1878.] 
403 
and the Sena Rajas of Bengal. 
of the lunar race cannot be the same with Yira Sena, for none would employ 
a synonym to indicate a proper name, and so the epithet of the former 
cannot apply to the latter. 
Little need be said in reply to these arguments. The first is a mere 
assumption, and not by any means a permissible one. Exaggerations and 
hyperboles are the chief aliments on which poets most do thrive ; but there 
is not a single authentic instance in which poetical license has been, in 
India, permitted to invade the domains of caste. The Puranas have made 
mortals conquer the immortal gods, endowed them with the most tran¬ 
scendental attributes, called them gods, but never changed their castes ; nor 
have they ever attempted to disown cross sinisters from the escutcheon of 
the greatest of their kings. And what is true of these Puranas, is equally 
so of later writings, when tenacity for caste distinctions had grown much 
stronger. It is observable also, that no spirit of poetical hyperbole can be 
predicated of Ballala Sena describing his own caste in a law treatise by 
himself. 
The second argument is ingenious; but it is, like the first, a mere 
assumption. I have no hesitation in saying, that in the whole range of 
Sanskrit literature, there is not an instance in which the caste of the Yai- 
dyas has been indirectly referred to by allusion to the moon. At best it 
is an attempt to give preeminence to a possible metaphorical interpretation, 
in preference to an obvious literal meaning. 
The third is incorrect. None but a Kshetriya could call himself a 
member of the lunar or the solar race, and members of those races, when 
degraded or outcasted, could not retain their claim to the honor of member¬ 
ship under them. The instances cited of Yayati’s children becoming 
members of different castes refer to the earliest stage of Hindu society, 
when caste distinctions probably did not exist, or at any rate were not 
very strictly observed ; and even then there is no proof to show that those 
who were degraded were in the habit of calling themselves members of the 
solar race. Within the last two thousand years, a Brahman or a Kshetriya, 
condemned to be a Chandala, has never been permitted to call himself a 
Brahman or a Kshetriya Chandala. The idea is simply ridiculous. 
The fourth argument has already been answered by the parallel 
case of Go-pala appearing also under the names of Bhu-pala and Loka- 
pala. Were it otherwise, the argument would not advance in the least, 
for my antagonists admit that Yira Sena was the great-grandson of 
Adisura by the daughter’s side, and if so, the son-in-law of Bhusura 
and his son-in-law could not be of other than the caste of Adisura. 
On the whole the arguments are based on a series of suppositions, in 
order to support a modern tradition against the avowed declarations of 
authentic contemporary records. 1 deny the accuracy of the tradition, and 
2 E 
