Vṛddhekṣvākuvratam. The commentators’ interpretations of the passages describing the renunciation of kings in the Raghuvaṃśa

Abstract

At the end of their life, after transferring the kingdom to their grown-up sons, several kings of the Sūryavaṃśa chose to retire from the world and devoted their last years to asceticism and meditation. The verses of the Raghuvaṃśa describing these kings show considerable variation mainly along the lines of which āśrama (stage of life) the king enters at the end of his life. In many cases the commentators discuss these variants and argue pro and contra the availability of saṃnyāsa for people of royal status, thus participating in a larger mediaeval debate observable in texts on dharmaśāstra. This paper takes into consideration former studies on the subject by Tsuchida, Olivelle and Goodall, and most importantly discusses both published and unpublished commentaries on the Raghuvaṃśa, examining what authorities they quote to give support to their views on this dharmaśāstric issue, as well as the efforts they make to present the Raghuvaṃśa as being both internally consistent and in harmony with the teachings on dharma they consider valid.

1. Introduction

In his article Die Weltentsagung der Ikṣvāku-Könige Ryutaro Tsuchida examined those passages of the Raghuvaṃśa which describe kings who withdraw from the world at the end of their life. Tsuchida distinguished two groups: to the first belong those kings who in their old age transfer the kingdom to their worthy sons and retire to the forest to live as hermits and strive for liberation from the cycle of rebirths; the kings of the second group end their lives voluntarily at a sacred bathing place (tīrtha) and then are reborn in heaven among the gods. The custom that characterises the first group is said to be the “family vow”, kulavrata, of the Ikṣvāku dynasty in Kālidāsa’s epic (3:70). As Tsuchida pointed out, we find references to the same practice of the kings of this royal family already in the Mahābhārata (Parikṣit in 3.190:43) and the Harivaṃśa (Trayyāruṇa in 9:94). Moreover, it is not just the kings of the Solar line who ended their lives as forest hermits: the most famous examples from the Mahābhārata are Yayāti (1.81:10ff.), Pāṇḍu (1.110:29ff) and Dhṛtarāṣṭra (15.5:18ff).

Tsuchida is of the view that the “forest life”, vanavāsa, of kings in their old age was an ancient custom that was probably independent of the development of the four āśramas, but in the course of time it was fitted into the frame of the āśrama-theory. Kālidāsa was already familiar with the system of the āśramas as consecutive life-stages and he also knew the Manusṃrti which describes the āśramas as such. The retiring kings of the Raghuvaṃśa were usually identified by the commentators as vānaprasthas (belonging to the third life-stage). But the picture is not that straightforward: certain verses in the Raghuvaṃśa could be, and indeed have been interpreted as making the fourth life-stage, saṃnyāsa, an available option for kings.

Tsuchida relied on Dwivedi’s (1993) and Nandargikar’s (1982) editions of the Raghuvaṃśa and on the whole followed the text known to Mallinātha, only rarely referring to variant readings. The present article is partly the outcome of the ongoing text-critical work on the first known commentary of the Raghuvaṃśa, that of Vallabhadeva (10th century, Kashmir), and will focus on the divergent interpretations and variant readings in the mediaeval commentaries of Kālidāsa’s epic. The commentators, as we will see, participated in the intellectual debates of their era on the problematic issues of dharmaśāstra, such as the availability of certain life-stages for certain varṇas.

Olivelle in his book The Āśrama System wrote in some detail about the different opinions we find in Sanskrit texts concerning the correlation between the four varṇas and the four āśramas. The Vaikhānasa Dharmasūtra (1.1) and the Vāmana Purāṇa (15.62–63) assert that only the brāhmaṇas are entitled to all four life-stages, which means that from the kṣatriyas down the fourth āśrama, saṃnyāsa was not an option. In the Mahābhārata Bhīma argues to Yudhiṣṭhira that a kṣatriya, unlike a brāhmaṇa, should not subsist on begging (yācñā, bhaikṣacaryā, 3.34.49–50). In the Rāmāyaṇa when Rāvaṇa appears as a wandering ascetic, parivrājaka, before Sītā, she immediately supposes that he is a brāhmaṇa (3.44.33, 3.45.1–2). In the mediaeval period the majority view seems to have been that only brāhmaṇas are entitled to enter the fourth āśrama and become wandering ascetics. This view is expressed by Śaṅkara in his commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, but interestingly Sureśvara in his subcommentary defends the position that saṃnyāsa is open to all three twice-born varṇas. Most mediaeval authorities on dharmaśāstra held that only brāhmaṇas could become saṃnyāsins, but we also find examples of the view that did not limit access to the final āśrama to brāhmaṇas. For example the fourteenth-century digest, the Madanapārijāta, defends the position that the fourth āśrama is available for all three twice-born varṇas.

As we are going to see, the mediaeval commentators of the Raghuvaṃśa also differed on the question whether the kings of the Solar Line could become saṃnyāsins at the end of their life. On the following pages I quote the following commentaries:

• –Vallabhadeva’s Pañcikā (10th century, Kashmir)
• –Mallinātha’s Saṃjīvinī (14–15th century, Andhra)
• –Aruṇagirinātha’s Prakāśikā (14–15th century, Kerala)
• –Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita’s Padārthadīpikā (16th century, Kerala)
• –Hemādri’s Darpaṇa (15th century?)
• –Jinasamudra’s Ṭīkā (15th century)
• –Śrīnātha’s Ṭīkā (before 1473/4 CE)
• –Vaidyaśrīgarbha’s Ṭīkā (date unknown)

I am also going to refer to other unpublished commentaries, for instance that of Cāritravardhana, relying on Nandargikar’s notes in his edition of Mallinātha’s Saṃjīvinī.

2. The vanavāsa of the kings of the Ikṣvāku dynasty in the Raghuvaṃśa

In the introductory portion of the Raghuvaṃśa the following verse describes the descendants of Ikṣvāku:

śaiśave ’bhyastavidyānāṃ yauvane viṣayaiṣiṇām |vārddhake munivṛttīnāṃ yogenānte tanutyajām || 1:8 ||… studious in childhood, pursuing the pleasures of the senses in youth, living as sages in old age, renouncing their bodies by yoga at the end …

The four characteristics of the way these kings lived their life could be projected on the four stages of life taught in the dharmaśāstras, but they could also be interpreted more or less independently from the four āśramas. Vallabhadeva identifies only the third pāda as describing an āśrama, namely that of a vānaprastha, but the fourth pāda he takes as referring only to the way of dying, not to the fourth life-stage. Here he glosses yoga as samādhi, an early attestation of the usage of the word samādhi in the sense of a yogic way of death through meditation. Śrīnātha’s interpretation is similar to Vallabhadeva’s. Mallinātha also holds that the third pāda is about vānaprasthāśrama, and he says that the fourth pāda suggests the reaching of liberation, mokṣa. Aruṇagirinātha thinks the verse indicates that the kings embraced the first three āśramas beginning with brahmacarya. He also regards the last pāda as a reference to mokṣa, but then he mentions and explicitly rejects the possibility that the fourth pāda could refer to the fourth āśrama, saṃnyāsa. He points out that only a brāhmaṇa has the right to enter the fourth āśrama, and quotes Dattātreya as a supporting authority:

mukhajānām ayaṃ dharmo yad viṣṇor liṅgadhāraṇam |bāhujātorujātānām ayaṃ dharmo na vidyate ||Those born from the mouth [of Puruṣa, i.e. brāhmaṇas] have the right to bear Viṣṇu’s sign. Those born from the arms and the thighs [of Puruṣa, i.e. kṣatriyas and vaiśyas] do not have this right.

Then he cites two verses from the eight sarga, 8:12 and 14, in which Kālidāsa himself affirms, at least in Aruṇagirinātha’s view, that for a kṣatriya the last stage of life was the vānaprasthāśrama.

At the end of his life King Dilīpa retired to the forest together with his wife:

atha sa viṣayavyāvṛttātmā yathāvidhi sūnavenṛpatikakudaṃ dattvā yūne sitātapavāraṇam |munivanatarucchāyāṃ devyā tayā saha śiśriyegalitavayasām Ikṣvākūṇām idaṃ hi kulavratam || 3:70 ||

Then, as his spirit turned away from sensory pleasures, he handed over the white parasol, emblem of kingship, to his young son in accordance with precept, and with his queen sought refuge in the shade of the trees of a sages’ grove. For such was the family observance of the Ikṣvākus when their prime had passed.

This verse makes it clear that according to the family custom of the Sūryavaṃśa its kings spent their last years in a forest hermitage. Dilīpa was accompanied by his wife, which calls to mind the words of Kaṇva in the Abhijñānaśākuntala, when he reassures Śakuntalā that they will meet again when she and her husband move to the sage’s āśrama at the end of their life. Vallabhadeva in his commentary on the above verse calls the “family observance” tapovanasevana, “living in a penance grove”. This time it is Hemādri who explicitly identifies Dilīpa’s life in the forest as vānaprasthāśrama, and quotes Yājñavalkyasmṛti 3:44 for corroboration.

Another reference to this “family observance” of the Ikṣvāku kings is in 12:20:

rāmo ’pi saha vaidehyā vane vanyena vartayan |cacāra sānujaḥ śānto vṛddhekṣvākuvrataṃ yuvā ||As for Rāma, together with Vaidehī and with Lakṣmaṇa, living on what the forest yielded, he kept, though still a youth, the observance of the Ikṣvākus when old.

Both Mallinātha and Hemādri gloss vṛddhekṣvākuvrata with vanavāsa, “living in the forest”. In verse 12:8 Rāma is described as donning bark garments (cīre ca parigṛhṇataḥ in Vallabhadeva’s, Śrīnātha’s and Vaidyaśrīgarbha’s versions, vasānasya ca valkale in the other commentaries), in preparation for life in the forest (vanavāsārthe), as the Keralan commentators point out.

In the 18th sarga, a catalogue of kings, we read about a couple of rulers who ended their lives as forest hermits. King Nala, after transferring the kingdom to his son, “kept company, taught by old age, with the deer, so that he may not take a bodily form again” (18:7: mṛgair ajaryaṃ jarasopadiṣṭam adehabandhāya punar babandha). Vallabhadeva comments that Nala “moved to a penance grove” (tapovanaṃ yayāv ity arthaḥ); Mallinātha similarly says that “he went to the forest for the sake of liberation” (mokṣārthaṃ vanaṃ gata ity arthaḥ). King Viśvasaha chose to end his life in the same way:

pitā pitṝṇām anṛnas tam ante vayasy anantāni sukhāni lipsuḥ |rājānam ājānuvilambibāhuṃ kṛtvā kṛtī valkadharo babhūva ||[Hiraṇyanābha’s] father, once he was free from the debt to his ancestors, wishing to obtain endless pleasures, at the end of his life made him, whose arms reached down to his knees, king, and being satisfied, he donned bark-garments.

Vallabhadeva glosses valkadharo babhūva with tapaś cacāra, “he performed asceticism”, and adds: yato mokṣāptyānantāni sukhāni labdhukāmaḥ, “since he wished to obtain endless pleasures by attaining liberation”. Jinasamudra says that Viśvasaha became an ascetic (tapasvī), while Śrīnātha identfies him as a muni, whose “endless pleasures arise from the state of liberation” (anantāni sukhāni muktidaśotpannāni). Mallinātha also thinks that the king became a mumukṣu, “one who strives after liberation”, and he “went to the forest”, vanaṃ gataḥ. Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita identifies the last years of the king with vānaprasthāśrama.

King Kausalya (or Kauśalya) is said to have reached the state of becoming one with brahman (brahmabhūyaṃ gatiṃ ājagāma), which the commentators identify with liberation from saṃsāra. This time Kālidāsa does not allude to the king becoming a forest hermit. Another king, Brahmiṣṭha (or Puṣya according to Mallinātha and Jinasamudra) also strove for mokṣa in his final years:

mahīṃ mahecchaḥ parikīrya sūnau manīṣiṇe jaiminaye ’rpitātmā |tasmāt sayogād adhigamya yogam ajanmane ’kalpata janmabhīruḥ ||Having handed over the earth to his son, the magnanimous king devoted himself to the sage Jaimini, and having mastered yoga from him, who possessed yoga, he partook of no rebirth, afraid as he was of being born again.

In Vallabhadeva’s understanding of the verse the king became the disciple of the sage Jaimini (whom he identifies with Yājñavalkya), and in the end he attained mokṣa. The other commentators interpret the verse along the same lines, and although Kālidāsa does not make it explicit, one might suppose that the old king moved to Jaimini’s āśrama in the forest.

Finally Sudarśana, having consecrated Agnivarṇa as king, is said to have moved to the Naimiṣa forest in his last years (śiśriye … paścime vayasi naimiṣaṃ, 19:1). Vallabhadeva interprets Sudarśana’s attribute, śrutavatām apaścimaḥ, “first among the learned”, as follows: etad eva hi pāṇḍityaṃ yad vārddhake tapovanāśrayaṇam, “for this is exactly what his erudition was, namely resorting to a penance grove in old age”. Aruṇagirinātha thinks that Kālidāsa refers to Sudarśana as “the descendant of Raghu”, rāghava, to suggest the figure of substantiation (arthāntaranyāsa), for the epithet hints at the fact that retiring to the forest was the dharma of those born in Raghu’s lineage. Sudarśana lived the life of a forest hermit, accumulating ascetic merit, without longing for any fruit or result (saṃcikāya phalaniḥspṛhas tapaḥ, 19:2), which the commentators take to mean that he did not long for heaven but strove to attain liberation.

As we have seen in the above discussed verses, the “observance of the old Ikṣvāku kings” (vṛddhekṣvākuvratam) consisted in donning bark garments and retiring to the forest after entrusting the kingdom to a worthy son. The kings who chose this way of life lived as forest hermits and practiced tapas and yoga in order to attain liberation from the cycle of rebirths. Some commentators identified the last years of these kings with the third life-stage, vānaprasthāśrama.

3. King Raghu’s renunciation

The above quoted verses of the Raghuvaṃśa have been transmitted without much variation and we have not seen major differences in the commentators’ interpretations either. Quite different is the case concerning the last years of king Raghu, described in the eight sarga of the epic: here we come across significant variant readings and the commentators often disagree. Sarga 7 ends with Raghu wishing to put down the burden of kingship:

prathamaparigatārthas taṃ raghuḥ saṃnivṛttaṃvijayinam abhinandya ślāghyajāyāsametam |tadupahitakuṭumbaś cīram ādātum aicchatna hi sati kuladhurye sūryavaṃśyā gṛhāya || 7:71 ||

Raghu, who had already learnt all that had happened, shared Aja’s joy when he returned victorious in the company of his praiseworthy wife. He handed over to the prince the cares of the household and was eager to put on bast garments; for, when a son is ready to support the family, kings of the solar line will not remain householders.

The scene is familiar: the old king entrusts the kingdom to his worthy son and retires from worldly life. The fourth pāda refers to the “family observance” of the descendants of Ikṣvāku: this is how Śrīnātha understands the expression na gṛhāya when he adds: vanaṃ gacchanti, “they move to the forest”. The word gṛhāya stands for gṛhasthāśrama according to Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita (verse 68 in their text), which means that these kings left the second life-stage behind. In the third pāda the reading cīram ādātum aicchat is that of Vallabhadeva, Śrīnātha (verse 69 in his text) and probably Vaidyaśrīgarbha (verse 62); Hemādri also mentions this reading as a pāṭhāntara (with ādhātum instead of ādātum). Vallabhadeva and Hemādri gloss cīra with valkala, “bark-cloth”, Śrīnātha with munivastra, “a holy man’s garment”, Vaidyaśrīgarbha with yatīnāṃ vāsaḥ, “the garment of ascetics”. In Vallabhadeva’s interpretation the text implies that Raghu wanted to retire to the forest. Mallinātha, the two Keralan commentators, Hemādri and Jinasamudra read the third pāda as śāntimārgotsuko ’bhūt, “became eager to join the path to peace” (in the place of cīram ādātum aicchat). Mallinātha glosses śāntimārga with mokṣamārga, “the path to liberation”, while Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita says that Raghu “was ready to move to the forest” (vanaṃ gantum udyukto ’bhūd ity arthaḥ). Jinasamudra also understands śāntimārga as vanavāsa, “living in the forest”.

The last verse of the 7th sarga shows us Raghu handing over the kingdom to prince Aja and wishing to retire from the life-stage of a householder. Both readings of pāda c can and have been interpreted by the commentators as a preparation for vanavāsa, dwelling in the forest, though cīra, “bark garment” is perhaps a clearer indicator than the more general śāntimārga, “path to peace”. The latter reading could be taken, in theory, as pointing to the fourth āśrama, saṃnyāsa, though none of the commentators have chosen this interpretation.

The 10th verse of the next sarga repeats the same idea with different words. The following is the reading known to Vallabhadeva (and probably also to Vaidyaśrīgarbha):

atha vīkṣya guṇaiḥ pratiṣṭhitaṃ prakṛtiṣv ajam ābhigāmikaiḥ |padavīṃ pariṇāmadeśitāṃ raghur ādatta vanāntagāminīm || 8:10 ||When he saw Aja firmly established among his subjects, thanks to the virtues that made him approachable, Raghu took the path old age dictated that leads to the forest.

As Vallabhadeva points out, the verse clearly indicates that Raghu “wanted to betake himself to a penance grove” (tapovanam āśrayitum aicchat). The fact that this decision was “dictated by old age” hints at the “family custom” of the kings of the Ikṣvāku dynasty. In Vallabhadeva’s version of the text this verse and the last verse of sarga 7 state the same thing: Raghu wanted to live his final years as a forest-dweller.

Mallinātha, however, knew a different reading of 8:10:

atha vīkṣya raghuḥ pratiṣṭhitaṃ prakṛtiṣv ātmajam ātmavittayā |viṣayeṣu vināśadharmasu tridivastheṣv api niḥspṛho ’bhavat || 8:10 ||When Raghu saw that his son was well established among his subjects, he became indifferent even towards heavenly enjoyments, which are perishable, because he knew the Self.

Hemādri, Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita comment on a similar version with the variant reading ātmavattayā, “because he was self-possessed”; Hemādri takes this word to refer to Aja, Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita connects it with Raghu, while Aruṇagirinātha is not clear on this point. In this version of the verse, instead of a reference to vanavāsa, Raghu is presented as striving for a goal higher than the pleasures of heaven. His aim is an imperishable state, which we can safely identify with mokṣa, liberation from saṃsāra. Raghu’s turning away from impermanent pleasures matches the reading śāntimārgotsuko ’bhūt, “became eager to join the path to peace”, in the last verse of sarga 7, a reading also supported by the South Indian commentaries. From Nandargikar’s notes on 8:10 we know that the commentator Cāritravardhana knew both versions, but called the one known to Vallabhadeva the mūlapāṭha, “original reading”. Śrīnātha also commented on both versions of the verse, first on the one transmitted by Hemādri and then on Vallabhadeva’s text.

The following verse also has significant variant readings. This is Vallabhadeva’s version:

guṇavatsv adhiropitaśriyaḥ pariṇāme hi dilīpavaṃśajāḥ |padavīṃ taruvalkavāsasāṃ yadi vā saṃyamināṃ prapedire || 8:11 ||For in old age the scions of Dilīpa’s line would transfer their royal majesty to the worthy and take the path of bark-clad hermits, or of ascetics.

In his commentary Vallabhadeva says, “in their old age the kings of Dilīpa’s line took the path of bark-clad forest-dwellers, belonging to the third āśrama, or the parth of ascetics (yatīnāṃ), mendicants (bhikṣūṇāṃ)”. Śrīnātha probably read avaropitaśriyaḥ, but the rest of his version seems to agree with Vallabhadeva’s. He also identifies the bark-clad hermits as vānaprasthas and the ascetics as members of the fourth āśrama. Vaidyaśrīgarbha’s commentary contains the words vānaprasthānāṃ and bhikṣūṇāṃ, but it is not clear if in his reading the verse contained the two alternatives connected with yadi vā.

The other commentators read the verse differently, without the words yadi vā in the last pāda. This is Mallinātha’s, Hemādri’s and the two Keralan commentators’ version:

gunavatsutaropitaśriyaḥ pariṇāme hi dilīpavaṃśajāḥ |padavīṃ taruvalkavāsasāṃ prayatāḥ saṃyamināṃ prapedire || 8:11 ||For in old age the scions of Dilīpa’s line would transfer their royal majesty to worthy sons and, restrained, take the path of bark-clad ascetics.

Nandargikar in his footnote to the verse points out that the commentators Cāritravardhana, Dinakara and Sumativijaya read yaminaḥ instead of prayatāḥ, and the same is probably true about Jinasamudra. Both Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita are emphatic that the Ikṣvāku-kings became vānaprasthas in their old age, because kṣatriyas do not have the right to become saṃnyāsins. Therefore, instead of interpreting saṃyamināṃ as yatīnāṃ or bhikṣūṇāṃ, Aruṇagirinātha glosses the word with śāntiparāṇāṃ, “devoted to peace”, while Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita with jitendriyāṇāṃ, “those who have conquered their senses”. Hemādri also takes the bark-clad saṃyamins to be vānaprasthas. Mallinātha, on the other hand, glosses saṃyamināṃ with yatīnāṃ, which usually is a synonym of saṃnyāsin.

This verse appears to be another reference to the “family observance” of the Raghu-dynasty, but the two versions show two different scenarios. The one containing the words yadi vā presents two alternative ways in which the kings spent their last years: they became either forest-dwellers (bark garments have been the sign of this group in previous verses) or saṃnyāsins. The version without yadi vā refers to only one way of life, which most of the commentaries equate with vānaprasthāśrama. The fact that there are two variant readings of yadi vā suggests that perhaps the verse was altered in order to eliminate the option and especially the alternative of the fourth āśrama, and both prayatāḥ and yaminaḥ were independent attempts in this direction.

In the following verse (8:12) Raghu is “about to retire to the forest” (araṇyasamāśrayonmukha, a reading shared by all commentators), but Aja beseeches his father not to abandon him. Hemādri quotes here Manusmṛti 6:2 concerning the qualification to become a vānaprastha:

gṛhasthas tu yadā paśyed valīpalitam ātmanaḥ |sāpatyo nirapatyo vā tadāraṇyaṃ samāśrayet ||When a householder sees his skin wrinkled, his hair turned gray, whether he has children or is childless, he should take to the wilderness. (tr. Olivelle, modified)

Kālidāsa’s expression seems to echo the phrasing of this Manusmṛti-verse. Mallinātha avoids naming the third āśrama explicitly, his gloss is vanavāsodyukta, “ready for dwelling in the forest”. In verse 13 we read that Raghu accepted his son’s request, which means, according to Vallabhadeva, that he “agreed to turn back from dwelling in the forest” (vanavāsān nirvṛttim aṅgīcakāra). On the other hand Raghu did not resume his royal majesty again. As Hemādri says, “he remained there in the state of indifference” (audāsīnyena tatra sthitaḥ). We can thus conclude that Raghu, though he wanted to follow the “family observance” of the Ikṣvāku-kings, in the end did not adopt vanavāsa, but stayed close to his son. If we follow the interpretation of those commentators who identify the kings’ forest life with the third āśrama, we can say that Raghu did not become a vānaprastha.

The first half of the next verse is transmitted in two different versions. Vallabhadeva, Śrīnātha and Vaidyaśrīgarbha commented on the following text:

sa bahiḥ kṣitipālaveśmano nivasann āvasathe yativrataḥ |samupāsyata putrabhogyayā snuṣayevāvikṛtendriyaḥ śriyā || 8:14 ||He lived in a dwelling outside the palace, keeping the vows of an ascetic. There Royal Fortune waited on him like a daughter-in-law, but she was now enjoyed by his son, and he remained indifferent to her attractions.

Vallabhadeva glosses yativrataḥ with niyamadhārī, “keeping observances”, while in Śrīnātha’s interpretation it means “one whose vow is like that of the ascetics” (yatīnām iva vrato yasya). Vaidyaśrīgarbha takes the expression to mean “one who has adopted celibacy” (gṛhītabrahmacaryaḥ). It seems all three of them avoid identifying yati as saṃnyāsin in one way or another. As for the dwelling where Raghu settled, Śrīnātha takes it to be a yajñaśālā, “sacrificial hall”, while Vaidyaśrīgarbha uses the word agnigṛha, “a house for keeping the sacred fire”. If this implies that Raghu continued to perform fire-sacrifices, then this means that he did not live as a true saṃnyāsin. Wandering about and begging for food are also characteristic marks of the fourth āśrama, but Raghu did not practise either of those.

Mallinātha, Aruṇagirinātha, Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita, Hemādri and Jinasamudra all read the first two pādas as follows:

sa kilāśramam antyam āśrito nivasann āvasathe purād bahiḥ |Resorting to the last stage of life, they say he lived in a dwelling outside the city.

Both Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita identify, somewhat counter-intuitively, “the last stage of life” as vānaprasthāśrama, as does Hemādri, who also adds a reason for this interpretation: “because it is taught that saṃnyāsa is only for brahmins” (brāhmaṇasyaiva saṃnyāsa ity uktatvāt). The “dwelling” to which Raghu moved was a “leaf-hut” (uṭaja) according to the Keralan commentators. Most interesting is Mallinātha’s long commentary on this verse, in which he argues that “the last stage of life” means, as one would expect, the fourth āśrama. First he quotes śruti and smṛti passages that some people adduce to prove that only brahmins have the right to become saṃnyāsins. Then he quotes Jābāla Upaniṣad 4: yad ahar eva virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet, “let him become a mendicant ascetic on the very day that he becomes detached”, and adds that this śruti passage applies to all three upper varṇas. Then he quotes the proposition of a sūtrakāra: trayāṇāṃ varṇānāṃ vedam adhītya catvāra āśramāḥ, “after studying the Veda, the four āśramas are available for the three varṇas”, and then he cites a smṛti passage: brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyo vāpi vaiśyo vā pravrajed gṛhāt, “a brahmin, a kṣatriya, or a vaiśya may go forth from home [i.e. they may become saṃnyāsins]”. Mallinātha then argues that the prohibition expressed in the verse of Dattātreya actually only concerns the carrying of the tripple staff, and not saṃnyāsa tout court. On the basis of these passages, and because in some texts the word brāhmaṇa has a synecdochical meaning, some people hold that all the upper three varṇas have the right to enter the fourth āśrama. In Mallinātha’s view, Kālidāsa’s position was precisely this, which is shown by the words “resorting to the last stage of life” (sa kilāśramam antyam āśrito). If we were to interpret this pāda as referring to the third āśrama, continues Mallinātha, we would be in trouble to explain why Raghu’s last rites were performed without fire, as it is normal in the case of saṃnyāsins.

Nandargikar in his note to this verse gives Cāritravardhana’s version of the first two pādas as follows:

sa kila kṣitipālaveśmano nivasann āvasathe yatipriyaḥ |They say he lived, devoted to ascetics, in a dwelling of the palace.

This reading seems to go back to Vallabhadeva’s version, with the change from yativrataḥ to yatipriyaḥ avoiding the possibility of regarding Raghu himself as a yati, that is a saṃnyāsin. The word bahiḥ is replaced by kila, a word we also find in the version of Mallinātha et al. This way Raghu’s dwelling place becomes part of the palace, and the word āvasatha might refer to a reception room for brahmins at a sacrificial feast. My impression is that Vallabhadeva’s version might be primary, which was first tweaked to get the text known to Cāritravardhana, and perhaps from these two versions a third was produced that was transmitted to Mallinātha and others.

In the following verses of the Raghuvaṃśa we read a parallel description of the lives of the retired old king, Raghu, and the new king, Aja. In verse 8:16 they are said to be yatipārthivaliṅgadhāriṇau, “[Raghu] bearing the insignia of an ascetic and [Aja] those of a king”. Vallabhadeva and Mallinātha gloss yati with bhikṣu(ka), another synonym of saṃnyāsin. Śrīnātha understands it as muni, a more general term meaning “ascetic, hermit”. On the other hand, Aruṇagirinātha and Hemādri both quote the Amarakośa (2.7.43) for a definition of yati as nirjitendriyagrāma, “one who has conquered the collection of his senses”, and Hemādri adds: jitendriyatvenātra yatiśabdaprayogaḥ, rājñāṃ saṃnyāsābhāvāt, “here the word yati is used in the meaning of ‘one who has conquered his senses’, because there is no saṃnyāsa for kings”. These two commentators clearly reject the possibility that a king could enter the fourth āśrama. As for the “insignia of an ascetic”, both Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita interpret them to be such things as yogapaṭṭa, a band of cloth used during yogic practice.

Not everyone shared the view that Raghu could not possibly become a yati in the sense of saṃnyāsin. Nandargikar quotes in his endnote to the verse Cāritravardhana’s commentary, in which he discusses how Raghu can “bear the insigina of ascetics” if only brahmins are allowed to take up saṃnyāsa. Cāritravardhana points out that Sureśvara (in his subcommentary on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) has proved that all three upper varṇas have the right to become saṃnyāsins, and so did Raghu.

In 8:17cd we find Raghu in the company of yogins. The following is Vallabhadeva’s version:

ajitādhigamāya mantribhir yuyuje nītiviśāradair ajaḥ |anapāyipadopalabdhaye raghur āptaiḥ samiyāya yogibhiḥ || 8:17 ||Aja conferred with his ministers, who were skilled in politics, to attain what he had not yet conquered. Raghu joined trustworthy yogis to reach the never-waning state.

Most commentators also knew another verse which is a variant on the same theme. The following is Hemādri’s version (he calls it a pāṭhāntara, just as Vallabhadeva):

samadṛśyata bhūpatir yuvā sacivaiḥ pratyaham arthasiddhaye |apunarjananopapattaye pravayāḥ saṃyuyuje manīṣibhiḥ ||The young king was daily seen by his ministers to settle affairs of state; the older one frequented wise men so that he might never be reborn again.

Vallabhadeva (together with Cāritravardhana and others according to Nandargikar’s note to the verse) read samapṛcyata in the first pāda, while Śrīnātha read samayujyata, and Jinasamudra samapṛcchyata. Instead of saṃyuyuje in pāda d, Śrīnātha, Jinasamudra, as well as Cāritravardhana et al. read saṃyamibhiḥ (it is not clear what Vallabhadeva read at this point). Vaidyaśrīgarbha read vinetṛbhiḥ in the place of manīṣibhiḥ.

The following verse has also been transmitted in two versions. First here is the text known to Vallabhadeva and Cāritravardhana (the latter is quoted from Nandargikar’s footnote):

anurañjayituṃ prajāḥ prabhur vyavahārāsanam ādade navaḥ |aparaḥ śuciviṣṭarāśrayaḥ paricetuṃ yatate sma dhāraṇāḥ || 8:18 ||The new king occupied the seat of judgment to serve his subjects; the other, seated upon a cushion of pure grass, strove to master the techniques of meditation.

Śrīnātha comments on the same version but seems to read prathamaḥ instead of aparaḥ and yatati sma in pāda d. Jinasamudra also knew this verse (8:19 in his text), he also read prathamaḥ, just as Vaidyaśrīgarbha, who read dhāraṇām in the last pāda. All the printed commentaries, however, comment on a different verse at this point:

nṛpatiḥ prakṛtīr avekṣitum vyavahārāsanam ādade yuvā |paricetum upāṃśu dhāraṇāṃ kuśapūtaṃ pravayās tu viṣṭaram ||The young king occupied the seat of judgement to inspect his subjects, but the older one occupied a seat purified by kuśa-grass to master meditation in private.

Nandargikar’s footnote to this verse reveals that several hitherto unprinted commentaries transmit both verses, as does Jinasamudra. Dominic Goodall has written in detail about the possible evolution in transmission of verses 17 and 18. In his view verse 17 was changed first, and its oldest version was the following:

samapṛcyata bhūpatir yuvā sacivaiḥ pratyaham arthasiddhaye |apunarjananopapattaye pravayāḥ saṃyuyuje manīṣibhiḥ ||

This was rewritten and the version accepted by Vallabhadeva as primary was the result. The reason for the rewriting might have been, as Goodall proposes, that the passive form samapṛcyata was not wholly parallel with the ātmanepada form saṃyuyuje, used in an active sense. In Vallabhadeva’s time, no change had yet been made to verse 18, and verse 17 seems to have been transmitted in several sources (including Vallabhadeva’s commentary) in two versions. This meant that two of the words in the primary version, now rejected but still circulating, were available for reuse when some transmitter came to revise verse 18, namely the words yuvā and pravayāḥ. The revision of 18 resulted in a neater parallelism between the two halves of the verse and in a figure (dīpaka) that was different from the one in 17 (prativastu).

In the following verses Raghu’s yogic practice is described: he subdued the five breaths by the practice of meditation (praṇidhāna, 8:19), focused his mind in his heart to perceive the supreme light (8:20 in Vallabhadeva’s version, this verse is omitted by the Keralan commentators and Mallinātha), worked to burn up his karma with the fire of gnosis (8:21, jñānamayena vahninā, or dhyānamayena in a variant reading), recognised the three guṇas as abiding in primal matter (prakṛtisthaṃ, 8:22), and practiced equanimity (ibid.). “The old king, steadfast in thought, did not cease from the practice of yoga before seeing the ultimate truth”, says Kālidāsa in verse 23 (na ca yogavidher navetaraḥ sthitadhīr [virarāma] ā paramārthadarśanāt in Vallabhadeva’s reading, the printed commentaries read sthiradhīr). Raghu attained success in the domain of liberation, apavarga (8:24), and in the end he “joined the eternal soul beyond darkness by means of yogic meditation” (8:25: tamasaḥ param āpad avyayaṃ puruṣaṃ yogasamādhinā). The term yogasamādhi is an important early attestation of samādhi as a practice of “death through meditation”. Thus Raghu followed the example of the Ikṣvāku-kings, who “renounced their bodies by yoga in the end” (1:8).

The verse describing Raghu’s last rites has been transmitted in two versions. First let us see the version commented upon by Vallabhadeva, Śrīnātha and Vaidyaśrīgarbha:

śrutadehavisarjanaḥ pituś ciram asrūṇi visṛjya rāghavaḥ |vitatāna samaṃ purodhasā kratum antyaṃ pṛthivīśatakratoḥ ||

Upon hearing that he had shed his body, Raghu’s son long shed tears; then arranged, with his chaplain, the final sacrifice for his father, who thus became an “Indra of a hundred sacrifices” on earth.

Śrīnātha understands kratum antyaṃ, “final sacrifice”, as agnidānaśrāddhādi, “cremation, śrāddha, etc.”. All printed commentaries read the second half of this verse differently:

vidadhe vidhim asya naiṣṭhikaṃ yatibhiḥ sārdham anagnim agnicitThen, himself a keeper of the Vedic fire, he arranged his father’s last rites, which were without fire, together with ascetics.

According to Nandargikar’s note, Cāritravardhana knew both readings. He marked the version known to Vallabhadeva as pāṭhaḥ, and the other version as kavipāṭhaḥ, “authorial reading”. He observes: “the ritual has the form of placing [the corpse] in the ground”, and then adds: “the meaning is that in which way the last rite of saṃnyāsins is taught, in that way he performed it together with exactly those people”. To support his position, Cāritravardhana quotes a verse:

sarvasaṅganivṛttasya dhyānayogaratasya ca |na tasya dahanaṃ kāryaṃ naiva piṇḍodakakriyāḥ ||Neither cremation nor the rites of rice balls and water should be performed for someone who has given up all attachments and has been devoted to the practice of meditation.

The same verse is also quoted (with some variation) by Hemādri and the Keralan commentators, who attribute it to Śaunaka. Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita quote one more verse of the same authoritative text:

nidadhyāt praṇavenaiva bile bhikṣoḥ kalevaram |prokṣaṇaṃ khananaṃ caiva sarvaṃ tenaiva kārayet ||Let him place the corpse of a mendicant in a grave with the sacred OṂ mantra. Let him have everything—sprinkling, digging—performed with the same [mantra].

We have seen above that Aruṇagirinātha, Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita and Hemādri held the position that Raghu could only enter the third āśrama and not the fourth, which was open only for brahmins in their view. Yet when they comment on the verse that describes Raghu’s last rites, they confirm with an authoritative quotation that he was treated as a saṃnyāsin, and do not try to resolve the contradiction. Mallinātha, on the other hand, refered forward precisely to this verse in his commentary on 8:14, saying that the fact that Raghu was not cremated shows that he died as a saṃnyāsin.

The following verse (8:27 in Vallabhadeva’s text, 8:26 in Mallinātha’s) says that Aja performed the rites for the deceased out of love for his father, even though “those who quit the body by such a path do not need a son’s food-offerings” (na hi tena pathā tanutyajas tanayāvarjitapiṇḍakāṅkṣiṇaḥ). Vallabhadeva takes the “path” to be “the method of yoga” (yogavidhi), and he adds: “for they are forever satisfied, having reached the eternal, imperishable state” (ajam amṛtaṃ hi te padam āptā nityatṛptāḥ). Mallinātha, Hemādri, Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita and Śrīnātha also understand the “path” to be the path of yoga. Cāritravardhana remarks that Aja “performed not only the last rite of ascetics but also the rites suitable for the householders’ life-stage” (na paraṃ yatīnāṃ anteṣṭiṃ cakre kiṃ tu gārhasthocitam apy ācacāra). Interestingly Aruṇagirinātha seems not to have commented on this verse.

Let us summarise what we have learnt about Raghu’s final years. As it is customary in the family of the Ikṣvākus, he entrusted the responsibilities of kingship to his son Aja, and wished to move forth from the life-stage of householders. Pāda c of the last verse of sarga 7 has been transmitted in two versions: Raghu was either “eager to put on bast garments” or “eager to join the path to peace”. The former reading alludes to vanavāsa, while the latter is more vague concerning the lifestyle and emphasises that Raghu was striving for liberation, mokṣa. In verse 10 of the next sarga we can observe a similar variation. The reading known to Vallabhadeva expresses clearly that “Raghu took the path old age dictated that leads to the forest”, while the other variant does not tell us about the lifestyle chosen by the old king but rather foregrounds his aspirations to achieve mokṣa.

Verse 11 contains two words that are also found in the version of verse 10 known to Vallabhadeva: padavī and pariṇāma. On the other hand, it might appear a bit strange that after the last verse of sarga 7 and after the expression pariṇāmadeśitāṃ in verse 8:10, Kālidāsa devotes a whole verse to talk about the “family observance” of the Ikṣvāku-kings again, unless this verse contains some new information. The verse as known to Vallabhadeva and Śrīnātha (and possibly Vaidyaśrīgarbha) does contain new information: in their old age those born in Dilīpa’s line became either bark-clad hermits, or ascetics. This statement, however, does not tally with what we read in the other parts of the Raghuvaṃśa, where living in the forest as bark-clad hermits seems to be the lifestyle followed by the old kings of the Sūryavaṃśa.

One might outline the following scenario for the changes that took place during the transmission of the three above mentioned verses. First, verses 7:71 and 8:10 as known to Vallabhadeva were changed in a way that the direct reference to vanavāsa was replaced by allusions to the king’s endeavour to reach mokṣa, thus opening the possibility of the way of life of a saṃnyāsin. We have seen that the old version of 8:10 was still around—Cāritravardhana and Śrīnātha commented on both variants—and verse 8:11 was written reusing two words from this old version (Vallabhadeva comments on a contaminated version which contains the old variants of 7:71 and 8:10 and the new verse 8:11). Why was 8:11 composed? Perhaps to account for the way of life Raghu actually lived after he gave up the idea of vanavāsa: he kept company with yogins, himself practiced yoga and bore the insignia of yatis, in other words he lived as a saṃnyāsin, except for begging and wandering. As a next step we might suppose that 8:11 was modified by those who could not accept that kṣatriyas could become saṃnyāsins, and the variant without yadi vā was created.

Another possible scenario could be summarised as follows: Vallabhadeva’s version of verses 8:10 and 8:11 is primary, and the repetition of padavī and pariṇāma is a case of Verschränkung or concatenation, a poetic device observed in Kālidāsa’s works by Schubring (1955) and more recently by Salomon (2016). Later, in the course of transmission such a repetition was considered disturbing and 8:10 was rewritten, the result being the version known to Mallinātha and others. Another motivation behind altering both 8:10 and 7:71 might have been, as we have pointed out above, to exchange the direct reference to vanavāsa with a more general statement of the old king stepping on the path leading towards liberation. These new readings tallied better with the alternatives set forth in 8:11.

The older version of the verse that describes the place where Raghu lived as an ascetic was perhaps the one known to Vallabhadeva, Śrīnātha and Vaidyaśrīgarbha, in which we see the old king living outside the palace, keeping the vows of a yati. This was slightly modified to get the reading known to Cāritravardhana, and then, using these two versions, a third was created, the one commented on by Mallinātha et al., which moved Raghu outside the city and made him explicitly adopt the last āśrama, meaning saṃnyāsa (pace the interpretations of Hemādri and the Keralan commentators). This reading is in harmony with the older version of verse 11: since Raghu could not take up vanavāsa, he chose the second option, that of the saṃyamin, that is saṃnyāsin. This would mean that verse 11 was still unchanged when verse 14 (in Vallabhadeva’s numbering) was modified.

From the following verses it becomes clear that Raghu bore the signs of yatis, that is saṃnyāsins (again pace Hemādri and Aruṇagirinātha), joined yogis and himself practised yogic meditation. As for the verse describing Raghu’s last rites, again we might suppose that the version known to Vallabhadeva, Śrīnātha and Vaidyaśrīgarbha might be primary, and it was modified to match the ritual with the saṃnyāsin status of the deceased king. Again, this scenario presupposes that verse 11 still had the yadi vā option.

Raghu’s renunciation was unique, and fitting it into the āśrama system was not an easy task. We might picture the older version of his story as follows: having transfered the kingdom to Aja, Raghu prepared for vanavāsa, following the “family observance”. Aja besought his father to stay close to him, so Raghu settled near the palace, perhaps at a dwelling for brahmins invited for sacrifice. He stayed there in the company of yogis and lived like a yogi himself, but did not become a mendicant. When he died, his son together with Vasiṣṭha, the royal chaplain, performed his last rites, which was probably cremation. Aja also performed the post-crematory ritual, though, as Kālidāsa says, Raghu did not need them, presumably because he reached liberation through yoga.

4. Conclusions

We have seen that the commentators were divided on the issue of renunciation. The oldest commentator, Vallabhadeva read 8:11 as containing an alternative: the Raghu kings in their old age adopted either the third āśrama and became vānaprasthas, or they became yatis/bhikṣus. The case of Raghu was a special one: he practiced yoga in the company of yogins, bearing the insignia of yatis/bhikṣus, yet he did not become a wandering mendicant. Anuṇagirinātha, Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita and Hemādri shared the view that kṣatriyas did not have the right to become mendicant ascetics, saṃnyāsins, and the fourth life-stage was only available to brahmins. In some cases they resorted to tendentious exegesis, for instance when they avoided understanding the word yati as a synonym of saṃnyāsin, or when they interpreted the expression “last life-stage” as vānaprasthāśrama. On the other hand, when they were commenting on a reading that clearly stated that the dead king’s body was treated just like the body of a saṃnyāsin, they did not (or could not) resolve the contradiction between the verse and their position in the matter of renunciation.

Mallinātha and, as far as we can see from the snippets quoted by Nandargikar, Cāritravardhana represent the other side in the debate. In their view Kālidāsa accepted the possibility of kṣatriyas becoming saṃnyāsins. They were conversant with the debate as it appears in dharmaśāstra literature, and quoted those śruti and smṛti passages that the authors of dharmaśāstra works or the commentators of sacred or philosophical texts also quoted to give support to their viewpoints. Interestingly, the text of the Raghuvaṃśa was also adduced as confirming evidence: the seventeenth-century Yatidharmaprakāśa (3.36–45, Olivelle 1976: 34) quotes 8:16 to give support to the view that kṣatriyas (and vaiśyas) can also adopt the fourth stage of life, and saṃnyāsa is open not just for brahmins.