The Rashtrakutas and their Times c20.50

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.