Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  वक्रश्च स हतः संख्ये शतधन्वा च क्षत्रियः।।

  (Mahābhārata. Sabhā. 61.5)

  While citing the killings of kings by playing fraud Skandagupta, the Senāpati of Harsha, informs him that Jārūthya was killed by Ratnavatī with a mirror after betraying him. Who could be this king? After churning the ocean of historical texts it appears that he was probably the son of Jyeshthadatta of the Datta dynasty and his full name was Jārūthyadatta. As Bāna was fond of shortening or omitting names of kings, he wrote just Jārūthya. Bāna wrote the Harshacharitam in the first half of the seventh century and has referred to fraudulent assassination of many kings belonging to the Maurya, Sunga, Kanva and other dynasties. This inference is, therefore, not far from truth.

  (11) Suriratna, a Princess of Ayodhyā, became the Queen of the first Korean King

  According to a long-standing tradition prevalent in Korea a Princess of Ayodhyā, Suriratna by name, was married to a Korean King Kim Suro, the monarch of Kingdom Gaya (also known as Garak) located in the Korean country. As per the tradition, in July, 48 A.D. the Princess from the ancient sacred city of Ayodhyā embarked on her journey in a boat which anchored at a small harbour on the Korean peninsula. Her royal sojourn was in consequence to her father’s dream that she would get her husband in a small harbour in Korea. Upon her arrival, she was married to King Kim Suro who was the first King of the Korean Kingdom. After marriage, Suriratna’s name was changed to Heo Hwang Ko.

  King Suro is a historical figure who played a significant role in Korean history. The oldest reference to the history of King Kim Suro and Sūriratna is the ‘Garakuki’ in ‘Sangungnyusa’ or “The Heritage of the Three Kingdoms.” ‘Gurakuki’ was written in the 13th century by an author during the reign of the Goreo Dynasty (918-1392). This story was summarized subsequently by a monk and rewritten in Sangungnyusa.

  Queen Sūriratna (Heo) is said to have given birth to 10 children who became founders of many dynasties. The powerful dynasty of the Gimhae Kim clan was started by her offspring and today six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae, and Lee from Incheon, trace their ancestry to this royal couple.

  Fig.: 1.4 Tomb of Suriratna in South Korea

  This beautiful pagoda stands in front of Queen Heo’s tomb. It is said to have been built with stones, which were brought from Ayodhyā, at her command. Ayodhyā was visited in February, 2000 by the Mayor of Gimhae City Song Eum Bok along with a delegation and he proposed that a memorial to Princess Suriratna should be erected at Ayodhyā. Accordingly a memorial was established in 2001. A book “Sri Ratna Kim Suro’ (The Legend of Ayodhyā Princess in Korea) written by N. Parthasarathy was published by National Book Trust, New Delhi in 2013.

  Thus, a Princess from Ayodhyā established the first dynasty in distant Korea in the first century, and, it was a great achievement for a person from the sacred land of Ayodhyā.

  (12) Aśvaghosha, a native of Ayodhyā

  During the Kushāna period Ayodhyā’s greatness as a cultural seat can be understood from the fact that the great poet Aśvaghosha was a native of Sāketa. In the colophon of his literary works “Buddhacharitam, Saundaranandam and Sāriputra-prakaranam it is invariably mentioned:

  ‘‘आर्यसुवर्णाक्षीपुत्रस्य साकेतकस्य भिक्षोराचार्यभदन्ताश्वघोषस्य महाकवेर्महावादिनः कृतिरियम्च

  It is the work of Asvaghosha, who is the son of Suvarnākshī a native of Sāketa, Bhikshu, Āchārya, Bhadanta, a great poet and Mahāvādin.

  E.H. Johnston, the editor of Aśvaghosha’s Buddhacharitam has pointed out that ‘the lasting impression which the historical associations of Sāketa’ made on him is apparent both in the influence of the Rāmāyana reflected by his works and also in the emphasis which he lays on the very start of both poems on the descent of the Śākyas from the Ikshvāku dynasty. The translation of the first śloka of the Buddhacharitam by Johnston is –

  “There was a king of the unconquerable Shakyas, Suddhodana, by name, of the race of Ikshvãku and the peer of Ikshvãku in might. Pure he was in conduct and beloved of his people as the moon in autumn (or Harishchandra, according to another recension)”.

  Aśvaghosha had migrated from Sāketa to Pātaliputra as it is evident from the fact that he along with a wooden alms-pot of Buddha and a miracle cock were handed over to Kanishka by the defeated king of Pātaliputra against a ransom of 9 lakh gold coins demanded by the Kushāna King. It is mentioned in the ‘Dharmapitaka Sampradāya Nidāna Sūtra’.

  According to some Tibetan texts such as “Annals of the Li Country” Kanik Kanishka) in league with Vijayakīrti, son of Vijay Singh, King of Khotan had invaded India and conquered Soked (Sāketa). Thus, Sāketa was a very important town and mentioned in even Tibetan texts.

  On the conquest of Ayodhyā by the Kushāna Kings, Hans Bakker states:

  “After the conquest of the capital the Kushanas held sway over Kosala (including the country of Kashi) up to the second half of the 2nd century A.D. At this time Saketa was a prosperous town with high level of cultural life. Commerce flourished as never before, as appears for instance from sherds (i.e. historic or prehistoric fragment of pottery) of Rouletted Ware found at excavation of B.B. Lal. This phenomenon may well be regarded as signifying large-scale trade and commerce at Ayodhya in early centuries of the Christian era. From this period also dates the first archaeological evidence that testifies to the actual name of the town ‘Saketa’; an inscription in Late Kushana characters on the pedestal of a Buddha image found in stupa 9 in Sravasti ‘records its gift by one Simhadeva of Saketa.” (p.25)

  It indicates the state of affluence of the inhabitants of SāketaAyodhyā.

  Vāsudeva (145-176 A.D.) was the last mighty Kushāna emperor. After his demise the Mitra rulers of Ayodhyā asserted themselves, and established a dynasty which came into conflict with the rising Guptas in the beginning of the 4th Century A.D.

  (13) Belgaun Memorial Pillar Inscription of 105 A.D.

  This inscription was discovered by R.S. Panchamukhi, the then Director of the Kannada Research Institute, Dharwar in 1941-42 from a place called Vadagaon – Madhvavpur near Belgaun. It was studied at length by S. Sankaranarayan and his article was published in the Epigraphia Indica, XXXIV, pp. 183-188. The object of the epigraph is to commemorate the death of a scholar Somayaśas of Sāketa who had migrated to this place and settled there.

  The epigraph begins with an auspicious Svastika followed by the word ‘Sothi’ i.e. Svasti.

  The following is the content of the inscription in the contemporary Prākrita with Sanskrit reading.

  सोथि। सोमयससखम्भः मोलभन्धुवगेन काठञस सोमयसस कम्भो निथापितो गाढं असितिवाजपेयकाम्यकतुयायिस्य अनेकयञहोमधूमगाहितदिसाभागस अञखवेजस साकेतकस बलपार्यसखस कास्सपसगोत्रस स्वर्गतस दिव 10000 80 2

  स्वस्ति। सोमयशसः स्कम्भः [।] मौलबन्धुवर्गेण काठज्ञस्य सोमयशसः स्भों निष्ठापितो गाढं अशीतिवाजपेयकाम्यक्रतुयाजिनः अनेकयज्ञहोमधूमग्राहितदिसाभागस्य अनक्षवेद्यस्य साकेतकस्य बलपार्यसखस्य काश्यपसगोत्रस्य स्वर्गतस्य [।] दिवसे 10000 80 2 [।।],

  The pillar of Somayaśas was set up firmly by a group of his relatives who are called maulas, i.e. indigenous inhabitants. Somayaśas was a scholar of the Katha-śākhā (a branch of the Krishna
Yajurveda). He had performed 80 Vājapeya and wish-fulfilling sacrifices. The smokes arising from his sacrificial fires (homa-dhūma) enveloped all the directions. He knew things which are beyond visual perceptions. He was a resident of Sāketa. He was a friend of a gentleman named Balapa. He belonged to the Kāśyapa-gotra. He had gone to the heavens i.e. died.

  Then the date is indicated as 1000 + 80 + 2 = 10,082th day of an unspecified era which is rightly considered to be the Saka era. It comes to 105 A.D.

  From this inscription it is clear that even in the first and second centuries Ayodhyā was a centre of great learning. A scholar from Ayodhyā had conducted the performance of 80 Vedic scarifies and his fame was so wide that he was not only invited to settle down in the distant south of modern Karnataka state but a memorial was also firmly set up there to commerate the death of the great scholar.

  (14) Greek Geographer Ptolemy’s Account

  The Greek geographer Ptolemy (c. A.D. 90- c. 168 A.D.), who wrote in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., mentions Sāketa (Sagāda) as a metropolitan town. Hans Bakker is of the opinion that Ptolemy’s knowledge of Indian topography was based on Alexander’s campaign, Megasthenes’ account ‘The Indica’ and direct acquaintance of Greek Kings with India.

  J.W. Mc Crindle, who was Principal of the Government College, Patna, Fellow of the University of Calcutta and Member of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh, gives the following account of Ayodhyā in his book ‘Ancient India as Described by Ptolemy’ in 1885:

  Sagoda: There can be no doubt of the identity of this place with Ayodhya, the capital of Kosala, under the name of Saktëa or Saëgda. Sakyamuni spent the last days of his life in this city, and during his sojourn the ancient name of Ayodhya gave place to that of Sakëta, the only one current, Hindu lexicographers give Sakëta and Kosala (or Kosala) as synonyms of Ayodhya. The place is now called Audh, and is on the right bank of the Sarayû or Ghaghra, near Faizabad, a modern town, built from its ruins. At some distance north from Audh is the site of Srãvastï, one of the most celebrated cities in the annals of Buddhism. For the identity of Sakëta with Ayodhya and also Visakha see Cunningham, Geog. of Anc. Ind., pp. 401 sqq.” (pp. 228-229)

  Thus, Ayodhyā was not only a flourishing town but a very important commercial centre and army base too.

  (15) Ayodhyā during the Gupta period

  The Gupta period is golden age not only in the general history of India but in the regional history of Ayodhyā also. A large number of gold coins discovered from Ayodhyā is a testimony to the golden period of Ayodhyā.

  The rise of the Gupta power begins with the territories of Prayāga, Sāketa and Magadha. The following śloka found in many Purānas with some variation is a testimony to the fact:

  अनुगङगं प्रयागं च साकेतं मगधांस्तथा।

  एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते गुप्तवंशजाः।।

  Vāyu Purāna, Uttarārdha, 37.377)

  The descendants of the Gupta will enjoy the territories of Prayāga on the Gangā, Sāketa and Magadha.

  From the Gayā inscription of Samudragupta, considered spurious by many, it appears that there was a great ‘Jaya-skandhāvāra’ (i.e. army camp for victory) of the Guptas at Ayodhyā. This inscription belongs to the 8th century and is an intimation of some genuine inscription which shows that there was an army contigent at Ayodhyā during the reign of Samudragupta.

  In an article ‘A classified and detailed catalogue of the gold coins of the imperial Gupta dynasty of Northern India’ published in the ‘Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal’ (Vol. 53, year 1884, pp. 153-54) V.A. Smith wrote that ‘A. Grant had discovered a large number of gold coins from Ayodhyā out of which ten gold coins were issued by Samudragupta, four by Chandragupta II, three by Kumāragupta and one by Skandagupta. In addition, a large number of copper coins of the Gupta emperors discovered at Ayodhyā forced Smith and other historians to presume that the Guptas had a mint at Ayodhyā’.

  The Karmadandā inscription of Prithvīsena, a Minister of Kumāragupta, was discovered at the base of a Śivalinga in this village at a distance of 25 km from Ayodhyā. It is very important because it shows that Ayodhyā was vibrant with Vedic scholars who were taken outside Ayodhyā for various rituals. The reference is as follows:

  आयोध्यक-नानागोत्र-चरण-तपःस्वाध्याय-मत्र-सूत्र-भाष्य-प्रवचन-पारग- भारडिदसमद-देवद्रोण्यां

  It shows that Ayodhyā had a large number of scholars of different ‘gotra, charana, who were expert in Tapas, Svādhyāya, Mantra, Sūtra, Bhāshya, Pravachana, etc.’ The army of such a large number of scholars in various branches could not be raised in few years; it requires decades to raise such a team of scholars. Therefore, Ayodhyā was a centre of learning for long.

  Chandragupta II Vikramāditya’s name is associated with Ayodhyā in local legends. He is said to have rehabilitated Ayodhyā which had become desolate after Rāma’s son Kuśa’s decision to transfer the capital from Ayodhyā to Kuśāvatī and is credited to have established 360 temples in the town which was once the cradle of Rāma and capital of the Kosala kingdom. Although this tradition does not appear to be very sound, Vikramāditya was indeed associated with Ayodhyā, and so was Vasubandhu who lived here and taught one of the sons of Vikramāditya.

  (16) Vasubandhu and Ayodhyā

  Vasubandhu’s biography had been written by two illustrious authors-Kumārajīva (344-413 A.D.) and Paramārtha (499-569 A.D.). Unfortunately, the biography written by Kumārajīva is not extant. However, the biography written by Paramārtha is available in Chinese. It has been translated into English by Japanese scholar J. Takakusu. Paramārtha was born at Ujjayinī in 499 A.D. He went to China in 546 A.D. and died at Canton in 569 A.D. His biography of Vasubandhu is considered to be a work by some of his disciples based on the narratives made by Paramārtha. According to this biography Asanga, Vasubandhu and Virañchi Vatsa were brothers and born at Purushapura. They were sons of a Brahmin mother Kauśika by name or gotra. Vasubandhu, after getting education in Kashmir, came to Ayodhyā and settled there and lived till his death at the age of 80. He was employed by a king Vikramāditya to teach his son Bālāditya. On that basis Hans Bakker and some historians have equated this Vikramāditya with Skandagupta.

  Hans Bakker is fond of pronouncing judgments more on speculations than on historical facts. There is no mention of Skandagupta’s name either in Paramārth’s “Life of Vasubandhu” or Yuan Chwang’s ‘Si-yu-ki’. Neverthless Bakker describes it with an aura of authenticity:

  “From Paramartha’s Life of Vasubandhu, and Heuan Tsang’s ‘Si-yu-ki’ we gather the following information about Saketa/Ayodhya in the middle of the 5th century A.D. King Skandagupta was a patron of the learned. Various religious teachers and artists resided at his court in Ayodhya. Of the teachers the most famous was Vasubandhu II, and Kãlidãsa may have been one of the artists as has been argued above.” (p. 31)

  His presumption is that Skandagupta after his victory over Hunas had become a devout of Lord Rāma and shifted the capital from Pātaliputra to Ayodhyā for having better watch over the activities of the Hunas. It is just a speculation and there is not an iota of historical evidence to substantiate this. Hans Bakker’s following comments in his book Ayodhyā are also without any historical evidence:

  “The vanquisher of the Hûnas, Skandagupta, liked to compare himself with Rama ([maha] balavikra[me]na r[ama] [tu]lyo), and the choice of Saketa/Ayodhya as new capital may have offered good opportunities to invigorate the ideology of his power. The restoration of the capital of yore, the renaissance of the glory of the Iksvakus, was a theme that was prominent in circles attached to the Gupta court of this time. Kãlidãsa, who lived in the middle of the 5th century A.D., may have projected the actual events in the realm of sag
a by relating (for the first time) in the Raghuvamśa, the story of Rãma’s son Kuśa returning to the capital of his forbears in order to restore her ancient magnificence. By the explicit identification of Ayodhyã with Sãketa the poet may have endeavoured to endorse the aspirations of his patron, the Gupta emperor. The latter probably procured the adherence of the Brahmanical fold by reinforcing the traditional lore. There is a persistent local tradition in Ayodhyã that ascribes the rediscovery of the town to a king Vikramãditya. Although not found in Sanskrit literature, it appears in almost all (modern) Hindí works dealing with Ayodhyã. This oral tradition was reported by Martin in 1838, and after him again by Cunningham and Carnegy.” (p. 30)

  Had Bakker’s work been a fiction, I would have admired his power of fictional imagery. But he is writing a ‘well-researched’ book on history and therefore he should be exposed as to how he has misled readers. Paramārtha’s biography of Vasubandhu merely says that a king Vikramāditya had employed Vasubandhu to teach his son Bālāditya at Ayodhyā. The identification of Vikramāditya with Skandagupta is of least probability because there is no mention of Skandagupta’s any son in any literary or epigraphic source. There is a detailed desecription of Skandagupta’s various activities in Junagarh and Bhitari inscriptions and there is not a slight hint that he ever shifted his capital or court to Ayodhyā. Bringing Kālidāsa to Skandagupta’s court is ridiculous because shifting him from the court of Vikramāditya of Ujjain in 57 B.C. to the court of Chandragupta II Vikramāditya (375-415 A.D.) is all right but how could he live up to the court of Skandagupta is beyond comprehension.

  The identification of the Vikramāditya with Skandagupta is not correct for the following factors:

  Vasubandhu’s elder brother Asanga’s Bodhi-sattva-bhūmi was translated into the Chinese in the years 414-421 A.D.

  Vasubandhu’s treatise on Āryadeva’s Śataśāstra was translated by Kumārajīva (344-413 A.D.) in 404 A.D. and in his another work Bodhi-chittotpādana he has claimed that he had received Vasubandhus’ Saddharma-pundarīkopades’a from Suryasoma. In addition, Bodhisuchi, while translating Vasubandhu’s Vajra-chhedikā Prajñā-pāramitā-śāstra in 535 A.D., wrote that Vasubandhu had lived 200 years ago. All these evidences prove that Vasubandhu belonged to the fourth century.