Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c20: Part III. Chapter XIII. Religious Condition

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c20

Language
English

Contents

Part III. Chapter XIII. Religious Condition

c20.2

The Hindu revival, begun in the north under the S'unga patronage, reached its culmination in India as a whole during our period. There were a few exceptions; Sindh continued to be largely under the Buddhist influence down to the beginning of our age as the Chachanāmā testifies; in Bengal Buddhism continued to flourish down to its conquest by the Muslims towards the end of the 12th century. In the Deccan itself the revival of Hinduism did not in the least affect the prospects of Jainism; it continued to be the religion of a strong minority throughout our period. That sect was destined to make rapid progress in Gujarat in the 12th century under the influence of Hemachandra and his pupil and patron king Kumārapāla. In spite of this local ascendency of Buddhism and Jainism in some of the provinces of India, it must be, however, admitted that the period under review marked a distinct and decisive advance of the reformed Hinduism. The discomfiture of Buddhism can be regularly traced from a much earlier period. It is true that in spite of state patronage of Hinduism Buddhism continued to prosper in the Gupta age, as the accounts of Fa Hsien and the sculptures of the Gupta school of Buddhist art at Sarnath, which represents the indigenous Buddhist art at its best, clearly show. But the tide had turned; and its effects were to be clearly seen in the seventh century. In spite of Harsha, Yuan Chwang found that the Punjab, and the Northern United Provinces, which were definitely Buddhist at the time of Fa Hsien, had slipped back into heterodoxy. Sacred places of Buddhists like Kosambi, S'ravastī, Kapilavastu, Kusinagara, and Vaiśālī were either wild ruins or populated by heretics;(1) even in Magadha, Buddhism was not supreme.

c20.3

The new ground gained in the interval was only at Kanauj, where the number of the Vihāras increased from 2 to 100; but this was due to the temporary impetus given by the patronage of Harsha and did not represent the tendency of the age. Buddhism had realised in the days of Yuan Chwang and I-tsing that its days in India were numbered; these Chinese pilgrims record a number of superstitious beliefs, current among the Buddhists themselves, about the destined disappearance of their religion from India. At Budhagaya itself the brethern believed that their faith would disappear when certain images of Avalokiteśvara in that locality would be completely buried under sand, and some of them were already more than chest-deep under that material in the seventh century A.D.(2) A garment alleged to have been worn by the Buddha himself was shown to Yuan Chwang at Purushapura or modern Peshawar; it was in a sadly tattered condition and the monks believed that the religion would perish the moment the garment was no more. I-tsing, who came in the third quarter of the 7th century, saw very clearly what way the things were moving; he emphasises the necessity of a synthesis of the various sects, if the rapid decline of the religion was to be arrested.(3) In the Deccan and Karnataka, Buddhism was never very strong; in the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. and A.D., as the epigraphic evidence from the Western India shows, it had several centres along the Western Coast; but they had begun to decline much earlier than our period. The pious Fa Hsien did not visit the Deccan because he was told that the people there were subscribing to bad and erroneous views and did not follow the Sramanas and the law of the Buddha.⁴ He had heard only a hearsay report; but it could not have been altogether erroneous. The Vākāṭakas who were ruling in Northern Maharashtra were orthodox Hindus; the founder of the house had performed a number of Vedic sacrifices like Agniṣṭoma, Aptoryāma and As'vamedha and his descendants were either Shaivites or Vaishnavites, but never Buddhists.⁵ Earlier rulers of the Chālukya house, which subsequently rose to power, were again orthodox Hindus, who prided themselves on having performed a number of Vedic sacrifices like Agnichayana, Vājapeya, As'vamedha, Bahusurvarṇa etc.⁶ Buddhism, therefore, naturally began to decline. Yuan Chwang records that in Konkan there were 100 monasteries, but heretics were very numerous; the case could not have been much different in Maharashtra which, though a much a bigger province, had also the same number of monasteries.⁷ The number of Buddhist monks in both the provinces was only 6000. The strength of Buddhism lay in its cloistered population, for there was nothing to mark off distinctively the lay Buddhist population from the ordinary Hindus. Any one could become an upāsaka by reciting the triple formula; the church did not care either to prescribe a special form of recognition, or to regulate religious ideas and habits and metaphysical beliefs of the laymen, or even to prohibit them from becoming at the same time lay followers of some other church.⁸ The total Buddhist population in the Deccan at the middle of the 7th century could not have been much more than 10,000, and that number may have further dwindled down by the beginning of our period.

c20.4

¹ Watters, I, pp. 366, 377, II, pp. 125-6, 63.

c20.5

² Watters, II, p. 115.

c20.6

³ Takakusu: I-tsing, A Record of Buddhist Religion, p. 15.

c20.7

⁴ Legge, Fa Hsien, A Record of Buddist Kingdoms, Chap. XXXV.

c20.8

⁵ Fleet, C. I. I., III, pp. 236-7.

c20.9

⁶ Mahakuta inscription of Mangalīs'a, I. A., XIX, p. 17.

c20.10

⁷ Watters, II, p. 239.

c20.11

⁸ Oldenberg: The Buddha, pp. 162-3, 382-4.

c20.12

It is a noteworthy fact that the revival of Hinduism did not affect the fortunes of Jainism in the Deccan. This may be ascribed mainly to two causes. Firstly the religion was fortunate to acquire state patronage under the early Kadambas, Chālukyas, and the Western Gangas. Many of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings were themselves Jains and so were many of their viceroys and generals. The second cause was the influence of the work and achievements of a number of important Jain saints and writers like Samantabhadra, Akalankadeva, Vidyānanda, Mānikyanandin, Prabhāchandra, Jinasena, Gunachandra, and Pampa.⁹

c20.13

⁹ See Chapter XVI, section B.

c20.14

Wide and sympathetic toleration was the general characteristic of our age. There were a few persecutions here and there; in the *S'ankaradigvijaya*, a book of essentially lengendary character, *S'as'ānka* is alleged to have ordered a general murder of Buddhists including women and children; in Sindh, Chacha's brother Chander is said to have compelled¹⁰ his subjects to accept his faith under the threat of sword; Udayendiram plates of Nandivarman which record the grant of a village to Brahmanas after the 'destruction of the irreligious,'¹¹ may suggest a kind of persecution of heterodox sects in Tamil country; the Jains for some time suffered terribly from the S'aiva fanaticism of some of the Pandya rulers. But these cases were rather exceptional and did not represent the spirit of the age. From the 5th century A.D., the Purāṇas were advocating the view that all the different deities were the manifestations of the same divine principle, and that their followers should not quarrel. This view had begun to be universally accepted. Kṛṣṇavarmā, a king of the early Kadamba dynasty, who describes himself as the performer of the As'vamedha sacrifice, is known to.

c20.15

¹⁰ Elliot, I. p. 153.

c20.16

¹¹ Cf. अन्यानधर्मकृत्यान् विनाशय I. A., VIII, 276; but अधर्मकृत्यान् may mean immoral persons as well.

c20.17

have given a munificent gift for the maintenance of a Jaina establishment.¹² Even when he was an avowed Buddhist, Harsha used to worship in public Hindu deities like the Sun and S'iva.¹³ Karka Suvarṇavarsha of the Gujarat branch himself a staunch S'aiva, had given a field to a Jain Vihara at Naosari.¹⁴ Amoghavarsha I was undoubtedly a follower of Jainism, and yet he was such an ardent believer in the Hindu goddess Mahālakshmī, that he actually cut off one of his fingers and offered it to her, being led to believe that an epidemic, from which his kingdom was suffering, would vanish away by that sacrifice.¹⁵ Dantivarman of the Gujarat branch, himself a Hindu, gave a village to a Buddhist Vihara.¹⁶ Brahmanas of Ballal family at Mulgund offered a field to a Jain Monastery in 902 A.D.¹⁷ The records of the Raṭṭas of Saundatti are very interesting in this respect. Mahāsāmanta Pṛthvīrāma, a contemporary of Kṛshṇa II, is known to have erected a Jain temple in c. 875 A.D. His grandson was also a Jain, but the latter's grandson was a follower of Hinduism and is known to have given a grant of 12 nivartanas of land to his preceptor, who was well-versed in the three Vedas. His son Srīsena is known to have built a Jain temple. The Belur inscription of Jayasimha, dated 1022 A.D., is extremely interesting. The donor Akkādevī is described in this document as practising¹⁸ the religious observances prescribed by the rituals of Jina, Buddha, Ananta i. e., Vishnu and Rudra. The temple that she had erected was for Tripurusha i. e. Vishnu, Brahmā and S'ankara. This interesting lady had, not only made a synthesis of Hindu cults but also of all the main religious movements of the time, viz. Buddhism, Jainism, Vaishnavism and Saivism. Another document belonging to the same century¹⁹ opens with a laudation of Jina, followed immediately by that of Vishnu. The inscription informs us that at the desire of the king, the Lord Nāgavarmā caused to be built a temple of Jina, Vishnu, Īśvara and the Saints. What a clear example of wide toleration! A still more interesting case is to be found recorded in the Dambal stone inscription from Dharwar district belonging to the 11th century.²⁰ The donors were the followers of a S'aiva sect called Balanju; the grant drafted by them opens with a salutation to Jain munindras, followed by another to the Buddhist Goddess Tārā and the purpose of the charity was to provide funds for a temple of Tārā and Buddha. The above examples will make it abundantly clear that the view of Prajāpati-smriti,²¹ that a person should not visit a Jaina temple or cremating ground after partaking of a Srāddha feast would have found no acceptance in the Deccan of our period.

c20.18

¹² I. A., VII, 34.

c20.19

¹³ Smith, *Early History*, p. 364.

c20.20

¹⁴ Surat plates of 821 A.D., E. I., XXI.

c20.21

¹⁵ Sanjan Copper-plates, E. I., XVIII, p. 248.

c20.22

¹⁶ E. I., VI, p. 292.

c20.23

¹⁷ J. B. B. R. A. S., X, 195.

c20.24

¹⁸ I. A., XVIII, 274.

c20.25

¹⁹ Belgave inscription of Somes'vara I, p. 1048. A. D., I. A., IV, p. 181.

c20.26

²⁰ I. A., X, 188.

c20.27

²¹ V, 95.

c20.28

Such examples were not confined to the Deccan alone. Govindachandra, Gahadwal king of Kanauj, himself a Saivite, was married to a Buddhist princess Kumāradevī, and is known to have given six villages for the maintenance of the monks in the Jetavana of Sravasti.²² Madanapāla of Bengal, himself a Buddhist, gave the gift of a village to a Brahmana for reciting the Mahabharata to his queen Chitramatikā.²³ It seemed as if the people had realised that there was no cultural difference between the three religions, and that a man may follow any one of them or make a combination, suitable to his own individual temperament, of the acceptable elements of any or all of them. The case seems to have been somewhat similar to that of a modern man of culture, who fails to realise any inconsistency in being a member, at one and the same time, of different societies formed for the promotion of literature, fine arts and morality. There was a certain amount of feeling exhibited in philosophical writings of the period, but even there behind the superficial clash, there was an inner movement of synthesis. It is now almost universally recognised that the scheme of Advaita philosophy, as outlined by S'ankara was largely influenced by the S'ūnyavāda of Nāgārjuna; many of the verses in the *Mūlamadhyamakārikā* of the latter anticipate the position later assumed by S'ankara.²⁴

c20.29

²² E. I., XI, p. 22.

c20.30

²³ J. A., S. B., Vol. 69, p. 66.

c20.31

²⁴ Cf. मायोपमं जगदिदं भवता नटरङ्गसदृशं दृष्टं । नात्मा न सत्त्वं न च जीवगतिधर्मा मरीच्युदकचंद्रसमाः ॥ शून्यमिति न वक्तव्यमशून्यमिति वा भवेत् । उभयं नोभयं चेति प्रज्ञप्त्यर्थं तु कथ्यते ॥

c20.32

It need hardly be added that there was harmony prevailing among the followers of the different sects of Hinduism, since it existed even among the followers of the orthodox and the heterodox religions. The opening verse in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa copperplates pays homage to both S'iva and Viṣṇu. Their seal is sometimes the eagle, the vehicle of Viṣṇu, and sometimes S'iva in the posture of a seated Yogin. The Gahadwal kings were themselves Saivites, but they used to worship both S'iva and Viṣṇu at the time of making land grants.²⁵ There is a verse in the Surat plates of Karka stating that Indra, the father of the donor, did not bow his head even before any god, S'ankara excepted.²⁶ This smacks a little of the sectarian narrowness and some people may have occasionally exhibited it in our period. But it is not improbable that even in this verse the poet may have exaggerated the reality in order to develop a contrast. The general spirit of the age cannot be regarded as embodied in this verse. In the 10th century there existed at Salotgi in Bijapur district a temple constructed for the joint worship of Brahmadeva, S'iva. and Viṣṇu.²⁷ At Kargudri there existed another shrine erected for the joint worship of S'ankara, Vishnu, and Bhāskara.²⁸ These temples are more illustrative of the spirit of the age than the verse in the Surat plates referred to above.

c20.33

²⁵ E. g., E. I., XI, p. 24.

c20.34

²⁶ Cf. मुक्त्वा च सर्वभुवनेश्वरमादिदेवम् । नावन्दतान्यमरैरपि यो मनस्वी ॥ E. I., XXI.

c20.35

²⁷ E. I. IV, p. 66.

c20.36

²⁸ I. A. X p. 251.

c20.37

The spirit of toleration was not confined to the religions of the land, but was extended to Mahomedanism as well. There were several Mahomedans in the western ports come for the purpose of commerce; they were allowed to practise their religion openly. Jumma masjids were permitted to be built for their use.³⁰ This permission to build mosques may be contrasted with the reply given by Mahmad Tughlagh to the request of the Chinese emperor to permit the rebuilding of some Buddhist temples sacked by the Muslims. The Sultan received the valuable gifts brought by the Chinese embassy, but wrote saying that the request could not be granted under the Islamic law as permission to build a temple in the territories of the Muslims could be given only to those who paid the Jizia tax. 'If thou wilt pay the Jizia, we shall empower thee to build a temple.'³¹ Muslim officers were appointed to administer their personal law³² to the Muslim inhabitants. This toleration is indeed surprising when one remembers the brutal treatment of the Hindus by the Muslim conquerors of Sindh, who gave no quarter to the Hindus in the warfare, demolished their temples, imposed the Jizia tax upon them, and enslaved thousands of Hindu women and sold them in the streets of Baghdad.³³ This policy of doing a good turn for an evil one may be indeed admired from the point of view of universal toleration: and but it shows clearly that the Hinduism of our period was too blind or shortsighted to see the danger that was awaiting it from the religion it was tolerating so liberally.

c20.38

³⁰ Elliot, I, p. 27 and p. 38..

c20.39

³¹ Gibbs, *Ibn Batuta*, p, 214.

c20.40

³² Elliot, I, p. 27.

c20.41

³³ *Ibid*, pp. 170, 173, 176 and 182.

c20.42

The Muslims on the western coast were using Indian dress and language,(34) but a little enquiry would have shown that they were completely Persianised in Sindh, where they were under the complete sway of Persian costume, language and customs. The political alliance of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas with the Arabs was not solely responsible for this toleration, for it continued under the Cālukyas of Gujarat also. Muḥmud ‘Ufi narrates a story of Rai Jaysing of Aṇahilapaṭṭaṇa, who personally investigated into the complaints of the Muslims of Cambay regarding the damage done to their property and mosques in a riot, punished the Parsi and Hindu ringleaders, and gave a lakh of balotras for the reerection of the mosques.(35) So neither the horrors of the conquest of Sindh nor the vandalism and rapine of the 20 and odd invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni could change the tolerant attitude of the Hindus towards the followers of Islam. Religious retaliation was out of question; Ibn Batuta describes how at the door of the Cathedral mosque in Delhi, enormous idols of brass were kept prostrate on the ground in order to make every visitor tread on them.(36) Hinduism of our period was in a position to inflict similar indignities, both in the south and the north, on the Muslim inhabitants of the Hindu states, but did not resort to such conduct.

c20.43

The Hindu revival, which reached its culmination in our period, had three aspects, theological, philosophical and popular; let us consider them one by one.

c20.44

The theological movement found its greatest exponent in Kumārila who, according to tradition, was an elderly contemporary of S’ankara, but may have really flourished a few decades earlier. Kumārila boldly stood for the pure Vedic religion, opposed the heterodox theory of Sanyāsa, and advocated the life-long performance of Vedic sacrifices involving slaughter of sentient beings. It is not to be, however, supposed that the theological movement began with Kumārila, it rather ended with him. It began with Patañjali; Puṣyamitra Śuṅga, who was his contemporary, had performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice twice.³⁷ Literary activity continued under the Vṛttikāra, Śabarasvāmin, and Prabhākara and we find some of the Hindu rulers of the intervening period very enthusiastic about Vedic sacrifices. Nayanikā, the widow of the third Sātavāhana king, is known to have celebrated a number of Vedic sacrifices like Aśvamedha, Gavāmayana, Gargātirātra, Āptoryāma, etc.; Pravarasena, the founder of the Vākāṭaka dynasty of northern Maharashtra, is recorded to have performed³⁸ Agniṣṭoma, Āptoryāma and Aśvamedha sacrifices. Two of the Gupta emperors are so far known to have celebrated the last mentioned sacrifice and one of the early Cālukya kings is recorded to have participated in several Vedic sacrifices.³⁹

c20.45

³⁴ Ibid, I, 19.

c20.46

³⁵ Ibid, II, pp. 163-4.

c20.47

³⁷ J. B. O, R. S., X, p. 202.

c20.48

³⁸ C. I., I., III, p. 236.

c20.49

³⁹ I. A., XIX, p. 17.

c20.50

The arguments of the theological school, in spite of the brilliant advocacy of Kumārila who flourished just before our period, failed to carry conviction to the popular mind. The theories of Ahinsā and Sanyāsa had become so popular that a person advocating the life-long performance of Vedic sacrifices, involving slaughter, had no chance of captivating the popular mind. We hardly come across any Hindu kings of our period who cared to boast that they had performed Vedic sacrifices. We have numerous grants of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings given to Brahmanas to enable them to discharge their religious duties, but these duties are generally of the Smārta rather than of S'rauta character. The Sanjan plates of Amoghavarṣa⁴⁰ and the Cambay plates of Govinda IV⁴¹ are the only two exceptions, where it is expressly stated that the grants were made to enable the Brahmanas to perform Vedic sacrifices like Rājasūya, Vājapeya, and Agnishtoma. In all other cases the grants were made for discharging purely Smārta duties connected with bali, charu, vais'vadeva etc. These facts, disclosed by the analysis of the epigraphical evidence, are the most convincing proof that in spite of Kumārila's efforts, the S'rauta religion almost died down in our age. Some of the Smriti writers of our period assert boldly that he who is not following the S'rauta ritual is a fallen one; (42) nay it is further stated that he who follows the Veda and its ritual and derides those of the Dharmaśāstra, ensures himself 21 births in the realm of the quadrupeds. (43) It is thus clear that both the theory and practice of the age had abandoned the Vedic sacrifices. Alberuni was informed that the Vedic sacrifices were rarely performed and practically abandoned because they presupposed a long life which was no longer vouchsafed in the present age. (44) This seems to have been another excuse invented for the non-performance of the Vedic sacrifices which had otherwise grown unpopular.

c20.51

³⁶ Gibbs, *Ibn Batuta*, p. 195.

c20.52

⁴⁰ I. A., XVIII, p. 235.

c20.53

⁴¹ E, I., VII, p. 41.

c20.54

The philosophical revival had commenced about the second century B. C. when the nucleus of the present Brahmasūtras seems to have been formed. For about four centuries the Brahmasūtra school continued to expound the Hindu philosophical view and refute the heresies of the Jains and the Buddhists and others till the Brahmasūtras assumed their present form at about the middle of the 3rd century A. D. A number of writers continued the work, but it found its most powerful exponent in the great S'ankarāchārya, who flourished in our period. This great philosopher, though born in Kerala, was an all-India figure, and it would be interesting to enquire what was the influence of his teachings and activities in the Deccan of our period.

c20.55

⁴² E. g. Atri, v. 354.

c20.56

⁴³ Ibid, v. 11.

c20.57

⁴⁴ Sachau, Alberuni's India, II p. 139.

c20.58

By advocating the superiority of Sanyāsa to Karmamārga and by maintaining that the Vedic sacrifices had merely a purificatory effect, S'ankarāchārya undoubtedly helped the tendency of the age to abandon the Vedic rituals; his controversy with Kumārila may or may not have been historical. It is true that S'ankara's arguments went equally against the Smārta Karmamārga, but we must not forget that people usually apply theories to the convenient and not to the logical extent. It must be also remembered that S'ankara himself was a fervent devotee of Pauranic deities and some of his most eloquent and appealing writings consist of prayers addressed to them. In this respect S'ankara was a powerful asset to the popular religion.

c20.59

It is to be regretted that there should be so far discovered no trace of S'ankara and his work in epigraphical documents. This is rather strange, for tradition claims that he toured about preaching, discussing, controverting and founding monastic establishments throughout the length and breadth of India. There is ample evidence to show that the philosophico-literary activity enunciated by S'ankara continued ever increasing for several centuries. But the effect on popular life of the teachings and institutions of S'ankara during our period is difficult to estimate in the present state of our knowledge.

c20.60

The first question to be answered is whether Sanyāsa became more popular than before as a result of S'ankara's teachings. The answer seems to be in the negative. The negative evidence of the epigraphical records of our period is to some extent significant. The Rāshṭrakūṭas and their feudatories and contemporaries have given a number of grants, but none has been so far discovered made in favour of a Hindu Sanyāsin or his Maṭha. Buddhist and Jain Sanyāsins very often figure in our epigraphical records but Hindu Sanyāsins never. Sulaiman, who had several times visited the ports of western India during our period, no doubt refers to Hindu Sanyasins when he says :—'In India there are persons who in accordance with their profession wander in woods and mountains and rarely communicate with the rest of the mankind. But the presence of these Sanyāsins cannot be attributed to the influence of S'ankara, for the theory of four Ās'ramas, which had been started several centuries before the time of S'ankara, was responsible for their presence. It seems that we have to admit that S'ankara's advocacy of Sanyāsa did not produce in the society an upheaval, comparable to that produced by the Upanishadic, Jain and Buddhist movements. The reason seems to be the association of Sanyāsa with the heterodoxy in the popular mind, produced by the Jain and Buddhist monasteries, that were flourishing for several centuries.

c20.61

S'ankarāchārya had founded four Mathas in the four corners of India and very soon subsidiary ones sprang into existence. Till recently these institutions were powers in the land; a decree ( ājñāpatra ) from them was respected by society as implicitly as the command of the king. What was the influence of these institutions over the Deccan of our period?

c20.62.1

It seems that these institutions did not wield any influence in our period. In the first instance we have got not a single reference to any Pītha or its activity in any records of our period. In the second place there are indications that down to the 12th century A. D., the term Jagadguru, which subsequently came to designate exclusively the occupants of the Pīthas funded by S'ankara, was used to denote ordinary Brahmanas of outstanding preeminence, learning and character. The Managoli inscription of 1161 A. D.⁴⁵ mentions that towards the end of the 10th century, in the Brahmadeya village of Manigavalli there flourished a celebrity, Iśvara Ghalisāsa by name, who was the Jagadguru of the world and whose feet were worshipped by Taila II, the overthrower of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. There is nothing to indicate in the record that Iśvara Ghalisāsa had any connection with the Pītha of Sringeri or its branch at Sankeśvara. Besides, were he a Jagadguru of the order founded by S'ankara, his name would have appeared in a Sanyāsin garb. He was a married man and the headship of the agrahāra of Managoli seems to have been hereditary in his family. His gotra was the same as that of the Chalukyas viz. Hārita, and Taila believed that it was the favour of this celebrity that had secured him the throne. It is therefore not unlikely that the title of Jagadguru may have been conferred upon him by his grateful and illustrious disciple.

c20.62.2

The record makes it clear that Iśvara Ghalisāsa was not the head of any Maṭha located at Managoli, and yet he was styled Jagadguru. If in our period the Pīṭhas founded by S'ankara had wielded the same influence as they did till recently, if there had been a branch of the Sringeri Pīṭha at Sankeśvara which is fairly near to Managoli, Iśvara Ghalisāsa, the head of the Managoli Agrahāra, who had no connection with any Maṭha, could not have dared to use the title Jagadguru. This record, therefore, makes it clear that the Pīṭhas founded by S'ankara were not exercising any appreciable influence in the Deccan till the end of our period. It must be further remembered that the claim to give the final verdict in socio-religious matters, claimed and conceded to the occupants of the Pīṭhas founded by S'ankara, must have appeared as preposterous in our period. In the Hindu period these matters were decided by special officers of Government who were variously known as Vinayasthitisthāpakas, Dharmānkuśas, Dharmapradhānas or Paṇḍitas.

c20.62.3

The last mentioned officer was to be a member of the ministry according to the S'ukranīti, a work which very probably belongs to our period with the exception of some interpolations, and it was he who was to review the realm of social and religious practices, to find out which of them, though prescribed in the S'āstras, were against the spirit of the age, which were absolutely obsolete, being countenanced neither by the S'āstra nor by custom, and to issue such orders regarding the points at dispute as may secure both this world and the next.⁴⁶ The Smritis of our and of earlier period⁴⁷ assign this function to a parishad or conference, composed of distinguished learned men of known character and piety. There is no real contradiction between S'ukra and these Smriti writers; for the royal officers, when and where they existed, may have presided over and been guided by the decisions of these experts. The case was similar to that of the judicial Panchayats; the judgments signed by Rama Shastri Prabhune of the Peshva period used to embody the decisions of the Panchayats to whom the cases were referred, though the signatures of the Panchas did not appear on the judgments. It is therefore not likely that the ministers of the Hindu states and the Parishads of our period would have looked with favour upon the proposal to surrender their rights in social and religious matters to the order founded by S'ankarāchārya.

c20.62.4

It is very probable that the occupants of the Pīṭhas acquired their present powers and jurisdiction subsequent to the fall of Hindu states. With the establishment of Muslim rule the state ceased to look after the social and religious usages and the Parishads may, therefore, have gladly welcomed the idea of utilising the prestige, which was by that time acquired by the representatives of the order founded by S'ankara, for the enforcement of their decisions. As years rolled on, the prestige of the Pīṭhas increased in the Deccan, and the Parishads were forgotten altogether.

c20.63

⁴⁵ I. A., p. 15,

c20.64

⁴⁶ Cf. वर्तमानश्च प्राचीना धर्मा: के लोकसंश्रिता: । शास्त्रेषु के समुद्दिष्टा विरुध्यन्ते च केऽधुना ।। लोकशास्त्रविरुद्धा ये पंडितास्तान् विचिन्तयेत् । नृपम् सम्बोधयेत् तत्र परत्रह सुखप्रदै: ।। II, 98-100

c20.65

⁴⁷ Gautama II, 10,47-48; Manu a XII, 110 ff; Yājnavalkya I, 9; S'atātapa 129; S'rnkha, IV, 29, 63,

c20.66

Let us now proceed to consider the popular Hinduism i. e. the religion of the masses of our period. This religion may be described as the Smārta Pauranic religion. The reform movement, which culminated in this development, had begun much earlier than our period; it had commenced with the later Smriti writers and the remodellers of the older Purāṇas and had so completely captured the imagination of the masses in our period that the advocates of the theological revival found themselves helpless before it. Unfortunately the precise chronology of these works is not yet definitely fixed, but it is generally agreed that the majority of them were composed sometime between 500 and 1000 A.D. Let us see what epigraphical evidence has got to say about the success or influence of this movement.

c20.67

The Smritis had preached the gospel of the Pañcamahāyajñas, which were intended as substitutes for the Vedic sacrifices involving slaughter. Vast majority of the Brahmana donees of our period are described as performers of these sacrifices. During our period Smarta agnihotra was fairly common at least among professional priests; Atrisamhitā, which belongs to our period, says that a Brahmana, who does not keep agnihotra, is a person whose food should not be accepted.⁴⁸ The prevalence of agnihotra during our period is proved also by the testimony of Alberuni, who observes that the Brahmanas who kept one fire were called Ishtins and those who kept three were called agnihotrins.⁴⁹ Some of the Nigama writers include agnihotra among things prohibited in the Kali age, but that view was not the view of our age.

c20.68

⁴⁸ v. 254.

c20.69

⁴⁹ Sachau, I, p. 102.

c20.70

If we compare the daily routine laid down by early Smriti writers for a Brahmana householder with that laid down by later Nibandha writers, we shall find a great change. The earlier writers like Manu and Yājñavalkya prescribe one bath and two prayers a day and lay an emphasis principally on the Pañcamahāyajñas. The Nibandha writers seek to increase the Smarta ritual to such an extent that hardly any time is left for secular duties. Our period marked the transition time.

c20.71

The Nibandha writers definitely lay down three baths for a Brahmana, the Smriti writers of our period hesitate between one and two. Sankha is satisfied with one bath only, but Daksha, Kātyāyana, and Vaiyāghrapāda advocate two, (50) the second one being at the mid-day. That the rule of the Smritis was actually followed in practice towards the end of the 13th century, (51) is proved by Marco Polo who testifies to the fact that the Hindus of Malabar, both males and females, used to take two baths a day. (51) The theory of three daily baths had begun to appear towards the end of our period, and had not yet become popular. Alberuni notes the theoretical rule that a Brahmana should take three baths a day, but adds that in practice, the evening prayers were recited without a previous bath. He observes:—‘Evidently the rule about the third bath is not as stringent as that relating to the first and second washings.’ (52)

c20.72

The number of prayers, *sandhyās*, was also tending to increase at about our period. As the etymology of the term *sandhyā* shows, the *sandhyā* times could obviously not have been more than two in the beginning. A third *sandhyā*, however, began to be advocated by some of the Smriti writers of our age. Atri lays down that a twiceborn should recite *sandhyā* thrice; (53) Vyāsa concurs and supplies three different names to the three different *sandhyās* as Gāyatrī, Sarasvatī, and Sāvitrī respectively. (54) The Nibandha writers accept this theory and prescribe three *sandhyās* universally.

c20.73

It will be thus seen that the Smriti writers of our period were showing a tendency to make the simple Smārta religion as rigid and complex as the S'rauta one; detailed rules, hardly leaving much scope for individual liberty, began to be framed for *s'aucha*, *dantadhāvana*, bath, *āchamana* etc. S'rauta sacrifices had died down in our period but the rigidity of ritualistic details which characterised them became a prominent feature of the Smarta religion from about the 12th century onwards. Our period was the transition period.

c20.74

⁵⁰ Quoted in *Smṛtichandrikā*, *Āhnikakāṇḍa* pp. 290-291. 483.

c20.75

⁵¹ II, p. 342
52. II, pp. 33, 134.

c20.76

⁵³ Quoted in *Āchāramayūkha*, p. 39.

c20.77

⁵⁴ Ibid.

c20.78

Another characteristic feature of the Hinduism of our period was the popularity of the Vratas. The theory and advocacy of Vratas was a peculiar feature of the Puranas, most of which were either composed or remodelled near about our period. Out of the 113 Vratas mentioned in the Vratārka of S'ankarabhaṭṭa as many as 110 are based on the authority of the Puranas. 128 Vratas mentioned in the Vratakaumudī and 205 described in Vratarāja are all of them based on Pauranic authority. Vratas offered opportunities for individuals of both the sexes of personally going through a course of religious life characterised by self-denial and austerities. There was also the bait of the fulfilment of desires intended for the ignorant. They therefore powerfully appealed to the popular mind, and are still characteristic feature of Hinduism in rural areas. In the Deccan of our period, they were probably becoming popular We do not find any reference to their popularity in epigraphical records of our period. But this fact is probably accidental, for we have ample evidence to show that the Pauranic religion, as a whole, was capturing the popular imagination.

c20.79

The Nargund inscription, dated 939 A.D.⁵⁵, records some voluntary contributions from the various classes of inhabitants for the purpose of a local tank. The contribution of the Brahmanas is stated to be one golden Paṇa on the occasion of each Prāyaśchitta performed in the village. The Kalas inscription of Govinda IV⁵⁶ also records an assignment by the local Brahmanas of the fees they used to receive at penitential rites (prāyaśchittas) for the maintenance of a local college. These records will therefore show that at least some of the various Prāyaśchittas that have been prescribed in the Smritis were performed by some sections of Hindu society. Some of the later Smritis, that were written not far from our period, e. g. Laghu-Sātātapa, Brihadyama, and Āpastamba, are almost entirely devoted to the discussion of penitential rites. These can be better described as Prāyaśchitta manuals necessitated by the general tendency of the age to perform them.

c20.80

⁵⁵ I. A., XII, p. 224.

c20.81

⁵⁶ E. I., XIII, p. 325.

c20.82

The Puranas offered new saguṇa and anthropomorphic nuclei for religious devotion, and the deities that were glorified in them soon became popular gods of the masses. Growth of sectional rivalry was anticipated by the doctrine that all the deities are the manifestations of one and the same Supreme Power. Our epigraphical records bear eloquent testimony to the popularity of the Pauranic deities in our period. That S'aivism and Vaishnavism were the main sects of our time is indicated by the usual opening verse in the Rāshṭrakūṭa grants, which contains a salutation to both S'iva and Vishṇu. The grant of Abhimanyu Rāshṭrakūṭa mentions a Dakshiṇa-S'iva temple, whose custodian Jaṭābhāra seems to have been a Pāśupata. At Salotgi in Bijapur district there was a temple of Kātyāyanī and another constructed for the joint worship of Brahmā, Vishṇu, and S'iva. (57) The custom of founding a S'iva temple in commemoration of a dead ancestor, and of naming the deity after the person to be commemorated, had already become prevalent in our period. Hebbal inscription, dated 975 A.D., (58) refers to a temple of Bhujjabbeśvara built to commemorate Bhubbarasi, the grand mother of the Ganga ruler Mārasinha II. Ragholi plates of Jayavardhana (59) and the Kavi plates of Govinda of the Gujarat branch (60) attest to the prevalence of the Sun worship. The Pathari pillar inscription discloses a temple of S'auri. (61)

c20.83

⁵⁷ E. I., IV, p. 60.

c20.84

⁵⁸ E. I., IV, p. 350.

c20.85

⁵⁹ E. I., IX, p. 42.

c20.86

⁶⁰ I. A., V, p. 145.

c20.87

A temple of Śāradā existed in Managoli.⁶². The worship of the presiding deities of the locality is mentioned in record from Ṣaundatti, dated 875 A.D., which refers to the temple of the deity presiding over Sugandhavatī 12.⁶³ Whether Vithoba of Pandharpur, perhaps the most popular deity of the Deccan to-day, existed in our period is difficult to determine with certainty. An inscription from Belgaum district, dated 1250 A.D., refers to a grant made in the presence of Viṣṇu at Pauṇḍarika-kṣhetra, which is described in the document as situated on the banks of the Bhīmā.⁶⁴ The name of the Tīrtha and its situation on the Bhīmā make it obvious that our inscription clearly proves the existence of the Viṭṭhala temple at Pandharpur in 1250 A.D. It was even then a famous centre of pilgrimage; the premier Mallseṭṭi utilised his presence at Pauṇḍarika-kṣhetra for making the donation. The fame of the temple was already well established by the middle of the 13th century A.D.; it is, however, difficult to say how far earlier than 1200 A.D. the worship of Viṭṭhala had commenced at Pandharpur. Since it was a famous centre at about 1200 A.D., we may reasonably presume that the worship of the God at the place was at least a couple of centuries old at that time.

c20.88

⁶² E. I., VII, p. 143.

c20.89

⁶³ J. B, B. R. A. S., X, 199.

c20.90

⁶⁴ I. A., XIV, p. 70.

c20.91

In addition to the above gods the masses were worshipping a number of aboriginal deities. The worship of Mhasoba was current. Al Idrisi obviously refers to it when he says:—⁶⁵ ‘Others worship holy stones on which butter and oil is poured.’ Tree and serpent worship is mentioned by the same writer; the serpent worshippers, we are told, used to keep them in stables and feed them as well as they could. He further says:—‘Some acknowledge the intercessory powers of graven stones’ This may possibly refer to the belief in inscribed talismans or it may refer to cases like that of the famous Garuḍadhvaja erected at Vidiśā by the Greek ambassador Heliodorus, which was being worshipped as Khāmbābā at the time Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar discovered it.

c20.92

⁶⁵ Elliot, I, p. 76.

c20.93

The followers of all these different gods formed, or rather appeared to a foreign observer as forming, different sects.(65) Al Idrisi therefore states that there were 42 different sects in India at his time. But since the followers of the different deities shared the belief that they were worshipping the different manifestations of one and the same Supreme God, they can hardly be described as forming different sects.

c20.94

The problem of the origin and prevalence of the image worship is still to be properly worked out. Dharmasūtra writers rarely refer to the duty of worshipping images of gods either at home or in public temples; nor is it mentioned by Manu. The cult of public temples seems to be later than the time of Asoka. It may have been deemed a suitable substitute for the great S'rauta sacrifices which were attended by a great number of people. Possibly the example of Buddhism with its splendid temples and monasteries may have given rise in the Hindu mind to a desire to have similar centres of public worship and congregation. Whatever the real causes may have been, temples soon became recognised centres of public worship and were characteristic of the Hinduism of our period. It must be, however, noted that the sums of money that were being spent over the temples, images, their ornaments and daily worship were tending to become excessively high in our period. Al Utbi says :—‘The kings of Hind, the chiefs of that country, and rich devotees used to amass their treasures and precious jewels and send them time after time to be presented to idols, that they might receive a reward for their good deeds and draw near to their God.’(66) Not much evidence is forthcoming from the Deccan proper about the wealth unnecessarily hoarded in temples in the form of ornaments etc., but we know that in northern India temples were the places that yielded highest amount of plunder to Mahmud of Ghazni. Epigraphical evidence is available to show that large sums of money were spent in Tamil country to furnish costly gold and jewel ornaments to the deity in the Rājarājeśvara temple by Chola kings and their subjects.(67) Some of the temples in the Deccan too must have been centres of wealth; Kṛṣṇa I is known to have given a number of gold and jewel ornaments to the Śiva image in the Ellora temple, which he had excavated from solid rock at great cost.(68) Specific cases of alienations of lands and villages for different temples are fairly numerous and the Cambay plates of Govinda IV,(69) dated 930 A.D., inform us that this monarch gave away 400 villages and 32 lakhs of drammas for the different temples in his dominions. Watchmen were essential under these circumstances for the bigger temples and we often come across provision made for their maintenance.(70)

c20.95

Part of the charity that flowed into the temples was usefully utilised. It will be shown in Chapter XVI how many of the temples of our period used to maintain schools and colleges. They were very often disharging the duty of poor-relief by maintaining feeding houses. Abu Zaid refers to these when he mentions inns for travellers attached to temples.(71) Epigraphical evidence proves the existence of many such feeding houses maintained in temples; one existed at Kolagallu in Bellary district in 964 A.D.(72) and others existed at Managoli,(73) Nilgund,(74) Hesarge,(75) Bagewadi,(76) Belgamve,(77) Dambal,(78) Gadag,(79) and Behatti(80) in Karnatak and Kharepatan⁸¹ in Konkan. Some of the records mentioning the above feeding houses do not fall strictly within our period, but they are mentioned here to give an idea of the general practice of the age.

c20.96

⁶⁷ S. I. I., II, Nos. 1-3.

c20.97

⁶⁸ I. A., XII, p. 159.

c20.98

⁶⁹ E. I., VII, p. 26.

c20.99

⁷⁰ E. I., V, p. 22; S. I. I., II pp. 301-3 etc.

c20.100

⁷¹ Elliot, I, p. 11.

c20.101

⁷² Inscriptions from the Madras Presidency, Bellary district, No.82.

c20.102

⁷³ E. I., V, p. 22.

c20.103

⁷⁴ E. I., III, p. 208.

c20.104

⁷⁵ J. B. B. R. A. S., X, p. 256.

c20.105

⁷⁶ I. A., VII, p. 307.

c20.106

⁷⁷ I. A., V, p. 49.

c20.107

⁷⁸ Ibid, X, p. 188.

c20.108

⁷⁹ Ibid, II, p. 301.

c20.109

⁸⁰ Ibid, IV, 274.

c20.110

⁸¹ E. I., III, p. 300.

c20.111

We get some idea of the details of the daily temple life from the epigraphical records of our period. Daily worship was done three times a day,⁸² and many of the Chola records specify the quantity of rice and other articles, to be used at the time of the naivedya at each of these worships. The richer establishments used to have a set of musicians, who used to play music at the temples at the time of worship. The provision for their maintenance figures in the Hebbal inscription of 975 A.D.⁸³ and in several Chola records. The worship offered was sumptuous; scented water for the bath, costly clothes, and rich naivedya were provided for. These and some similar items were included under the term angabhoga of the deity for which provision is made in some of our records. Flowers and garlands were of course indispensable; a number of our records mention grants made for flower garlands which were very often attached to the temples. Some of our records mention provision made for the rangabhoga of gods. The precise meaning of the term is difficult to determine, as it is not known even to Sanskrit Koshas. But since the term ranga can mean a play-house, it is permissible to conjecture that the expression rangabhoga may refer to periodical celebrations of Pauranic dramas, which may have been exhibited at the time of the annual fair at the temple. An inscription at the Rājarājeśvara temple, belonging to the beginning of the 11th century, records a provision made for the actors, who used to take part in a drama called Rājarāja

c20.112

⁸² Ibid, VII, p. 194.

c20.113

⁸³ Ibid, IV, p. 355.

c20.114

Chariot processions were held on the occasions of fairs; an inscription from Pattadkal in Bijapur district, dated 778⁸⁴ A.D.

c20.115

⁸⁴ I. A., XI, p. 125.

c20.116

mentions the grant of a horse-chariot and an elephant chariot by a dancing girl to a local God. Two records, falling outside our proper period, viz. Managoli inscription, dated 1161 A.D., (85) and the Siddhapur inscription, dated 1158 A.D., (86) refer to damanāropaṇa and pavitrāropaṇa ceremonies that were performed in the months of Chaitra and S'rāvaṇa respectively. It is not unlikely that these ceremonies were performed in our period as well, since one of them viz. damanāropaṇa is mentioned by Alberuni as a popular festival in Chaitra, when Vāsudeva was swung to and fro in a swing. (87) In his Smṛtikaustubha, Anantadeva prescribes the celebration of damanāropaṇa in Chaitra and pavitrāropaṇa in S'rāvaṇa. (88) We thus get a proof of the actual prevalence of some of the ceremonies described by later writers in our period. The view advanced earlier in this chapter, that some of the new ceremonies and rituals that find literary recognition in the Nibandhas of later period were already getting popular in our period, is thus not altogether without a foundation.

c20.117

Theoretically Hinduism no doubt regards idols as mere visible symbols of the Divine, but the great paraphernalia of idols, their worship, temples, and establishments began to engender during our period an imperceptible feeling that the visible idol was everything, and the greatest importance began to be attached to its sanctity and safety. This was rather regrettable, for very often the feeling worked against national interests. Hindus could have ousted the Muslims from Multan had they not been compelled to retire by the threats of the Muslim garrison to break the famous idol of the sun in that city, if it was beseiged. (89) If the philosophy of idol-worship were properly understood at the time, this threat could not have deterred the Hindus; another idol could have been installed in the proper religious manner to replace the destroyed one. Idol destruction by Mahmud of Ghazni would not have unnerved the Hindu opposition, if the philosophy of the idol worship were properly understood in our period.

c20.118

⁸⁵ Ibid.

c20.119

⁸⁶ I. A., XI, p. 274.

c20.120

⁸⁷ II, p. 178.

c20.121

⁸⁸ p. 19.

c20.122

⁸⁹ Eliot, I, p. 23.

c20.123

Temple worship was usually entrusted to Brahmanas; our records very often refer to settlements of Brahmana householders near the temples to look after the temple worship. But the non-Brahmana Gurava worshipper, who is now so common in the Deccan, also makes his appearance in our period. The worship in the Ramesvaram temple on the Tungabhadra was being performed by a Gurava in 804 A.D., when Govinda III had visited the place; Shivadhāri, who is expressly described as a Gurava in the record, (90) was the recipient of a grant from the emperor. In the S'iva temple at Mantrawadi in Dharwar district there were Gurava worshippers in 875 A.D., who were required to keep unbroken the vow of chastity. (91) At present the Guravas are not required to lead celibate life anywhere in the Deccan; therefore, this information supplied by our epigraph is very interesting and important. The Guravas are also mentioned in a Soratur inscription of the time of Kṛṣṇa III, (92) but their precise connection with the temple worship is not very clear from the record. The Ganga ruler Būtuga II had a pet dog; he was let loose at a mighty boar and the two killed each other in the fight. The affectionate master raised a tablet to commemorate his pet and appointed a Gurava for its worship. It would be noticed that the cases of Gurava worshippers, mentioned above, all pertain to S'iva temples, except the last one where he was appointed to perform the worship of a dog tablet. It would be, therefore, permissible to conjecture that the Guravas were originally non-Aryan, and very probably Dravidian priests, who continued to officiate at the temples of deities which were originally non-Aryan. Later on they may have been allowed to be associated with Aryan temples and gods as well.

c20.124

⁹⁰ I. A., XI, p. 127.

c20.125

⁹¹ E. I., VII, p. 202.

c20.126

The Gṛhya-sūtra ritual requires animal sacrifices in connection with some popular deities like Vināyaka, Kṣetrapāla, etc. (93) That these sacrifices prevailed in our period in northern India is proved by the statement of Alberuni, that the worshippers of some gods deities Durgā, Mahādeva, Kṣetrapāla, and Vināyaka used to kill sheep and buffalos with axes and offer them as naivedya to the deities concerned. (94) Similar practices must have prevailed in the Deccan since early times, but it is not unlikely that the great influence which Jainism exercised in our period may have led to these sacrifices getting unpopular to a great extent. It may be also pointed out that the Muslim travellers like Al Masudi and Al Idrisi, who were mainly acquainted with the conditions of the Deccan and who describe in detail its religious practices, do not refer to this custom which is mentioned by Alberuni, who was acquainted with the conditions prevailing in the north. Animal sacrifices are even to-day rare in the Deccan when compared to their great popularity in a province like Bengal. This comparative weaning of the masses in the Deccan from them may be attributed to the great influence of Jainism during our period.

c20.127

A very regrettable feature of the temple atmosphere was its vitiation by the association of dancing girls. This has been noticed by the foreign travellers of our period as well as of later times (95) and is also proved by epigraphical records. In big temples their number was often to be counted in hundreds. An inscription at the Rājarājeśvara temple, belonging to the beginning of the 11th century, records an order of Rājarāja, transferring as many as 400 dancing girls from the various quarters of his kingdom to the Tanjore temple, and assigning to each of them one veli of land.(96) There is evidence to show that the custom did exist in the Deccan as well; at the Lokamahādevī temple in Pattadkal (Bijapur district) there were dancing girls by the middle of the 8th century; one of them was so rich as to give to the temple-god one horse and one elephant chariot. In the Bhujjabeśvara temple at Hebbal in Dharwar district there were five dancers in the middle of the 10th century, each one being assigned 4 mattars of land for her maintenance. That these dancing girls were not leading pure lives, but had degenerated into women of easy virtue, would be clear from the statement of Marco Polo(97) that a person, who desired to take to the life of a Sanyasin, was tested by his capacity to stand the blandishments of the temple girls who were specially sent to lure him. Marco Polo's testimony no doubt refers to the Malabar of the 13th century, but we shall not be far wrong in assuming that the state of affairs in the Deccan of our period was not far different. In course of time the custom seems to have spread to Buddhist establishments in Greater India. A passage on Kambodia in Chan Ju-kwa states:—' The people are devout Buddhists. There are serving in temples some 300 foreign women. They dance and offer food to Buddha. They are called a-nan or slave dancing girls.'(98)

First 129 of 265 passages. Read on

Linked texts (71)