In 2007 Harry Neale\u2019s translation brought to the potential attention of comparativists a story told by a late twelfth century Persian hagiographer, Far\u012bd al-Din \u2018A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u0101r of Nishapur. Among the Sufi saints whose lives are anecdotally narrated by \u2018A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u0101r is al-Tirmid<\/u>\u012b (also of Nishapur, died ca 892), who tells the story in question to expound the doctrine that Ibl\u012bs (i.e. Satan, the Koranic equivalent of Lucifer) is implanted within us. According to Tirmid<\/u>\u012b, Ibl\u012bs engineered this situation via his son Khann\u0101s. Placed under the care of Eve, the demonic Khann\u0101s is thrice killed by Adam and twice resuscitated by Ibl\u012bs; but on the third occasion Adam and Eve cook Khann\u0101s and eat him. Ibl\u012bs has now achieved his purpose.<\/p>\n
Neale presents the story as an instance of the \u2018threefold death\u2019, a motif that is often mentioned in Indo-European comparativist literature (cf. Miller 1997). Neale\u2019s suggestion is that this ancient motif survived in the oral traditions of north-east Persia and was drawn into the hagiographic tradition there. In the present paper Neale\u2019s argument about the IE background is picked up towards the end, but my main aim is to compare the Persian story with a story from the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata<\/em>, which is not considered by Neale. The great Sanskrit epic tells of a figure called Kaca who also undergoes a threefold death, and despite fundamental differences the two stories are sufficiently similar to imply a historical connection. Since the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata <\/em>had reached its more or less standardised form several centuries before Tirmid<\/u>\u012b was writing, west-east diffusion is ruled out as an explanation, and east-west diffusion seems less likely than Indo-Iranian common origin.<\/p>\n Within the vast sweep of the epic Kaca is a very minor character. Book 1 includes an account of the ancestry of the major protagonists, and among their distant forebears is Yay\u0101ti, who comes five generations after Manu (the first man) and some twenty generations before the main heroes. The Critical Edition of the Epic has around 2000 adhy\u0101yas<\/em> (chapters), of which Kaca\u2019s story occupies two, located early in the 19-adhy\u0101ya<\/em> section on Yay\u0101ti. The gods have arranged that, in order to learn a magical formula, the youth Kaca join the household of \u015aukra, the priest of the demons. Kaca is thrice killed by the demons, and then resuscitated. When finally \u015aukra unknowingly swallows the ash of the cremated Kaca in his wine, the resuscitation enables the gods to achieve their purpose.<\/p>\n Two major differences may be noted straightaway. Firstly, as told here, the Persian story is self-contained, while the story of Kaca forms only the introduction to the story of Yay\u0101ti: when Kaca leaves \u015aukra\u2019s household, his final words influence Yay\u0101ti\u2019s marital career and hence the ancestry of the main heroes. Secondly, the Persian story is shorter and simpler, having only four characters where the Sanskrit has seven. Thus I give a full translation of the Persian, while for the Sanskrit a summary will have to suffice.<\/p>\n When Adam and Eve came together and their repentance was accepted, one day, Adam \u2013 upon whom be peace \u2013 went out to do something. Ibl\u012bs came with his own child \u2013 named Khann\u0101s, brought him before Eve and said: \u2018I have something important I must do. Watch over my child until I come back.\u2019 Eve agreed, and Ibl\u012bs went away. When Adam came back he asked: \u2018Who is this?\u2019 \u2018He is the son of Ibl\u012bs who has been entrusted to me,\u2019 said Eve. Adam chastised her saying: \u2018Why didst thou accept?\u2019 He became angry and slew the child, cutting him into pieces, and hung each piece from the bough of a tree and went away. Ibl\u012bs returned and asked where his son was. Eve told him what had happened: \u2018He cut him into pieces and hung each piece from the bough of a tree.\u2019 Ibl\u012bs called to his son. He became whole again and alive, and came before Ibl\u012bs.<\/p>\n A second time he said to Eve: \u2018Take him, for I have another important affair.\u2019 Eve did not accept. [Ibl\u012bs] entreated her and lamented until she accepted, and then he went away. Adam came back and asked: \u2018What is this?\u2019 Eve explained the matter to him. Adam beat Eve and said: \u2018I know not what the mystery is in this that thou dost not my bidding but rather the bidding of God\u2019s foe, by whose words thou art beguiled!\u2019 Then [Adam] slew [Khann\u0101s] and burned him, scattering half of the ashes in the water and the other half in the wind; then he went away. Ibl\u012bs came back and sought his son. Eve told him what had happened, and Ibl\u012bs called to his son. The pieces [of his body] came back together, and he became alive and sat before that accursed one, to wit, Ibl\u012bs.<\/p>\n Then Ibl\u012bs said again to Eve: \u2018Accept him again.\u2019 Eve would not accept, saying: \u2018Adam will destroy me.\u2019 Ibl\u012bs made her swear an oath,[2]<\/a> and she accepted. Adam came, saw [Khann\u0101s], and was wroth. As many times as [Ibl\u012bs] entrusted [Khann\u0101s] to Eve, Adam beat her and slew Ibl\u012bs\u2019 son. At last Adam said: \u2018God knows what will happen. Thou heedest [Ibl\u012bs\u2019] words and not mine.\u2019 Then he became wroth, slew Khann\u0101s, and cooked him. [Adam] ate half and gave the other half to Eve. Some say that, the last time, Ibl\u012bs brought Khann\u0101s in the shape of a sheep. When Ibl\u012bs came back and sought his son, Eve told him what had happened saying: \u2018He slew him and cooked [him in a] stew (qaliya kard<\/em>). I ate half and Adam the other.\u2019 \u2018This was my goal,\u2019 said Ibl\u012bs, \u2018to place myself inside of Adam. Since his breast has become my abode, my goal is achieved.\u2019 Thus has God \u2013 may he be exalted \u2013 said: \u2018[Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind\u2026 from the evil of the Whisperer,] Al-Khann\u0101s, who whispers in the breasts of mankind among Jinn and men.\u2019<\/p>\n As usual in Hindu mythology, the Devas and Asuras (the gods and demons), are in conflict, competing for sovereignty of the universe. As their chaplains the gods appoint Br\u0325haspati, the demons \u015aukra.[4]<\/a> Like their employers the two chaplains are rivals; but \u015aukra possesses a spell enabling him to resuscitate demons killed by the gods, while Br\u0325haspati cannot reciprocate.<\/p>\n Consequently, the gods go to Kaca, eldest son of the god B\u1e5bhaspati, and ask the lad, given their mutual affection, to seek out \u015aukra in the city of the demon king Vr\u0325\u1e63aparvan and acquire his magic. His youth will enable him to propitiate \u015aukra, and also \u015aukra\u2019s much-loved daughter, Devay\u0101n\u012b. Departing promptly, Kaca asks \u015aukra to accept him as a student for a thousand years and, despite knowing that Kaca\u2019s father is Br\u0325haspati, the sage agrees.<\/p>\n Kaca takes a student\u2019s vow (which includes chastity), and ingratiates himself with father and daughter. After 500 years, discovering Kaca\u2019s identity and wanting their magic to remain secret, the demons kill the youth while he is alone herding cattle away from the settlement. They cut him into tiny pieces and feed him to jackals. Noticing his failure to return, Devay\u0101n\u012b tells her father that without Kaca she cannot live. Using his magic, \u015aukra calls Kaca, who reappears \u2013 totally restored; he has torn open the bodies of the jackals. On the second occasion Kaca is in the woods collecting flowers for Devay\u0101n\u012b. The demons kill him and dispose of the body in the ocean. Devay\u0101n\u012b and \u015aukra react as before.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Finally, when Kaca is again gathering flowers, he is killed and burned. Mixing the ashes with \u2018wine\u2019 (sur\u0101<\/em>), the demons give the mixture to \u015aukra. Again Devay\u0101n\u012b seeks her father\u2019s help, and when \u015aukra calls to Kaca, the youth answers feebly from his guru\u2019s stomach, explaining what has happened and requesting help. The dilemma is acute. If Kaca stays put, not only will he suffer and presumably die, but Devay\u0101n\u012b will die of love; but if Kaca is resuscitated, his emergence will tear open his teacher\u2019s body and Devay\u0101n\u012b will die of grief. \u015aukra sees the solution. He teaches the magic to Kaca, uses it himself to resuscitate his pupil, and is in turn resuscitated by Kaca.<\/p>\n Decreeing that henceforth brahmins shall abstain from wine, \u015aukra summons and rebukes the demons. The second half of the pupillage passes uneventfully, but when Kaca sets off back to heaven, Devay\u0101n\u012b proposes to him. Citing reasons based on dharma<\/em>, Kaca declines. The two exchange curses: Kaca will be unable to use his magic, but is able to teach it to others \u2013 who can use it); and Devay\u0101n\u012b will never marry a brahmin (her marriage, to King Yay\u0101ti, is not entirely a success). Kaca is welcomed home by the gods, led by Indra.<\/p>\n Let us use \u2018story-neutral\u2019 terms to bring together corresponding roles. For instance, let us couple Khann\u0101s and Kaca, both of whom undergo a threefold death, as \u2018the Victim\u2019. But I begin with more powerful beings.<\/p>\n Winners<\/strong>. The Persian story as a whole is driven by Ibl\u012bs, the Sanskrit by the gods; both parties eventually achieve their goal, essentially by guile. Several differences will come to mind. If Ibl\u012bs is singular, the gods are plural; but this is hardly fundamental. The Indra who led the gods in congratulating Kaca after his mission could easily (perhaps in other versions) have led them in dispatching him. Again, Ibl\u012bs intervenes repeatedly, while the gods stand back and let Kaca take his time; but this difference probably reflects the relative shrinkage of the Persian both in number of roles and spatiotemporal scale. Thirdly, Ibl\u012bs contrasts with Allah as evil, while the gods contrast with Asuras as (essentially) good. Ibl\u012bs and the gods both belong to well-marked dualities \u2013 Ibl\u012bs versus Allah, Devas versus Asuras \u2013 but here we shall emphasise a major difference between Avestan and Sanskrit. Notoriously, Avestan da\u0113va<\/em> is cognate with Sanskrit deva<\/em> \u2018god\u2019 but means \u2018demon\u2019. Whatever one makes of the history of ahura<\/em>\/asura <\/em>(cf. Skj\u00e6rv\u00f8 2011: 64-5), in this context they possess the opposite moral values to da\u0113va<\/em>\/deva<\/em>. By way of formula, we can write Winner = Ibl\u012bs + the gods.<\/p>\n Father<\/strong> = Ibl\u012bs + Br\u0325haspati. Apart from filling the Winner role, Ibl\u012bs is the Victim\u2019s father, and as such corresponds to the gods\u2019 chaplain, Br\u0325haspati. The latter does not intervene in the action, but is congratulated along with Kaca at the end. Whether good or bad, the moral status of the Father applies equally to their respective sons. One can also note a negative similarity: nothing is said of any father-son emotions.<\/p>\n Resuscitator<\/strong> = Ibl\u012bs + \u015aukra. In both stories the act of resuscitation consists in calling the victim. The Persian says simply \u2018Ibl\u012bs called to his son\u2019. After the first killing \u015aukra tells his daughter that, if necessary, he will revive Kaca simply by saying \u2018This one \u2013 come!\u2019 (ayam ehi iti \u015babdena<\/em>, 71.30); whereupon, applying his magic knowledge, he summons him (\u0101hvayat<\/em>). Neither story tells how the Resuscitator acquired the skill.<\/p>\n Ibl\u012bs\u2019 role as Resuscitator is not particularly foregrounded, since it is adopted merely as a way of pursuing his goal of implanting himself within humanity. In contrast \u015aukra\u2019s resuscitation magic is at the heart of the story, and is named and referred to in similar vocabulary several times. \u015aukra uses it primarily because he loves Devay\u0101n\u012b. However, he also seems to like his student, whom he describes as deserving of honour (arcya\u1e43<\/em> 71.19) and as innocent (n\u0101gasa\u1e43<\/em> 71.39). Moreover, he trusts Kaca to revive him.<\/p>\n So Ibl\u012bs cumulates three roles \u2013 Winner, Father, Resuscitator \u2013 which the Sanskrit distributes among different figures. But in one case the Sanskrit cumulates where the Persian distinguishes: \u015aukra not only resuscitates his pupil, but also swallows him.<\/p>\n Swallower<\/strong> = Adam + \u015aukra. The two male figures who consume or swallow the Victim (in a stew or in wine) offer clear contrasts. Adam has only his human capacities, \u015aukra is a demonic magician. Moreover, Adam consumes Khann\u0101s deliberately, wanting to eliminate the child, to whom he is hostile throughout. \u015aukra is well disposed towards his pupil and, when drinking his remains, is unaware of doing so.<\/p>\n On the other hand, both Swallowers are household heads, and their acts of consumption are comparable. Admittedly, Khann\u0101s is a supernatural while Adam is a mortal, but since in both stories Swallower and Victim alike are anthropomorphic, one is given the impression of cannibalism. Perhaps it was to counter this impression that some narrators give Khann\u0101s the form of a sheep at the third killing.<\/p>\n Obvious though it is, the structural position of the swallowing merits a note. If each death forms a separate subepisode, the first two are preparatory: they establish the pattern. The third subepisode starts as if it will follow the same pattern but the act of consumption gives it a new direction and brings us to the climax. In the Persian the climax is emphasised by Adam\u2019s steadily increasing anger towards his wife.<\/p>\n Apart from the swallowing the third subepisode is distinguished by certain other features. (a) It refers openly to the repetitive nature of the story. \u2018As many times as [Ibl\u012bs] entrusted [Khann\u0101s] to Eve, Adam beat her and slew Ibl\u012bs\u2019 son. At last\u2026\u2019 Compare \u015aukra\u2019s remark: \u2018It is impossible to keep this brahmin alive, for revived (by me) he is killed anew\u2019 (bh\u016bya\u1e25 <\/em>709*). <\/strong>(b) The Swallower expresses fatalism or uncertainty: \u2018God knows what will happen,\u2019 says Adam; \u2018What am I to do?\u2019 asks \u015aukra, urging his daughter not to grieve. (c) In both stories this mood soon passes. Adam becomes angry and kills Khann\u0101s. \u015aukra, without responding to Devay\u0101n\u012b\u2019s admission of her love, expresses his anger against the demons (who must have departed). In trying to implicate him in responsibility for the death of his innocent pupil, they are also rendering him guilty of the heinous sin of brahminicide. Adam\u2019s anger is paralleled in the previous subepisodes, but \u015aukra\u2019s is not.<\/p>\n Thus in both stories the Swallower (a) has repeatedly experienced failure, (b) is discouraged by this, and finally (c) becomes angry.<\/p>\n Killer<\/strong> = Adam + Vr\u0325\u1e63aparvan \/demons. Whereas Adam by himself kills Khann\u0101s, the demons collectively kill Kaca. However, later in the Yay\u0101ti story, when \u015aukra\u2019s daughter has quarrelled with Vr\u0325\u1e63aparvan\u2019s, the chaplain accuses the king of having personally ordered the killing of Kaca (agh\u0101tayath\u0101 <\/em>75.3). That V\u1e5b\u1e63aparvan\u2019s responsibility is not mentioned earlier hardly matters \u2013 compare the failure to mention a leader or spokesman when the gods first approach Kaca.<\/p>\n Like Adam, the demons kill in anger (amar\u1e63it\u0101\u1e25<\/em>, 71.26). But the fundamental similarity is that in their struggle with the Winners both Killers end up as Losers. Their third attack has precisely the opposite effect to that intended. Rather than eliminating Khann\u0101s, the consumption lodges him permanently in the body of Adam and his descendants. Rather than disposing of Kaca and the threat he poses, the consumption of wine results in Kaca gaining the magic he wants.<\/p>\n Female<\/strong> = Eve + Devay\u0101n\u012b. Though Yay\u0101ti will eventually marry the daughters both of Devay\u0101n\u012b and Vr\u0325\u1e63aparvan, the triple death stories each involve only a single female who, surrounded by males, is central to the action. Eve repeatedly admits Khann\u0101s into the household, and in their instructions to Kaca the gods give as much weight to Devay\u0101n\u012b as to \u015aukra \u2013 it is her urging that will lead to Kaca\u2019s resuscitations.<\/p>\n In themselves the two Females are not particularly similar. Eve is married to the Swallower\/Killer; Devay\u0101n\u012b is unmarried, daughter to the Swallower\/Resuscitator. Eve is reproached and beaten by her husband, Devay\u0101n\u012b has a doting father. Their relationships with the Victim differ accordingly. Eve has no special feelings for Khann\u0101s. At first she agrees to look after him, apparently as a favour granted in response to a reasonable request; but Adam\u2019s reaction makes her increasingly reluctant to accept him, and she swallows without protest her share in the cannibal meal. In contrast, Devay\u0101n\u012b falls in love with Kaca, as the gods planned.<\/p>\n Victim<\/strong> = Khann\u0101s + Kaca. Both Victims are young. Khann\u0101s is so young that someone still needs to act as his childminder. Kaca, \u2018at the height of his youth\u2019 (71.22b), is no doubt a teen-ager (he seems not to age during his lengthy pupillage). It is the Victim\u2019s youth that makes it possible for him to enter his hosts\u2019 household.<\/p>\n In addition, both Victims are little more than extensions of their fathers. Khann\u0101s is given no individual characteristics, and nothing is said of the child\u2019s behaviour. This is negative evidence, but Ibl\u012bs triumphs because he has placed himself<\/em> within the Swallowers. The Sanskrit \u2013 so much longer \u2013 may seem to give Kaca a little more personality, but his final rejection of Devay\u0101n\u012b implies that, when he seemed to be courting her, he was not expressing genuine feelings but simply following his instructions. If Br\u0325haspati participated in issuing the instructions, the son would again be essentially his father\u2019s instrument. The Epic says nothing of Kaca\u2019s life after his return to heaven, except that he will share in sacrificial offerings (72.23d).<\/p>\n In both stories the three subepisodes differ as to the treatment of the Victim\u2019s corpse, and the details of the six deaths are fairly complicated. Since it would be difficult to treat them satisfactorily without reference to the triple death literature and to material lying outside the Indo-Iranian domain, I omit discussion here, and summarise the results so far in Table 1.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nThe Stories<\/h2>\n
A. The Persian[1]<\/a><\/h3>\n
B. The Sanskrit[3]<\/a><\/h3>\n
Similarities and differences<\/h2>\n
A. Roles<\/h3>\n