Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c31.74

c31.74

Brahmanism thus appears to have developed in accordance with Aila ideas, and to have owed much of its advance to the influence of kṣatriyas,³ first, of Viśvāmitra and his sons, and afterwards mainly of the Bhārata princes and kṣatriyan brahmans. It continued to flourish in harmony with later kings of that family, and consolidated its position as a caste, especially in connexion with sacrifice. That such Aila influences did produce modifications is suggested by the remarkable statements made in the Rāmāyaṇa (which can hardly have been the outcome of later brahmanical views); first, that, while eastern and southern kings and kings of the distant Panjab were invited to Daśaratha’s sacrifice at Ayodhyā, none of the neighbouring Paurava (Bhārata) and Yādava kings, who flourished then in all the middle region of N. India (pp. 170-2, 276), were invited; and secondly, that Daśaratha called in the help, not of brahmans from Madhyadeśa, but of the rustic Ṛṣyaśṛṅga from Aṅga.⁴ It was at that time that the great development of brahmanism had taken place among the Bhāratas. Ayodhyā and the Vasiṣṭhas had no association then with that brahmanically élite region. Brahmanism as it took shape under the Bhāratas apparently differed from that at Ayodhyā. Moreover all those brahmans had little in common with the non-Aryan tribes of the Dekhan (though Dekhan kings were invited to the sacrifice), as is suggested by the maltreatment of munis by Rākṣasas in the story of Rāma, for estrangement grew into hostility, which when developed was portrayed in the frequent stories how rishis were afflicted by such folk stigmatized and mythologized as demonic—a view which was carried back into earlier times in later brahmanic stories. Ultimately brahmanism as developed among the Bhāratas became the dominant form.