North Indian Inscriptions

RELIGIOUS HISTORY

referred to in the opening verse of the Tuśām Rock inscription,¹ which runs thus: “Verily victory has over and over again been achieved by Vishṇu, who is a pre-eminent bee on the water-lily, namely, the face of Jāmbavatī (but) a frost to the grace of the water-lilies, namely, the faces of (other) demon damsels.” Jāmbavatī, we know, was daughter of Jāmbavat, ‘king of bears.’ There was a gem called Syamantaka which was given by the sun to Satrājit who passed it on to his brother Prasēna as he did not want it to go to Kṛishṇa. One quality of this jewel was to project its wearer, when good, but to ruin him, when bad.² Prasēna was wicked and was killed by a lion, which was carrying off the gem in its mouth, when it was encountered and slain by Jāmbavat. Kṛishṇa tracked Jāmbavat till the latter submitted to him, gave up the gem and presented him also with his daughter Jāmbavatī. Jāmbavat is described as ‘king of bears’-which means that he was the ruler of a tribe whose totem was ‘the bear.’ Even in historic times the descendants of Bāli (Vāli) had kapi or monkey on their banner.³ Both were non-Aryan or Dānava clans with the bear or monkey as their totem. Further, we have to note that in the Anuśāsana-parvan (chap. 14) of the Mahābhārata, Jāmbavatī has been called once Kapīndra-putrī (verse 41) and at another time, that is, in the very next verse (verse 42) Vidyādharēndrasya sutā. Her extraction was thus not definitely settled. And even on that ground she could very well be looked upon as a Dānava which denoted any non-Aryan clan. The last point we have to note is that the above feat has been put to the credit of Vishṇu in the inscription, although it was achieved by Vāsudēva-Kṛishṇa. This is additional evidence, if any is required at all, in support of the complete identification of the two divinities in the Gupta period.

       As regards the third divinity, namely, Gōpāla-Kṛishṇa, who was merged into Vishṇu, we have already considered the contents of the Mandasor inscription (No. 14 below) of Naravarman which throw light on the principal incident in his life story and have pointed out how he too was lost into the individuality of Vishṇu. We shall now discuss whether there was any Vaishṇava sect in existence in the Gupta epoch. The sects that loom large in the Vaishṇava horizon at present are those of Rāmānuja, Madhva, Nimbārka, Vallabha, Chaitanya and so forth. But they all arose from the 11th century onwards. No scholar, not even Ramakṛishṇa Bhandarkar in his Vaishṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems, has shown on inscriptional evidence that there was any Vaishṇava sect flourishing before the 11th century, and not at all in the Gupta period. It is, however, worthy of note that there was an epigraph found at Tuśām⁴ in the Panjab and belonging to the fourth or fifth century A.D. which speaks apparently of the Sātvata sect. It records the benefactions of Āchārya Sōmatrāta, who was the younger brother of Āchārya and Upādhyāya Yaśastrāta (II). The latter pertained to the Gōtama gōtra and was a son of Āchārya Vasudatta born of Rāvaṇī. Whether Rāvaṇī was an individual name of his mother it is difficult to say. But Rāvaṇī seems to be a metronymic, Rāvaṇa being a branch of the Vasishṭha gōtra.⁵ At any rate, the very fact that Yaśastrāta (II) is said to belong to the Gōtama gōtra is enough to show that this family of Āchāryas was Brāhmaṇa by caste. Vasudatta’s father was Yaśastrāta (I), and this Yaśastrāta was a devotee of Bhagavat (Vāsudēva), to whom, we are told, the Yōga practice of the Ārya Sātvatas had come down through many generations. This makes it quits clear that this family of Āchāryas were not only Brāhmaṇa by caste but were adherents of the Sātvata sect with its peculiar type of Yōga.
______________________

¹ CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 67.
² Dowson’s Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology, etc., pp. 131-32.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. XV, p. 107.
⁴ CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 67.
⁵ Gōtra-pravara-nibandha-kadambam (Lakshmi-Venkateshwar Press edn.), p. 26.