Pan. The work proceeds to describe the traditional background to the Mahabharata war and the war itself, followed by an account of Parashurama (“Brahmin”), dated explicitly 164 years after the generation of the Mahabharata war and 15 reigns before Gushtasp (in this case Gushtasp = Hystaspes, the father of Darius I, as in Ferishta), and therefore c. 700 BC. The sage Vyasa, a contemporary of the Mahabharata war, and the father of Dhrita and Pan, is dated to the era of the Second Zoroaster c. 800 BC in Parsee tradition. Pan and Dhrita belong to the Hindu Heroic Age c. 900-700 BC.}

Dhrita was blind and Pan was a minor. Enemies in consequence raised their heads on all sides, and each apprised himself of some province or other. But until Pan came of age, Dhrita made him appear before him and gave him many counsels, saying, “Take in hand the interests of this empire and do not neglect it, so that the name of our fathers may continue, and our reputation remain untarnished, lest it be said we have not done what was in our power to do.” Pan, in conformity to these instructions of his brother, and in order to put his counsels into effect, raised an army and set off to the border regions. On his way through all the countries of India, he accomplished so many mighty exploits that the empire was delivered of the evils that afflicted it, and all its enemies were no more to be seen. Then he returned to his brother’s audience, and with head held high, offered his best wishes, and said, “All the king commanded, I have done.” Dhrita rose, and held his brother to his bosom; then he made him take his seat on the throne and said to him, “You have conducted yourself in the manner of men of true heart, and every thought of reproach has been driven away from us. Now the empire is yours: for I have become old, I am deprived of sight, and you are in a better state than I to exercise authority.” Pan replied, “God forbid that I should ever seek to elevate myself above you; I am like a slave devoted to your commands. If the king were to ordain that I throw myself in the fire, I should endure it, to the end I should obtain a good reputation amongst men.” That very moment, he passed over the royal ring on Dhrita’s finger, and placed the crown on his head. Dhrita replied, “The authority is yours!” That very moment, he committed to his brother half the empire.

688. “Pan gave himself wholly to the exercise of authority and justice. Dhrita had many sons, as well as a daughter, all born of one and the same mother, called Ghandari. The firstborn amongst the sons was called Dajushana; as for the daughter her name was ………; he has already made mention of these. The whole of this race bore the name Bharatas. The other family was called the Pandavas; it was composed of five brothers born of Pan. The name of the firstborn was Yudisht; the second was called Bhimasena; the third Arjuna; the fourth Sahadeva; and the fifth Nakula. Each of the five brothers was distinguished by a particular talent of his own.

689. “It is recorded that Pan was a great lover of the chase. All night he traveled on foot seeking game. Once a band of Indian brahmins and anchorites had established their abode on a mountain; amongst them was an anchorite who, for his sanctity, had acquired the divine favor to see all his wishes fulfilled. {This comment is used in the original to justify the preposterous story which follows. The anchorite is alleged to have obtained the miraculous power from “the Most High God” to be transformed into a gazelle, so he could engage in an act of bestiality! Unfortunately for him Pan was out hunting that night and shot him, thinking in the darkness he was an animal.}

690. “…. The anchorite fell, and resuming his form, he rolled over covered in blood. At that same moment he offered up this wish: “Oh my God! since some man has frustrated my satisfying my passion, the first time that passion takes hold of him, cause him also to die!” Pan came up that same instant. He was wholly amazed at the strange sight and addressed certain questions to the anchorite. The latter, who could only breathe with difficulty, told him his story. Pan replied, “I did this in ignorance!” At the same time he requested forgiveness. The anchorite replied, “I forgive you, but the wish I have made still stands.” As he said these words, he expired. Pan retired, overwhelmed with sorrow.

691. “Pan had two most beautiful wives, both the one and the other daughters of a king. One was called Kunti and the other Madri. He reported to king Dhrita and told him what had befallen him. This news pained Dhrita. Pan added, “Now, I have lost all attachment to life, since kingship no longer befits me, I shall retire on the mountain of the anchorites, to pass the remainder of my days in the practice of devotion, since I give credit no more to the pleasures of the world.” This saying struck Dhrita with dumbfoundness, and he had no power to answer him a word. Pan abandoned his authority immediately and retired to the mountain. His wives told him, “We shall go with you wherever you go.” And they did as they said.

692. “Some time passed. Pan made great progress in the life of devotion; his wives followed his example, and they came to see all their prayers fulfilled. But it is our duty to repeat what is found in the original, absurd though it be, and we must not fail in the responsibility placed upon us.

693. “One day when, about the time the sun slipped below the horizon, Pan had retired for the night, Madri said to Kunti, “Keep him awake, until he has eaten something.” In fact, it was the custom to eat at this time; and, after the moment that the sun retired for the night, they scrupulously observed the custom of eating nothing again till the morrow, at the same hour. Kunti replied, “I shall go and attend to the matter, till Pan arouses himself, and has been able to eat something.” Presently the sun retired for the night and the stars appeared over the horizon. Two hours of the night passed before Pan asked of Kunti what it was she desired. Kunti told him. Pan replied, “What interest have I in the pleasures of this world? … And why should I preserve myself longer for the sake of this life?” Pan ordered a meal to be prepared, and donated all he possessed to the brahmins. At the same time he said to his wives, “Let no man obtain your favors.” Then he made ready to do what Kunti had asked; but, at the moment his love was excited and he was about to satisfy it, he gave up the ghost. He was thoroughly consumed.

694. “Of the five sons of Pan of which we have knowledge, Yudisht, Arjuna and Bhimasena were born of Kunti. As for Sahadeva and Nakula, they were born, both the one and the other, from Madri. The original relates that both wives outlived Pan a considerable time. When lust overcame them, they had commerce with children of the air. The author makes the most ridiculous stories out of this subject.

695. “At this point in time the children of Pan were in their minority, and each was committed to the trust of a pious man, who was charged with raising and instructing them. Pan also had another son called Pan, like himself, who lived in the presence of king Dhrita.

696. “In the meanwhile the pious men said, “Let us conduct the children of Pan into the presence of their uncle Dhrita.” Each brahmin addressed a prayer to the Deity, to obtain, in favor of his charge, that which he desired. Yudisht had asked for a position of power and authority, and a solid minister; Bhimasena, an imposing force of character; Arjuna, great aptitude in bowmanship; Nakula, a bravery and application on horseback such as none before him had attained; finally Sahadeva, who had made progress in the study of wisdom, and never spoke till he was asked, sollicited a knowledge of the stars and the understanding of hidden mysteries. In the event, the five brothers became unique, each in his own sphere, as if he had been made to see his true calling, and the empire was transferred from the Bharatas to them. These brothers were given the general name of Pandavas.

697. “The brahmins conducted the five princes, with their mothers, into the presence of Dhrita, who publicly demonstrated his great joy. Dhrita lodged them in the pavilion and arcade of their father, and treated them with great favor like his own sons; then he assembled all the rulers of India and all the sages, and handed over to his nephews half his dominions. Yudisht was entrusted with the supervision of them all. The other half of his dominions was given to his own sons, and he placed at their head Dajushana. At the same time Dhrita gave much counsel and advice to both sets of sons. He recounted histories and anecdotes to them, recommending equity and justice to guide their actions, and mutual amity.

698. “But the people had a partiality for Yudisht, on account of his intelligence and good manners. Dajushana, perceiving this, was racked with jealousy, and looked for an artifice by which he might destroy his rival. In concert with Yudisht he had constructed in a certain place within his dominions a great pavilion for him and his retinue. At the same time he gave instructions for a pavilion to be erected for Yudisht and his brothers, and he charged Pan, son of Pan, with the following stratagem. He arranged for a gap to be left in the walls of the pavilion; a considerable quantity of wood was hidden in the recess, and a man received the order, when Yudisht and his brothers were present in the pavilion, to place naphta on the wood, and set it alight during the night.

699. “Chance had it that at the moment the work had been completed, Yudisht requested of his uncle permission to retire to his domain. Dhrita gave him much advice and said to him, “Take care to show proper respect to Dajushana, as he is your superior; but at the same time put no trust in him, because he is jealous of you; on the contrary, be on your guard.” Yudisht replied, “I shall do as you say.” At the same time he bade adieu to his uncle; but at the moment he left, Dajushana said to him, “O my brother, I beg you to come see the dwelling-place I have had constructed for you, and lodge there in your pavilion.” Yudisht replied, “I am at your command.” Then he set off with his brothers and their mothers, all together in one party. Now, it is said that the five brothers had an uncle called Bhimasena, who was strongly attached to them. This uncle sent a man to make a tunnel in the pavilion, and to prepare a subterranean means of exit from it. At the same time he warned his nephews of the danger impending upon them: “When you see the fire,” he said to them, “you must exit by this route.” So it came to pass; but the man who was charged with the task of lighting the fire, was consumed in flames, along with two women and five men who happened to be presented to Yudisht at that time in order to bring a suit before him. The inhabitants of the town, persuaded that the remains which were discovered after the fire were those of Yudisht, of his brothers and their mothers, mourned their death; and Dajushana, deceived by this false report, was filled with great joy. He had reunited the powers of state under his sole authority. Dhrita died some while after this.

700. “Yudisht, his brothers and their mothers comprised seven individuals. They retired together somewhere or other and passed through various adventures. Finally, they appeared before a brahmin, then joined the retinue of king Drupada, whose daughter, named Dropadi, became their wife, on account of the success which Arjuna achieved with his bowmanship in hitting the eye of a golden fish placed on top of a tower. Dropadi served as the wife of all five brothers. The story goes on to relate some remarkable things on this subject.

701. “After that, the five brothers retired to another country, and each of them strove to shine in the exercise of the talents with which he had been gifted. The relation of their adventures with the divs is too long to repeat here. They traveled through many countries, and at last obtained the kingdom.

702. “When several years had passed, the war commenced between them and Dajushana. The latter summoned his brother-in-law Jayadratha of Sind, and, with his hundred brothers accompanying him, set forth to battle. In vain Yudisht sent him message after message, inviting him to render up to him the four or five provinces which his father Dhrita had ceded to him. Dajushana had no desire to reach a compromise. In the end, they were all slain: Yudisht destroyed Dajushana in a moment, and none of them survived. When the news of this disaster reached the daughter of Dhrita, she groaned in agony, and gave up the ghost.

703. “It is recorded that when Dajushana and his brothers had perished, their mother Ghandari went to weep over their corpses. A brahmin came to give her certain counsels but she refused to hear him: all the efforts of the brahmin were futile. Then this brahmin said to the princess: “May God cover you with shame, since you refuse to hear my words.” Then he withdrew. When two or three days had passed, this woman became as one in a daze, on account of her grief and the fact that she was not eating. It was as though she was outside of herself, but she wept continually. One night, by chance, something resembling an item of food appeared in the air, and passing in front of Ghandari, she stretched out her hand to take hold of the object, but was unable to reach it, and finally fell heavily. The next day at sunrise, she took the corpse of one of her sons and stood erect upon his chest, but she was unable to obtain the same objective, which seemed always to be on the point of being achieved. In vain she placed the corpses of her hundred sons one upon the other, until a pile was formed of the hundred children; this object was always found to be too high to sieze. By divine appointment, the brahmin chanced to pass that place and said, “You refused to hear my advice, and now you are doing this!” Ghandari replied, “You have said the truth, and your utterances against me have come to pass. Now the veil is ripped asunder. Look where the desire to eat has taken me!” Then the princess made her way down to the brahmin, who gave her something to eat. Next day she cremated the corpses of her children according to the Indian custom, and then took some rest. God alone knows the truth of this!

704. “The Empire of the Pandavas.

“Yudisht took his place on the throne, and the whole of Hindustan was subject to his laws. Senjuara, the son of Jayadratha pleaded for mercy, and it was granted, Sind being ceded to him. From this time on Yudisht exercised sovereign authority, and caused justice to flourish amongst his subjects, just as it had in the days of his ancestors. Finally he summoned his brothers into his presence and said to them, “The things of this world are of momentary duration. I have formed the intention of retiring upon the mountain of the anchorites, and of devoting myself to the worship of God. Take the authority, and exercise it as our ancestors did and as I have done.” His brothers made this reply: “All your wishes accord with our own.” So they placed on the throne Parik, the son of Arjuna, and all five brothers retired to the mountain of the brahmins, where they devoted themselves to the exercise of piety till their deaths.

705. “Parik imitated the conduct of his uncle, and reigned thirty years. He had for his successor his son Janamejaya. He was a solid and just man(1) [(1) It was under this prince and for him that the Maha-bharata is thought to have been composed.]; he reigned twenty years, and he was replaced by his son Safsanika, who reigned for the space of twenty-five years. In his turn Safsanika exercised justice and equity: he was a man of good conduct and gracious manners. His reign was twenty-four years. After him, his son Yesra reigned fifty years, and the people freed themselves from his authority. Disorder fell upon the empire. At his death, he was replaced by his brother, Kuyahur, son of Safsanika. His conduct was bad. He failed to practice the customs established by his ancestors, and the kingdom departed from the power of the Pandavas. He was killed after having reigned in this manner for fifteen years. God knows the truth!

706. Recommencement of the extract from Elliot-Dowson:

“Account Of The Fall Of The Pandavas And History Of Brahmin.(2) — Injustice was the cause of the fall of the dynasty of the Pandavas. Fortune had grown indifferent towards them, and they ended by becoming tyrants. One day they carried off the cow of a brahmin, and were about to kill him, when the brahmin warned them, and said, “I have read in books that the prosperity of the Pandavas will fall when they shall kill a brahmin for the sake of a cow — do not kill me.” They did not heed him, but killed both him and the cow. That brahmin had a son named Brahmin, a strong and tall man, who dwelt upon a mountain. When he heard of this nefarious business he arose, and said to himself, I will go and take away the sovereignty from the Pandavas, for they have killed a cow, (and) a brahmin: the words of the sages cannot prove false, so the time of the fall of their dominion is come. Men laughed at him, but a party assembled round him. He took a city, and his power increased day by day, until he had a large army; and he went on capturing cities until at length he reached the city of Hatna,(3) which was the capital. Kuyahurat {Kuyahur, supra} marched out to the battle, but was slain, and Brahmin assumed the sovereignty. Wherever he found any one of the race of the Pandavas he slew him. But a few escaped, who concealed their extraction, and employed themselves as butchers and bakers, or in similar crafts. Brahmin acquired the whole of Hindustan. They say that a daughter of Bol [Nakula], son of Pandu {Pan supra}, went to him, and gave him such counsels as induced him to desist from slaying the Pandavas. But he put them all in prison until a large number was collected, when as a condition of

————–

1. [{Persian text omitted ….}. An and is a period of 15,000 years, or any number between three and ten.]

2. [This history is explained by the legend of Parasurama {Parashurama}, son of Jamadagni, called here Brahmin. Kuyahurat {Kuyahur} is Kartavirya; Fasaf, Kasyapa {Kashyapa}; Sunagh, the Muni Sunaka; and the cow, Kamadhenu.—Reinaud.]

3. [Hastinapur.]

————–

“<p. 106> their deliverance he made them follow certain trades, so that no one would give their daughters to them, or take theirs, or associate with them. He proclaimed this throughout his dominions. Their position was lowered to such a degree, that they took to the occupation of musicians. It is said that the Hindu lute players belong to this family; but God knows.

707. “History Of Sunagh.—They say that Brahmin felt remorse for the slaughter of so many persons, and said, I substitute worship on the summit of a mountain for the slaughter of men. One day a brahmin named Fasaf [Kasyapa {Kashyapa}] came to him and admonished him. Brahmin said, It is even so; I myself repent, and I will now give this kingdom to thee. Fasaf said, It is no business of mine; but Brahmin replied, Do thou receive it from me, and appoint some one over it by thy own authority. There was a servant named Sunagh, and him Fasaf seated on the throne. Brahmin then returned to the scene of his devotions. Sunagh practised justice and equity, and pursued a worthy course. The sovereignty remained in his family until fifteen kings had sat upon the throne. Then they became tyrants, and the sovereignty departed from them. This was in the reign of Gustasf {Gushtasp, Hystaspes, the father of Darius I}, king of Persia. It is said that in the life-time of this Gustasf, Bahman {the contemporary of Ahasuerus/Cyaxares I and Esther} led an army to Hindustan and took a portion of it; as to the other parts every one (that could) seized a corner. No one of the family (of Sunagh) retained any power. Bahman founded a city between the confines of the Hindus and the Turks, to which he gave the name of Kandabyl, and in another place, which they call Budha, he founded a city which he called Bahman-abad. According to one account this is Mansura; but God knows. At this time he returned to Persia, when he received the news of the death of Gustasf, and assumed the crown. This account I found in this book, but I have not read it elsewhere. The mother of Bahman is said to have been of Turk extraction; but God knows.”

End of citation.

e. The Kings of Kashmir

707.1. H. H. Wilson began his inquiry into the history of Kashmir by stating: “The only Sanscrit {Sanskrit} composition yet discovered, to which the title of History, can with any propriety be applied, is the Raja Tarangini, a history of Cashmir {Kashmir}.” (Wilson, Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, p. 1.) The Raja Tarangini is the work of Kalhana AD 1148. This is the source of the following passages. It provides clear evidence of the manipulation of earlier historical accounts in order to accommodate the traditional 4-Yuga chronology, as will be demonstrated. The Persian histories of Kashmir, which incorporate significant elements of the same tradition, further demonstrate the derivation of the Lunar line of the Pandavas from Soma = Yama = Jam, the “Moon,” that is Jamshid (identified in them, as commonly elsewhere, with the Hebrew king Solomon), the same as the Jam of Samma tradition, that is, the patriarch Shem son of Noah or, more precisely, the eponymus of that line. The first citations from the Raja Tarangini infra comprise a series of rather technical chronological notices, which are important to elucidate the way the 4-Yuga chronology was employed to restructure the traditional historical narrative, and will be explained in the notes following.

First kings of Kashmir for 1266 years c. 2100 BC to 9th century BC:

Raja Tarangini of Kalhana I. 14-20, 25-27, 44-45 and 48-56:

“14. Eleven works of former scholars containing the chronicles of the kings, I have inspected, as well as the [Purana containing the] opinions of the sage Nila.

15. By looking at the inscriptions recording the consecration of temples and grants by former kings, at the laudatory inscriptions and at written works, the trouble arising from many errors has been overcome.

16. Among fifty-two rulers whom those [former scholars] do not mention, on account of the loss of tradition, four, viz. Gonanda and [his successors], have been taken [by me] from the Nilamata [Purana].

17-18. Having read the opinion of the Pasupata Brahman Helaraja who formerly composed a ‘List of Kings’ (parthivavali) in twelve thousand Slokas, Padmamihira entered in his work the eight kings beginning with Lava, who preceded Ashoka and his successors.

19. The five kings also, among whom Ashoka is the first, the illustrious Chavillakara has declared [to have been recovered] from the fifty-two [lost ones]. For his verse is as follows:—

20. ‘The five [rulers] from Ashoka to Abhimanyu who have been named, were obtained by the ancients from among the fifty-two [lost ones].’

….

25. Formerly, since the beginning of the Kalpa, the land in the womb of the Himalaya was filled with water during the periods of the [first] six Manus [and formed] the ‘Lake of Sati’ (Satisaras).

26-27. Afterwards when the present period of the [seventh] Manu Vaivasvata had arrived, the Prajapatii Kashyapa caused the gods led by Druhina {Brahma}, Upendra {Vishnu} and Rudra {Shiva} to descend, caused [the demon] Jalodbhava, who dwelt in that [lake], to be killed, and created the land by the name of Kashmir in the space [previously occupied by] the lake.

….

44. In that [country] fifty-two rulers up to (preceding) Gonanda [the Third {sic. Stein’s conjecture, but Gonanda the First in the Persian versions}], who in the Kaliyuga were contemporaries of the Kurus and of the sons of Kunti (Pandavas), have not been recorded.

45. In those times there were assuredly in consequence of the demerit of those rulers of Kashyapa’s land (Kashmir), no poets of creative power who would produce their bodies of glory.

….

48-49. The kings Gonanda [the First] and his successors ruled Kashmir during twenty-two hundred and sixty-eight years in the Kaliyuga. {That is, according to Kalhana’s reconstruction, 1266 years of the dynasty of Gonanda I, followed by 1002 years of the dynasty of Gonanda III.} This calculation of the duration of these [kings’ reigns] has been thought wrong by some [authors] who were misled by the statement that the Bharata [war] took place at the end of the Dvapara [Yuga].

50. If the years of those kings, the duration of whose reigns is known, are added up, leaving aside the above [2268 years of Gonanda I and his successors], no rest remains from the passed period of the Kaliyuga, as [will be seen] from the following.

51. When six hundred and fifty-three years of the Kaliyuga had passed away, the Kurus and Pandavas lived on the earth.

52. At present, in the twenty-fourth year of the Laukika [era], one thousand and seventy years of the Saka era have passed.

53. On the whole, at this time two thousand three hundred and thirty years have passed since [the accession of] Gonanda the Third.

54. Twelve hundred and sixty-six years are believed [to be comprised] in the sum of the reigns of those fifty-two [lost] kings.

55. On this [point] a decision is furnished by the [words of the] author of the [Brhat]samhita who [with reference to the fact] that the Great Bear moves from one Nakshatra to the other in a hundred years, has thus [indicated] its course:

56. ‘When King Yudhishthira ruled the earth, the Munis (the Great Bear) stood in the [Nakshatra] Maghah. The date of his reign was 2526 years [before] the Saka era.’”

707.2. Saka era = AD 78

Therefore in Raja Tarangini (ed. trans. Stein) I. 48-56:

lines 48-50: Gonanda I and his successors ruled 2268 years within Kali Yuga

line 51: Kurus and Pandavas lived on earth 653 years from the beginning of Kali Yuga

line 52: Kalhana Pandita was writing 1070 + 78 = AD 1148

line 53: Gonanda III lived 1148 − 2330 = 1182 BC {sic, about 1500 years too early!}

line 54: the line of 52 kings left unnamed went back to 1182 + 1266 = 2448 BC

line 56: Yudhishthira reigned 78 − 2526 = 2448 BC

This is internally consistent and is Kalhana’s own chronology.

707.3. Kali Yuga, according to the traditional reckoning followed by Kalhana, comprises 432,000 years commencing 3101 BC, and in the earliest phase of it (otherwise at the transition of the Dvapara and Kali Yugas) occurred the Mahabharata war. Kalhana calculates the date of that war (strictly the coronation date of king Yudhishthira, a contemporary of the war) c. 2448 BC, 653 years after the very beginning of the Kali Yuga, but still, considering the vast duration of that Yuga (432,000 years), at its “commencement.” Gonanda I, according to Kalhana, was a contemporary of Yudhishthira, a participant in the Mahabharata war. This chronology follows the common scheme of 4 Yugas. From the native Kashmiri tradition Kalhana understands there were 52 kings at the start of Kashmir’s history whose names were unrecorded because of their “demerit.” Preceding them was Kashyapa who drained the lake with which Kashmir was filled in the era of Manu Vaivasvata (the survivor of the universal Deluge). These 52 “unnamed” kings ruled for 1266 years, and this period, according to Kalhana, was located within a greater period of 2268 years of the Kali Yuga. By Kalhana’s own admission, he and preceding investigators had “recovered” certain named kings “from among” the 52 unnamed kings (I. 16-20). The 1266 years are located, therefore, in Kalhana’s chronology within the longer period of 2268 years, comprising what might be termed the first phase of Kashmir’s dynastic history within the 432,00-year-long Kali Yuga.

707.4. The figure 2268 years was evidently the result of combining the period of 1266 years of “unnamed” kings with the total of 1002 for the reigns of the succeeding dynasty of “named” kings starting with “Gonanda.” 1266 + 1002 = 2268. Probably Kalhana used an earlier construction, whereby the dynasty from Gonanda I to Abhimanyu, lasting somewhat over 1000 years, followed immediately on the total of 1266 years of “unnamed” kings. That is the pattern in the Persian versions of the tradition (see infra). But Kalhana, knowing of the synchronism of Gonanda I with Yudhishthira at 653 years into the Kali Yuga, would have to throw back the beginning of the period of 1266 years in that case into the preceding Dvapara Yuga. He rejected that chronological construction, according to his own admission. He presumed the total period of 2268 years all fell within the Kali Yuga.

707.5. First among the “named” kings Kalhana considered to have been recovered from “among” the “unnamed” kings, therefore, was Gonanda I, a contemporary, according to the historical context of Kalhana’s tradition, of the Mahabharata war and of Yudhishthira. Yudhishthira was crowned king 653 years after the commencement of the Kali Yuga, according to the 4-Yuga Hindu chronology employed by Kalhana, therefore Gonanda I was dated by Kalhana to that precise time. He seems to have assumed Gonanda I commenced his reign some time within the period of 653 years. Since also the 1266 years were understood to have run their course “up to (preceding)” a king called “Gonanda” (I. 44), then this later Gonanda, according to Kalhana’s understanding, must have been Gonanda III, who reigned a thousand years and more after Gonanda I. (Gonanda II would have been excluded because he reigned only a short period after Gonanda I, being the latter’s grandson.) Kalhana dated this Gonanda (III) 1266 years after Gonanda I, following the tradition that a “Gonanda” was preceded by 52 kings without names reigning 1266 years, “among” which latter the name of Gonanda I had been “recovered.” That means Gonanda III, according to Kalhana, reigned at 1182 BC (1266 years after Gonanda I and Yudhishthira at 2448 BC).

707.6. Now the only problem with this otherwise internally consistent chronology of Kalhana is that it is utterly wrong! Kanishka, the famous Buddhist Kushan ruler, the precursor of Gonanda III, lived no less than 1500 years later than in Kalhana’s chronology! If all the kings in Kalhana’s scheme are shifted down the same amount of time, Gonanda I would have to be dated around the 9th century BC.

707.7. This suggests some of the more historical sources which Kalhana drew on directly or indirectly, dated Gonanda I in the 9th century BC, and Kalhana, or a previous investigator whom he followed, backdated the chronology 1500 years or so to suit the 4-Yuga traditional chronology of the Mahabharata war. Comments throughout his account emphasize that the chronology Kalhana depended on, in spite of differences among interpreters, was a traditional 4-Yuga scheme.

707.8. The question, then, centers around the termination of this period of 2268 years in the 9th century BC. We can deduce from Kalhana’s phrase “Gonanda and his successors (I. 48-49)” that Kalhana presumed the period of 1266 years of kings without names, some “among” which had been “recovered,” was followed by the dynasty of Gonanda III lasting 1002 years. This indeed is how he constructs his chronology: 1) the beginning of Kali Yuga at 3101 BC; followed 653 years later by 2) the coronation of Yudhishthira, during the reign of Gonanda I, at 2448 BC; followed by 3) a period of 1266 years of unnamed kings, followed by 4) the reign of one “Gonanda,” conceived, in that case, to be the reign of Gonanda III, at 1182 BC; this was followed by 5) a succession of other kings comprising the dynasty of Gonanda III up to the end of the aforesaid period (of 1266 + 1002 = 2268 years of the line of Gonanda in two dynasties, the first beginning with Gonanda I, and the second beginning with Gonanda III, all within Kali Yuga).

707.9. In the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini the period of 1266 years of 52 “unnamed” kings is immediately followed by “Gonanda,” but in them “Gonanda” is Gonanda I, not Gonanda III. Otherwise a series of more than 50 kings of Kashmir (52 in Bedia-eddin), beginning with “Suliman” and reigning for 1266 years, is followed by Gonanda (I) after them. This is the schema reproduced in Ain-i-Akbari (Abu’l Fazl): there “53” unnamed kings are referred to and these are said to have been followed by Gonanda (“Gonerda”) I. Gonanda I, therefore, reigned towards the end of the era of 50 plus “unnamed” kings.

707.10. As we have said, the historical date of Kanishka, as recovered by modern historians, 1500 or so years later than in Kalhana’s scheme, would necessitate a redating of Gonanda I, along with him, 1500 years or more later than in Kalhana, to the 9th century BC. This suggests that in some earlier tradition, preserved in the Persian versions, the “Gonanda” of Raja Tarangini I. 44, who was preceded by 52 “unnamed” kings for 1266 years (see the translation supra), was Gonanda I, not Gonanda III. The first kings of Kashmir, 52 of them, are said to have ruled in this (original) tradition for 1266 years from the draining of the lake of Kashmir up to Gonanda I in the 9th century BC. This implies the Mahabharata war also in this tradition was dateable to the 9th century BC, since Gonanda I was a contemporary of the war.

707.11. We can see clearly, then, why Kalhana or the authorities he followed should have attempted to amend the original tradition. It contradicted the common Hindu 4-Yuga chronology, which dates the Mahabharata war, not to the 9th century BC, but to the beginning of the Kali Yuga (around the period 3101 BC to 2448 BC, and, more precisely, the latter date in Kalhana). Thus Gonanda I, the contemporary of the Mahabharata war, would need to be retrojected back over 1500 years, and with him the whole line of kings of Kashmir, from the 9th century BC to 2448 BC!

707.12. An adjustment of Kalhana’s chronology by several hundreds of years was contemplated already by Wilson, Chronological Table, Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, p. 81, though that was based on what Wilson considered to be the true historical date for Buddha. It can be shown that Wilson’s “Adjusted Dates” of the Kings of Kashmir, with Gonnanda III (immediately following Kanishka) at “388 BC” (for Kalhana’s 1182 BC), should be further adjusted downwards by approx. 520 years: this is so because Kanishka is now known to have reigned c. AD 130, 518 years later than Wilson’s 388 BC. Thus also Wilson’s Adjusted Date for Gonanda (“Gonerda”) I at 1400 BC should be adjusted downwards by the same 520 years, to c. 880 BC. This corresponds to the era computed supra, viz. the 9th century BC.

707.13. In Kalhana’s reconstruction of the tradition, the 1266-year period of “unnamed” kings, ending with a Gonanda, was maintained, but this period coincided in its earliest phase with the period of the Mahabharata war (and Gonanda I the contemporary of the war) 653 years or thereabouts after 3101 BC. The Gonanda who followed that period was taken by Kalhana to be Gonanda III. Since the names of Gonanda I, and of other of these kings of Kashmir, the successors of Gonanda I, were known in tradition, or from remains on the ground, Kalhana and the earlier investigators he followed presumed their names had been “recovered from among” the 52 “unnamed” kings of that earliest period in the history of Kashmir, which, according to their 4-Yuga chronology, fell towards the beginning of the Kali Yuga. In other words, the retrojection of the line of Gonanda I into the period of the 52 “unnamed” kings, led to an intermingling of the “named” kings of the line of Gonanda I, with the “unnamed” kings of the original tradition in the minds of these Hindu historians.

707.14. The 52 first kings are said to have been left nameless because of their “demerit.” This is a religious term, meaning they were, from the later Hindu perspective, “unorthodox.” This is confirmed by the Persian versions which relate that one of the earliest of the 52 kings expelled “idolatry” from the country, though it was restored by a succeeding king in the list, and the idolatry consisted of the cult of Sadashiva (the five-faced Shiva). (Klaproth, Histoire du Kachmir, Paris, 1825, p. 15.) He and many other kings of the 52 are actually named in the Persian versions, because, as we may conclude, the Persians did not share the religious scruples of the Hindus.

707.15. To estimate the relative importance of the Persian component in Kashmiri history we have only to consider the composition of Kashur, the native Kashmiri language: Kashur is a polyglot, in which on average out of every 100 words, 25 are Sanskrit, 15 Hindustani, 10 Arabic, 10 Tibetan, Turki, Dogri and Punjabi, and no less than 40, that is, the major part, Persian. More than 30 of Kalhana’s “unnamed” kings are found named in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini (Klaproth). The first of the series is “Suliman” (Solomon). He is identified in a variety of sources as the famous Israelite king Solomon son of David, and is said to have employed the “dev” Kashyapa to drain the lake that originally covered Kashmir. This event (the draining of the lake by Kashyapa, though without any mention of “Suliman”) is referred to by Kalhana as being dateable to the commencement of the present era of Manu (Vaivasvata), the hero and survivor of the universal flood, Raja Tarangini I. 26-27. In this context, and in a list of the earliest kings of India, “Suliman” cannot be Solomon son of David, but must be a figure from the Patriarchal era immediately after the Noachide flood. In Kashmir the flood-draining Suliman is commemorated at Takht-i-Suleiman, which is a notable shrine in the area. The ruins of Persepolis in Iran are known identically as Takht-i-Suleiman, but alternatively as Takht-i-Jamshid, identifying Suleiman (Suliman) in this case with Jamshid. Many sites in Iran show the same exchange in nomenclature. Dinawari refers to the common Iranian tradition that Jamshid is the same person as Solomon (otherwise spelled Suliman, Suleyman etc.), but rejects the notion that this could be Solomon the son of David. He writes (section Numrud): “It is related that Ibnu’l-Muqaffa {a notable Persian Zoroastrian} said: ‘Ignorant Iranians allege and they that have no knowledge [say] that king Jamm {Jamshid} was Sulayman son of Dawud, but this an error, for between Sulayman and Jamm there were more than three thousand years.’” In Dinawari Jamshid (Jamm) is not Solomon son of David but the son of Vivanghan son of Arphaxad son of Shem in the generation immediately following the flood of Noah. Likewise in the Samma tradition (infra) Jamshid (Jam) is Shem himself or a son of Shem (the eponymus passing down through the line), and he is the ancestor of the Samma Jats (Hindus). The name Jamshid is commonly applied in ancient Iranian/Arabic tradition to members of the immediately post-diluvian line of Shem. Jamshid is dated to the era of the Noachide flood, and this shows the Suliman of the Kashmiri tradition and of the Kashmiri Takht-i-Suleiman, dateable to that same diluvian era, is Jamshid (Shem or a son of Shem) under the sobriquet “Solomon son of David.” Zoroaster’s birthplace Shiz in Ardabil province Iran is also called Takht-i-Suleiman, and that “Solomon” here is the

In the following chart the original Kashmiri chronology is in the red column (left) and Kalhana’s reconstruction is shown in the right-hand columns. The period of 1266 years before a king called “Gonanda” in the sources used by Kalhana (meaning Gonanda I originally, but misidentified by Kalhana as Gonanda III) is in light blue. So, the 1000+ years of the dynasty of Gonanda I (green left) was relocated higher (blue right) to begin in 2448 BC, and was held to extend over 1266 years, whilst the original dynasty of Gonanda I was replaced by the dynasty of Gonanda III.

Historical Dates

Mythical Dates in Kalhana

3101 BC

Beginning of Kali Yuga

2448 BC

←

Redated Gonanda I

←

Suliman

circa
2106 BC

1226 YEARS before “Gonanda” (III)

1226 YEARS before “Gonanda” (I)

1182 BC

←

Redated Gonanda III

←

Gonanda I

circa
880 BC

1002 YEARS

c. 1000 YEARS

Kanishka followed by Abhimanyu and Gonanda III

AD 130

same figure as in Kashmir is evident by the similarity of the traditions explaining the toponyms: “A tradition exists that this part of the country {Ardabil} was formerly a lake, and that Solomon commanded two deeves {devs} or genii, named Ard and Beel, to turn off the water into the Caspian, which they effected by cutting a passage through the mountains; and a city, erected in the newly-formed plain, was named after them Ard-u-beel.” Home, Sketches on the Shores of the Caspian, 1845, p. 42. Ardabil lies on a river which is tributary to the Araxes (Aras), whilst over the Araxes rises Mount Ararat (Masis), one of the traditional landing-places of Noah’s container, just as in Kashmir Mount Naubandha, the site of Manu’s/Noah’s descent (see further infra), rises above the location of the ancient lake. Some have traced the name Caspian from the same noun Kashyapa seen in Kashmir. Compare the almost identical Kashmiri tradition: “Noah built a boat to rescue select animals. When, in accordance with the divine plan, the skies ceased their storming, the earth soaked up the water, and Kashmir’s land came into being. In this land lived Sati, the wife of Shiva, who liked to bathe in a lake called Satisar, in which lived the demon Jalodhbhava. This demon caused havoc on the people of this region, until, at Sage Kashyap’s request, the gods drained the lake through a passage in a mountain. The drained water formed lakes and ponds in low-lying areas while the higher elevations became land. This land came to be called Kashyap Mir after sage Kashyap and his wife, Mir. When the Prophet Solomon traveled around the world on his flying throne, he landed on a mountain in Kashmir, and seeing before him the land submerged in water, deputed the jinns {genii} Kashaf and Mir to drain the water and make the land fit for habitation. This they did, and people began to inhabit the land, making it famous as Bagh-i-Sulaiman {Garden of Solomon}.” (Nabi Khanyari’s Wajiz-ul-Tawarikh, 1857.) The older version of the last part of the tradition is found in Haider Malik’s Tarikh (1621): “…. when the prophet Solomon … landed in this land by the order of God … one leg of his blessed throne rested on the top of the mountain now known as Koh-i Sulaiman {Mountain of Solomon}. At this time, except the mountain ranges, all the low-lying land was submerged under water. Since the prophet found the climate of that place extremely pleasing, he assigned the task of removing that water (from the lake) to two jinns, one called Kashf and the other Mir. So they carried out the order of the prophet Solomon … and cleared this land of water. Thus it was named Kashf-Mir, and because of the efforts of the two persons, it became habitable. The name then changed into Kashmir as a result of its great usage.”

707.16. Confirmation that Suliman in the Persian accounts is this early post-diluvian Jamshid (Shem) can be found:

1) In the Samma tradition that the Jats (Ferishta equates Jats and Hindus) descend ultimately from Jam (Jamshid), who, according to the Samma, is Shem son of Noah or a son of Shem (dateable therefore to the era of the Noachide Flood). The Jat (Hind) line in Ferishta includes the Kuru family and Pandavas and accordingly, in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini, “Suliman” is the ancestor precisely of the Kuru family and of Pandu (I) the eponymus of the Pandavas. “Suliman” in the Persian Kashmiri tradition = Jam = Shem of the Samma Jats.

707.16.1. 2) In a similar tradition found in Nepal. There Manjushri (a.k.a. Dipankara Buddha) is said to have drained the lake that once covered Nepal, as Suliman did in Kashmir, and Manjushri is a form of Yama, the god of the Underworld, who is Yima (Jamshid) in Iran. Thus Manjushri = Yama = Yima = Jamshid = Suliman. Accordingly the central region of Kashmir around Srinagar is termed Yamraj, the “Realm of Yama.” Manjushri is the Buddha of the Past in the common Buddhist Trinitarian scheme, and is exchanged in some accounts in that role for Kashyapa. In Himalayan Buddhist astrology, Kashyapa, the Turtle, is an aspect of Manjushri. Manjushri is also the eponymus of the Manchus, being held to have been incarnate in each successive Manchu sovereign, and his sacred mountain is Wutai in Shanxi, China. It is said he migrated from Wutai to Nepal. This explains how the figures of Jamshid (Jam, Yima, Yama, Manjushri) and his one-time companion Cush Fil-dendan came to be located for the duration of the earliest phase of their forest wanderings in “Chin” (China) in the Kush-nama, though Chin was commonly also, for a particular ethnological reason, confused with “India” as explained more fully at §813.5, below, >>. In Persian Kashmiri tradition Suliman (Yima) interacts with Kashyapa, in a way analogous to the interchange of Manjushri (Yama) and Kashyapa in the Buddhist Trinitarian scheme, and Kashyapa is present with Suliman in a mystic sense, being the “dev” under his control, that is, the means by which the lake was drained. Manjushri, otherwise Yama and Mahakala or Kala, Heruka, Bhairava or Shiva, is the Herakles of Megasthenes’ account, who can be equated with Jamshid (Yama/Yima) and with Firoz (Soma), the ancestor of the Somavansha, as referenced in the chart supra. The same god was held to have been multiply re-embodied in the descendants of that line, so Jamshid/Yama was Shem himself, and his troublesome offspring Cush Fil-dendan (Cush Fil-dendan brother of Zohak, son of Maran son of As son of Aram son of Shem), as well as Jamshid (II) the great-grandson of Shem (Jamshid son of Vivanghan son of Arphaxad son of Shem) and Firoz the descendant of Cush Fil-dendan (Cush = Kishan). The role of Yama (Shem), under the title Ishana, passed down to his descendant Cush, according to that genealogy, and thus became attached to Kishan/Krishna/Vishnu. In Japan Ishana (Yama) is called Izanagi, and he and his divine spouse Izanami (Ishani) are creator-gods like the Hindu Vishnu, famous, as Vishnu is, for curdling the cosmic ocean at the beginning of creation. In this way Jamshid (Yama/Manjushri) and Cush Fil-dendan (Ishana/Izanagi) found their way to the very extremes of the Orient in China and Japan. The original Jamshid was Dumuzi (Yama = Damu/Dumu, Xshaeta = zid, a phonetic echo of the Sumerian name), who had two incarnations, one before the Flood, Dumuzi Sipa, Dumuzi the Shepherd = the Biblical Tubal-cain (who was believed to have died in the Inundation), and one after it Dumuzi Shu-nigin-pesh, Dumuzi the Hunter-Fisher (the Biblical Sidon), who perished in an hunting accident in the Levant. As the most famous of the “dying gods” he became in Hinduism Yama, god of the dead. Then in Zoroastrianism Shem was identified with Zervan (unending Time), probably as a borrowing from the Egyptian Kneph (Kem-Atef), self-consuming time, a form of Amun or (in Mesopotamian terminology) Umun, Mummu, the cosmic Logos, Enki or Ea, with whom Shem was specially identified in the Mesopotamian system. Zervan in turn is the Hindu or Indo-Aryan Kala (Time), and Kala is identified with Yama, god of the dead. Hence Shem (and his line, inheriting the eponymus) was now Yama (or “Jam” or “Jamshid”). This was the favored identification in later Iranian, viz. Zoroastrian, tradition.

707.17. The Kashyapa tradition shows the era of Manu and Kashyapa was contemporary in the original tradition with the earliest of the 50 plus kings, viz. at the beginning of the 1266 year period which ran from Manu to Gonanda I. This shows Manu (Noah), “Suliman” (Jamshid, Jam, viz. Shem), Kashyapa, and the draining of the lake, were originally dated in the Kashmiri tradition c. 2100 BC, 1266 years earlier than Gonanda I in the 9th century BC, without any reference to the Yuga theory.

707.18. In the Persian Kashmiri tradition Suliman was originally Yama/Yima (Manjushri), and he is said to have employed Kashyapa (Kasheb, Kashep) to help him drain the lake. In some versions of the story of the draining of the lake Kashyapa himself employed the services of Vishnu or Kishan (Krishna-Vishnu) to accomplish the task, and the latter did so by beheading Jaladev, the water monster resident in the lake. This is a reference to the retreat of the waters of the Flood of Noah (Manu) whose mountain of descent (“Manus’s Descent”), Naubandha, is traditionally located above the remnants of the lake in Kashmir. It is also a reference to Shem (“Suliman”) and Cush (Kishan), who were both present on Noah’s boat, and were founding fathers of the new post-diluvian world. In the Babylonian creation story similarly, Cush (Kishan) is the demiurge (Bel > Vishnu) who split apart the flood-monster (Tiamat > Jaladev) in the beginning to order the new world around its central city, Babylon. The account in Tarikh-i-Hasan (Hasan Pir’s History of Kashmir, AD 1896) actually employs the form Kishan for Vishnu: “According to the Nilamata Purana Kashmir was a lake called Satisar in which lived a dev named Jaladev, who was a cannibal. He was a devotee of Brahma, from whom he had received a boon that he would be undefeated in the water. Once Brahma’s grandson, Kashyap Rishi, was wandering by the lake, and was surprised to find no humans near such a beautiful place. When he learned of Jaladev’s atrocities, he became determined to vanquish the demon, and prayed to Brahma for one thousand years. Finally Brahma agreed to help him and along with the other gods, attempted to kill Jaladev. Since Jaladev hid in the water from the gods’ attacks, Sri Kishan-ji {= Kishan, Krishna, Vishnu} used the Sudarshan chakra to create a breach in the mountain from which the water flowed out, and a bird took a piece of the mountain in its beak and dropped it on Jaladev. Once the water receded, land appeared, and streams and gardens were created. The gods selected portions of this beautiful land for their own habitation and these places still remain pilgrimage spots. Then Kashyap Rishi populated this beautiful land with Brahmans from all over the world and called it KashyapMar {Kashmir} or the home of Kashyap.”

707.19. Note 1) on Suliman in the following translation of Wilson. The first king Suliman (Solomon) is represented in the legends of Kashmir to have been “Solomon son of David,” the master of jins (genii), who sent the dev (spirit), Kasheb (Kashyapa) to drain the lake of Kashmir in the time of Manu. The Davidic chronology here, of course, is impossible, and is explained by the common Persian/Arabic tradition that two thousand or so years before Adam, and also in the generations immediately following him, there were many Solomons, that is, supreme rulers of the jins: there were 72 according to one account, 40, according to another, and these were identified in some cases with spiritual beings like Jan ben Jan, the builder of the Great Pyramid, or Biblical offspring of Adam, like Jared father of Enoch, or the Persian king Hoshang, etc. (Herbélot, Bibl. Orient. art. Soliman Ben Daoud. Compare the multiple Jamshids of Iranian tradition, the successive Samma kings called Jam after their founding father Jam/Shem, and the multiple Manjushris [Yamas] of the Manchus.) A common Iranian tradition was that Jamshid was one of these Solomons, hence Persepolis was known as Takht-i-Suleiman, the Platform of Solomon, and otherwise as Takht-i-Jamshid, the Platform of Jamshid. There is a Takht-i-Suleiman at Srinagar in Kashmir, which is identified as the Platform of the Kashmiri Suliman who drained the lake. According to the Samma Jamshid is their ultimate ancestor Shem (Sam) son of Noah (Nuh); alternatively he is a descendant of Shem in the line of Arphaxad (as in Dinawari and many subsequent writers), who engendered the royal line of the Hindus (Jats). That we are dealing here with Suliman = Jamshid is shown by the evidence adduced supra. Further, that he is a human king, not a spirit, in this tradition is indicated by the tracing of the line of kings of Kashmir back to Isaun, the “cousin” of Suliman. As also this Suliman is the ultimate ancestor of the Hindu kings known as the Pandavas, we know we are dealing with the same figure as in the Samma tradition, that is, Jam (= Shem, or the descendant of Shem through Arphaxad), the ancestor of the Jats, which latter are the Hindus of the line of the Pandavas, according to the Majmal.

Note 2) on Isaun. Isaun = Ishana = Ishvara = Ashur/Anshar = Cush Fil-dendan. That Isaun the “cousin” of Suliman is Ishana (Shiva) is indicated, among other evidences examined infra, by the type of idolatry said to have been combated by Isaun’s descendant, Sunder-khan, and re-adopted by the latter’s grandson of the same name: that is the cult of Sadashiva, Shiva of the five faces, which is common in Kashmir. The principal face (aspect) of Sadashiva is Ishana (the “Master” from ish, master, the root also of the name Ishvara). We have already seen that Ishvara (Shiva) the “god of the Hindus” was Ashur son of Shem, §132, above, >>, and would thus be of the line of “Suliman” (Jam, Shem) in terms of the Kashmiri genealogy. Ashur = Ishvara = Ishana (Isaun). However, the Kashmiri king Ishana is referred to as “cousin” and specifically not as “son” of “Suliman” (Jam = Shem), though other kings in the line are almost without exception father and son in successive generations. This implies Ashur (Ishvara, Ishana) here is not Ashur son of Shem but the man-god Ashur/Anshar = Cush, according to the alternative, and common Mesopotamian scheme. Indeed Ishana (Isaun) in the Kashmiri genealogy is the ultimate ancestor of the Kushan (= Cushite) kings of Kanishka’s dynasty (Kanishka c. AD 130). The Persian epic Kush-nama claims Kushan received its name from Cush Fil-dendan, Cush Elephant-tooth, the king of India and Ethiopia, latterly worshiped as a god (the sun-god, Ra in Egypt, Bel and Ashur [Ishvara, Ishana] in Mesopotamia). The latter is represented in the same work to be the brother of Zohak (son of Maran [Merdas, Mirdas in Firdausi] son of [Ad son of] As [Uz], son of Aram, son of Shem), and would thus be in the ancient Oriental sense a “cousin” of Jamshid son of Vivanghan, son of Arphaxad son of Shem (which is Jamshid’s genealogy in Dinawari). In fact Merdas the father of Zohak is “Death,” otherwise in Hinduism Yama (= Yima, Jamshid), or Mara, the personification of Sanskrit mertyu, death, cf. Indo-Iranian mertyush, Persian mordan, Parthian marhu, “die,” with the forms Mirdas and Ma(h)ran illustrating the disappearance or softening of the last consonant t/d: Zohak slew his own father Merdas as he slew also the latter’s alter ego Jam, Jamshid (Yima, Yama). Yama the son of Vivasvat, of the sun-god, Surya, is also himself a form of Surya. Yama is the sun (Surya) when it has set, the “dead” sun in the underworld, known otherwise in Hinduism as Martanda, the “death-egg.” (Also Martanda = Bhairava, the ferocious form of Yama/Kala, who is equated in turn with Manjushri, the latter featuring in the Nepalese flood tradition in a role equivalent to that of Suliman.) Vivasvat (Surya) father of Yama (Surya) is thus also Merdas father of Zohak, that is, the sun dispatched into the underworld by the dragon of darkness and storm, Zohak (Azi Dahaka, Ahi, Vritra). Jamshid and his offspring are said in the Kush-nama to have wandered with Cush Fil-dendan in the forests of India and China in the days of Feridun (in this case the elder or earlier incarnation of Feridun, Noah) in an attempt to elude their murderous opponent Zohak. Here, likewise, we find Suliman (Jamshid) and Isaun (Ishana, Ishvara, Sadashiva) as the first settlers and kings of Kashmir, the latter having notably (like Cush Fil-dendan) the animal aspect (face) of an elephant. Though Kalhana omits the names of the 52 earliest kings of Kashmir he refers indirectly to the first of them, Suliman and Isaun, in Book II of the Raja Tarangini (ad fin.), where he gives the name of Samdhimat(i) (= Sandiman, Suliman) to the wise servant of an otherwise unknown king, and that of Ishana to Samdhimat’s subordinate minister. (See further infra.) Samdhimat is said to have been murdered and dismembered by his over-suspicious royal master (as Jamshid is said to have been slaughtered and dismembered by Zohak), but then to have been supernaturally revived from the dead and recomposed (like Jamshid) to become the next king of Kashmir, Arya Raja. The name Samdhimat stands here for Jamshid as the founder of the royal line, multiply re-embodied in his descendants. Finally Samdhimat (Arya Raja) is said to have devoted himself to the life of an ascetic and to have wandered in the company of Ishana through Kashmir, erecting shrines to the god Ishvara.

707.20. H. Wilson Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, History of Cashmir, p. 11ff. (with slight alterations to orthography):

“According to Bedia ad-din {otherwise transcribed Bedia-eddin, etc.}, after the settlement of the country by

Suliman,

he left the sovereignty to his cousin, Isaun, who reigned over Kashmir twenty-five years, and was succeeded by his son

2. Kassalgham, who fixed his capital at Islamabad and reigned nineteen years.

3. Maherkaz; this son succeeded and reigned thirty years; being childless, he adopted for his son and successor

4. Bandu or Pandu-khan. The birth of this prince was miraculously effected, his mother becoming pregnant from bathing in a reservoir or tank: his death was equally marvelous, as upon bathing himself in the same reservoir, he dissolved, and returned to the element whence he sprang: he is said to have had a most numerous offspring, and to have seen in his life time, no fewer than fifteen thousand descendants: these were the Pandavas, afterwards so celebrated in Indian History .…

5. Ladi-khan, son of Pandu-khan.

6. Ledder-khan, his son.

7. Sunder-khan in whose reign the idolatry of the Hindu worship again made its appearance: the prince was slain in endeavoring to obstruct its progress, and was succeeded by

8. Kunder-khan his son, who reigned thirty-five years.

9. Sunder-khan, the second. Idolatry was now the national religion, and the king erected a temple to Sadashiva.

10. Tundu-khan.

11. Beddu-khan, who reigned 115 years.

12. Mahand-khan.

13. Durbinash-khan.

14. Deosir-khan.

15. Tehab-khan. This prince was attacked and slain by his neighbor and relation, the king of Kabul, who seized upon the throne of Kashmir, and reigned under the name of

16. Kalju-khan; after a reign of seven years he was driven out by his Pandava relatives, who raised to the throne

17. Surkhab-khan; his reign lasted 191 years.

18. Shermabaram-khan.

19. Naureng-khan; this prince was a great conqueror and extended his dominions to the kingdom of China.

20. Barigh-khan.

21. Gawasheh-khan.

22. Pandu-khan the second; he recovered the provinces that had been subject to the crown of Kashmir, and which extended, to the shores of the Indian sea.

23. Haris-khan; his reign lasted 23 years.

24. Sanzil-khan.

25. Akber-khan.

26. Jaber-khan.

27. Nauder-khan, he introduced the worship of fire.

28. Sanker-khan, who was attacked and slain by Bakra-raj, a neighboring chief who headed the Kashmirian nobles driven into rebellion by the tyranny of their king.

The six sons of Sanker-khan succeeded in due order to their father’s sovereignty, and also to his fate. Their accession and deaths were the work of a few hours, whence originated the proverb, said to be still current in Kashmir;

One Cauldron, on one fire, saw seven kings before the flesh was boiled;

….

29. Bakra-raj then took possession of Kashmir, and bequeathed it to his descendants: their names are however unknown, and a blank interval precedes the succession of

Augnand {Gonanda I} the first monarch ….”

707.21. First Gonanda Dynasty 1000 + years, historically 9th century BC to AD 169 (the names and/or reigns in square brackets are from Hasan’s History of Kashmir, excerpted by Anand Koul, reference infra, though their absolute chronology is based on the traditional 4-Yuga system):

Gonanda {“Augnand/Gonerda”} I [17 years]

Damodara I [13 years]

[Yashovati queen 15 years]

Gonanda II [40 years]

35 kings whose names are “lost”

{[From Pandit Anand Koul, in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, No. 4 [N.S.], April 1910, p. 205ff. According to the recovered, and soon thereafter lost again, copy of the Persian History of Kashmir by Mullah Ahmad discovered in Pindori, Rawalpindi, by Hasan Pir (latter 19th century), the gap between Gonanda II and Lava was filled by the following kings of the Pandava dynasty. (An account by Anand Koul of Hasan Pir and his discovery is found in the same Journal, Vol. IX, No. 5 [N.S.], May 1913, p. 195ff.) The record of these kings from the “Ratnakar Purana” is alleged to have been inserted into a Persian translation of the Raja Tarangini made by Mullah Ahmad for the king Zainulabdin of Kashmir AD 1423-1474, by order of Zainulabdin himself:

Harnadeva, son of Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna, and of the Pandava brothers, who arranged for the assassination of Gonanda II, 30 years

Ramadeva his son 69 years

Vyasdeva his son 56 years

Druna his son 58 years

Simhadeva his son 54 years

Gopaldeva 13 years 3 months

Vijayananda his brother 25 years

Sukhadeva his nephew 14 years

Rama Nanda his cousin 57 years

Sandiman his son 65 years.

He is said to have built 21 temples, including a notable one to Mahadeva (Shiva), and the temple to Jyeshteshvara on Takht-i-Sul(e)iman hill. The name Sul(e)iman is taken in Koul’s summary of the account of Mullah Ahmad in Hasan Pir’s lost History of Kashmir to be a corruption of Sandiman. The same king also built a city on what latterly became, after a devastating earthquake and flood in the days of his descendant Sundersena, the bed of Vular Lake, called popularly after him Salabatnagar, originally Sandimatnagar, and this shows a similar corruption of the name.

Marhandeva for 55 years (opposed by his brother Kamadeva)

Chandardeva his son 52 years

Ananda his brother 28 years

Drupadadeva his son 51 years

Harnamdeva his brother 39 years

Sulkandeva his son 28 years

Sinaditya his son 17 years

Mangaladitya his brother 39 years

Khimendra his son 66 years

Bhimsena his son 61 years 7 months

Indrasena his son 46 years

Sundarsena his son 41 years.

The remaining 12 of the 35 “lost kings” of Kalhana reigned after Sachinara (Shacinara) according to Hasan Pir’s book.]}

Lava elected king [60 years]

Kusha [7 years]

Khagendra [30 years]

Surendra [43 years]

Godhara [37 years]

Suvarna [35 years]

Janaka [32 years] {According to Bedia-eddin, cited by Klaproth, Histoire du Kachmir, Paris, 1825, p. 23, Janaka sent one of his sons against Persia in the reign of queen Homai, who succeeded Bahman son of Isfendiyar (the date is therefore around 600 BC), but he was repulsed and slain by Darab son of Bahman. This accords with the relative chronology of the following reigns in Hasan Pir’s book, which total 322 years from Galgendra to Bhagwant: the era of Janaka’s son coincides with that of Shacinara, viz. within the 40 years followed by the 322 years preceding Ashoka, who is historically attested c. 250 BC, which results in a date for the Persian expedition c. 612-572 BC.}

Shacinara [Sachinara 40 years]

{[The remaining 12 of the 35 “lost kings” of Kalhana reigned here according to Hasan Pir’s book.}

Galgendra his nephew 45 years

Baladeva his son 43 years

Nalsena his son 25 years

Gokarna of the Jammu Rajas elected 36 years

Prahlad his son 11 years

Bambru his minister 8 years

Pratapashila descended from Galgendra 36 years

Sangram Chandra his son 1 year 4 months

Larik Chandra his uncle 41 years

Biram Chandra his son 45 years

Babighana his son 17 years

Bhagwant his brother 14 years.]

End of excerpt from Hasan’s History by Anand Koul. Total years of Dynasty of Gonanda I up to Bhagwant according to this reckoning: 1675 years. However, Hasan’s chronology is based on the traditional Yuga system, from Gonanda I beginning at 3120 BC through the reign of Bhagwant ending 1445 BC, which is historically impossible, considering the latter’s immediate successor, Ashoka, reigned c. 250 BC, and that the latter is consistent with the similarly historically attested reign of Ashoka’s penultimate successor Kanishka, c. AD 130.}

Ashoka {historically attested c. 250 BC}

Jalauka

Damodara II

{the following 3 kings of Kushan (“Tartar”) stock}

Hushka

Jushka

Kanishka {historically attested c. AD 130}

Abhimanyu.

707.22. A suspicious disjunction in the genealogical series of kings of Kashmir occurs in Book II of Kalhana’s history, in the midst of his account of an otherwise unattested dynasty immediately subsequent to that of Gonanda III. In Kalhana’s restructuring of the Kashmiri chronological scheme, as we have shown, the era of the Mahabharata war was retrojected hundreds of years into the past, and became the start point of Kashmiri history. If Kalhana happened to have preserved any mention of Suliman, it could not feature in the retrojected era of Gonanda I, as the latter was the founder of the line, rather than Suliman, in his scheme, and was located at the beginning of Kashmiri history. It is significant, therefore, that the aforesaid disjunction in Kalhana occurs at a point in his history immediately subsequent to the dynasty of Gonanda III, contemporary with one Gopaditya (II. 145), who is otherwise unattested, but is supposed to be a great grandson of Yudhishthira, the last king of the dynasty of Gonanda III: for another Gopaditya, a king reigning towards the end of the same dynasty of Gonanda III, is said by Kalhana (I. 339ff.) to have built the shrine on Takht-i-Suleiman (I. 341), named after Suliman. In fact the hill was also called Gopadri with reference to the name of the king Gopaditya. “Samdhimat(i),” otherwise Sandiman, is, as we have seen from Koul’s summary of the account of Mullah Ahmad in Hasan Pir’s lost History of Kashmir, the Hindu name for the “Suliman” of Takht-i-Sul(e)iman, that is, the name of the first king of Kashmir in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini. Samdhimat(i) or Sandiman is the same as Suliman. We can conclude Samdhimat(i), the eponymus of Takht-i-Suleiman, was located chronologically in four positions, depending on the local tradition followed in relation to the date of the building and naming of the shrine on Takht-i-Suleiman/Gopadri: 1) at the very beginning of Kashmiri history c. 2100 BC; 2) amongst the 35 previously unnamed kings of the Dynasty of Gonanda I, recovered in Hasan Pir’s book; 3) in the reign of Gopaditya towards the latter part of the dynasty of Gonanda III; and 4) in the period immediately subsequent to the Dynasty of Gonanda III, contemporary with an otherwise unattested Gopaditya. Doubtless the latter is a phantom duplicate of the preceding Gopaditya, who actually rebuilt the shrine on Takht-i-Suleiman: the shrine seems to have been denominated after its original builder, Sandiman (Samdhimat, Suliman) of the dynasty of Gonanda I, who took as his eponymus the name of the first king of Kashmir, Samdhimat(i) Arya Raja, “king of the Aryans” (hence the “revival” of Samdhimat in the person of the later king[s]). Because of Kalhana’s restructuring of the tradition, the fourth position in our chronological list is that occupied by his disjunction, featuring the miraculously-revived Samdhimat(i). Perhaps justification was sought in the idea that the last Gopaditya was the ultimate embodiment of the eponymus of Takht-i-Suleiman/Gopadri. Further, Kalhana’s Samdhimat has a minister called Ishana, bearing one of the names of Sadashiva, whose cult is known to have been practiced by the idolaters of the first line of 52 kings in the Persian versions, and Ishana succeeds Samdhimat in Kalahana’s account, and is devoted to the cult of Shiva: likewise in the Persian versions of Raja Tarangini: Suliman (= Samdhimat) is succeeded by his “cousin” Isaun (= Ishana), and these initiate the dynasty of 52 kings.

707.23. The details of the disjunction in Kalhana are as follows:

Kalhana lists the dynasty of Gonanda III down to its last king Yudhishthira at the end of Book I. He names in order thereafter (II. 1-61):

Pratapraditya (I) 32 years brought in from abroad to replace Yudhishthira

Jalaukas his son 32 years

Tunjina (I) his son 36 years.

707.24. Kalhana II. 62ff.:

“62. Then Vijaya, descended from another family {my emphasis, nothing else being recorded of this family}, was king for eight years. It was he who surrounded the [shrine of] Vijayeshvara with the town [of that name].

63. Then the son of that king who had been like an Indra on earth, the long-armed and far-famed Jayendra, ruled the earth.

64. His arm, [strong] as a pillar, bore the image of the goddess of victory made resplendent by fluttering garments which were [formed by] the waves of his steadfast fame.

65. This king had a minister called Samdhimati, the greatest of sages, who was distinguished by his wonderful life and devotion to Shiva ….

82. When the news of Samdhimati’s end reached his Guru, Ishana by name, the heart of this self-controlled person broke away from control ….”

707.25. Here Samdhimat(i) {= Suliman} is the minister of Jayendra (“Victorious Indra”) son of the “Indra-like” Vijaya (“Conquest,” which is a name of Yama, cf. Vijayadatta, “granted conquest,” the hare in the moon, Soma/Yama). The latter in Ferishta is the eponymus of the Somavansha, and corresponds to Shem himself (Shem = Jamshid [I], Yama-kshaeta). As regards Jayendra, which means “Victorious [jaya] Indra.” Indra = Trita as “conqueror” (jaya) of Ahi (Vritra) or Azi-Dahaka (Zohak), and therefore = Feridun. In Dinawari and commonly in subsequent writers Feridun = Nimrod son of Canaan (Amraphel). Nimrod son of Canaan was identified with Feridun (the persecuted child) but also contrariwise, when he reached adulthood and gained the throne, with Zohak, the malevolent dragon, as persecutor of the line of Shem. In this latter role he conflicted with Melchizedek-Shem (Jamshid [II]), the eponymus of Jerusalem (Zedek), viz. “Solomon” (Suliman, Samdhimat), as well as other members of Shem’s line and their Anakite allies. Thus in Kalhana Jayendra is a son (descendant) of Vijaya = Soma/Shem, as is Feridun/Nimrod-son-of-Canaan in Dinawari a son (descendant) of Shem, and is at first a righteous king, but latterly becomes suspicious of his minister Samdhimat and then slays him. Jayendra = Indra = Feridun = Nimrod son of Canaan = Zohak. Samdhimat however is miraculously revived from the dead (as is the multiply re-embodied Jamshid, after being slaughtered by Zohak) and becomes king of Kashmir, under the name Arya Raja, “king of the Arya [folk].” Arya is identical to the Iranian Iraj/Iran, the title of Shem himself in Dinawari and the common title of the following kings of the line of Shem. Here seemingly we have the original Hindu name of Suliman in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini, viz. Arya Raja. The restored date of Arya Raja at around 2100 BC accords with the historical era (uncalibrated radiocarbon date) of the conflict between Amraphel (Gilgamesh) and Melchizedek (Enme-baragessi), otherwise between Zohak and Jamshid, Jayendra and Samdhimat. In Kalhana Ishana is the guru of Samdhimat and latterly his faithful minister. He corresponds to the ministering “spirit” (dev) of Suliman in the Persian versions of Raja Tarangini, who clears the waters of the flood, being, as such spirits commonly are in the Suliman tradition, the eponymus of various sacred locations in Kashmir. Ishana = Manjushri (Yama) in Nepal, and as a form of Shiva has the animal attribute of the Elephant (Cush Fil Dendan, Tamil Pille). The “devs” represent the monstrous multi-formed pagan gods, who were made subject by the Creator to Adam and the Adamic line. Thus Samdhimat and his guru-minister Ishana are Jamshid and the biformed subordinate man-god Cush Fil-dendan of the Kush-nama.

707.26. Samdhimat/Sandiman corresponds to the Persian Suliman/Jamshid, as pointed out in Koul’s summary of Hasan’s History, meaning Shem (Jam, Jamshid) himself or a descendant of Shem. More specifically it can be shown Samdhimat/Sandiman is the hero descended from Jamshid called Sam Nariman, that is, the Anakite Ohya, the son of Ham’s wife (§677.13.4, above, >>, and for the connection with Manu and the Inundation, §680.4, above, >>). The Anakites were given alternatively a Semitic descent: Emim (the eponymus of the Anakites or Emim), son of Lud son of Aram son of Shem. Suliman is said to have destroyed the demon in Kashyapa (“Tortoise”) Lake (Kashyapa-mir > Kashmir) in the same way precisely Sam Nariman is said to have destroyed the dragon in the Kashaf (“Tortoise”) Rud (River) in Iran. (The comparison is drawn by Modi, in Cashmere and the Ancient Persians, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, vol. 19, December 1895, p. 237ff., ibid., p. 245.) The latter incident forms a significant episode in Firdausi’s Shah-nama.

The battle of Sam Nariman and the dragon out of the Kashaf River:

{trans. Robinson, Persian Poetry for English Readers, 1883, p. 54ff.}

“If I {Sam} had not appeared in the land,
The heads would have been cut off even of those who bear them the highest,
When the huge Dragon came up from the river Kashaf,
And made the ground bare as the palm of my hand.
His length was as the distance from city to city,
His breadth as the space from mountain to mountain.
He filled the hearts of all men with terror,
And kept them all on the watch night and day.
I looked, and saw not a bird in the air,
Nor a beast of prey on the face of the ground;
His flames burnt the feathers of the vulture,
The grass withered beneath his poison,
He drew the fierce water-serpent up from its waters,
And the soaring eagle down from its clouds;
The earth was emptied of man and beast,
And every thing abandoned its habitation to him.
When I saw that there was no one in the land
Who was able to crush him with the strong hand,
Relying on the power of the Sovereign of the world,
God the Pure, I cast all fear from my heart;
I girded my loins in the name of the Most High,
I vaulted into the saddle of my massive war-horse,
Grasped in my hand the ox-headed mace,
And, my bow on my arm, and my shield at its neck,
Rushed forward like a furious crocodile—
I with the strong wrist, he with his venom;
And each one who saw by the mace that I was about to encounter the Dragon
Exclaimed to me as I passed, “Farewell!”
I came, I beheld him, huge as a mountain,
Trailing his cord-like hairs upon the ground.
His tongue resembled the black-tree,
His jaws open and stretched out on the way,
His two eyes were like two basins of blood.
He saw me, roared, and sprang upon me with fury:
I thought, O King, so it appeared to me,
That his inside must be filled with fire.
The world appeared to my eyes like an agitated ocean;
A black smoke went up darkly to the clouds,
The face of the earth trembled at his cry,
From the venom the ground was like the sea of China.
But, as was becoming a valiant man,
I shouted with the voice of a lion,
Placed without delay in my long cross-bow
A choice poplar arrow pointed with adamant,
Aimed the shaft right at his jaws,
That I might nail his tongue to his palate;
I pierced it on one side with the arrow,
And he lolled it out in utter bewilderment.
In an instant another arrow like the first
I aimed at his mouth, and he writhed from the wound.
A third time I struck him in the midst of his jaws,
And the boiling blood rushed from his vitals.
But, as he narrowed the ground before me,
I upraised the vengeful ox-headed mace,
In the strength of God, the Master of the Universe,
Urged on my elephant-bodied charger,
And battered him in such wise with its blows,
That you would say the sky was raining down mountains upon him.
I pounded his head as though it was the head of a mad elephant,
And from his body streamed the poison like the river Nile;
Such was the wound that he never rose again,
And the plain was leveled to the hills with his brains;
The river Kashaf became a river of bile:
But the earth was once more an abode of sleep and quiet;
And the hills were covered with men and women,
Who called down blessings upon me.”

Kashyapa (Kashaf), “Tortoise,” is a name of the constellation Cancer (conceived of as a crab or other water-creature, sometimes a turtle or tortoise). The constellation is called Kushu (kushû, which is a water-creature of some sort) in Babylonian, and this Semitic word has an obvious phonological affinity to the Indo-Aryan Kashyapa. In Sumerian the same constellation is known as Nagar, the “Craftsman,” which is a title of Tammuz. Tammuz was dispatched to the Underworld when the sun was in Cancer, and that month, accordingly, was named Tammuz. Nagar is the Greek Annakos. Annakos prophesied with profuse weeping the universal Inundation, which Deukalion (Noah) survived. Tammuz perished in the waters of the Inundation, but the corresponding Iranian figure, Jamshid, survived it, if only in an “Enclosure” (var) in the Underworld. (See §172.1, above, >>, on Nagar, Annakos and Jamshid.) All this indicates the Kashmiri Kashyapa is Jamshid under another name, viz. that of the constellation Cancer, and he is closely associated with the waters of the Flood in Hindu as well as in Mesopotamian and Iranian tradition. Jamshid perished by the malevolence of the dragon Zohak, who is an analog of the dragon in the River Kashaf and the monster in Kashyapa-mir. He sprang to life again, however, in the form of those members of the royal line descended from him who bore his name as an eponymus, and through them, as through Suliman in the Kashmiri tradition, he avenged himself, by a continuation of life, on the death-dealing dragon in the waters.

707.27. The name Samdhimat/Sandiman means “union” (samdhi, sandhi, etc., initial sam-, “together with,” whence the Iranian nominal form Sam, and -dhi, “placed”) and “man/mind” (manu [the latter from the root man “think”], mata, mati [“thought” from the same root]): Sam himself is the Anakite Ohya (which means “union” in Aramaic), the son of Ham’s wife, and his relative Nariman (from whom he received the epithet Sam Nariman) is Ohya’s brother Ahya, the father of the Anakite/Nephilite giant Og of Bashan. The historical context is the battle of the kings in Genesis 14 when Amraphel, that is Nimrod son of Canaan, Zohak in the Persian scheme, campaigned against the giants (Nephilim, sons of Shemyaza) of Canaan and the Sinai peninsula, and was in turn defeated by the Anakite allies of Abraham. This was in the territory of the Min-folk or Sabaeans, otherwise the territory of Sheba = Sindh, and, accordingly, Sam Nariman is said to have been commissioned by Feridun (Noah) to campaign against the Cushite idolaters of Sindh (the Punjab). The Punjab (“Five Rivers”) was originally Hapta Hindu or Septa Sindhu, the land of the “Seven Rivers,” all branches of the Indus, and this region included Kashmir. (Modi, ibid., p. 237f.) Hence arose the belief that Sam Nariman, Sandiman, Samdhimat, otherwise known as “Suliman” (Jamshid), the descendant of Shem (Jam), destroyed the demon of Lake Kashyapa.

Summary:

Vijaya

(= Yama = Jam[shid] = Shem) and his son:

Jayendra

(= Indra = Vritrahan = Trita = Thraetaona = Feridun [in a positive role] = Nimrod son of Canaan [Amraphel] and = Zohak [in a negative role]), along with his minister:

Arya Raja = Samdhimat(i)

= Suliman = Jamshid (II) = Sam Nariman of the line of Jamshid = Ohya son of Shemyaza (Samiros) of the line of Shem, Nariman being a reference to Ohya’s brother Ahya, and both brothers being of the stock of the Anakites who rebelled and fought against Amraphel (Nimrod son of Canaan = Zohak): he is murdered by Zohak but “revived” as Arya Raja, king of Aryans. Jamshid migrates to Kashmir to elude Zohak in company with:

Ishana

the Guru of Samdhimat and proponent of the cult of Shiva = Jyeshteshvara = Ganesha = Cush Fil-dendan, eponymus of the Kushan of that region.

707.28. A final note is that Suliman in Arabic legend is accompanied in his aerial travels across the East by his minister Yuz Asaf, the latter being a faulty Arabic transcription of Boddhisatva (Budasaf > Yudasaf with “b” to “y” in unpointed Arabic script). This “pre-existent Buddha” is Kashyapa/Manjushri/Yama. Yama is otherwise Isha(na) or Shiva. The misdating in Kashmiri tradition of Samdhimat(i)/Suliman to the early Christian era, along with the association of the name “Isa” (= Ishana) with Samdhimat at the shrine in Srinagar, has led to the mistaken belief amongst some that Jesus (Arabic “Isa” mistakenly swapped for “Isha”), otherwise Yuz Asaf, supposedly recovered from his swoon on the cross, migrated at the close of his earthly life from the Solomonic city Jerusalem to Srinagar and was buried in that city.

f. Summary of Main Events mentioned in the Mahabharata between Manu and the Hindu Heroic Age

708. Story of Yayati.—Yayati was the son of King Nahusha, the fourth in descent of the Lunar Race. His marriage with his two wives Devayani and Sarmishtha is thus related.

709. Devayani, daughter of Sukra, priest of the Daityas, fell in love with her father’s pupil Kacha, son of Brihaspati, but he rejected her addresses. She cursed him, and, in return, he cursed her that she, a Brahmin’s daughter, should marry a Kshatriya.

710. Devayani was companion to Sarmishtha, daughter of the king of the Daityas. One day they went to bathe, and the god Vayu changed their clothes. When they were dressed, a dispute arose between them. When Devayani began to pull the clothes of Sarmishtha, the latter threw her into a well, and went home supposing her to be dead. Yayati, who was out hunting, saw Devayani in the well, and rescued her, after which he returned to his capital.

711. Sukra, at his daughter’s earnest request, demanded satisfaction from Sarmishtha’s father, the Daitya king. He agreed that Sarmishtha should be given to Devayani as a servant. Devayani married Yayati, and Sarmishtha was her maid. She bore Yayati two sons Yadu and Turvasa. On discovering that Sarmishtha had borne a son to Yayati, she left her husband and went home. Sukra cursed Yayati with the infirmity of old age, but afterwards offered to transfer it to any one of Yayati’s sons willing to receive it. Yadu, the eldest and progenitor of the Yadavas, refused, and so did all the other sons, with the exception of Puru, Sarmishtha’s youngest son. Those who refused were cursed by their father that their posterity should never possess dominion. Puru bore the curse of old age for a thousand years, while his father indulged in sensual pleasures. At the end of that time, Yayati, after installing Puru, who received back his youth, went to the forest, and at last ascended to heaven.

712. Dushmanta and Sakuntala.—Dushmanta was the son of Puru, and grandson of Yayati. His marriage with Sakuntala, is the subject of the famous drama of the poet Kalidasa.

713. Sakuntala was the daughter of Visvamitra by the Apsaras Menaka. She was born and left in a forest where she was nourished by birds until found by the Rishi Kanwa, who brought her up in his hermitage as his daughter.

714. One day Dushmanta, in search of Kanwa, came to his hermitage; but, finding it empty, called aloud, “What ho! who is here?” Sakuntala came out and offered him a seat, water to wash his feet, etc. Dushmanta, struck with her beauty, after learning her history, wished to marry her at once. Sakuntala proposed that he should wait till she was given to him by Kanwa, but Dushmanta persuaded her to accept a Gandharva marriage,— a simple declaration of mutual acceptance. Before consorting, however, Sakuntala made the stipulation that her son should be the heir apparent.

715. On leaving Sakuntala to return to his city, Dushmanta gave her a ring as a pledge of his love. When she went back to the hermitage, she was so filled with thoughts of her husband, that she heeded not the approach of the sage Durvasa, who had come to visit Kanwa. The sage, notorious for his hasty temper, cursed her to be forgotten by her beloved. He afterwards relented, and promised that the curse should be removed as soon as Dushmanta saw the ring. Sakuntala, finding herself with child, set off to her husband ; but on her way she bathed in a sacred pool, and there lost the ring. On reaching the palace, the king did not recognise her, and would not own her, so she was taken by her mother to the forest, where she gave birth to Bharata. Then it happened that a fisherman caught a large fish and in it found a ring which he carried to Dushmanta. The king recognised his own ring, and he soon afterwards accepted Sakuntala and her son Bharata.

716. Bharata.—The son of Dushmanta reduced to subjection all the kings of the earth, and was known by the title of Chakravarti or Universal Emperor. His descendants were called Bharatas, and the country was known as Bharatavarsa, ‘the kingdom of Bharata.’

717. Hastin, the son of Bharata, reigned over Hastinapura, about 57 miles north-east from Delhi. Among his descendants were Kuru and Santanu.

718. Santanu.—Santanu was a king of the Lunar race, son of Pratipa. He was said to be so pious that every decrepit man whom he touched with his hand become young. He was called ‘Truth-speaker.’ He had two wives, first the goddess Ganga and then Satyavati.

719. When the Rishi Vasishta was engaged in his devotions, eight celestial attendants of Indra, called Vasus, unwittingly passed between him and the sun. In his rage the Rishi said, “Be born among men!” Driven from heaven, the Vasus met the goddess Ganga, and implored her to become a woman, so that they might be born of her and not of a mortal. To this the goddess agreed. She also promised that as each of them was born, he should be thrown into the water and destroyed, that he might return to heaven. But she stipulated that each one of them should contribute an eighth part of his vigor for the production of a son who should be allowed to live on earth, but die childless.

720. One day as Santanu was wandering on the banks of the Ganges, he saw a maiden of matchless beauty, whom he solicited to be his wife. She accepted him on condition that she should be free to leave him if he interfered with her actions or spoke to her an unkind word. To this Santanu readily agreed. Seven beautiful children were born to them, but they were each thrown into the river, Ganga saying, “This is for thy good.” When Ganga was about to destroy the eighth child, Santanu spoke to her sharply as the murderess of her sons. Ganga then left Santanu, according to the agreement, taking her child with her. She had fulfilled her promise to the Vasus.

721. Some years afterwards, when Santanu was going along the banks of the Ganges, he observed that the river had become shallow. He afterwards discovered that a youth of great beauty and vigour had checked, by his celestial weapons, the flow of the river. Ganga afterwards appeared, and told Santanu that the youth was his own son. He had studied the Vedas under Vasishta, and had acquired a knowledge of all kinds of weapons. Santanu took home the youth, and had him installed as heir-apparent.

722. Four years later, when wandering on the banks of the Yumana, he was attracted by a sweet perfume. After some search, he ascertained that it proceeded from a beautiful black-eyed maiden, the daughter of a fisherman. Wishing to have her for his wife, he went to her father. He would consent to the marriage only on condition that the son born should be his successor. Santanu could not consent to this, and returned to Hastinapura.

723. Devadatta, observing that his father was very melancholy, sought to ascertain the cause. On learning it, he went to the fisherman, and made a vow to become a Brahmachari, never to accept the throne, to marry, or to have children. Upon this the fisherman joyfully gave his daughter to Santanu. Devadatta took her to Hastinapura in his own chariot, and presented her to his father. The gods and apsaras rained down flowers from the sky, and Devadatta was named Bhishma, ‘The terrible’.

724. Birth of Dritarashtra, Pandu, and Vidura.—Santanu had two sons by Satyavati, called Chitrangada and Vichitraviraya. The elder became king after his father’s death, but was soon killed after a three years’ combat with the king of the Gandharvas. Vichitraviraya was then placed upon the throne. Bhishma provided wives for the young king by carrying off, by force of arms, two daughters of the king of Kasi; but he soon died childless.

725. Satyavati first asked Bhishma to raise up children through Ambika and Amvalika, but on account of his vow, he declined. Satyavati then thought of her son Vyasa {the famous sage} to perpetuate the Lunar race. On account of his austerities, he had a very repulsive appearance and disagreeable smell. The elder widow Ambika, when she saw his dark countenance, matted locks, and his blazing eyes, closed her eyes in terror, and the son born of her was, in consequence, blind. The other widow kept her eyes open, but she was pale with fear; so her son was of a pale complexion. As neither was perfect, Vyasa was told to go to Ambika again, but she sent to him instead a beautiful slave girl, dressed in her own ornaments. Vyasa was pleased with her, and promised that her son should be very fortunate and virtuous. The son of Ambika, born blind, was called Dritarashtra that of Amvalika was named Pandu, and the son of the slave girl, Vidura.

The summary of the history of the Solar line to Rama in the Vishnu Purana Book IV, chapters I-IV.

726. (Trans. Wilson. Successive links in the genealogy in bold)

Chap. I.

727. “…. Manu being desirous of sons, offered a sacrifice for that purpose to Mitra and Varuńa; but the rite being deranged, through an irregularity of the ministering priest, a daughter, Ilá, was produced. Through the favour of the two divinities, however, her sex was changed, and she became a man, named Sudyumna. At a subsequent period, in consequence of becoming subject to the effects of a malediction once pronounced by Śiva, Sudyumna was again transformed to a woman in the vicinity of the hermitage of Budha, the son of the deity of the moon. Budha saw and espoused her, and had by her a son named Purúravas. After his birth, the illustrious Rishis, desirous of restoring Sudyumna to his sex, prayed to the mighty Vishńu, who is the essence of the four Vedas, of mind, of every thing, and of nothing; and who is in the form of the sacrificial male; and through his favour Ilá once more became Sudyumna, in which character he had three sons, Utkala, Gaya, and Vinata.

728. “In consequence of his having been formerly a female, Sudyumna was excluded from any share in his paternal dominions; but his father, at the suggestion of Vaśisht́ha, bestowed upon him the city Pratisht́hána, and he gave it to Purúravas.

729. “Of the other sons of the Manu, Prishadhra, in consequence of the crime of killing a cow, was degraded to the condition of a Śúdra. From Karúsha descended the mighty warriors termed Kárúshas (the sovereigns of the north). The son of Nedisht́ha, named Nábhága, became a Vaiśya: his son was Bhalandana; whose son was the celebrated Vatsaprí: his son was Pránsu; whose son was Prajáni; whose son was Khanitra; whose son was the very valiant Chakshupa; whose son was Vinśa; whose son was Vivinśati; whose son was Khaninetra; whose son was the powerful, wealthy, and valiant Karandhama; whose son was Avikshi (or Avikshit); whose son was the mighty Marutta, of whom this well known verse is recited; “There never was beheld on earth a sacrifice equal to the sacrifice of Marutta: all the implements and utensils were made of gold. Indra was intoxicated with the libations of Soma juice, and the Brahmins were enraptured with the magnificent donations they received. The winds of heaven encompassed the rite as guards, and the assembled gods attended to behold it.” Marutta was a Chakravarttí, or universal monarch: he had a son named Narishyanta; his son was Dama; his son was Rájyavarddhana; his son was Sudhriti; his son was Nara; his son was Kevala; his son was Bandhumat; his son was Vegavat; his son was Budha; his son was Trinavindu, who had a daughter named Ilavilá. The celestial nymph Alambushá becoming enamoured of Trińavindu, bore him a son named Viśála, by whom the city Vaisáli was founded.

730. “The son of the first king of Vaiśálí was Hemachandra; his son was Suchandra; his son was Dhúmráśwa; his son was Srinjaya; his son was Sahadeva; his son was Kriśáśwa; his son was Somadatta, who celebrated ten times the sacrifice of a horse; his son was Janamejaya; and his son was Sumati. These were the kings of Vaiśálí; of whom it is said, “By the favour of Trińavindu all the monarchs of Vaiśálí were long lived, magnanimous, equitable, and valiant.”

731. “Śaryáti, the fourth son of the Manu, had a daughter named Sukanyá, who was married to the holy sage Chyavana: he had also a righteous son, called Ánartta. The son of the latter was Revata, who ruled over the country called after his father Ánartta, and dwelt at the capital denominated Kuśasthalí. The son of this prince was Raivata or Kakudmín, the eldest of a hundred brethren. He had a very lovely daughter, and not finding any one worthy of her hand, he repaired with her to the region of Brahmá to consult the god where a fit bridegroom was to be met with. When he arrived, the quiristers Háhá, Húhú, and others, were singing before Brahmá; and Raivata, waiting till they had finished, imagined the ages that elapsed during their performance to be but as a moment. At the end of their singing, Raivata prostrated himself before Brahmá, and explained his errand. “Whom should you wish for a son-in-law?” demanded Brahmá; and the king mentioned to him various persons with whom he could be well pleased. Nodding his head gently, and graciously smiling, Brahmá said to him, “Of those whom you have named the third or fourth generation no longer survives, for many successions of ages have passed away whilst you were listening to our songsters: now upon earth the twenty-eighth great age of the present Manu is nearly finished, and the Kali period is at hand. You must therefore bestow this virgin gem upon some other husband, for you are now alone, and your friends, your ministers, servants, wife, kinsmen, armies, and treasures, have long since been swept away by the hand of time.” Overcome with astonishment and alarm, the Rája then said to Brahmá, “Since I am thus circumstanced, do thou, lord, tell me unto whom the maiden shall be given:” and the creator of the world, whose throne is the lotus, thus benignantly replied to the prince, as he stood bowed and humble before him: “The being of whose commencement, course, and termination, we are ignorant; the unborn and omnipresent essence of all things; he whose real and infinite nature and essence we do not know — is the supreme Vishńu. He is time, made up of moments and hours and years; whose influence is the source of perpetual change. He is the universal form of all things, from birth to death. He is eternal, without name or shape. Through the favour of that imperishable being am I the agent of his power in creation: through his anger is Rudra the destroyer of the world: and the cause of preservation, Purusha, proceeds also from him. The unborn having assumed my person creates the world; in his own essence he provides for its duration; in the form of Rudra he devours all things; and with the body of Ananta he upholds them. Impersonated as Indra and the other gods he is the guardian of mankind; and as the sun and moon he disperses darkness. Taking upon himself the nature of fire he bestows warmth and maturity; and in the condition of the earth nourishes all beings. As one with air he gives activity to existence; and as one with water he satisfies all wants: whilst in the state of ether, associated with universal aggregation, he furnishes space for all objects. He is at once the creator, and that which is created; the preserver, and that which is preserved; the destroyer, and, as one with all things, that which is destroyed; and, as the indestructible, he is distinct from these three vicissitudes. In him is the world; he is the world; and he, the primeval self-born, is again present in the world. That mighty Vishńu, who is paramount over all beings, is now in a portion of himself upon the earth. That city Kuśasthalí which was formerly your capital, and rivalled the city of the immortals, is now known as Dwáraka, and there reigns a portion of that divine being in the person of Baladeva; to him, who appears as a man, present her as a wife: he is a worthy bridegroom for this excellent damsel, and she is a suitable bride for him.”

732. “Being thus instructed by the lotus-born divinity, Raivata returned with his daughter to earth, where he found the race of men dwindled in stature, reduced in vigour, and enfeebled in intellect. Repairing to the city of Kuśasthalí, which he found much altered, the wise monarch bestowed his unequalled daughter on the wielder of the ploughshare, whose breast was as fair and radiant as crystal. Beholding the damsel of excessively lofty height, the chief, whose banner is a palm-tree, shortened her with the end of his ploughshare, and she became his wife. Balaráma having espoused, agreeably to the ritual, Revatí, the daughter of Raivata, the king retired to the mountain Himálaya, and ended his days in devout austerities.

733. Chap II.

“Dispersion of Revata’s descendants: those of Dhrisht́a: those of Nábhága. Birth of Ikshwáku, the son of Vaivaswata: his sons. Line of Vikukshi. Legend of Kakutstha; of Dhundhumára; of Yuvanáśwa; of Mándhátri: his daughters married to Saubhari.

734. “PARÁŚARA.—Whilst Kakudmin, surnamed Raivata, was absent on his visit to the region of Brahmá, the evil spirits or Rákshasas named Puńyajanas destroyed his capital Kuśasthalí. His hundred brothers, through dread of these foes, fled in different directions; and the Kshatriyas, their descendants, settled in many countries.

735. “From Dhrisht́a, the son of the Manu, sprang the Kshatriya race of Dhársht́aka.

736. “The son of Nabhága was Nábhága; his son was Ambarísha; his son was Virúpa; his son was Prishadaśwa; his son was Rathínara, of whom it is sung, “These, who were Kshatriyas by birth, the heads of the family of Rathínara, were called Ángirasas (or sons of Angiras), and were Brahmins as well as Kshatriyas.”

737. “Ikshwáku was born from the nostril of the Manu, as he happened to sneeze. He had a hundred sons, of whom the three most distinguished were Vikukshi, Nimi, and Dańd́a. Fifty of the rest, under Sakuni, were the protectors of the northern countries. Forty-eight were the princes of the south.

738. “Upon one of the days called Asht́aka, Ikshwáku being desirous of celebrating ancestral obsequies, ordered Vikukshi to bring him flesh suitable for the offering. The prince accordingly went into the forest, and killed many deer, and other wild animals, for the celebration. Being weary with the chase, and being hungered, he sat down, and ate a hare; after which, being refreshed, he carried the rest of the game to his father. Vaśisht́ha, the family priest of the house of Ikshwáku, was summoned to consecrate the food; but he declared that it was impure, in consequence of Vikukshi’s having eaten a hare from amongst it (making it thus, as it were, the residue of his meal). Vikukshi was in consequence abandoned by his offended father, and the epithet Śaśáda (hare-eater) was affixed to him by the Guru. On the death of Ikshwáku, the dominion of the earth descended to Śaśáda, who was succeeded by his son Puranjaya.

739. “In the Treta age a violent war broke out between the gods and the Asuras, in which the former were vanquished. They consequently had recourse to Vishńu for assistance, and propitiated him by their adorations. The eternal ruler of the universe, Náráyańa, had compassion upon them, and said, “What you desire is known unto me. Hear how your wishes shall be fulfilled. There is an illustrious prince named Puranjaya, the son of a royal sage; into his person I will infuse a portion of myself, and having descended upon earth I will in his person subdue all your enemies. Do you therefore endeavor to secure the aid of Puranjaya for the destruction of your foes.” Acknowledging with reverence the kindness of the deity, the immortals quitted his presence, and repaired to Puranjaya, whom they thus addressed: “Most renowned Kshatriya, we have come to thee to solicit thy alliance against our enemies: it will not become thee to disappoint our hopes.” The prince replied, “Let this your Indra, the monarch of the spheres, the god of a hundred sacrifices, consent to carry me upon his shoulders, and I will wage battle with your adversaries as your ally.” The gods and Indra readily answered, “So be it;” and the latter assuming the shape of a bull, the prince mounted upon his shoulder. Being then filled with delight, and invigorated by the power of the eternal ruler of all movable and immovable things, he destroyed in the battle that ensued all the enemies of the gods; and because he annihilated the demon host whilst seated upon the shoulder (or the hump, Kakud) of the bull, he thence obtained the appellation Kakutstha (seated on the hump).

740. “The son of Kakutstha was Anenas, whose son was Prithu, whose son was Viswagaśwa, whose son was Árdra, whose son was Yuvanáśwa, whose son was Śravasta, by whom the city of Śrávastí was founded. The son of Śravasta was Vrihadaśwa, whose son was Kuvalayáśwa. This prince, inspired with the spirit of Vishńu, destroyed the Asura Dhundhu, who had harassed the pious sage Uttanka; and he was thence entitled Dhundhumára. In his conflict with the demon the king was attended by his sons, to the number of twenty-one thousand; and all these, with the exception of only three, perished in the engagement, consumed by the fiery breath of Dhundhu. The three who survived were Drídháśwa, Chandráśwa, and Kapiláśwa; and the son and successor of the elder of these was Haryyáśwa; his son was Nikumbha; his son was Sanhatáśwa; his son was Kriśáśwa; his son was Prasenajit; and his son was another Yuvanáśwa.

741. “Yuvanáśwa had no son, at which he was deeply grieved. Whilst residing in the vicinage of the holy Munis, he inspired them with pity for his childless condition, and they instituted a religious rite to procure him progeny. One night during its performance the sages having placed a vessel of consecrated water upon the altar had retired to repose. It was past midnight, when the king awoke, exceedingly thirsty; and unwilling to disturb any of the holy inmates of the dwelling, he looked about for something to drink. In his search he came to the water in the jar, which had been sanctified and endowed with prolific efficacy by sacred texts, and he drank it. When the Munis rose, and found that the water had been drunk, they inquired who had taken it, and said, “The queen that has drunk this water shall give birth to a mighty and valiant son.” “It was I,” exclaimed the Rájá, “who unwittingly drank the water!” and accordingly in the belly of Yuvanáśwa was conceived a child, and it grew, and in due time it ripped open the right side of the Rájá, and was born, and the Raji, did not die. Upon the birth of the child, “Who will be its nurse?” said the Munis; when, Indra, the king of the gods, appeared, and said, “He shall have me for his nurse” (mám dhásyati); and hence the boy was named Mándhátri. Indra put his fore finger into the mouth of the infant, who sucked it, and drew from it heavenly nectar; and he grew up, and became a mighty monarch, and reduced the seven continental zones under his dominion. And here a verse is recited; “From the rising to the going down of the sun, all that is irradiated by his light, is the land of Mándhátri, the son of Yuvanáśwa.”

742. “Mándhátri married Vindumatí, the daughter of Śaśavindu, and had by her three sons, Purukutsa, Ambarísha, and Muchukunda; he had also fifty daughters.

743. “The devout sage Saubhari, learned in the Vedas, had spent twelve years immersed in a piece of water; the sovereign of the fish in which, named Sammada, of large bulk, had a very numerous progeny. His children and his grandchildren were wont to frolic around him in all directions, and he lived amongst them happily, playing with them night and day. Saubhari the sage, being disturbed in his devotions by their sports, contemplated the patriarchal felicity of the monarch of the lake, and reflected, “How enviable is this creature, who, although born in a degraded state of being, is ever thus sporting cheerfully amongst his offspring and their young. Of a truth he awakens in my mind the wish to taste such pleasure, and I also will make merry amidst my children.” Having thus resolved, the Muni came up hastily from the water, and, desirous of entering upon the condition of a householder, went to Mándhátri to demand one of his daughters as his wife. As soon as he was informed of the arrival of the sage, the king rose up from his throne, offered him the customary libation, and treated him with the most profound respect. Having taken a seat, Saubhari said to the Rájá, “I have determined to marry: do you, king, give me one of your daughters as a wife: disappoint not my affection. It is not the practice of the princes of the race of Kakutstha to turn away from compliance with the wishes of those who come to them for succour. There are, O monarch, other kings of the earth to whom daughters have been born, but your family is above all renowned for observance. of liberality in your donations to those who ask your bounty. You have, O prince, fifty daughters; give one of them to me, that so I may be relieved from the anxiety I suffer through fear that my suit may be denied.”

744. “When Mándhátri heard this request, and looked upon the person of the sage, emaciated by austerity and old age, he felt disposed to refuse his consent; but dreading to incur the anger and imprecation of the holy man, he was much perplexed, and, declining his head, was lost a while in thought. The Rishi, observing his hesitation, said, “On what, O Rájá, do you meditate? I have asked for nothing which may not be readily accorded: and what is there that shall he unattainable to you, if my desires be gratified by the damsel whom you must needs give unto me?” To this, the king, apprehensive of his displeasure, answered and said, “Grave sir, it is the established usage of our house to wed our daughters to such persons only as they shall themselves select from suitors of fitting rank; and since this your request is not yet made known to my maidens, it is impossible to say whether it may be equally agreeable to them as it is to me. This is the occasion of my perplexity, and I am at a loss what to do.” This answer of the king was fully understood by the Rishi, who said to himself, “This is merely a device of the Rájá to evade compliance with my suit: he has reflected that I am an old man, having no attractions for women, and not likely to be accepted by any of his daughters: even be it so; I will be a match for him:” and he then spake aloud, and said, “Since such is the custom, mighty prince, give orders that I be admitted into the interior of the palace. Should any of the maidens your daughters be willing to take me for a bridegroom, I will have her for my bride; if no one be willing, then let the blame attach alone to the years that I have numbered.” Having thus spoken, he was silent.

745. “Mándhátri, unwilling to provoke the indignation of the Muni, was accordingly obliged to command the eunuch to lead the sage into the inner chambers; who, as he entered the apartments, put on a form and features of beauty far exceeding the personal charms of mortals, or even of heavenly spirits. His conductor, addressing the princesses, said to them, “Your father, young ladies, sends you this pious sage, who has demanded of him a bride; and the Rája has promised him, that he will not refuse him any one of you who shall choose him for her husband.” When the damsels heard this, and looked upon the person of the Rishi, they were equally inspired with passion and desire, and, like a troop of female elephants disputing the favours of the master of the herd, they all contended for the choice. “Away, away, sister!” said each to the other; “this is my election, he is my choice; he is not a meet bridegroom for you; he has been created by Brahmá on purpose for me, as I have been created in order to become his wife: he has been chosen by me before you; you have no right to prevent his becoming my husband.” In this way arose a violent quarrel amongst the daughters of the king, each insisting upon the exclusive election of the Rishi: and as the blameless sage was thus contended for by the rival princesses, the superintendent of the inner apartments, with a downcast look, reported to the king what had occurred. Perplexed more than ever by this information, the Rájá exclaimed, “What is all this! and what am I to do now! What is it that I have said!” and at last, although with extreme reluctance, he was obliged to agree that the Rishi should marry all his daughters.

746. “Having then wedded, agreeably to law, all the princesses, the sage took them home to his habitation, where he employed the chief of architects, Viśwakarman, equal in taste and skill to Brahmá himself, to construct separate palaces for each of his wives: he ordered him to provide each building with elegant couches and seats and furniture, and to attach to them gardens and groves, with reservoirs of water, where the wild-duck and the swan should sport amidst beds of lotus flowers. The divine artist obeyed his injunctions, and constructed splendid apartments for the wives of the Rishi; in which by command of Saubhari, the inexhaustible and divine treasure called Nanda took up his permanent abode, and the princesses entertained all their guests and dependants with abundant viands of every description and the choicest quality.

747. “After some period had elapsed, the heart of king Mándhátri yearned for his daughters, and he felt solicitous to know whether they were happily circumstanced. Setting off therefore on a visit to the hermitage of Saubhari, he beheld upon his arrival a row of beautiful crystal palaces, shining as brilliantly as the rays of the sun, and situated amidst lovely gardens, and reservoirs of pellucid water. Entering into one of these magnificent palaces, he found and embraced a daughter, and said to her, as the tears of affection and delight trembled in his eyes, “Dear child, tell me how it is with you. Are you happy here? or not? Does the great sage treat you with tenderness? or do you revert with regret to your early home?” The princess replied, “You behold, my father, how delightful a mansion I inhabit, surrounded by lovely gardens and lakes, where the lotus blooms, and the wild swans murmur. Here I have delicious viands, fragrant unguents, costly ornaments, splendid raiment, soft beds, and every enjoyment that affluence can procure. Why then should I call to memory the place of my birth? To your favour am I indebted for all that I possess. I have only one cause of anxiety, which is this; my husband is never absent from my dwelling: solely attached to me, he is always at my side; he never goes near my sisters; and I am concerned to think that they must feel mortified by his neglect: this is the only circumstance that gives me uneasiness.”

748. “Proceeding to visit another of his daughters, the king, after embracing her, and sitting down, made the same inquiry, and received the same account of the enjoyments with which the princess was provided: there was also the same complaint, that the Rishi was wholly devoted to her, and paid no attention to her sisters. In every palace Mándhátri heard the same story from each of his daughters in reply to his questions; and with a heart overflowing with wonder and delight he repaired to the wise Saubhari, whom he found alone, and, after paying homage to him, thus addressed him: “Holy sage, I have witnessed this thy marvellous power; the like miraculous faculties I have never known any other to possess. How great is the reward of thy devout austerities!” Having thus saluted the sage, and been received by him with respect, the Rájá resided with him for some time, partaking of the pleasures of the place, and then returned to his capital.

749. “In the course of time the daughters of Mándhátri bore to Saubhari a hundred and fifty sons, and day by day his affection for his children became more intense, and his heart was wholly occupied, with the sentiment of self. “These my sons,” he loved to think, “will charm me with their infant prattle; then they will learn to walk; they will then grow up to youth and to manhood: I shall see them married, and they will have children; and I may behold the children of those children.” By these and similar reflections, however, he perceived that his anticipations every day outstripped the course of time, and at last he exclaimed, “What exceeding folly is mine! there is no end to my desires. Though all I hope should come to pass for ten thousand or a hundred thousand years, still new wishes would spring up. When I have seen my infants walk; when I have beheld their youth, their manhood, their marriage, their progeny; still my expectations are unsatisfied, and my soul yearns to behold the descendants of their descendants. Shall I even see them, some other wish will be engendered; and when that is accomplished, how is the birth of fresh desires to he prevented? I have at last discovered that there is no end to hope, until it terminates in death; and that the mind which is perpetually engrossed by expectation, can never be attached to the supreme spirit. My mental devotions, whilst immersed in water, were interrupted by attachment to my friend the fish. The result of that connexion was my marriage; and insatiable desires are the consequences of my married life. The pain attendant upon the birth of my single body, is now augmented by the cares attached to fifty others, and is farther multiplied by the numerous children whom the princesses have borne to me. The sources of affliction will be repeatedly renewed by their children, and by their espousals, and by their progeny, and will be infinitely increased: a married life is a mine of individual anxiety. My devotions, first disturbed by the fish of the pool, have since been obstructed by temporal indulgence, and I have been beguiled by that desire for progeny which was communicated to me by association with Sammada. Separation from the world is the only path of the sage to final liberation: from commerce with mankind innumerable errors proceed. The ascetic who has accomplished a course of self-denial falls from perfection by contracting worldly attachments: how much more likely should one so fall whose observances are incomplete? My intellect has been a prey to the desire of married happiness; but I will now so exert myself for the salvation of my soul, that, exempt from human imperfections, I may be exonerated from human sufferings. To that end I will propitiate, by arduous penance, Vishńu, the creator of the universe, whose form is inscrutable, who is smaller than the smallest, larger than the largest, the source of darkness and of light, the sovereign god of gods. On his everlasting body, which is both discrete and indiscrete substance, illimitably mighty, and identical with the universe, may my mind, wholly free from sin, be ever steadily intent, so that I may be born no more. To him I fly for refuge; to that Vishńu, who is the teacher of teachers, who is one with all beings, the pure eternal lord of all, without beginning, middle, or end, and besides whom is nothing.”

750. Chap. III.

“Saubhari and his wives adopt an ascetic life. Descendants of Mándhátri. Legend of Narmadá and Purukutsa. Legend of Triśanku. Báhu driven from his kingdom by the Haihayas and Tálajanghas. Birth of Sagara: he conquers the barbarians, imposes upon them distinguishing usages, and excludes them from offerings to fire, and the study of the Vedas.

751. “HAVING thus communed with himself, Saubhari abandoned his children, his home, and all his splendour, and, accompanied by his wives, entered the forest, where he daily practised the observances followed by the ascetics termed Vaikhánasas (or anchorets having families), until he had cleansed himself from all sin. When his intellect had attained maturity, he concentrated in his spirit the sacramental fires, and became a religious mendicant. Then having consigned all his acts to the supreme, he obtained the condition of Achyuta, which knows no change, and is not subject to the vicissitudes of birth, transmigration, or death. Whoever reads, or hears, or remembers, or understands, this legend of Saubhari, and his espousal of the daughters of Mándhátri, shall never, for eight successive births, be addicted to evil thoughts, nor shall he act unrighteously, nor shall his mind dwell upon improper objects, nor shall he be influenced by selfish attachments. The line of Mándhátri is now resumed.

752. “The son of Ambarísha, the son of Mándhátri, was Yuvanáśwa; his son was Harita, from whom the Angirasa Háritas were descended.

753. “In the regions below the earth the Gandharbas called Mauneyas (or sons of the Muni Kaśyapa), who were sixty millions in number, had defeated the tribes of the Nágas, or snake-gods, and seized upon their most precious jewels, and usurped their dominion. Deprived of their power by the Gandharbas, the serpent chiefs addressed the god of the gods, as he awoke from his slumbers; and the blossoms of his lotus eyes opened while listening to their hymns. They said, “Lord, how shall we be delivered from this great fear?” Then replied the first of males, who is without beginning, “I will enter into the person of Purukutsa, the son of Mándhátri, the son of Yuvanáśwa, and in him will I quiet these iniquitous Gandharbas.” On hearing these words, the snake-gods bowed and withdrew, and returning to their country dispatched Narmadá to solicit the aid of Purukutsa.

754. “Narmadá accordingly went to Purukutsa, and conducted him to the regions below the earth, where, being filled with the might of the deity, he destroyed the Gandharbas. He then returned to his own palace; and the snake-gods, in acknowledgment of Narmadá’s services, conferred upon her as a blessing, that whosoever should think of her, and invoke her name, should never have any dread of the venom of snakes. This is the invocation; “Salutation be to Narmadá in the morning; salutation be to Narmadá at night; salutation be to thee, O Narmadá! defend me from the serpent’s poison.” Whoever repeats this day and night, shall never be bitten by a snake in the dark nor in entering a chamber; nor shall he who calls it to mind when he eats suffer any injury from poison, though it be mixed with his food. To Purukutsa also the snake-gods announced that the series of his descendants should never be cut off.

755. “Purukutsa had a son by Narmadá named Trasadasyu, whose son was Sambhúta, whose son was Anarańya, who was slain, by Rávańa in his triumphant progress through the nations. The son of Anarańya was Prishadaśwa; his son was Haryyaśwa; his son was Sumanas; his son was Tridhanwan; his son was Trayyáruńa; and his son was Satyavrata, who obtained the appellation of Triśanku, and was degraded to the condition of a Cháńd́ála, or outcast. During a twelve years’ famine Triśanku provided the flesh of deer for the nourishment of the wife and children of Viswamitra, suspending it upon a spreading fig-tree on the borders of the Ganges, that he might not subject them to the indignity of receiving presents from an outcast. On this account Viśwámitra, being highly pleased with him, elevated him in his living body to heaven.

756. “The son of Triśanku was Hariśchandra; his son was Rohitáśwa; his son was Harita; his son was Chunchu, who had two sons named Vijaya and Sudeva. Ruruka was the son of Vijaya, and his own son was Vrika, whose son was Báhu (or Báthuka). This prince was vanquished by the tribes of Haihayas and Tálajanghas, and his country was overrun by them; in consequence of which he fled into the forests with his wives. One of these was pregnant, and being an object of jealousy to a rival queen, the latter gave her poison to prevent her delivery. The poison had the effect of confining the child in the womb for seven years. Báhu, having waxed old, died in the neighbourhood of the residence of the Muni Aurva. His queen having constructed his pile, ascended it with the determination of accompanying him in death; but the sage Aurva, who knew all things, past, present, and to come, issued forth from his hermitage, and forbade her, saying, “Hold! hold! this is unrighteous; a valiant prince, the monarch of many realms, the offerer of many sacrifices, the destroyer of his foes, a universal emperor, is in thy womb; think not of committing so desperate an act!” Accordingly, in obedience to his injunctions, she relinquished her intention. The sage then conducted, her to his abode, and after some time a very splendid boy was there born. Along with him the poison that had been given to his mother was expelled; and Aurva, after performing the ceremonies required at birth, gave him on that account the name of Sagara (from Sa, ‘with,’ and Gara, ‘poison’). The same holy sage celebrated his investure with the cord of his class, instructed him fully in the Vedas, and taught him the use of arms, especially those of fire, called after Bhárgava.

757. “When the boy had grown up, and was capable of reflection, he said to his mother one day, “Why are we dwelling in this hermitage? where is my father? and who is he?” His mother, in reply, related to him all that had happened. Upon hearing which he was highly incensed, and vowed to recover his patrimonial kingdom; and exterminate the Haihayas and Tálajanghas, by whom it had been overrun. Accordingly when he became a man he put nearly the whole of the Haihayas to death, and would have also destroyed the Śakas, the Yavanas, Kámbojas, Páradas, and Pahnavas, but that they applied to Vaśisht́ha, the family priest of Sagara, for protection. Vaśisht́ha regarding them as annihilated (or deprived of power), though living, thus spake to Sagara: “Enough, enough, my son, pursue no farther these objects of your wrath, whom you may look upon as no more. In order to fulfil your vow I have separated them from affinity to the regenerate tribes, and from the duties of their castes.” Sagara, in compliance with the injunctions of his spiritual guide, contented himself therefore with imposing upon the vanquished nations peculiar distinguishing marks. He made the Yavanas shave their heads entirely; the Śakas he compelled to shave (the upper) half of their heads; the Páradas wore their hair long; and the Pahnavas let their beards grow, in obedience to his commands. Them also, and other Kshatriya races, he deprived of the established usages of oblations to fire and the study of the Vedas; and thus separated from religious rites, and abandoned by the Brahmins, these different tribes became Mlechchhas. Sagara, after the recovery of his kingdom, reigned over the seven-zoned earth with undisputed dominion.

758. Chap. IV.

“The progeny of Sagara: their wickedness: he performs an Aśwamedha: the horse stolen by Kapila: found by Sagara’s sons, who are all destroyed by the sage: the horse recovered by Anśumat: his descendants. Legend of Mitrasaha or Kalmáshapáda, the son of Sudása. Legend of Khat́wánga. Birth of Ráma and the other sons of Daśaratha. Epitome of the history of Ráma: his descendants, and those of his brothers. Line of Kuśa. Vrihadbala, the last, killed in the great war.

759. “SUMATI the daughter of Kaśyapa, and Kesiní the daughter of Rája Viderbha, were the two wives of Sagara. Being without progeny, the king solicited the aid of the sage Aurva with great earnestness, and the Muni pronounced this boon, that one wife should bear one son, the upholder of his race, and the other should give birth to sixty thousand sons; and he left it to them to make their election. Kesiní chose to have the single son; Sumati the multitude: and it came to pass in a short time that the former bore Asamanjas, a prince through whom the dynasty continued; and the daughter of Vinatá (Sumati) had sixty thousand sons. The son of Asamanjas was Anśumat.

760. “Asamanjas was from his boyhood of very irregular conduct. His father hoped that as he grew up to manhood he would reform; but finding that he continued guilty of the same immorality, Sagara abandoned him. The sixty thousand sons of Sagara followed the example of their brother Asamanjas. The path of virtue and piety being obstructed in the world by the sons of Sagara, the gods repaired to the Muni Kapila, who was a portion of Vishńu, free from fault, and endowed with all true wisdom. Having approached him with respect, they said, “O lord, what will become of the world, if these sons of Sagara are permitted to go on in the evil ways which they have learned from Asamanjas! Do thou, then, assume a visible form, for the protection of the afflicted universe.” “Be satisfied,” replied the sage, “in a brief time the sons of Sagara shall be all destroyed.”

761. “At that period Sagara commenced the performance of the solemn sacrifice of a horse, who was guarded by his own sons: nevertheless some one stole the animal, and carried it off into a chasm in the earth, Sagara commanded his sons to search for the steed; and they, tracing him by the impressions of his hoofs, followed his course with perseverance, until coming to the chasm where he had entered, they proceeded to enlarge it, and dug downwards each for a league. Coming to Pátála, they beheld the horse wandering freely about, and at no great distance from him they saw the Rishi Kapila sitting, with his head declined in meditation, and illuminating the surrounding space with radiance as bright as the splendours of the autumnal sun, shining in an unclouded sky. Exclaiming, “This is the villain who has maliciously interrupted our sacrifice, and stolen the horse! kill him! kill him!” they ran towards him with uplifted weapons. The Muni slowly raised his eyes, and for an instant looked upon them, and they were reduced to ashes by the sacred flame that darted from his person.

762. “When Sagara learned that his sons, whom he had sent in pursuit of the sacrificial steed, had been destroyed by the might of the great Rishi Kapila, he dispatched Anśumat, the son of Asamaujas, to effect the animals recovery. The youth, proceeding by the deep path which the princes had dug, arrived where Kapila was, and bowing respectfully, prayed to him, and so propitiated him, that the saint said, “Go, my son, deliver the horse to your grandfather; and demand a boon; thy grandson shall bring down the river of heaven on the earth.” Anśumat requested as a boon that his uncles, who had perished through the sage’s displeasure, might, although unworthy of it, be raised to heaven through his favour. “I have told you,” replied Kapila, “that your grandson shall bring down upon earth the Ganges of the gods; and when her waters shall wash the bones and ashes of thy grandfather’s sons, they shall be raised to Swarga. Such is the efficacy of the stream that flows from the toe of Vishńu, that it confers heaven upon all who bathe in it designedly, or who even become accidentally immersed in it: those even shall obtain Swarga, whose bones, skin, fibres, hair, or any other part, shall be left after death upon the earth which is contiguous to the Ganges.” Having acknowledged reverentially the kindness of the sage, Anśumat returned to his grandfather, and delivered to him the horse. Sagara, on recovering the steed, completed his sacrifice; and in affectionate memory of his sons, denominated Ságara the chasm which they had dug.

763. “The son of Anśumat was Dilípa; his son was Bhagíratha, who brought Gangá down to earth, whence she is called Bhágirathí. The son of Bhagíratha was Śruta; his son was Nábhága; his son was Ambarísha; his son was Sindhudwípa; his son was Ayutáśwa; his son was Rituparńa, the friend of Nala, skilled profoundly in dice. The son of Rituparńa was Sarvakáma; his son was Sudása; his son was Saudása, named also Mitrasaha.

764. “The son of Sudása having gone into the woods to hunt, fell in with a couple of tigers, by whom the forest had been cleared of the deer. The king slew one of these tigers with an arrow. At the moment of expiring, the form of the animal was changed, and it became that of a fiend of fearful figure, and hideous aspect. Its companion, threatening the prince with its vengeance, disappeared.

765. “After some interval Saudása celebrated a sacrifice, which was conducted by Vaśisht́ha. At the close of the rite Vaśisht́ha went out; when the Rákshas, the fellow of the one that had been killed in the figure of a tiger, assumed the semblance of Vaśisht́ha, and came and said to the king, “Now that the sacrifice is ended, you must give me flesh to eat: let it be cooked, and I will presently return.” Having said this, he withdrew, and, transforming himself into the shape of the cook, dressed some human flesh, which he brought to the king, who, receiving it on a plate of gold, awaited the reappearance of Vaśisht́ha. As soon as the Muni returned, the king offered to him the dish. Vaśisht́ha surprised at such want of propriety in the king, as his offering him meat to eat, considered what it should be that was so presented, and by the efficacy of his meditations discovered that it was human flesh. His mind being agitated with wrath, he denounced a curse upon the Rájá, saying, “Inasmuch as you have insulted all such holy men as we are, by giving me what is not to be eaten, your appetite shall henceforth be excited by similar food.”

766. ““It was yourself,” replied the Rájá to the indignant sage, “who commanded this food to be prepared.” “By me!” exclaimed Vaśisht́ha; “how could that have been?” and again having recourse to meditation, he detected the whole truth. Foregoing then all displeasure towards the king, he said, “The food to which I have sentenced you shall not be your sustenance for ever; it shall only be so for twelve years.” The king, who had taken up water in the palms of his hands, and was prepared to curse the Muni, now considered that Vaśisht́ha was his spiritual guide, and being reminded by Madayantí his queen that it ill became him to denounce an imprecation upon a holy teacher, who was the guardian divinity of his race, abandoned his intention. Unwilling to cast the water upon the earth, lest it should wither up the grain, for it was impregnated with his malediction, and equally reluctant to throw it up into the air, lest it should blast the clouds, and dry up their contents, he threw it upon, his own feet. Scalded by the heat which the water had derived from his angry imprecation, the feet of the Rájá became spotted black and white, and he thence obtained the name of Kalmáshapáda, or he with the spotted (kalmásha) feet (páda).

767. “In consequence of the curse of Vaśisht́ha, the Rájá became a cannibal every sixth watch of the day for twelve years, and in that state wandered through the forests, and devoured multitudes of men. On one occasion he beheld a holy person engaged in dalliance with his wife. As soon as they saw his terrific form, they were frightened, and endeavoured to escape; but the regal Rákshasa overtook and seized the husband. The wife of the Brahmin then also desisted from flight, and earnestly entreated the savage to spare her lord, exclaiming, “Thou, Mitrasaha, art the pride of the royal house of Ikshwáku, not a malignant fiend! it is not in thy nature, who knowest the characters of women, to carry off and devour my husband.” But all was in vain, and, regardless of her reiterated supplications, he ate the Brahmin, as a tiger devours a deer. The Brahmin’s wife, furious with wrath, then addressed the Rájá, and said, “Since you have barbarously disturbed the joys of a wedded pair, and killed my husband, your death shall be the consequence of your associating with your queen.” So saying, she entered the flames.

768. “At the expiration of the period of his curse Saudása returned home. Being reminded of the imprecation of the Brahmani by his wife Madayantí, he abstained from conjugal intercourse, and was in consequence childless; but having solicited the interposition of Vaśisht́ha, Madayantí became pregnant. The child, however, was not born for seven years, when the queen, becoming impatient, divided the womb with a sharp stone, and was thereby delivered. The child was thence called Aśmaka (from Aśman, ‘a stone’). The son of Aśmaka was Múlaka, who, when the warrior tribe was extirpated upon earth, was surrounded and concealed by a number of females; whence he was denominated Náríkavacha (having women for armour). The son of Múlaka was Daśaratha; his son was Ilavila; his son was Viśwasaha; his son was Khat́wánga, called also Dilípa, who in a battle between the gods and the Asuras, being called by the former to their succour, killed a number of the latter. Having thus acquired the friendship of the deities in heaven, they desired him to demand a boon. He said to them, “If a boon is to be accepted by me, then tell me, as a favour, what is the duration of my life.” “The length of your life is but an hour,” the gods replied. On which, Khat́wánga, who was swift of motion, descended in his easy-gliding chariot to the world of mortals. Arrived there, he prayed, and said, “If my own soul has never been dearer to me than the sacred Brahmins; if I have never deviated from the discharge of my duty; if I have never regarded gods, men, animals, vegetables, all created things, as different from the imperishable; then may I, with unswerving step, attain to that divine being on whom holy sages meditate!” Having thus spoken, he was united with that supreme being, who is Vásudeva; with that elder of all the gods, who is abstract existence, and whose form cannot be described. Thus he obtained absorption, according to this stanza, which was repeated formerly by the seven Rishis; “Like unto Khat́wánga will be no one upon earth, who having come from heaven, and dwelt an hour amongst men, became united with the three worlds by his liberality and knowledge of truth.”

769. “The son of Khat́wánga was Dírghabáhu; his son was Raghu; his son was Aja; his son was Daśaratha. The god from whose navel the lotus springs became fourfold, as the four sons of Daśaratha, Ráma, Lakshmańa, Bharata, and Śatrughna, for the protection of the world. Ráma, whilst yet a boy, accompanied Viswámitra, to protect his sacrifice, and slew Tád́aká. He afterwards killed Máricha with his resistless shafts; and Subáhu and others fell by his arms. He removed the guilt of Ahalyá by merely looking upon her. In the palace of Janaka he broke with ease the mighty bow of Maheśwara, and received the hand of Sítá, the daughter of the king, self-born from the earth, as the prize of his prowess. He humbled the pride of Paraśuráma, who vaunted his triumphs over the race of Haihaya, and his repeated slaughters of the Kshatriya tribe. Obedient to the commands of his father, and cherishing no regret for the loss of sovereignty, he entered the forest, accompanied by his brother Lakshmańa and by his wife, where he killed in conflict Virádha, Kharadúshana and other Rákshasas, the headless giant Kabandha, and Báli the monkey monarch. Having built a bridge across the ocean, and destroyed the whole Rákshasa nation, he recovered his bride Sítá, whom their ten-headed king Rávańa had carried off, and returned to Ayodhyá with her, after she had been purified by the fiery ordeal from the soil contracted by her captivity, and had been honoured by the assembled gods, who bore witness to her virtue.

770. “Bharata made himself master of the country of the Gandharbas, after destroying vast numbers of them; and Śatrughna having killed the Rákshasa chief Lavańa, the son of Madhu, took possession of his capital Mathurá.

771. “Having thus, by their unequalled valour and might, rescued the whole world from the dominion of malignant fiends, Ráma, Lakshmańa, Bharata, and Śatrughna reascended to heaven, and were followed by those of the people of Kośala who were fervently devoted to these incarnate portions of the supreme Vishńu.

772. “Ráma and his brothers had each two sons. Kuśa and Lava were the sons of Ráma; those of Lakshmańa were Angada and Chandraketu; the sons of Bharata were Taksha and Pushkara; and Subáhu and Śúrasena were the sons of Śatrughna.

773. “The son of Kuśa was Atithi; his son was Nishadha; his son was Nala; his son was Nabhas; his son was Puńd́aríka; his son was Kshemadhanwan; his son was Deváníka; his son was Ahínagu; his son was Páripátra; his son was Dala; his son was Chhala; his son was Uktha; his son was Vajranábha; his son was Śankhanábha; his son was Abhyutthitáśwa; his son was Viśwasaha; his son was Hirańyanábha, who was a pupil of the mighty Yogí Jaimini, and communicated the knowledge of spiritual exercises to Yájnawalkya. The son of this saintly king was Pushya; his son was Dhruvasandhi; his son was Sudarśana; his son was Agnivarńa; his son was Śíghra; his son was Maru, who through the power of devotion (Yoga) is still living in the village called Kalápa, and in a future age will be the restorer of the Kshatriya race in the solar dynasty. Maru had a son named Prasuśruta; his son was Susandhi; his son was Amarsha; his son was Mahaswat; his son was Viśrutavat; and his son was Vrihadbala, who was killed in the great war by Abhimanyu, the son of Anjuna. These are the most distinguished princes in the family of Ikshwáku: whoever listens to the account of them will be purified from all his sins.”

The summary of the history of the Lunar line in the Mahabharata I. 95

774. (Trans. Ganguli. Successive links in the genealogy in bold.)

“Vivaswat begat Manu, and Manu begat Ila and Ila begat Pururavas. And Pururavas begat Ayus, and Ayus begat Nahusha, and Nahusha begat Yayati. And Yayati had two wives, viz., Devayani, the daughter of Usanas, and Sarmishtha the daughter of Vrishaparvan. Here occurs a sloka regarding (Yayati’s) descendants, Devayani gave birth to Yadu and Turvasu; and Vrishaparvan’s daughter, Sarmishtha gave birth to Druhyu, Anu, and Puru. And the descendants of Yadu are the Yadavas and of Puru are the Pauravas. And Puru had a wife of the name of Kausalya, on whom he begat a son named Janamejaya who performed three horse-sacrifices and a sacrifice called Viswajit. And then he entered into the woods. And Janamejaya had married Ananta, the daughter of Madhava, and begat upon her a son called Prachinwat. And the prince was so called because he had conquered all the eastern countries up to the very confines of the region where the Sun rises. And Prachinwat married Asmaki, a daughter of the Yadavas and begat upon her a son named Sanyati. And Sanyati married Varangi, the daughter of Drishadwata and begat upon her a son named Ahayanti. And Ahayanti married Bhanumati, the daughter of Kritavirya and begat upon her a son named Sarvabhauma. And Sarvabhauma married Sunanda, the daughter of the Kekaya prince, having obtained her by force. And he begat upon her a son named Jayatsena, who married Susrava, the daughter of the Vidarbha king and begat upon her Avachina, And Avachina also married another princess of Vidarbha, Maryada by name. And he begat on her a son named Arihan. And Arihan married Angi and begat on her Mahabhauma. And Mahabhauma married Suyajna, the daughter of Prasenajit. And of her was born Ayutanayi. And he was so called because he had performed a sacrifice at which the fat of an Ayuta (ten thousands) of male beings was required. And Ayutanayi took for a wife Kama, the daughter of Prithusravas. And by her was born a son named Akrodhana, who took to wife Karambha, the daughter of the king of Kalinga. And of her was born Devatithi, and Devatithi took for his wife Maryada, the princess of Videha. And of her was born a son named Arihan. And Arihan took to wife Sudeva, the princess of Anga, and upon her he begat a son named Riksha. And Riksha married Jwala, the daughter of Takshaka, and he begat upon her a son of the name of Matinara, who performed on the bank of Saraswati the twelve years’ sacrifice said to be so efficacious. On conclusion of the sacrifice, Saraswati appeared in person before the king and chose him for husband. And he begat upon her a son named Tansu. Here occurs a sloka descriptive of Tansu’s descendants.

775. “Tansu was born of Saraswati by Matinara. And Tansu himself begat a son named Ilina on his wife, the princess Kalingi.

776. “Ilina begat on his wife Rathantari five sons, of whom Dushmanta was the eldest. And Dushmanta took to wife Sakuntala, the daughter of Viswamitra. And he begat on her a son named Bharata. Here occurs two slokas about (Dushmanta’s) descendants.

777. “The mother is but the sheath of flesh in which the father begets the son. Indeed the father himself is the son. Therefore, O Dushmanta, support thy son and insult not Sakuntala. O god among men, the father himself becoming the son rescueth himself from hell. Sakuntala hath truly said that thou art the author of this child’s being.

778. “It is for this (i.e., because the king supported his child after hearing the above speech of the celestial messenger) that Sakuntala’s son came to be called Bharata (the supported). And Bharata married Sunanda, the daughter of Sarvasena, the king of Kasi, and begat upon her the son named Bhumanyu. And Bhumanyu married Vijaya, the daughter of Dasarha. And he begat upon her a son Suhotra who married Suvarna, the daughter of Ikshvaku. To her was born a son named Hasti who founded this city, which has, therefore, been called Hastinapura. And Hasti married Yasodhara, the princess of Trigarta. And of her was born a son named Vikunthana who took for a wife Sudeva, the princess of Dasarha. And by her was born a son named Ajamidha. And Ajamidha had four wives named Raikeyi, Gandhari, Visala and Riksha. And he begat on them two thousand and four hundred sons. But amongst them all, Samvarana became the perpetuator of the dynasty. And Samvarana took for his wife Tapati, the daughter of Vivaswat. And of her was born Kuru, who married Subhangi, the princess of Dasarha. And he begat on her a son named Viduratha, who took to wife Supriya, the daughter of the Madhavas. And he begat upon her a son named Anaswan. And Anaswan married Amrita, the daughter of the Madhavas. And of her was born a son named Parikshit, who took for his wife Suvasa, the daughter of the Vahudas, and begat upon her a son named Bhimasena. And Bhimasena married Kumari, the princess of Kekaya and begat upon her Pratisravas whose son was Pratipa. And Pratipa married Sunanda, the daughter of Sivi, and begat upon her three sons, viz., Devapi, Santanu and Valhika. And Devapi, while still a boy, entered the woods as a hermit. And Santanu became king. Here occurs a sloka in respect of Santanu.

779. “Those old men that were touched by this monarch not only felt an indescribable sensation of pleasure but also became restored to youth. Therefore, this monarch was called Santanu.

780. “And Santanu married Ganga, who bore him a son Devavrata who was afterwards called Bhishma. And Bhishma, moved by the desire of doing good to his father, got him married to Satyavati who was also called Gandhakali. And in her maidenhood she had a son by Parasara {son of Shakti-muni, son of the Rishi Vasishta}, named Dwaipayana {Vyasa}. And upon her Santanu begat two other sons named Chitrangada and Vichitravirya. And before they attained to majority, Chitrangada had been slain by the Gandharvas. But Vichitravirya became king, and married the two daughters of the king of Kasi, named Amvika and Amvalika. But Vichitravirya died childless. Then Satyavati began to think as to how the dynasty of Dushmanta might be perpetuated. Then she recollected the Rishi Dwaipayana. The latter coming before her, asked, ‘What are thy commands?’ She said, ‘Thy brother Vichitravirya hath gone to heaven childless. Beget virtuous children for him.’ Dwaipayana, consenting to this, begat three children, viz., Dhritarashtra, Pandu, and Vidura. King Dhritarashtra had a hundred sons by his wife, Gandhari in consequence of the boon granted by Dwaipayana. And amongst those hundred sons of Dhritarashtra, four became celebrated. They are Duryodhana, Duhsasana, Vikarna, and Chitrasena. And Pandu had two jewels of wives, viz., Kunti, also called Pritha, and Madri.”

781. Below the genealogies of the Suryavansha (Solar Line) and Somavansha (Lunar Line) are listed, with approximate dates based on Manu (= Noah) c. 2400 BC, Vyasa c. 900-800 BC, and historical Yuga dates, according to the Biblical chronology, reconstructed as explained supra. Italics show contemporaries with reliable attestation in the literature, and other traditional contemporaries are in normal typeface: in either case the contemporaries are marked with an equal number of symbols.

Yuga	Solar Line (Vishnu Purana)	Lunar Line		Yuga
		(Mahabharata)	Haihayas
End of Krita Yuga	Manu	Manu		End of Krita Yuga
Treta Yuga c. 2217 BC	Ikshwaku (Ikshvaku)†	Ila†		Treta Yuga c. 2217 BC
	Vikukshi	Pururavas
	Puranjaya††	Ayus††
	Anenas§	Nahusha§
	Prithu§§	Yayati§§
	Viswagaswa¶	Puru¶	Yadu (son of Yayati)
	Ardra	Janamejaya	Sahasrajit
	Vrihadaswa	Prachinwat	Satajit
	Kuvalayaswa	Sanyati
		Ahayanti
		Sarvabhauma
		Jayatsena
		Avachina
		Mahabhauma
	Dridhaswa	Ayutanayi
	Haryyaswa	Akrodhana
	Nikumbha	Devatithi
	Sanhataswa	Arihan
	Krisaswa	Riksha
	Prasenajit¶¶	Matinara¶¶
	Yuvanaswa	Tansu
	Mandhatri¶¶¶		Haihaya¶¶¶
Dvapara Yuga c. 1367 BC	Purukutsa			Dvapara Yuga c. 1367 BC
	Trasadasyu
	Sambhúta
	Anaranya		Dharma
	Prishadaswa		Netra
	Haryyaswa		Kunti
	Sumanas		Sohanji
	Tridhanwan		Mahishman
	Trayyaruna		Bhadrasenaka
	Trisanku‡		Durmada‡
	Harischandra‡‡		Dhanaka‡‡
	Rohitaswa‡‡‡	Ilina	Kartavirya‡‡‡
	Harita☼	Dushmanta (Dushyanta)☼	Arjuna (a.k.a. Sudarshana, killed by Parashurama)
	Chunchu☼☼	Bharata☼☼
	Vijaya☼☼	Bhumanyu
	Ruruka
	Vrika
	Bahu	Hasti○
	Sagara○	Vikunthana
	Asamanjas○○	Ajamidha○○
	Ansumat	Samvarana
	Dilipa
	Bhagiratha
	Sruta
	Nabhaga
	Ambarisha
	Sindhudwipa
	Ayutaswa
	Rituparna
	Sarvakama
	Sudasa#	Kuru#
	Saudasa	Viduratha
	Asmaka	Anaswan
	Mulaka	Parikshit
	Dasaratha	Bhimasena
	Ilavila	Pratisravas
	Viswasaha	Pratipa
	Khatwanga	Santanu
	Dírghabáhu	Dwaipayana (Vyasa)		c. 900-800 BC
	Raghu	Pandu
	Aja		(Parashurama [The Majmal’s “Brahmin”] considered to have survived to this era, and to still be alive)
	Dasaratha
	Rama

c. 700 BC