Accordingly, the king’s body was gradually consumed by the fire of the grievous fever of love, and only his name and fame remained.[6] But the commander-in-chief could not bear the thought that the king’s death had been brought about in this way, so he entered the fire; for the actions of devoted followers are inexplicable.[7]
When the Vetála, sitting on the shoulder of king Trivikramasena, had told this wonderful tale, he again said to him, “So tell me, king, which of these two was superior in loyalty, the general or the king; and remember, the previous condition still holds.” When the Vetála said this, the king broke silence, and answered him, “Of these two the king was superior in loyalty.” When the Vetála heard this, he said to him reproachfully, “Tell me, king, how can you make out that the general was not his superior? For, though he knew the charm of his wife’s society by long familiarity, he offered such a fascinating woman to the king out of love for him; and when the king was dead, he burnt himself; but the king refused the offer of his wife without knowing anything about her.”
When the Vetála said this to the king, the latter laughed, and said, “Admitting the truth of this, what is there astonishing in the fact, that the commander-in-chief, a man of good family, acted thus for his master’s sake, out of regard for him? For servants are bound to preserve their masters even by the sacrifice of their lives. But kings are inflated with arrogance, uncontrollable as elephants, and when bent on enjoyment, they snap asunder the chain of the moral law. For their minds are overweening, and all discernment is washed out of them, when the waters of inauguration are poured over them, and is, as it were, swept away by the flood. And the breeze of the waving chowries fans away the atoms of the sense of scripture taught them by old men, as it fans away flies and mosquitoes. And the royal umbrella keeps off from them the rays of truth, as well as the rays of the sun; and their eyes, smitten by the gale of prosperity, do not see the right path. And so even kings, that have conquered the world, like Nahusha and others, have had their minds bewildered by Mára, and have been brought into calamity. But this king, though his umbrella was paramount in the earth, was not fascinated by Unmádiní, fickle as the goddess of Fortune; indeed, sooner than set his foot on the wrong path, he renounced life altogether; therefore him I consider the more self-controlled of the two.”
When the Vetála heard this speech of the king’s, he again rapidly quitted his shoulder by the might of his delusive power, and returned to his own place; and the king followed him swiftly, as before, to recover him: for how can great men leave off in the middle of an enterprise, which they have begun, even though it be very difficult?
Note.
Oesterley states that this tale is No. 26, in the Persian Tútínámah, in Iken, p. 109. The deliberations about carrying off the wife of the commander-in-chief are, in this form of the story, carried on in the presence of the counsellors only; and the king is the only one that dies. From the Persian Tútínámah the story has passed in a very similar form into the Turkish Tútínámah. Compare Malespíní, 1, No. 102, (Oesterley’s Baitál Pachísí, pp. 207, 208.) The story, as told by Śivadása, will be found in Bezzenberger’s Beiträge zur Kunde der Indo-germanischen Sprachen, Vol. IV, p. 360. Dr. Zachariæ, the author of the paper, gives a reference to the Rajataranginí, IV, 17–37, which Professor Bühler pointed out to him. He tells us that the story is the 14th in Jambhaladatta’s recension. The story is also found in the parables of Buddhaghosha; in a form based upon the Ummadantíjátaka. Dr. Zachariæ gives the Pali text of this Játaka in an Appendix, and the corresponding Sanskrit version of the tale from the Játakamálá of Aryaśúra. He also refers his readers to Upham’s Mahávanso, pp. 212–213; Beal, Texts from the Buddhist canon, commonly known as Dhammapada, Section XXIII, Advantageous Service; Bigandet, The life or legend of Gaudama, the Buddha of the Burmese, pp. 220–221; and Mary Summer, Histoire du Bouddha Sákya-Mouni, (Paris, 1874,) p. 145.
In the Pali version the Bráhmans are so bewildered at the sight of the girl that they cannot eat, but put their rice on their heads &c. instead of putting it in their mouths; so she has them driven out by her servants. Out of revenge they tell the king that she is a kálakaṇṇi, which according to Childers means “a hag.” In the Játakamálá they are too much bewildered to stand, much less to eat; but the report which they make is much the same as in our text, and made from the same motives.
[1] See Vol. I, pp. 104, 294, and 574.