Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c10: Chapter VI

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI

v1.c10.1

The most prominent characteristic of the religious condition of India in the days of Harsha was the complete toleration which distinguished the two or rather three religions which claimed the people of the country for their adherents. Buddhism and Hinduism flourished side by side and Jainism too. In the same kingdom, in the same city, in the same family even, Hindus, Jains and Buddhists lived peaceably, amicably holding discussions without embitterment on the most abstruse questions of man and God. If the father was a devotee of Śiva, the son was a devotee of Buddha and the same man in his own life might change his religion without causing disturbance in the family or the society. The reason of such toleration lay probably in the fact that the people of these diverse religions were of the same race and had the same habits and customs, and partook of the same kind of food and drink. It appears even probable that the instinctive tendency of the people for the observation of caste distinctions was not at all obstructed in the different religions and lay Buddhists and Jains probably observed caste as much as the Hindus. The recluses or monks alone of Buddhism or Jainism throwing away caste, the unity of the three religions remained undisturbed.

v1.c10.2

Hiuen Tsang’s description of the several kingdoms in the country shows that the people of India, generally speaking, were at this time equally divided between the orthodox and the heterodox faiths. Of course Jainism was not yet a prominent religion, its adherents being found chiefly in small tracts in the Panjab, in Bengal and in the south. In the map appended hereto has been depicted the condition of the prevalence of the different religions at this time in India, the religions being marked in separate colours and it will appear therefrom that while in the extreme North-- west in Kapiśa or Kafiristan there was practically no other religion but Buddhim prevalent and in the extreme North-east that is in Assam no other but Hinduism, in the rest of the country with few exceptions, Hinduism and Buddhism claimed equal adherents as well among the people as among the ruling kings; and this equal prevalence of the two religions among the peoples and the princes was another cause which preserved their amicable relations. Such relations were also preserved by another fact. Both Hinduism and Buddhism were equally idolatrous at this time. If anything, Buddhism perhaps beat the former in its intense idolatry. That religion started, indeed, with the denial of God, but ended by making Buddha himself the Supreme God. Later developments of Buddhism added other gods like the Bodhisatvas and the idolatry of Buddhism especially in the Mahāyāna school was firmly established. It flourished in and out of India so much that the word for an idol in the Arabic has come to be Buddha itself. No doubt idolatry was at this time rampant all over the world. From the Atlantic to the Pacific the world was immersed in idolatry, Christianity, Semiticism, Hinduism and Buddhism vying, so to speak, one with another in their adoration of idols*. The natural result was, of course, the birth of an idol-denying and an idol-breaking religion at this time, but that religion had not yet reached India. India was thus, at this time, studded over literally with thousands of temples raised to the principal gods of the two or rather three religions. There were temples in which immense statues of Buddha and Bodhisatvas and of the Jain Tirthankaras were worshipped by thousands of devotees and there were other temples in which the Hindu gods chiefly Śiva, Vishnu and the Sun were adored by the Hindu devotees. The historical work, Rājataranginī testifies to how hundreds of temples were raised in Kashmir to Śiva and Buddha by pious kings of either religion, and from epigraphic records may be gathered that idols of Śiva, Vishnu, the Sun and the Buddha were set up by kings and merchant princes in other parts of India also. It would be impossible to describe all the famous temples, Hindu and Buddhist, which existed at this time and many of which have been described in detail by Hiuen Tsang. But two Hindu temples of great fame described by him may well be mentioned here. In Mūlasthānapura ( Multan ) there was a magnificent temple to the sun. "The image was of gold, ornamented with precious substances. It had marvellous powers. There was a constant succession of females performing music. Lights were kept burning all night and incense and flowers were continually offered. The kings and grandees of all India gave precious substances as offerings and erected free rest-houses with food and drink and medicine for the sick and needy. At this temple there were constantly 1000 pilgrims from various lands offering prayers. All round the temple were tanks and flowery woods making a delightful resort." (Watters, Vol. 2 p. 254). Along with this famous temple of the sun at Multan may be noticed a temple of Śiva at Benares, "where there were 10,000 professed adherents of Śiva," and "where there was a metal image of the Deva (probably Śiva) nearly 100 feet high which was life-like in its awe-inspiring majesty".

v1.c10.3

∗ And Jainism too was deeply steeped in idolatry in the worship of naked standing idols of Jina or its Tirthankaras. If the Buddhist's favourite idol was the seated Buddha, the Jain idol was a standing Jina in his naked asceticism.

v1.c10.4

These two instances will suffice to show how the liberality of kings and grandees had contributed to the accumulation of riches in temples both of the Hindus and the Buddhists and how these in later times became the objects of the cupidity of impious and irreligious brigands. An image is after all an emblem of a higher original but when the sense of its being an image is lost and it becomes truly the god himself the growth of pious ignorance is unavoidable. Not only riches accumulate in temples by the adornment of idols, but superstitious beliefs also accumulate touching their miraculous powers. In the times of which we are writing, Hindus and Buddhists appear to have vied with each other in their superstitious beliefs about the potency of images. Superstition is the bane of every religion and Buddhism was not an exception to the rule. As Buddhism had started with the denial of God it had also started with the denial of all superstitious beliefs. But with the installation of Buddha as the supreme god, the personal worship offered to him was carried to such excess, that bits of his bones and flesh, the parings of his nails and portions of his hair were greedily taken hold of and enshrined in temples and Stūpas which gradually came to be invested with miraculons power. The Records of the travels of Hiuen Tsang are full of stories of the wondrous powers possessed by Buddha's images, and his relics or Śāriras as they were called. It creates a smile in the reader to see that the same Hiuen Tsang who could laugh at the credulity* of the Hindus in believing that the waters of the Ganges (at Hardwar) could save the souls of the dead by mere fretting them and raising the waves or by throwing their bones into it, (Watters Vol. I p. 319), could believe that the Śāriras of Buddha enshrined in a tower near the great Nālandā monastery in Magadha could emit brilliant light at night. He relates having himself seen "the relic tower bright and effulgent as the sun, while from its summit proceeded a lambent flame of five colours reaching to the sky. Heaven and earth were flooded with light, the moon and the stars were no longer seen and a subtle perfume seemed to pervade the precincts" (Life p. 157). Personal adoration can go no further !!!

v1.c10.5

Not only Buddha's relics and Buddha's images, but even Buddhist monks were attributed superhuman powers And in this Hindu ascetics were not to be left behind. Such powers were believed to be attained by the practice of Yoga which both Buddhism and Hinduism had made their own and raised to the skies. Buddhist and Hindu Yoga practices were, however, not of a repulsive character. The practices of some devotees of Śiva were almost staggering and their beliefs indeed strange. They believed in a set of demons, who were the followers or companions of Śiva and who were to be propitiated by human sacrifices or by oblations of the flesh of the dead. Such Pāśupatas wore garlands of human skulls as described by even Hiuen Tsang. (Watters, Vol. I). The principal god of this terrible worship was probably Mahākāla of Ujjain and his lieutenant was Vetāla the chief of demons. He was to be propitiated by a sacrifice in fire kindled in the mouth of a corpse and on the burial ground and so on. Their highest aim was to obtain the condition of a Vidyādhara a supposed blessed being in attendance on Śiva. Harsha Charita (p. 161-6) relates how Pushyabhūti, the founder of the Vardhana family of Thanesar, assisted a Bhairavāchārya to attain to this state of being a Vidyādhara by such a revolting sacrifice, and thus himself attained eminence as a king. However imaginary such stories may be, they testify to the strange superstitions of the Śiva cult and their prevalence all over the country. This Tāntric Śiva worship appears to have come from the south, the Dravidians, particularly the Āndhras, being always spoken of as the chief priests in its rites*. (H. C. 214) The superstitious practices of the allied worship of Chandikā were not much better than those of the worship of Śiva and there-in too the Dravidians and the Āndhras were the worshippers. Whether the superstition came from the south or not it is clear that the Tāntrika worship was prevalent and its superstitions rampant at this time from Kashmir and Kabul to Bengal and to the southernmost point. From Hiuen Tsang's Records as well as from epigraphic evidence it appears that the worship of Śiva was most extensively spread. Its adherents were more numerous than those of Āditya or Vishnu both among the people as among the princes. Among other Hindu gods Kumāra and Chandikā were prominent, Ganapati† being rather scarcely mentioned.*

v1.c10.6

∗ Hiuen Tsang relates a story that Deva Pūsa from Sinhala once came here and finding simple people fretting the water and raising the waves, he bent his head down to check the water. On being asked by Tirthikas what he was doing he said he was sending water back to reach his relatives in Sinhala, who were thirsty. On being told that it was an absurd proceeding he replied, if sinners in the world beyond received benefit from agitating this water, it must save his relatives in spite of the intervening mountains and rivers. "His arguments convinced the hearers who acknowledged their error and became Buddhist" (Watters Vol, I p. 321).

v1.c10.7

∗ कचिन्मुण्डोपहारणोयतद्रविडप्रार्थ्यामानादर्क कचिदान्ध्रोपध्रियमाणबाहुवमोपयाच्यमान चंडिकम् etc. आमदर्क is explained by the commentator as meaning Vetāla. † His name, as is now usual, is not recited at the beginning of the copperplates of this century.

v1.c10.8

Along with the worship of these gods there still survived the old Vedic worship of fire. The Brahmins seems to have generally kept up the agnihotra and the Kshatriyas appear to have performed more elaborate sacrifices. Aśvamedha or horse sacrifice is shown by epigraphic records to have been performed by powerful kings in different countries. It is not, therefore, improbable that the prohibition of this sacrifice in the Kaliyuga dates later than this period. In fact according to our view the Kalivarjas arose hereafter for reasons which will be discussed in our next volume. This and kindred sacrifices were performed by Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaiśya kings* and not by Śūdra or foreign kings. This explains the spread of Buddhism among the Śūdra and foreign kings who being debarred from performing these Vedic sacrifices leaned naturally towards the Buddhist religion opposed to sacrifice. During the reign of Harsha, however, these bloody sacrifices involving as they did the killing of cows, horses and other animals must have ceased to be performed causing dissatisfaction among orthodox kingly families and constituting one of the grievances which led after the death of Harsha to a concussion between Hinduism and Buddhism. For, the Vedic cult of sacrifices too was not without its superstitions. Sacrifice was believed to be potent in obtaining anything a man desired in this or the next world and in enabling the sacrificer to wield power over the forces or deities of earth and heaven. For a time, however, while the strong hand of Harsha wielded the sceptor of the world all slaughter, as mentioned by Hiuen Tsang was stopped and bloody sacrifices were again in abeyance, after having

v1.c10.9

* The Badāmi cave inscription of Kirtivarman dated A. D. 578, represents the Chālukyas as having performed the Agnishtoma, Vajapeya, Paundarika, Bahusuvarma and the Aśvamedha sacrifices. Ind. Ant. Vol. VI p. 363.

v1.c10.10

Corp. In. Vol. III no. 12. Bihar stone pillar inscription of Skanda Gupta mentions that Samudra Gupta performed 'the long neglected' Aśvamedha sacrifice (चिरोत्सन्नाश्वमेधाहर्ता) p. 50.

v1.c10.11

Corp. In. Vol. III no. 35, 36 shows that a Brahmin king Indra Vishnu performed several Kratus or sacrifices क्रतुयाजित: p. 159.

v1.c10.12

Corp. In. Vol. III Nos. 35, 36 Vākātaka inscriptions at p. 159 of Pravarsena II दशाश्वमेधावभृथस्नानां भारशिवानां महाराज श्रीभवनागदौहित्र:.

v1.c10.13

flourished for about two centuries during the Gupta supremacy, Samudra Gupta having revived the orthodox Aśvamedha sacrifice which had long been in abeyance during the Buddhist supremacy of the Kuṣāṇas.

v1.c10.14

The ordinary Agnihotra, however, still flourished and was generally observed by Brahmins, at least of the priestly profession. How the religious of such worship Brahmins was a blend of the old Vedic sacrifice and the later idol worship appears pleasantly clear from the following passage in the Harsha-Charita (p. 91-92) in which Bāṇa describes the religious ceremonies performed by him at the time of his starting on the most important journey in his life, namely to pay his first visit to the emperor Harsha. अथान्यस्मिन्नहन्युत्थाय प्रातरेव स्नात्वा धृतधौतधवलदुकूलवासा गृहीताक्षमालः प्रास्थानिकानि सूक्तानि मंत्रपदानि बहुशः समावर्त्य, देवदेवस्य विरूपाक्षस्य क्षीरस्तपनपुरःसरां सुरभिकुसुमधूपगन्धध्वजवलिविलेपनप्रदीपबहुलां विधाय परमया भक्त्या पूजां प्रथमहुततरलितत्वाघटनचदुलशिखाशेखरं प्राज्याज्याहुतिप्रवर्धितदक्षिणाचिषं भगवन्त-माशुशुक्षणिं हुत्वा, दत्वा युग्मं यथा विद्यमानं द्विजेभ्यः, प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य प्राङ्मुखीं नैचिकीं, शुक्लांगरागः शुक्लमాల्यः शुक्लवासाः शिखासक्तसिद्धार्थकः,.......आघ्रातः शिरसि कुलवृद्धैः, मौहूर्तिकमतेन कृतनक्षत्रदोहदः.......प्रणम्य कुलदेवताभ्यः कुसुमफलपाणिभिरप्रतिरथं जपाद्भिर्नाद्विजैरनुगम्यमानः प्रथमचलितदक्षिणचरणः प्रीतिकूटाभिरगात्.

v1.c10.15

“Rising early in the morning and having bathed he wore a fresh washed white cotton piece of cloth and then with a rosary recited many times the Vedic mantras to be recited on a journey. He then worshipped an idol of Śiva the god of gods by first bathing it with milk and offered it with great devotion fragrant flowers, incense, pigment, Dhvaja, Bali, Vilepana and lights. He then sacrificed to the god fire, whose flames going towards the right were increased by the pouring of ghee and sesamum. He then gave Dakshinas to Brahmins according to his means. Having then gone round the sacrificial cow which stood facing the east, and applying white powder to his body, putting on white garlands and wearing white clothes, he put सिद्धार्थ (?) in the hair of his head. He was then smelt on the head by elders and putting forward his right leg he started from Prītikūta village followed by

v1.c10.16

his Brahmin relatives, having in their hands flowers and fruits and reciting Vedic Sūktas to be recited on a journey.” Such is the interesting picture of the religious side of the life of a great Brahmin of the seventh century (who was not a priest). As compared with the life depicted in the old Gṛihyasūtras (see even the picture drawn by Kālidāsa of the starting of Śakuntalā) we find that his religion was still chiefly Vedic. He recited the Vedic mantras and sacrificed to the Vedic fire. But he also worshipped idols of Śiva or Viṣṇu or other gods and believed in many practices based on astrology. In modern times on the other hand the Vedic worship has gradually dropped and the worship of idols and astrological practices have remained. Thus in religion too, Harsha’s time stands as a transition period between ancient and modern Hinduism.

v1.c10.17

While the old Vedic Agnihotra was still kept up among the Brahmin householders and the sacrificial fire was kindled morning and evening, the later Vedic Sanyāsa was not without its votaries.[*] In every town and in every Hindu temple these Sanyāsis resided and lived by begging and passed their time in calm contemplation or strangely enough as described by Bāṇa, in bowing to the idols in the temple. They are called Pārāśaris in the Harsha-Charita and elsewhere probably because they followed the rules laid down for Sanyāsis by Parāśara. They were generally Brahmins and although they had given up the world and wandered about they lived in towns as sustenance was only obtainable in human habitations. A few of them indeed were really good and learned men but the majority of them were in Bāṇa’s days irreligious and uneducated and had brought their order into contempt. Sanyāsa, therefore, had naturally come at this time into disfavour and Pārāśari had become a synonym for a bad man. Among the associates of Bāṇa in his early undisciplined life he mentions Pārāśaris as well as Bhikshus and in a passage evidencing great power of social observation at page 249 H. C. remarks that there was not a Pārāśari but was not an irreligious man.* They were yet, however, objects of respect and were patronised by kings and grandees, for among the visitors to the Emperor Harsha Bāṇa describes Pārāśaris as well as Buddhist and Jain recluses. (जैनार्हतैः पाशुपतैः पाराशरभिः वार्णिभिः etc. p. 97.)

v1.c10.18

∗ चैत्यप्रणतिपरेषु पाराशरिषु यज्ञपात्रपवित्रपाणौ प्रकीर्णबर्हिषि प्रोत्तेजसि जातवेदसि हवीषि वषट्कुर्वति यायजूकजने ( H. C. P. 125. )

v1.c10.19

The rage for Pravrajyā or giving up the world is a strong passion of the Indian mind from ancient times. It was due to the belief that this world was full of misery, that the soul was bound in the chain of transmigration from body to body according to its Karma and that the only escape from the misery of the present and future births lay in Pravrajyā or giving up the world and ceasing to act.† Under this belief the Rishis of the Upanishads gave up living in towns and went to forests. The same belief was placed in the forefront by Buddha, who added to it the institution of monasteries. While Brahmin Sanyāsis were enjoined to live singly, Buddha not only allowed men and women of all castes to become recluses, but for their secure maintenance and quiet, established Sanghārāmas or monasteries and directed lay devotees to feed them. Sanghārāmas or monasteries, therefore, sprang into existence and as Buddhism spread, multiplied. Thousands of Bhikshus of all castes lived a life of ease and quiet in these splendidly endowed institutions and they had fine halls and temples and stūpas built for them by pious kings and grandees. These monastic institutions of the Buddhists were undoubtedly the parents of the monastic institutions of Christianity and eventually succumbed to the same causes as led to the downfall of the latter. The downfall of the Buddhist monasteries had, however, not yet commenced. From Hiuen Tsang's records and also from the Harsha-Charita, India was at this time covered all over its extent by monasteries inhabited by thousands of monks and they were a set of well behaved and moral people, generally speaking, and had not yet come into disrepute like the Hiudu Pārāśaris. Jainism too had its recluses and its monasteries though they were yet a small community from Hiuen Tsang's account. Saivism too had its recluses or ascetics and these lived probably in temples of Śiva and burial grounds.

v1.c10.20

∗ पाराशरी ब्राह्मण्यः— † अखिलमनेाज्वरशमनकारणं हि भगवती प्रव्रज्या ( H. C. P. 338, )

v1.c10.21.1

Among all these different recluses namely Jainas (जैनै:) or Buddhists, Ārhatas (आर्हतै:) or Jains, Pāśupatas, Pārāśaris, Varṇis (Brahmacharis) (H. C. above quoted) and others were to be found men learned in the philosophies of their respective doctrines and a peculiar characteristic of this time was the extreme fondness of the people and the princes to hear learned discussions on philosophical questions between the professors of the different doctrines. The Indian religion, strangely enough, combines the highest philosophy with the grossest superstition. The Indo-Aryans in times remote, grappled with the most abstruse problems relating to God and soul, and have left us speculations in the Upanishads and the Vedas beyond which no people have yet gone. Imbued with a deep sense of the miseries of this world the Indo-Aryans applied themselves to a consideration of the world beyond while the western Aryans applied themselves to the problems of this world. And in their speculations, as Max-Muller has observed, they never shrank from accepting conclusions at which they logically arrived. Hence the diversity of schools in Indian philosophies and hence also their freedom from bigotry or intolerance of other opinions. The Indo-Aryan mind always took delight in logically discussing the various questions of religious philosophy. Buddhism especially was fond of such discussions.

v1.c10.21.2

The development of Nyāya philosophy which Buddhism to some extent made its own lent indeed a scholastic character to such discussions and there was no criterion of truth except the opponent's defeat in discussion. Yet they have an interest and a value of their own as reason was held supreme or in other words as the argument from revelation was never resorted to. Bāṇa's work gives ample testimony to the popularity of such discussions in his time. Especially, Hiuen Tsang records the great assemblies of learned men which were convened at the time of the quinquennial alms-giving ceremonies which Harsha used to hold at Prayāga and at the last of which Hiuen Tsang himself was the president of the assembly. The usual procedure in such assemblies was that some one made a declaration of his doctrines and called upon all present to refute them. Sometimes a written declaration was posted at the gate of a monastery calling upon adversaries to tear it. Hiuen Tsang tells us of one such declaration posted by a Brahmin opponent to the door of the Nālandā monastery which no body daring to tear, he himself tore and then entering upon a controversy with the Brahmin defeated him, he having first sworn to be a slave of the man who would defeat him. Hiuen Tsang, however, relieved him from his oath and allowed him to depart a Buddhist.

v1.c10.21.3

The Buddhist monasteries appear to have been constant scenes of such disputations, for the monks residing therein having no care for their maintenance had ample time for study and discussion besides performing their religious exercises. Hiuen Tsang notes also this feature of the life in Buddhist monasteries. The Buddhists themselves were divided into 18 sects and had as many disputations among themselves as with outsiders. "The Brethren are often assembled for discussion to test intellectual capacity and bring moral character into prominence. Those who bring forward or estimate aright fine points in philosophy and give subtle principles their proper place, who are ornate in diction and acute in refined distinctions ride richly caparisoned elephants," preceded and followed by a host of attendants. Bāṇa's discription in the Harsha-Charita evidences also the assembling of opponent philosophers at the hermitages of Buddhist recluses, and the passage is interesting as giving us a catalogue of the various schools which then contended in the field of discussion. In the Āśrama of Divākaramitra were assembled, Bāṇa tells us at page 316 H. C.

v1.c10.21.4

Arhatas,* (Jains), Maskaris (Sanyāsis), Svetapaṭas (Śvetambara Jains), white-clothed Bhiksus, Bhāgavatas, Varṇis (Brahmachāris), Keśalunchakas (those who rooted out their hair), Kāpilas (Sānkhyas), Lokāyatikas (atheists), Jains (Buddhists), Kānādas (followers of Kanada’s Vaiśeṣika philosophy), Aupaniṣadas (Vedantins), Aiśvara Karaṇikas (Naiyayikas), Karandhamas (the philosophers of धातुवाद or elements), Dharmaśāstris, Purāṇikas, Śapta-tantavas (?), Śaivas, Śabdikas (gramarians), Pāncharātrikas (followers of the Pancharātra sect of Vaishnavas) and others. This catalogue of the philosophies which were current in the seventh century is historically important. The Buddhists are here called Jains, Jina being a name of Buddha while what are now called Jains are called Ārhatas. The Bhāgavatas are again distinguished from the Pāncharātras. The Mīmānsakas are probably intended by the term Dharmaśāstris for they based their arguments on revelation. Lastly, Varṇis or Brahmachāris are distinguished from the Aupaniṣadas and these again from the Maskaris. It is difficult to find out the nature of the exact differences in these several allied philosophies and we must content ourselves with noting the fact of the distinction.

v1.c10.22

However much these different philosophies might contend with one another, on two or three points all of them seem to have held only one view. Firstly they all believed (with the exception of Lokāyatikas or atheists alone) in the existence of the soul and its metempsychosis through numberless births according to Karma. The belief in the Karma doctrine and in the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul prominently distinguishes Indian philosophy from the philosophy of the West. We are not concerned here either with its truth or otherwise or with the history of its origin. But it is pertinent to remark that this belief was a potent and living force at the time of which we are writing. It had a great effect in maintaining the morals of the people at a high level. The following extract from Hiuen Tsang a foreign and unbiassed writer is relevant in this connection "They are of hasty and irresolute temperament but of pure moral principles. They will not take anything wrongfully and they yield more than fairness requires. They fear the retribution of sins in other lives and make light of what conduct produces in this life." (Watters Vol. I P. 171.) And further, "As the government is honestly administered and the people live together on good terms the criminal class is small" (Ditto). The same cannot be said of the present state of the Indian society and apparently the credit of this high moral condition of the people is due to the teachings of Buddhism which lays stress upon this doctrine of transmigration of soul and its moral lessons with the greatest force, though it has taken it from Hinduism itself.

v1.c10.23

∗ आर्हतैः मस्करिभिः श्वेतपटैः पाण्डरभिक्षुभिः भागवतैर्वर्णिभिः केशलुञ्चकैः कपिलैः लोकायतिकैर्जेनैः कणौदैरोपनिषदैः ऐश्वरकारणि कैः कारन्धामभिः धर्मशास्त्रिभिः पौराणकैः साप्ततन्तवैः शैवैः शाब्दिकैः पाञ्चरात्रिकैश्चान्यैश्च-

v1.c10.24

Secondly, the doctrine of Ahinsā had become acceptable to almost all the different schools of religious thought in India. Its opponents were chiefly the Mīmānsakas or the upholders of the old Vedic sacrifice, besides of course the Lokāyatikas or atheists and perhaps Pāśupatas. but even these Mīmānsakas had already come round to accept it so far as ordinary slaughter of animals was concerned. From the Mahābhārata we already find the compromise arrived at namely that although slaughter for purposes of sacrifice and Śrāddha was no slaughter it was so for all ordinary purposes. We have shown elsewhere (Epic India) that the Ahinsā doctrine was originally started by Hinduism itself against animal sacrifice. (See Brihadāraṇya and other Upanishads). But it was taken up by the Buddhists and the Jains and placed in the foremost rank of their tenets. Whenever Buddhism flourished animal sacrifices, therefore, fell in abeyance and along with it naturally animal food also. The growth of the worship of Kṛiṣhṇa had made cows and bulls objects of special adoration to the Hindus also and the slaughter of cows and bulls had entirely ceased, as also that of certain larger animals. When Hiuen Tsang visited India this prohibition had become so strong "that the flesh of oxen, asses, elephants, horses, pigs, dogs, foxes, wolves, lions, monkeys and apes was entirely forbidden and those who ate such food became pariahs" (Watters' Records V. I. P. 178).

v1.c10.25

But the flesh of other animals was still permitted and probably even Brahmins and Kshatriyas ate mutton and venison as also fish. Besides during the Gupta supremacy Aśvamedha had been revived and at this sacrifice bulls and horses must have been slaughtered, the sacrificers taking refuge under the formula "slaughter for sacrifice was no slaughter." Such practices must have given offence to strong rulers of the Buddhistic faith and they must have used their political power for the suppression of all slaughter. Hiuen Tsang tells us of Śiladitya of Molapo prohibiting slaughter and animal food in his kingdom in the latter half of the 6th century. This king himself was so punctilious that he gave strained water to his horses and elephants lest insects might be killed (Life p. 148) The Rājataranginī (III 6) mentions the efforts which Meghavāhana made to prohibit slaughter in Kashmir. All such partial attempts were now cast ino shade by the systematic efforts of Harsha who wielded absolute power over the whole of Northern India. "He prohibited the taking of life under severe penalties and caused the use of animal food to cease throughout the five Indies." (Watters' Vol. I p. 344). Harsha was the master of four Indies only namely the middle, the north, the west and the east. But in the south probably his directions or requests must have been complied with by the several kings in the south, the people being already in favour of the prohibition of animal food. Harsha's efforts appear to have been successful and althongh there was a rebound for a time against Ahinsā after Harsha's death as we shall have to relate hereafter, it became finally fixed in the Hindu mind and strangely enough more completely in the south than in the north. At this day Brahmins of the south are total abstainers from flesh while in Northern India they are only generally so. The Kshatriyas of the whole of India who, it may be a surprise to read, are the most conservative people of the land, still use animal food but the prohibition of animals enumerated by Hiuen Tsang as above, is observed even by them. The Vaiśyas are total abstainers all over the country and other castes follow the Kshatriyas, but habit of centuries and example of Brahmins make them also generally abstainers from flesh. The non-slaughter of cows and bulls has, it may be added, become so completely the chief dogma of each and every follower of Hinduism that its contempt rouses them as is well known, even now, sometimes to the verge of religious frenzy.

v1.c10.26

Such is the great change in religious sentiment which came over the people with respect to animal slaughter in the momentous reign of the emperor Harsha. There is no example in history of a great and vast people giving up animal food for the sake of religious merit. The Ahinsā doctrine has indeed raised Hinduism to a high position of glory and has added to its spiritual power. But the historian cannot but observe with Max-Muller that while it has enabled India to live a higher spiritual life, it has contributed largely to bring about its political death. For a vegetarian people cannot ordinarily hope to compete with the flesh-eating peoples of the world in the struggle for existence, as the history of India in the succeeding centuries but too painfully proved.

Linked texts (6)