North Indian Inscriptions

RELIGIOUS HISTORY

The above is an account of the popular divinities who were of a multifarious character and whose number was legion. The syncretising potency of the Indian mind was infinite; and so, with the advent of the Gupta regime we find these divinities being reduced to three categories. They were looked upon as forms or incarnations of Vishṇu, Śiva and Ambā. There is nothing, however, to show that Brāhmanism was responsible for this stupendous change. It is true that at present most of these gods are in the charge of Brāhmaṇa priests who alone have the right of following the votaries to have darśana of the deities and have turned it into a lucrative source of living. But there is nothing to show that in the Gupta period Brāhmaṇas officiated as priests in the shrines of either Vishṇu, Śiva or Ambā.

       There can, however, be no doubts as to the Brāhmaṇas rising to prominence shortly before the Gupta period. Every student of history knows who Ushavadāta (=Ṛishabhadatta) was. He was a son of Dīnīka and son-in-law of the Mahākshatrapa Nahapāna, who belonged to the Kshaharāta family. Dīnīka, Nahapāna, Kshaharāta and Kshatrapa are all non-Hindu names and titles. This unmistakably points to the alien origin of Ushavadāta. This is exactly in consonance with the fact that in one inscription he is called a Śaka. But his name is Ushavadāta =Ṛishabhadatta. His wife’s name is Saṁghamitrā. These are distinctly Hindu names. This is quite in conformity with what is said of him. Thus, in one inscription, he is called tri-gō-śata-sahasrada, “the giver of three hundred thousand kine.” He is also spoken of as having granted sixteen villages to the gods and Brāhmaṇas. And, to crown the whole, he is described as anuvarshaṁ Brāhmaṇa-śatasāhasrī-bhōjāpayitā, “the feeder of one hundred thousand Brāhmaṇas every year. “Those charities stamp Ushavadāta as a very staunch adherent of the Brahmanical religion.¹ This also shows that the Brāhmaṇas had begun to acquire general ascendancy over the popular mind in both social and religious spheres. In other parts of India also were visible the signs of the Brahmanic supremacy. We may first turn our attention to a fragmentary Mathurā inscription which was brought to our notice by Dayaram Sahni and which speaks of a dēvakula or shrine raised to the memory of the grandfather of Huvishka and the excavation of a tank connected therewith.² It seems that the structure fell into disrepair in the time of this Kushāṇa monarch and was renovated by some Bakanapati whose name is lost. The last line, it is true, is mutilated, but it is all but certain that, for the increase of the life and strength of Huvishka, part of the administration of the benefaction was assigned to Brāhmaṇas who were naityik-ātithis, that is, who performed the Atithi-yajña daily. In other words, what the record means is that there was a feeding house attached to this establishment and that this sacred duty was assigned to Brāhmaṇas. It is well-known that Manu (III. 69-70) enjoins the performance of Five Great Sacrifices (Pañcha-mahāyajña) by the householders and that the last of these is Atithi-pūjana ‘the hospitable reception of guests.’ These five are generally mentioned in inscriptions in the abbreviated forms: bali, charu, Vaiśvadēva, agnihōtra and atithi.³ It thus seems from the above record that the Brāhmaṇas were entrusted with the duty of carrying out this last yajña of the householder in connection with the memorial of a departed worthy. Another sign of the growing popularity and influence of the Brāhmaṇa community is furnished by another Mathurā inscription of the same Kushāṇa king. Its purport is to record the endowment of a puṇya-śālā or a Hall for acquiring merit through feeding and distribution of alms. It was made by a donor of foreign extraction. It was an akshayanīvi, ‘a permanent endowment’, the capital of which could not be touched. Five hundred and fifty Purāṇas were deposi-
______________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XLVIII, p. 79; D. R. Bhandarkar’s Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, Sir William Meyer Lectures, 1938-39, pp. 61-62.
² JRAS., 1924, p. 402.
³ CII., Vol. III, 1888, pp. 166-67, lines 27-28; p. 179, line 66.