Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s2.58

c17.s2.58

Senart and Bühler. It is suggested that the word *bamhaṇa* may stand for *Brahmanya*, that *Khatiya* may refer to the Xathroi or Khatriaioi tribe mentioned by classical writers, and that the expression *Rājarisi-vadhu* used in reference to Gautami Balaśrī is enough to show that the Sātavāhana rulers never claimed themselves to be Brahmarshis or Brāhmaṇa sages. It is nobody's case that the Sātavāhanas claimed to be mere "Brāhmaṇa sages." But is it not a bit too ingenious to imagine that the well-known terms Brāhmaṇa and Kshatriya are not to be taken in their ordinary sense, and that they really stand for non-Brāhmaṇas and non-Kshatriyas? As to the use of the expression *Rājarisi-vadhu*, would not Brahmarshi be a singularly inappropriate description of a family of kings even though they were Brāhmaṇas? The term *Rājarshi* is not used exclusively to denote non-Brāhmaṇa rulers. In the *Padma Purāṇa* (*Pātāla-khaṇḍam*, 61, 78), for instance, Dadhīchi is styled a *Rājarshi*. In the *Vāyu Purāṇa* (57, 121ff.) the epithets "*Rājarshayo mahāsattvāḥ*" are used in reference to Brahma-Kshatramayā nṛipāḥ, 'Brahma-kshatrādayo nṛipāḥ, according to the reading of the *Matsya* text, 143, 37-40) In the *Matsya Purāṇa* (50. 5-7) the epithet *Rājarshi* is applied to a king who sprang from the family of the Maudgalyas who are called *Kshatropetā dvijātayaḥ* and one of whom is styled *Brahmishṭhaḥ*. The *Annadāmaṅgala* refers to Kṛishṇa Chandra as *Rāja-Rājachakravartī Rishi-Rishirāja*.