विष्णो पादमवन्तिका गुणवती मध्ये च काञ्चीपुरी
नाभौ द्वारवतीं पठन्ति हृदये मायापुरीं योगिनः।।
ग्रीवामूलमुदाहरन्ति मथुरां नासाग्रवाराणसी-
मेतद् ब्रह्मपदं वदन्ति मुनयोऽयोध्यापुरीं मस्तकम्।।
Virtuous Avantikā, i.e. Ujjaina is the foot of Vishnu and Kāñchīpurī is His waist. Yogis consider Dvarakā His navel and Haridvāra His heart. Mathurā is considered His neck and Varanasī the tip of His nose. Ayodhyā is the head of Vish+nu. Sages call all these the limbs of Vishnu.
According to the Skanda Purāna Ayodhyā is splendid embodiment of Brahmā, Vishnu and Rudra:
अकारो ब्रह्म च प्रोक्तं यकारो विष्णुरुच्यते।
धकारो रुद्ररूपश्च अयोध्या नाम राजते।।
Ayodhyā brilliantly shines with its three letters — ‘a’ denoting Brahmā, ‘ya’ Vishnu and ‘dh’ Rudra.
The earliest reference to Ayodhyā is found in the following famous hymn of the Atharva-veda:
अष्टाचक्रा नवद्वारा देवानां पूरयोध्या।
तस्यां हिरण्मयः कोशः स्वर्गो ज्योतिषावृतः।।31।।
तस्मिन् हिरण्यये कोशे त्र्यरे त्रिप्रतिष्ठिते।
तस्मिन् यद् यक्षमात्मन्वत् तद् वै ब्रह्मविदो विदु।।32।।
प्रभाजमानां हरिणीं यशसा संपरीवृताम्।
पुं हिरण्मयीं ब्रह्मा विवेशापराजिताम्।।33।।
It may be translated thus:
Ayodhyā is the city of gods with eight circles and nine portals. It contains a golden chest which is celestial and with light, and which has got three spokes encircled and three supports. Persons, well versed with the Brahmā, know fully well that Yaksha dwells in that golden chest. That city which is bright with excessive brilliance, attractive, studded with glory all around and never subdued, has the abode of Brahmā.
It is well known that in the Kenopanishat, Brahmā appears before gods in the form of a Yaksha and the position of the latter is far above Vayu, Agni and Indra. Thus, Yaksha denotes Brahmā (ब्रह्म) here.
This Atharva hymn occurs in the Taittirīya Āranyaka too. (1.27.2 3)
P. Carnegy has written that Ayodhyā is to the Hindus what Mecca is to the Mahomedon and Jerusalem to the Jews. R.T. Griffith, the celebrated translator of Vālmīki Rāmayana, was of the opinion that ‘Ajudhyā is the Jerusalem or Mecca of the Hindus’. (Bālakānda, canto 5. footnote 4)
Similar sentiments have been expressed by many gazetteer writers on Ayodhyā and modern authors of the eternal saga of Rāma’s march to the path of righteousness.
Robert P. Goldman has reverentially written in his work ‘Ramayan of Vālmīki’:
“Few works of literature produced in any place at any time have been as popular, influential, imitated and successful as the great and ancient Sanskrit epic poem, the Valmîki Ramayana. A.A. Macdonell’s sweeping comment is hardly an overstatement of the case: “Probably no work of world literature, secular in origin, has ever produced so profound an influence on the life and thought of a people as the Ramayana.” For at least the last two and a half millennia, the tragic tale of Rama and Sîta, the oldest and most influential surviving version of which is Valmîki’s poem, has entertained, moved, enchanted, and uplifted untold millions of people in India and much of Southeast Asia for countless generations. The poem in all its versions and representations in the literary, plastic, and performing arts has constituted traditional India’s most pervasive and enduring instrument of acculturation.” (Vol. I, p. 3)
Francis Buchanan wrote in his hastily prepared report of the survey of the Gorakhpur Division conducted during 1813 14 A.D.:
“The people of Ayodhya imagine, that after the death of Vrihadbala, their city was deserted, and continued so until the time of Vikrama of Ujjain, who came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called Ramgar, cut down the forests by which the ruins were covered, and erected 360 temples on the places sanctified by the extraordinary actions of Rama, of his wife Sita, of his brother Lakshmana, and of his general Mahavira.”(Buchanan’s Manuscript: Ms. EUR, D 91: Gorakhpur 1: Book 2: p.165)
The erroneous impression that Ayodhya was a deserted city has been repeatedly reflected in many subsequent reports, gazetteers and several articles of eminent historians. But the fact of the matter is that Ayodhyā was never an abandoned city and it is shown in this chapter.
(1) Etymology
Ayodhyā is etymologically derived from the root युध् सम्प्रहारे which is used in the sense of attack, strike. Its derivation is युध् + यत् + टाप् योध् + य + आ = योध्या. अ is prefixed in the नञ÷ compound and it becomes अयोध्या. It ultimately means योद्धुं न शक्या no attack on it can be possible and therefore it has been interpreted as a place which is unconquerable, impregnable, invincible by enemies.
A Jain text ‘Ādi-purāna’ by Āchārya Jinasena of Digambara sect defines it:
अयोध्या न परं नाम्ना गुणेनाप्यरिभिः सुराः। (Ādi-Purãna 12.76)
O gods! Ayodhyā does not exist by name alone but by the merit also, hence it cannot be conquered by enemies.
Similarly, Buddhaghosha, while commenting on the Phenapindūpama Sutta, derives Ayodhyā in the following words:
केनिच कारणेन युज्झित्वा गहेतुं न सक्काति अयुज्झा नाम।
That which cannot be taken over by any means is known as Ayodhyā. This Phenapindūpama Sutta is a part of the Khandhsamyutta of Samyutta Nikāya. Ayodhyā was known by this name when Tripitaka was composed.
Another text Satyopākhyāna has given a new interpretation to the word Ayodhyā in the following style:
पापैर्न योध्यते यस्याः तेनायोध्येति कथ्यते। (I. 34.7)
That which cannot be conquered by sins is Ayodhyā.
However, P. Carnegy has erroneously derived it in his book “ A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh and Pachhimrath with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad” in the following words:
“Derivation—The name Ajudhia is explained by well known local Pandits to be derived from the Sanskrit words, Ajud, unvanquished, also Aj, a name of Barmha, the unconquerable city of the Creator. But Ajudhia is also called Oudh, which in Sanskrit means a promise, an allusion, it is said, to the promise made by Rama Chandra when he went in exile, to return at the end of 14 years. These are the local derivations; I am not prepared to say to what extent they may be accepted as correct. Doctor Wilson of Bombay thinks the word is taken from yudh to fight, the city of the fighting Chhatris.”
This derivation is not correct because Ayodhyā cannot be derived from the root Ajud or Aja. There is no such etymological derivation which has connection with Brahmā. Similarly, Oudh or Avadha in Sanskrit does not mean a promise as suggested by Carnegy on the basis of the explanation made by so-called Panditas. Avadha is an antonym of vadha and it simply means non-killing. Avadha is used in the Rigveda (I.185.3) and Sāyanāchārya has interpreted it as अवधम् अहिंसित् i.e. which cannot be i
njured, killed or destroyed.
Sāketa has been defined in V.S. Apte’s Sanskrit-Hindi Dictionary as सह आकेतेन i.e. with houses, buildings. Sāketa, too, has been lucidly defined in the Jain text Ādi-purāna composed by Āchārya Jinasena in the 8th century V.S. in Sanskrit:
साकेतरूढिरप्यस्याः श्लाघ्यैव स्वैर्निकेतनै।
स्वनिकेतमिवाह्वातुं साकूतै केतुबाहुभिः।। (12. 77)
Ayodhyā is known as Sāketa because of its magnificent buildings which had significant banners as their arms.
Here buildings have been personified.
In the Dhanadeva’s inscription also केतनं कारितम÷ is mentioned i.e. a house was built.
However, Hans Bakker has made a very inapprotriate, tedious derivation-
“The name Sãketa on the other hand is more difficult to account for. It may derive from the Sanskrit Sa + ketu ‘with banner’ – Saketava Saketu Sãketa.”
Kosala and Vinītā, too, have been derived in Ādi-Purāna in the following words:
सुकोशलेति च ख्यातिं सा देशाभिख्यां गता।
विनीतजनताकीर्णा विनीतेति च सा मता।। (12.78)
Ayodhyā is famous as सुकोशल because of its prosperity and good skill. It is known as विनीता because it is inhabitated by humble people.
(2) Location
Ayodhyā is an ancient town situated on the bank of the Sarayū river and having Lat. 26º45’. N. Long. 82º.10.E.
A confusing situation has been created by many modern historians who are not well versed in the Sanskrit language or who have a pre-determined agenda to follow. They have written long articles that the Ayodhyā mentioned in some Buddhist texts was situated on the bank of Gangā and not Sarayū and therefore different from the present-day Ayodhyā. Prof. K.N. Panikkar writes in an article titled ‘A Historical Overview’ in the anthology “Anatomy of Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India” edited by Sarvepalli Gopal:
“Buddhist texts also refer to Ayodhya as another town located on the river Ganga, and not, as is the site of the present-day Ayodhya, on the river ‘Sarayù’.”
Thus, they claim to have discovered many Ayodhyās. But this has happened either due to the lack of the knowledge of the Sanskrit/Pāli language or on account of a deliberate attempt to confound the issue.
In Sanskrit, Gangā means a specific river and also denotes any river. In Śabda-kalpa-druma Ganga’s another meaning is नदी सामान्येऽपि- स्प्तागङगम्. There is a Pānini-sūtra नदीभिश्च (2.1.20) and Siddhānta-kaumudī of Bhattoji Dikshita gives an instance स्प्तागङगम् (674) which means the confluence of seven rivers. Here Gangā is used in the sense of any river. Similar instances are given for Yamunā and Kāverī. In some dictionaries like V.S. Apte’s (Sanskrit-Hindi) and Śabda-kalapa-druma it is clarified that Gangā denotes any holy river नदी सामान्येऽपि. Thus, here Gangā is a substitute for Sarayū and Ayodhyā is perceived to be situated on the bank of Sarayū and not Gangā.
This is how Ayodhyā on the bank of the Sarayū and Kausāmbī on the Yamunā bank are shown to be situated on the bank of Gangā in the following references:
एकं समयं भगवा अयोज्झायं विहरति गंगाय नदिया तीरे।।
(Samyutta Nikāya, vol. III, 95, (3))
Once Lord Buddha was walking in Ayodhyā on the bank of the Gangā river.
Here the Gangā denotes the Sarayū.
Similarly, Kauśāmbī, which is on the bank of Yamunā, is shown to be on the bank of Gangā in the following sutta (Sūtra) of the ‘Samyutta-nikāya’.
एक समयं भगवा कोसम्बिय विहरति गंगाय नदिया तीरे।।
(Vol. 4.35.241. 205)
Once Lord Buddha was walking in Kauśāmbī on the bank of the Gangā river.
Here the Gangā denotes the Yamunā.
This connotation continues even in 18th century as Brooke’s General Gazetteer (Abridged, London, 1796 A.D.) shows Fyzabad Ayodhyā) on the bank of the river Gangā in the following description:
“OUDE, an ancient city of Hindoostan Proper, in the province of Oude, the remains of which are seated on the Ganges, nearly adjoining Fyzabad.”
It clears the confusion completely.
Hans Bakker is mainly responsible for creating another confusion by propounding the theory that Ayodhyā and Sāketa were two names of the city in two different periods. In his book ‘Ayodhyā’ he has written:
“The only question that remains to be solved is whether the Sãketa of both heterodox canons is identical with the Ayodhya of Epic Sanskrit literature. If one takes both names as toponyms of the site AY, as is mostly done, an explanation should be given as to why the Epic sources make absolutely no mention of the name Sãketa, while vice-versa the canonical literature never refers to site AY as Ayodhya.”
He has produced some charts to buttress the theory. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to say that Ayodhyā has not been mentioned in the Buddhist or Jain literature. ‘Ayojjhā’ has been mentioned in Samyutta-Nikāya and Ghata-Jātaka where it was the seat of King Kālasena. (IV. 82). In the Sārtha-ppakāsinī (II. 320) Buddhaghosha while commenting on Samyutta-Nikāya (III. 140) has written that the citizens of Ayujjhāpura built a Vihāra for Lord Buddha. Moreover, Kosala is another name for Ayodhyā and it has been freely used for Ayodhyā and Sāketa both in the traditional and canonical literature. In Jain literature Ayodhyā and Ikshvāku-bhūmi have been profusely used by the writers. Therefore, there should not be any doubt about the identity of both the names.
The pamphlet of 25 historians further added that the Ayodhyā of Vālmīki Rāmāyana was imposed on the city of Sāketa during the Gupta period. They wrote thus:
“The town of Saketa was renamed Ayodhya by a Gupta king Skanda Gupta, in the late fifth century A.D., moved his residence to Saketa and called it Ayodhya. He assumed the title Vikramãditya, which he used on his gold coins. Thus, what may have been the fictional Ayodhya of the epic poem was identified with Saketa quite late. This does not necessarily suggest that the Gupta king was a bhakt of Rama. In bestowing the name of Ayodhya on Saketa he was trying to gain prestige for himself by drawing on the tradition of the Suryavamshi kings, a line to which Rama is said to have belonged.”
The explanation is really infested with the दुर्व्याख्याविषमूर्च्छिता (poison by misinterpretation). Long before Skandagupta, Sāketa was called Ayodhyā by Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.
Bhāsa was a poet of pre-Gupta period to whom Kālidāsa made obeisance in Mālavikāgnimitram in the following words:
वर्तमानकवे कालिदासस्य क्रियायां कथं बहुमानः प्रथितयशसां भाससौमिल्लककविपुत्रदीनां प्रबन्धानतिक्रम्य...
Having ignored the works of highly reputed Bhāsa, Saummillaka, Kaviputra and others how is the composition of the present-day poet Kālidāsa getting preference?
Bhāsa, the great Sanskrit dramatist has mentioned Ayodhyā in his dramas ‘Pratimā’ and ‘Abhisheka’. In Pratimā Nātaka Bharata proclaims:
तत्र यास्यामि यत्रासौ वर्तते लक्ष्मणप्रियः।
नायोध्यां तं विनायोध्या सायोध्या यत्र राघवः।। (III. 24)
Now I go there where stays Rāma, the darling of Lakshmana. Without Rāma, this is not Ayodhyā. Ayodhyā is there where Rāghava resi
des.
Ayodhyā is beautifully portrayed in another Act of the same drama:
राम :- अद्यैव यास्यामि पुरीमयोध्यां सम्बन्धिमित्रैरनुगम्यमानः।।
लक्ष्मण :- अद्यैव पश्यन्तु च नागरास्त्वां चद्रं सनक्षत्रमिवोदयस्थम्।।
(Pratima. VII. 14)
Rāma – Today I, accompanied by relatives and friends, will go to Ayodhyā.
Lakshmana – Today citizens may see you appearing like a rising moon encircled by stars.
On linguistic and historical grounds V.R.R. Dikshitar held Bhāsa to be a predecessor of Kautilya; whereas A.D. Pusalker suggested that he was a senior contemporary of Kautilya.
The greatest poet of classical Sanskrit Kālidāsa and celebrated poet Kshemendra have referred to Ayodhyā and Sāketa without any reservation. In Raghuvamśa Kālidāsa has freely referred to Ayodhyā and Sāketa as the same city which has been the birthplace of Lord Rāma. In the 15th canto of Raghuvamśa Kālidāsa compares Ayodhyā during the performance of Yajña by Rāma to Brahmā in the following śloka:
उपशल्यनिविष्टैस्तैश्चतुर्द्वारमुखी बभौ।
अयोध्या सृष्टलोकेव सद्यः पैतामही तनु।। (15/60)
Ayodhyā, which was having guests and four gates in all the four directions, was shining like the body of four-faced Brahmā, expert in instant creation.
The confusion created by Hans Bakker and other historians that Sāketa and Ayodhyā were different cities at different times is best answered in the following lines of Raghuvamśa where Kālidāsa freely uses both names for the same city-
घसाकेतनार्योञ्जलिभिः प्रणेमु।च (14/13)
घसाकेतोपवनमुदारमध्युवास।च (13/79)
घपुरमविशदयोध्यां मैथिलीदर्शिनीनाम्।।च (11/93)
Ayodhya Revisited Page 7