Vasu of Cedi’s Fall to Rasātala

Janamejaya asked Vaiśampāyana how a mongoose could dare to speak against the great Aśvamedha (horse yajña) of Yudhishṭhira. Vaiśampāyana answered with a teaching from long ago. It is about the danger of giving a judgement alone on a question of dharma, and it is shown by the fall of the king of Cedi, who was asked to settle a dispute between Indra and the ṛshis. The dispute was whether a yajña (fire ritual) may be done with the killing of animals. The king ruled carelessly in favour of killing, and he fell at once into Rasātala.

Janamejaya’s question

Janamejaya said that kings delight in yajña, great ṛshis delight in tapas (austerity), and brāhmaṇas delight in śama (calm) and dama (self-control). In his view nothing equals the fruit of yajña. Indra himself won his rule over the devas through yajñas with great dakshiṇā (gifts to the priests), and Yudhishṭhira had become equal to Indra in majesty through this very Aśvamedha. On what ground, then, had the mongoose condemned it?

The dispute at Indra’s yajña

Vaiśampāyana answered by telling of an earlier time. Indra was doing a great yajña, and the ṛtviks (priests) were busy with its rites. The hotā priest was calling on Agni, the great ṛshis were calling the devas, and the adhvaryu priests were chanting without rest. Then the time came for the ālambhana, the slaying of the animals for the yajña. The ṛshis saw the helpless animals brought forward, and they were moved by pity.

They went straight to Indra and told him that this way of doing the yajña was not right. They said: “You who want the greatest dharma have not thought about this well. The Veda has never allowed living animals to be used in yajña. This act destroys dharma. It is not a yajña of dharma. Nowhere does the śāstra call hiṃsā (harm to living beings) dharma. If you truly wish to do yajña, let your ṛtviks follow what the Veda itself lays down. A yajña should be done with grain that is three years old and can no longer sprout. In such seed there is no loss of prāṇa (life), so there is no hiṃsā. This is the old dharma laid down by Brahmā himself.”

Indra was clouded by pride and would not accept this advice. A great dispute began among the tapasvins (those who practise tapas) who were present. Some held that a yajña may be done with living creatures. Others held that it may be done only with what does not move (sthāvara), such as grain and fruit.

The appeal to Vasu of Cedi

The ṛshis and Indra were tired and troubled by the deadlock. Together they went to the king of Cedi, Vasu Mahārāja. They asked him to settle their doubt with the truth. Should a yajña be done with animals, or with grains and rasas (juices, such as milk and ghee)?

Vasu did not weigh the strength of the two arguments. He said plainly that a yajña should be done with whatever is at hand. This gave the same support to killing animals as to offering grain. The moment he gave this answer, the king of Cedi fell into Rasātala.

The teaching

Vaiśampāyana drew the lesson plainly. However learned a person may be, when there is real doubt on a question of dharma, he should never give a judgement alone. That authority belongs to Prajāpati Svayambhū alone.

Whatever a person of impure intent, full of pāpa (sin), gives in dāna (charity) bears no true fruit, however large the gift, in this world or the next. A person who does dharma tainted with hiṃsā in order to deceive the world gains no lasting kīrti (fame). Wealth gained unjustly and given away in ignorance, in the belief that it will bring dharma, does not bring the giver the fruit of dharma.

The tapasvins who give in dāna only what they themselves rightly own reach svarga (heaven). Even a handful of gleaned grain, a root, a fruit, a vegetable or a vessel of water is enough. Ahiṃsā (non-harm), mahāyoga, dāna, bhūtadayā (kindness to all beings), brahmacarya, satya (truth), dayā (compassion), dhṛti (steadiness) and kshamā (forgiveness) are declared to be the eternal root of sanātana dharma.

As proof, Vaiśampāyana named ancient royal ṛshis and munis who reached the highest siddhi (perfection) through tapas and through dāna that was justly earned and truthfully given. They are Viśvāmitra, Asita, Janaka Mahārāja, Kakshasena, Ārshisheṇa and King Sindhudvīpa. He said that brāhmaṇas, kshatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras alike, whoever lives by tapas within the fire of dāna-dharma, are made pure by it and reach svarga.

Other accounts of Vasu’s fall

Other texts also tell of a king named Vasu who fell to Rasātala for ruling in favour of animal killing in a dispute at a great yajña.

• The Skanda Purāṇa, in the Vāsudeva Māhātmya, names him Uparichara Vasu, king of Cedi. It places the dispute at the Aśvamedha of Indra Viśvajit in the Svāyambhuva Manvantara. Bhīshma also speaks of the same fall in the Anuśāsana Parva, in his teaching on daiva (fate) and purushakāra (human effort).
• The Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa tells nearly the same account of a dispute at Indra’s Aśvamedha. It names the king as Vasu Rāja, son of Uttānapāda.

In the Aśvamedhika Parva the king is called the lord of Cedi. The chapter does not call him Uparichara, and it does not tell of his rescue by Garuḍa or his final moksha. It names the fall as a precedent from itihāsa.

Sources

• Mahābhārata, Aśvamedhika Parva, Chapter 91
• Skanda Purāṇa, Vāsudeva Māhātmya
• Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa
• Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, teaching on daiva and purushakāra