________________
Dynastic Lists and Genealogical Accounts
109
shows that this identification of Puru with Ikşvāku has never been utilized in respect of the nomenclature of the Ikşvāku, dynasty, for, nowhere in the work, to our knowledge that dynasty is referred to as Puruvamsa.
Now coming to the MP we find that in the work the process of identification of Ikşvāku with Puru has been brought to perfection inasmuch as not only Ikşoakn has been called Puru but also the dynasty and the various descendants of the patriarch have been accorded that name in its generic form. In fact, it is the latter term which has received a preferential treatment from both Jinasena and his pupil Gunabhadra, who use this term as generic name more often than even the Ikşvahu 90 And, this representation of the lhşvāku dynasty as identical with the Purudamša may be said to have its basis in the stray vedic statements creating an impression “that the Ikşvāku line was originally a line of princes of the Pūrus 100 But here, again, the authors show their own genealogical design, for the Kauravas and the Pandavas, all represented in the Brahmanıcal sources as the progeny of Pūru, have been treated by them as descendants of the latter, but are derived from Somaprabha Kuru, who, as stated before is set forth as the head of a separate royal family 101 Somaprabha, Somayaśas and Kuru
A comparative study of the respective position of Somaprabha and Somayasas affords an interesting picture of the transformation of their character and personality The study of these individuals, who are merged, in one school, into one figure, cannot be made independently, nor irrespective of the character of Kuru who, too, finds his mention in these Purānas in various forms and capacities In fact, his position
99 MP 3 230 , 16 71, 72, 73, 76, 17 72 , 24 31 , 25 75, 143, 192, 46 63,
47 392, 400 100 Vedic Index P 76, also B C Law, Tribes in Ancient India, P 118
But this theory of openess of the Ih soalus and Purus has been refuted on cogcct ground by Pargiter in his ancient Indian Historical Tradition,
pp 133-34 101 Supra, note 67,
