Riddle In Hinduism
______________________________________________
Contents
PART I
APPENDIX
Appendix I : The Riddle
of the Vedas
Appendix II : The Riddle of the Vedanta
Appendix III : The Riddle of the Trimurti
Appendix IV : II Smarth
Dharma
Appendix V : The Infallibility of the Vedas
THE RIDDLE OF THE VEDAS
The Vedas are the sacred Books of the Hindus. There are
several questions that arise in connection with them. What is their origin, who is their
author, what is their authority, these are some of them (questions).
To begin with the first. According to the Hindus they are
Sanatana which means that they are "eternally pre-existing". There is no
justification for this view unless it be based upon a statement which occurs in the
Atharva-Veda. It says*[f1] :
"From Time the Rig verses sprang; the Yajus sprang from
Time". But there are other views quite opposed to this. Starting from the
Atharva-Veda it must be noted that besides this view there are two other views propounded
in that Veda. The first of these is not very intelligent and may be given in its own
language which runs as follows[f2] :
"Declare who that Skambha (supporting principle) is in whom the primeval rishis, the rich, saman, and yajush, the earth, and the one rishi, are sustained. . . . . 20. Declare who is that Skambha from whom they cut off the rich verses, from whom they scraped off the yajush, of whom the saman verses are the hairs and the verses of Atharvan and Angiras the mouth".
The second explanation given in the Atharva-Veda is that the
Vedas sprang from Indra[f3] .
Explanation of the Rig-Veda is to be found in the
Purusha-Sukta. According to it there was a universal sacrifice in which the victim was the
mystical being called Purusha and it is out of the sacrifice of this
This is a consolidated chapter on the Riddle of the Vedas
dealing with most of the subjects discussed by the author in the earlier chapter Nos. 2 to
6 of this book. In all there are 61 typed pages bearing no corrections at all. This copy
is a typed carbon copy.—Ed.
Purusha that the three Vedas namely Rig, Saman and Yajur
came into being.
The Sam-Veda and the Yajur-Veda make no reference to the
origin of the Vedas.
Proceeding to the writings called Brahmanas we find attempts
to explain the origin of the Vedas in the Satapatha Brahmana, the Taitteriya Brahmana,
Aitareya Brahmana and Kaushitaki Brahmana.
The Satapatha Brahmana has a variety of explanations. It
attributes the origin of the Vedas to Prajapati. According to it Prajapati by his
austerity created three worlds—Earth, Air and Sky. He infused warmth into these three
worlds. From them, thus heated, three lights were produced,—Agni (Fire), Vayu (wind)
and Surya (the sun). From them so heated the three Vedas were produced,—the Rig-Veda
from Agni, the Yajur-Veda from Vayu and Sam-Veda from the Sun.
This is also the explanation given by the Aitereya and the Kaushitaki Brahmana.
The Satapatha Brahmana gives another variant[f4] of this explanation of the origin of the Veda from
Prajapati. The explanation is that Prajapati created the Vedas from waters. Says the
Satapatha Brahmana—
"This Male Prajapati, desired, 'May I multiply, may I
be propagated '. He toiled in devotion he practised austere-fervour. Having done so he
first of all created sacred knowledge, the triple Vedic science. This became a basis for
him. Wherefore men say, 'sacred knowledge is the basis of this universe.' Hence after studying the Veda a man has a standing
ground; for sacred knowledge is his foundation. Resting on this basis he (Prajapati)
practised austere fervour. 9. He created the waters from Vach (speech), as their world.
Vach was his; she was created. She pervaded all this whatever exists. As she pervaded
(apnot), waters were called 'apah'. As she covered (avrinot) all, water was called 'var'.
10. He desired, 'May I be propagated from these waters." Along with this triple Vedic
science he entered the waters. Thence sprang an egg. He gave it an impulse: and said, let
there be, let there be, let there be again '. Thence was first created sacred knowledge,
the triple Vedic science. Wherefore men say, 'Sacred knowledge is the first-born thing in
this universe. Moreover, it was sacred knowledge which was created from that Male in
front, wherefore it was created as his mouth. Hence they say of a man learned in the Veda,
' He is like Agni; for the sacred knowledge is Agni's mouth?".
"As from a fire made of moist wood various
modifications of smoke proceed, so is the breathing of this great being; the Rig-Veda, the
Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharv-angirases, the Itihasas, Puranas, science, the
Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorisms, comments of different kings—all these are his
breathings". There is a third explanation[f5] given in the Satapatha Brahmana:
" I settle thee in the ocean as they seat " Mind
is the ocean. From the mind-ocean with speech for a shovel the gods dug out the triple
Vedic science. Hence this verse has been uttered: ' May the brilliant deity to-day know
where they placed that offering which the gods dug out with sharp shovels. Mind is the
ocean; speech is the sharp shovel; the triple Vedic science is the offering. In reference
to this the verse has been uttered. He settles it in Mind". The Taitteriya-Brahmana
has three explanations to offer. It speaks of the Vedas as being derived from Prajapati.
It also says Prajapati created King Soma and after him the three Vedas were created[f6] . This Brahmana has another explanation[f7] quite unconnected with Prajapati. According to it:
"Vach (speech) is an imperishable thing, and the
first-born of the ceremonial, the mother of the Vedas, and the centre-point of
immortality. Delighting in us, she came to the sacrifice. May the protecting goddess be
ready to listen to my invocation, she whom the wise rishis, the composers of hymns, the
gods, sought by austere-fervour, and by laborious devotion."
To crown all this the Taitteriya Brahmana offers a third
explanation. It says that the Vedas came from the beard of Prajapati.
Legends regarding the origin of the Vedas are also to be
found in the Upnishads.
The legend recorded in the Chhandogya Upanishad is the same
as that found in the Satapatha Brahmana—namely that the Rig-Veda originated from
Agni, Yajus from Vayu and Sam from the Sun.
The Brahad Aranyaka Upanishad which is a part of the
Satapatha Brahmana, records quite a different legend. It says:
" Prajapati (identified with Death, or the Devourer) is
said to have produced Vach (speech), and through her, together with soul, to have created
all things, including the Vedas."
" By that speech and that soul he created all things
whatsoever, rich, yajush, and saman texts, metres, sacrifices, creatures, and animals. The
three Vedas are (identifiable with) these three things (speech, mind and breath). Speech
is the Rig-veda, mind the Yajur-veda, and breath the Sama-veda." Coming to the
Smritis there are two theories as to the origin of the
Vedas to be found in the Manu Smriti. In one place it is
said that the Vedas were created by Brahma:
" He (Brahma) in the beginning fashioned from the
worlds of the Veda the several names, functions and separate conditions of all
(creatures). That Lord also created the subtle host of active and living deities, and of
Sadhyas, and eternal sacrifice, he drew forth from Agni, from Vayu, and from Surya, the
triple eternal Veda, distinguished as Rich, Yajush, and Saman." In another place he
seems to accept the story of Prajapati being the originator of the Vedas as would be
evident from the following':
" Prajapati also milked out of the three Vedas the
letters a, u and m, together with -the words bhuh, bhuvah and svar. The same supreme
Prajapati also milked from each of the three Vedas one of the (three) portions of the text
called savitri (or gayatri), beginning with the word tat....... The three great
imperishable particles (bhuh, bhuvah, svar) preceded by om, and the gayatri of three
lines, are to be regarded as the mouth of Brahma ". It is also interesting to note
what the Puranas have to say about the origin of the Vedas. The Vishnu Purana says:
" From his eastern mouth Brahma formed the gayatri, the
rich verses, the trivrit, the samarathantara, and of sacrifices, the agnishtoma. From his
southern mouth he created the yajush verses the trishtubh metre, the panchadasa stome, the
vrihat-saman and the ukthya. From his western mouth he formed the saman verses, the jagati
metre, the saptadasa-stome, the vairupa, and the atiratra. From his northern mouth he
framed the ekavinsa, the atharvan, the aptoryaman, with the annushtubh and biraj
metres"
The Bhagvat Purana says:
"Once the Vedas sprang from the four-faced creator, as
he was meditating ' how shall I create the aggregate world as before?'. . . . . . He
formed from his eastern and other mouths the Vedas called rich, yajush, saman, and
atharvan, together with praise, sacrifice, hymns, and expiration ".
The Markandeya Purana says:
" From the eastern mouth of Brahma, who sprang by an
imperceptible birth from that divided egg, there suddently issued first of all the Rich
verses, 2. resembling China roses, brilliant in appearance, internally united, though
separated from each other, and characterized by the quality of passion (rajas). 3. From
his southern mouth came, unrestrained, the Yajush verses of the colour of gold, and
disunited. 4. From the western mouth of the supreme
Brahma appeared the Saman verses and the metres. 5 and 6.
From the northern mouth of the Vedas (Brahma) was manifested the entire Atharvana of the
colour of black bees and collyrium, having a character at once terrible and not terrible,
capable of neutralising the arts of enchanter pleasant, characterized by the qualities
both of purity and darkness, and both beautiful and the contrary. 7. The verses of the
Rich are distinguished by the quality of passion (rajas), those of the Yajush by purity
(satva), those of the Saman by darkness (tamas), and those of the Atharvan by both
darkness and purity."
The Harivamsa supports both theories that of Brahma and
Prajapati:
"For the emancipation of the world, Brahma, sunk in
contemplation, issuing in a luminous form from the region of the moon, penetrated into the
heart of Gayatri, entering between her eyes. From her there was then produced a quadruple
being in the form of a Male, lustrous as Brahma, undefined, eternal, undecaying devoid of
bodily senses or qualities, distinguished by the attribute of brilliancy, pure as the rays
of the moon, radiant, and emboidied in letters. The god fashioned the Rigveda, with the
Yajush from his eyes, the Sama-veda from the tip of his tongue, and the Atharvan from his
head. These Vedas, as soon as they are born, find a body (kshetra). Hence they obtain
their character of Vedas, because they find (vindanti) that abode. These Vedas then create
the pre-existent eternal brahma (sacred science), a Male of celestial form, with their own
mind-born qualities ".
It also accepts Prajapati as the origin. It says that when
the Supreme being was intent on creating the Universe, Hiranyagarbha, or Prajapati, issued
from his mouth, and was desired to divide himself—a process which he was in great
doubt how he should effect; the Harivarnsa proceeds:
" While he was thus reflecting, the sound ' om ' issued
from him, and resounded through the earth, air, and sky. While the god of gods was again
and again repeating this, the essence of mind, the vashatkara proceeded from his heart.
Next, the sacred and transcendent vyahritis, (bhuh, bhuvah, svar), formed of the great
smiriti, in the form of sound, were produced from earth, air, and sky. Then appeared the
goddess, the most excellent of metres, with twenty-four syllables (the gayatri).
Reflecting on the divine text (beginning with) "tat", the Lord formed the
savitri. He then produced all the Vedas, the Rich, Saman, Atharvan, and Yajush, with their
prayers and rites."
Here we have eleven different explanations regarding the
origin of the Vedas—(1) as originating from the mystical sacrifice of Purusha, (2) as
resting on Skambha (3) as cut of scrapped off from him, as being his hair, and his mouth,
(4) as springing from Indra, (5) as produced from Time, (6) as produced from Agni, Vayu
and Surya, (7) as springing from Prajapati, and the Waters, (8) as being the breath of
Brahma, (9) as being dug by the Gods out of the mind-ocean, (10) as being the hair of
Prajapati's beard and (II) as being the Offspring of Vach.
This bewildering multiplicity of answers to a simple
question is a riddle. The writers who have come forward to furnish these answers are all
Brahmins. They belong to the same Vaidic School of thought. They alone were the guardians
of the ancient religious lore. Why should such a coherent body of scholars should have
given such incoherent and chaotic answers to a very simple question?
II
Who is the author of the Vedas ? The belief of the Hindus is
that the Vedas are supernatural productions. To use the technical term the Vedas are
Apaurusheya i.e. made by a non-human agency.
What is the evidence in support of this dogma? Among the
Ancient Sanskrit literature there is a class of works called Anukramanis. They are
systematic indices to various portions of the Ancient Vedic literature. Every Veda has an
Anukramani, sometimes more than one Anukramani. Seven Anukramanis for the Rig-Veda are
known to be in existence, five by Shaunaka, one by Katyayana and one by an unknown author.
For the Yajur-Veda there exist three Anukramanis, one for each of the three Shakhas,
Atreyi, Charayaniyas, and Madhyandina. For the Sam-Veda there are two Anukramanis, one is
called Arsheya-Brahmana and the other is known by the name Parishistas. One Anukramani to
the Atharva-Veda is known to exist. Its title is Brihat-Sarvanukramani.
The most perfect Anukramani according to Prof. Max-Muller is
Katyayana's Sarvanukramani to the Rig-Veda. Its importance lies in the fact that it gives
(1) the first words of each hymn, (2) the number of verses, (3) the name and the family of
the Rishi who composed it, (4) the names of the deities and (5) the metres of every verse.
What emerges from a reference to the Sarvanukramani is that the Rishis are the Authors of
the hymns which make up the Rig-Veda. The Rig-Veda therefore on the evidence of the
Anukramani cannot but be regarded as a man-made work. The same must be the conclusion
regarding the other Vedas.
That the Anukramanis are realistic is proved by many
passages in the Rig-Veda in which the Rishis describe themselves as the composers of the
hymns.
Below are given a few of such passages:
"The Kanvas make a prayer to you; hear well their
invocations." Thus, O Indra, yoker of steeds, have the Gotamas made hymns for thee
efficaciously."
"This hymn has efficaciously been made to you, 0
opulent Asvins, by the Manas."
"These magnifying prayers, (this) hymn, 0 Asvins, the
Gritsamadas have made for you."
"Aspiring to heaven, the sage Kusikas have made a hymn
with praises to thee, 0 Indra."
"Nodhas, descendant of Gotama, fashioned this new hymn
for (thee), Indra, who art of old, and who yokest thy steeds."
" Thus, 0 hero, have the Gritsamadas, desiring succour,
fashioned for thee a hymn, as men make works."
"The sages generated an efficacious production and a
prayer of Indra."
" These hymns, Agni, generated for thee, celebrate thy
bounty in cows and horses."
" Our father hath discovered (or invented) this great,
seven-headed hymn, born of sacred truth; Ayasya, friend of all men, celebrating Indra, has
generated the fourth song of praise."
" We, the Rahuganas, have uttered to Agni honied
speech; we incessantly laud him with eulogies."
"Thus, all ye Adityas, Aditi, and ye ruling powers, has
the wise son of Plati magnified you. The celestial race has been lauded by the immortal
Gaya."
" He it is whom they call a rishi, a priest, a pious
sacrificer, a chaunter of prayers, a reciter of hymns; he it is who knows the three bodies
of the brilliant (Agni),—the man who is most prominent in bestowing gifts."
Apart from the evidence of the Anukramanis there is another
sort of evidence which mistakes against the theory of the Vedas being Apaurushya. The
Rishis themselves have treated the Vedas as a human and as a historical product. The hymns
of Rig-Veda distinguish between ancient and modern Rishis. Here are a few of them:
"Agni, who is worthy to be celebrated by former, as
well as modern rishis, will bring the gods hither." "The former rishis who
invoked thee for succour." "Hear the hymn of me this modern sage, of this modern
(sage)."
" Indra, as thou hast been like a joy to former
worshippers who praised thee, like waters to the thirsty, I invoke thee again and again
with this hymn."
"The ancient rishis, resplendent and sage, have placed
in front of them (Brihaspati) with gladdening tongue".
" Neither the ancients nor later men, nor any modern
man, has attained to (conceive) thy prowess, O Madhavan."
"As (Indra's) former worshippers were (may we be)
blameless, irreproachable, and unharmed."
" For now, 0 energetic god, men are thy worshippers, as
the ancients born of old and the men of the middle and later ages have been thy friends.
And, 0 much-invoked, think of the most recent of all ".
"to Him (Indra) our ancient fathers, the seven Navagva
sages, desiring food, (resorted) with their hymns."
"Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou bring to us
wealth and food with progeny"
A close study of the Rig-Veda will show that the Rig-Veda
itself makes a distinction between old hymns and new hymns. Some of them are given below:
"Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou bring to us
wealth and food with progeny."
" Agni, thou hast announced (or do thou announce) among
the gods this our offering, our newest hymn ".
"Through our new hymns, do thou, vigorous in action,
destroyer of cities, sustain us with invigorating blessings."
" I bring to Agni, the son.of strength, a new and
energetic hymn, a production of thought uttered by the voice (vachah) ".
"I present to the mighty protector a mental production,
a new utterance (now) springing up ".
" May the new prayer impel thee, the heroic,
well-accounted, the loud-thundering to succour us."
" I seek life, the ancients, to stimulate thee the
ancients, with a new hymn."
" May the new hymns made to praise you, may these
prayers gratify you."
" Sing, O Sobhari, with a new hymn to these youthful,
vigorous, and brilliant (gods)."
" Indra, slayer of Vrittra, thunderer, invoked of many,
we (thy) numerous (worshippers) bring to thee, as thy hire, hymns which never before
existed."
"I will address to this ancient (deity) my new praised,
which he desires; may he listen to us."
" Desiring horses, cattle and wealth, we invoke thee to
approach us."
Given this abundance of evidence to prove the human origin
of the Vedas it is a riddle to find that the Brahmins should so strenuously propagate so
extravagent view that the Vedas are of supernatural origin. What made the Brahmins
propagate such a view?
Ill
What is the authority of the Vedas ? With regard to this
there prevail two distinct dogmas amongst the Hindus. The first is that the Vedas are
eternal. Stopping to examine this dogma the question is what justification is there for
such a view? If the Hindus believed that the Vedas were the most ancient works in the
world no one can have any quarrel with them. But there is nothing to justify the
extraordinary proposition that they are eternal in the sense that they had no beginning in
time. Once it is established that the Rishis are the makers of the Vedas it needs no
additional proof to establish that the Vedas have a beginning in time which must coincide
with the existence of the Rishis. Given that the Rishis are the authors of the Vedas the
dogma as to their eternal character is an absurdity.
The dogma is sought to be sustained by a series of reasoning
which is no less absurd.
In the first place let it be noted that this dogma does not
rest on the ground that the Vedas are created by God. That was the view of one school of
philosophers called Naiyayiks. But strange as it may appear Jaimini the author of the
Purva Mimansa whose views on this subject have become the dogmas of the Hindus was not
prepared to accept this ground. The following quotation from the Mimansakas is worthy of
note:
"But (asks the Mimansaka) how can the Veda have been
uttered by the incorporeal Paramesvara (God), who has no palate or other organs of speech,
and therefore cannot be conceived to have pronounced the letters (of which it is
composed)? This object (answers the Naiyayika) is not happy, because, though Parameshvara
is by nature incorporeal, he can yet, by way of sport,
assume a body, in order to show kindness to his devoted worshippers. Consequently
the arguments in favour of the doctrine that the Veda had no personal author are
inconducive.
" I shall now (says the Mimansaka) clear up all these
difficulties. What is meant by this Paurusheyatva ('derivation from a personal author')
which it is sought to prove? Is it (1) mere procession from a person (purusha) like the
procession of the Veda from persons such as ourselves, when we daily utter it? or (2) is
it the arrangement—with a view to its manifestation—of knowledge acquired by
other modes of proof, in the sense in which persons like ourselves compose a treatise? If
the first meaning be intended, there will be no dispute. If the second sense be meant, I
ask whether the Veda is proved (to be authoritative) in virtue (a) of its being founded on
inference, or (b) of its being founded on supernatural information? The former alternative
(a) (i.e. That the Veda derives its authority from being founded on inference) cannot be
correct, since this theory breaks down, if it be applied to the sentences of the Malati
Madhava or any other secular poem (which may contain inferences destitute of authority).
If, on the other hand, you say (b) that the contents of the Veda are distinguished from
those of other books having authority, this explanation also will fail to satisfy a
philosopher. For the word of the Veda is (defined to be) a word which proves things that
are not provable by any other evidence. Now if it could be established that this Vedic
word did nothing more than prove things that are provable by other evidence, we should be
involved in the same sort of contradiction as if a man were to say that his mother was a
barren woman. And even if a man were conceded that (in that case) he should perceive
things beyond the reach of the senses, from the want of any means of apprehending objects
removed from him in place, in time, and in nature. Nor is it to be thought that his eyes
and other senses alone would have the power of producing such knowledge since men can only
attain to conceptions, corresponding with what they have perceived. This is what has been
said by the Guru (Prabhakara) when he refutes (this supposition of) an omniscient author:
'Whenever any object is perceived (by the organ of sight) in its most perfect exercise,
such perception can only have reference to the vision of something very distant or very
minute, since no organ can go beyond its own proper objects, as e.g. the ear can never
become cognizant of form. Hence the authority of the Veda does not arise in virtue of any
supernatural information (acquired by the Deity) in a corporeal shape."
What is then the reasoning on which this dogma of the
eternity of the Veda is founded? The reasoning can be best appreciated if I give it in the
very words of Jaimini's Purva Mimansa.
" In the preceding aphorism it was declared that the
connection of words and their meanings is eternal. Desiring now to prove that this
(eternity of connection) is dependent on the eternity of words (or sound), he begins by
setting forth the first side of the question, viz., the doctrine of those who maintain
that sound is not eternal."
" Some, i.e. the followers of the Nyaya philosophy, say
that sound is a product, because we see that it is the result of effort, which it would
not be if it were eternal."
"That it is not eternal, on account of its
transitoriness, i.e. because after a moment it ceases to be perceived."
"Because, we employ in reference to it the expression
'making', i.e. we speak of ' making ' a sound ".
"Because it is perceived by different persons at once,
and is consequently in immediate contact with the organs of sense of those both far and
near, which it could not be if it were one and eternal ".
" Because sounds have both an original and a modified
form; as e.g. in the case of dadhi atra, which is changed into dadhya atra, the original
letter being altered into by the rules of permutation. Now, no substance which undergoes a
change is eternal. Because sound is augmented by the number of those who make it.
Consequently the opinion of the Mimansaka, who say that sound is merely manifested, and
not created, by human effort, is wrong, since even a thousand manifesters do not increase
the object which they manifest, as a jar is not made larger by a thousand lamps."
These objections against the Mimansaka theory that sound is manifested, and not created,
by those who utter it, are answered in the following Sutras:
"But, according to both schools, viz., that which holds
sound to be created, and that which regards it as merely manifested, the perception of it
is alike momentary. But of these two views, the theory of manifestation is shown in the
next aphorism to be the correct one." The non-perception at any particular time, of
sound, which, in reality, perpetually exists, arises from the fact that the utterer of
sound has not come into contact with his object, i.e. sound. Sound is eternal, because we
recognise the letter k, for instance, to be the same sound which we have always heard, and
because it is the simplest method of accounting for the phenomenon to suppose that it is
the same. The still atmosphere which interferes with the perception of sound, is removed
by the conjunctions and disjunctions of air issuing from a speaker's mouth, and thus sound
(which always exists though unperceived) becomes perceptible. This is the reply to the
objection of its 'transitoriness'."
" The word ' making ' sounds, merely means implying or
uttering them ".
" One sound is simultaneously heard by different
persons, just as one Sun is seen by them at one and the same time. Sound, like the Sun, is
a vast, and not a minute object, and thus may be perceptible by different persons, though
remote from one another."
" The letter y, which is substituted for i in the
instance referred to under Sutra 10, is not a modification of i, but a distinct letter.
Consequently sound is not modified."
" It is an increase of ' noise ', not of sound, that is
occasioned by a multitude of speakers. The word ' noise ' refers to the ' conjunctions '
and 'disjunctions' of the air which enter simultaneously into the hearer's ear from
different quarters; and it is of these that an increase takes place ".
" Sound must be eternal, because its utterance is
fitted to convey a meaning to other persons. If it were not eternal (or abiding), it would
not continue till the hearer had learned its sense, and thus he would not learn the sense,
because the cause had ceased to exist."
"Sound is eternal, because it is in every case
correctly and uniformly recognized by many persons simultaneously; and it is inconceivable
that they should all at once fall into a mistake ".
"When the word go (cow) has been repeated ten times,
the hearers will say that the word Go has been ten times pronounced, not that ten words
having the sound of Go have been uttered; and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the
eternity of sound in Sutra 20".
"Because each sound is not numerically different from
itself repeated. "
" Sound is eternal, because we have no ground for
anticipating its destruction."
" But it may be urged that sound is a modification of
air, since it arises from its conjunctions, and because the Siksha (or Vedanga treating of
pronunciation) says that 'air arrives at the condition of sound ' and as it is thus
produced from air, it cannot be eternal ". A reply to this difficulty is given in
Sutra 22—
"Sound is not a modification of air, because, if it
were, the organ of hearing would have no appropriate object which it could perceive. No
modification of air (held by the Naiyayikas to be tangible) could be perceived by the
organ of hearing, which deals only with intangible sound".
"And the eternity of sound is established by the
argument discoverable in the vedic text, 'wilh an eternal voice, O Virupa'.
Now, though this sentence had another object in view, it,
nevertheless, declares the eternity of language, and hence sound is eternal".
Reduced to simple syllogism the sound is eternal, the words
of the Vedas are sound, therefore words of the Vedas are eternal. Absurdity in reasoning
cannot go further. The riddle is why did the Brahmins propound this doctrine of the
eternity of the Vedas? Why did the Brahmins adopt such an absurd reasoning in support of
their doctrine? Why did the Brahmins refuse to accept the view that the Vedas were the
word of God?
The second dogma relating to the authority of the Vedas is
that they are not only sacred but they are also infallible.
It is difficult to understand why the Brahmins endeavoured
to invest the Vedas with infallibility?
There is no law in the Vedas in the
strict sense of the term law. The Vedas do not preach Dharma in the
sense of morality. The three following extracts from the Vedas can hardly be said to be
consonant with morality.
"(Yami speaks). I invite my friend to friendship,
having come o'er the vast and desert ocean, may Vedhas, after reflecting, place in the
earth the offspring (of thee) the father, endowed with excellent qualities ".
"(Yama speaks). Thy friend desires not this friendship,
for although of one origin, she is of a different form; the hero sons of the great Asura
(are) the upholders of heaven enjoying vast renown."
"(Yami speaks). The immortals take pleasure in (a
union) like this which is forbidden to every mortal; let thy mind then concur with mine,
and as the progenitor (of all) was the husband (of his daughter), do thou enjoy my person
"
"(Yama-speaks). We have not done what was done
formerly; for how can we who speak truth, utter now that which is untrue? Gandharva (the
Sun) was in the watery (firmament), and the water was his bride. She is our common parent,
hence our near affinity."
"(Yami speaks). The divine omniform generator Twashtri,
the progenitor, made us two, husband and wife, even in the womb; none frustrate his
undertaking; earth and heaven are conscious of this our (union)."
"(Yama speaks). Who knows anything of this (his) first
day (of existence)? Who has beheld it? Who has here revealed it? The dwelling of Mitra and
of Varuna is vast. What saysest thou, who punishest men with hell?"
"(Yami speaks). The desire of Yama
hath approached
me Yami, to lie with him in the same bed; I will abandon my person as a wife to her
husband; let us exert ourselves in union like the two wheels of a waggon."
"(Yama speaks). The spies of the Gods, which wander
upon earth, never stop, never close their eyes. Associate quickly, destructress, with some
other than with me, and exert yourselves in union, like the two wheels of a waggon.'
"(Yami speaks). To him (Yama) let every worshipper
sacrifice both day and night, on him let the eye of the Sun repeatedly rise; (for him may)
the kindred pair (day and night unite) with heaven and earth. Yami will adhere to the
non-affinity of Yama".
" (Yama speaks). The subsequent ages will come, when
sisters will choose one who is not a brother (as a husband); therefore, auspicious one,
choose another husband that me, and make thine arm a pillow for thy mate."
"(Yami speaks). Is he a brother whose sister has no
lord? Is she a sister (whose brother) misfortune approaches ? Overcome by desire, I
strongly urge this one request; unite thy person with mine."
"(Yama speaks). I will not unite my person with thine;
they call him who approaches a sister, a sinner. Enjoy pleasure with some other than me;
thy brother, auspicious one, has no such desire."
"(Yami speaks). Alas, Yama, thou art feeble; we
understand not thy mind or thy heart. Some other female embraces thee as a girth a horse,
or as a creeper a tree."
"(Yama speaks). Do thou, Yami, embrace another; and let
another embrace thee as a creeper a tree; seek his affection, let him seek thine; and make
a happy union".
"May Agni, the destroyer of the Rakshasas consenting to
our prayer, drive hence (the evil spirit) who (in the form of ) sickness assails thine
embryo, who, as the disease durnaman, assails thy womb."
" May Agni, concurring in our prayer, destroy the
cannibal who is sickness, assails thine embryo, who as the disease durnaman, assails thy
womb."
" May we exterminate from hence (the evil spirit) who
destroys the impregnating energy, the germ as it settles, the moving embryo, who seeks to
destroy (the babe) when born."
"May we exterminate from hence (the evil spirit) who
separate thy thighs, who lies between husband and wife, who, entering thy. womb, devours
(the seed)."
" May we exterminate from hence (the evil spirit), who
in the form of brother, husband, or paramour, approaches thee, and seeks to destroy thy
offspring."
" May we exterminate from hence (the evil spirit) who,
having beguiled thee by sleep or darkness, approaches thee, and seeks to destroy thy
offspring."
The Vedas contain two things. In the first place they
contain the hopes and wishes of the Aryans as expressed by the Rishis. As observed by Mr.
Muir:
"The whole character of these compositions, and the
circumstances under which, from internal evidence, they appear to have arisen, are in
harmony with the supposition that they were nothing more than the natural expression of
the personal hopes and feelings of those ancient bards by whom they were first recited. In
these songs the Aryan sages celebrated the praises of their ancestral gods (while at the
same time they sought to conciliate their goodwill by a variety of oblations supposed to
be acceptable to them), and besought of them all the blessings which men in general
desire— health, wealth, long life, cattle, offspring, victory over their enemies,
forgiveness of sin, and in some cases also celestial felicity." This is also the view
of Yaska the author of Nirukta who says:
(0f the four kinds of verses specified in the preceding
section) (a) those which address a god as absent, (b) those which address him as present,
and (c) those which address the worshippers as present and the god as absent, are the most
numerous, while those (d) which refer to the speaker himself are rare. It happens also
that a god is praised without any blessing being invoked, as in the hymn (R. V. i. 32). '
I declare the heroic deeds of Indra ', etc. Again blessings are invoked without any praise
being offered, as in the words, 'May I see well with my eyes, be resplendent in my face,
and hear well with my ears '. This frequently occurs in the Adhvaryava (Yajur), and in the
sacrificial formula. Then again we find oaths and curses as in the words (R. V. vii. 104,
15), 'May I die to-day, if I am a Yatudhana,' etc. Further, we observe the desire to
describe some particular state of things, as in the verse (R. V. x. 129, 2), ' Death was
not then, nor immortality,' etc. Then there is lamentation, arising out of a certain state
of things, as in the verse (R, V. x. 95, 14), 'The beautiful god will disappear and never
return, ' etc. Again, we have blame and praise, as in the words (R. V. x. 117,6), 'The man
who eats alone, sins alone, etc. So, too, in the hymn to dice (R. V. x. 34, 13) there is a
censure upon dice, and a commendation of agriculture. Thus the objects for which the hymns
were seen by the rishis were very various."
The deity is the cure of Phthisis; the Rishi is Vivrihan,
the son of Kasyapa; the metre is Anushtubh.
1. I banish disease from thine eyes, from thy head, from thy
nose, from thy ears, from thy chin, from thy brain, from thy tongue.
2. I banish disease from thy neck, from thy sinews, from thy
bones, from thy joints, from thy upper arms, from thy shoulders, and from thy fore-arms.
3. I banish disease from thine entrails, from thy anus, from
thine abdomen, and from thy heart, from thy kidneys, from thy liver, from thy (other
viscera).
4. I banish disease from thy thighs, from thy knees, from
thy heels, from thy toes, from thy loins, from thy buttocks, from thy private parts.
5. I banish disease from -thy urethra, from thy bladder,
from thy hair, from thy nails, from thy whole person.
6. I banish disease from each limb, from each hair, from
each joint where it is generated, from thy whole person.
As Prof. Wilson observes there is in the Rig-Veda (which is
the stock Veda) scarcely any indication of doctrinal or philosophical speculation, no
allusion to the later notions of the several schools, nor is there any hint of
metempsychosis, or of the doctrine intimately allied to it, of the repeated renovation of
the world. The Vedas may be useful as a source of information regarding the social life of
the Aryans. As a picture of primitive life it is full of curiosity but there is nothing
elevating. There are more vices and a few virtues.
Given the nature and substance of the contents of the Vedas
it is a riddle why the Brahmins claimed infallibility for such superstitious writings as
the Vedas.
There would have been some justification for this doctrine
of infallibility if the Rishis who made the hymns had claimed it for themselves. But it is
quite clear that the Rishis have made no such pretentious. On the contrary they have
occasionally confessed their ignorance of matters in which they had interest and
curiosity. Compare the following utterances of the Rishis as given in the Rig-Veda:
" Ignorant, not knowing in my mind, I enquire after
these hidden abodes of the gods; the sages have stretched out seven threads for a hoof
over the yearling calf (or over the sun, the abode of all things). 6. Not comprehending, I
ask those sages who comprehend this matter; unknowing (I ask) that I may know; what is the
one thing, in the form of the uncreated one, who has upheld these six worlds ?
37. I do not recognize if I am like this; I go on perplexed
and bound in mind. When the first born sons of sacrifice (or truth) come to me, then I
enjoy a share of that word."
" What was the forest, what the tree, out of which they
fashioned heaven and earth, which continue to exist undecaying, whilst days, and many
dawns have passed away?
" Which of these two (Heaven and Earth) is the first ?
Which is the last? How were they produced? Who, o sages, knows?"
" How many fires are there ? How many suns ? how many
dawns ? How many waters ? I do not, fathers, say this to you in jest; I really ask you,
sages, in order that I may know " 5. " There ray (or cord), obliquely extended,
was it below, or was it above? There were generative sources, and there were great powers,
svadha (a self-supporting principle) below, and effort above. 6. Who knows, who hath here
declared, whence this creation was produced, whence (it came) ? The gods were subsequent
to the creation of this universe; who then
knows whence it sprang. 7. When this creation sprang, whether any one formed it or not, he
who, in the highest heavens, is the overseer
of this universe,— he indeed knows or he does not know."
There are other points with regard to this dogma of
infallibility which are noteworthy.
IV
The first point is, is this dogma original or is this a new
contention raised at sometime later in the history of India. The general view is that it
is the original doctrine. A reference to the Dharma Sutras which are the earliest law
books which deal with this subject go to show that this is not a correct view. The Gautama
Dharma Sutra lays down the following rule on the question of the infallibility of the
vedas.
"The Veda is the source of the sacred law". I.I.
" And the tradition and practice of those who know the (Veda) "—
1.2.
"If (authorities) of equal force are conflicting
(either may be followed at) pleasure" 1.4. The Vashishta Dharma Surta propounds the
following view:
"The Sacred law has been settled by the revealed texts
and by the tradition of the sages " 1.4. " On the failure of (rules given in)
these (two sources) the practice of Shistas has authority." I.s.
"He whose heart is free from desire (is called) a
shista" 1.6. The views of Baudhayana are given below:
Prasna 1, Adhyaya 1, Kandika 1.
1. The sacred law is taught in each Veda.
2. We will explain (it) in accordance with that.
3. (The sacred law), taught in the Tradition (Smriti,
stands) second.
4. The practice of the Sishtas (stands) third.
5. Sishtas, forsooth, (are those) who are free from envy,
free from pride, contented with a store of grain sufficient for ten days, free from
covetousness, and free from hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, perplexity, and anger.
6. ' (Those are called) Sishtas who, in accordance with the
sacred law, have studied the Veda together with its appendages, know how to draw
references from that, (and) are above to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the
revealed texts'.
7. On failure of them, an assembly consisting at least of
ten members (shall decide disputed points of law).
8. Now they quote also (the following verses): ' Four men,
who each know one of the four Vedas, a Mimansaka, one who knows the Angas, one who recites
(the works on) the sacred law, and three brahamanas belonging to
(three different) order, (constitute) an assembly consisting, at least of ten members'.
9. ' There may be
five, or there may be three, or there may be one blameless man, who decides (questions
regarding) the sacred law. But a thousand fools (can) not (do it). '
10. 'As an
elephant made of wood, as an antelope made of leather, such an unlearned Brahmana;
those three having nothing but the name (of their kind)'.
The view taken by the Apastamba Dharma Sutra is clear from
the following extract from that Sutra:
"Now, therefore, we will declare the acts productive of
merit which form part of the customs of daily life" 1. 1. "The authority (for
these duties) is the agreement (samaya) of these who know the law". 1. 2.
"And (the authorities for the latter are) the Vedas
alone". 1. 3. A review of the Dharma Sutras show how this dogma of the infallibility
of the Veda is a historical product. It shows that the (1) Veda, (2) Tradition (Smriti),
(3) Practice of Sishta and (4) Agreement in an Assembly were the four different
authorities about which the controversy as to which of these should be regarded as
infallible. It also shows that there was a time when the Vedas were not the sole
infallible authorities. That was the time represented by the Dharma Sutras of Vasistha and
Baudhayana. It is only in the time of Gautama
that the Vedas came to be regarded as the only authority.
There was a time when an agreed decision of the Assembly was admitted as one source of
authority. That is the period represented by Baudhayana. Lastly the review shows that
there was a time when the Veda was not at all regarded as a book of authority and when the
only recognized source of authority was an agreement arrived at in an assembly of the
learned. That is the period when Apastamba[f8] wrote his Dharma Sutras i.e. somewhere between 600 and 200
B.C. [f9]
It is thus obvious that there was a deliberate attempt to
invest the Vedas with an infallible authority which they did not at one time possess and
the question is what were the circumstances and the motives which led the Brahmins to
propagate the sole and final authority of the Vedas.
The second point connected with this subject of
infallibility of the Vedas relates to the discrimination made by the Brahmins in limiting
the virtue of infallibility to certain Vedic writings only and not extending it to the
whole range of them. To understand this point it is necessary to know what is meant by the
phrase Vedic literature.
The phrase Vedic literature can be used in two senses. In
its limited sense it includes (1) The Samhita, (2) The Brahmanas, (3) Aranyakas, (4)
Upanishads and (5) Sutras. When used in an extended sense it includes two other heads (6)
Itihasas and (7) Puranas.
The first thing to note is that there was a time when all
these writings were classed in the same category, and no distinction was made between them
on the basis of revealed and profane or on the basis of supernatural and human or on the
basis of authoritative and non-authoritative. This is clear from the view expressed in the
Satapatha Brahmana which says:
"This Male, Prajapati, desired, 'May I multiply, may I
be propagated.' He toiled in devotion; he practised austere-fervour. Having done? so he
first of all created sacred knowledge the triple Vedic science. This became a basis for
him. Wherefore men say, sacred knowledge is the basis of this universe.' Hence after
studying the veda a man has a standing ground; for sacred knowledge is his foundation.
Resting on this basis he (Prajapati) practised austere-fervour. (9) He created the waters
from Vach (speech) as their world. Vach was his: She was created. She pervaded all this
whatever exists. As she pervaded (apnot) waters were called "apah ". As she
covered (avrinot) all, water was called 'var'. (10) He desired, May I be propagated from
these waters. Along with this triple Vedic science he entered the waters. Thence sprang an
egg. He gave it an impulse; and said, "Let there be, let there be, let there be
again.' Thence was first created sacred knowledge, the triple Vedic science. Wherefore
men, say, 'Sacred knowledge is the first-born thing in this universe. Moreover, it was
sacred knowledge which was created from that Male in front, wherefore it was created as
his mouth. Hence they say of a man learned in the Veda, ' He is like Agni; for sacred
knowledge is Agni's Mouth '. "
" As from a fire made of moist wood various
modifications of smoke proceed, so is the breathing of this great being. The Rig-Veda, the
Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvan-girases, the Itihasas, Puranas, science, the
Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorims, comments of different kinds—all these are his
breathings."
But when the Brahmans sought to establish their dogma of
infallibility they made a distinction and divided the Vedic writings in two classes (1)
Shruti and (2) Non-Shruti. In the first division they placed only two of them (1) Sanhitas
and (2) the Brahmanas and invested them with infallibility. The rest they declared as
non-Shruti therefore of no authority. When this distinction, was first made it is not
possible to say. One can well understand why the last two categories were excluded from
the Shruti part division of the Vedic literature. They were too elementary and too
undeveloped and in all probability included in the Brahmanas.
One can well understand why the Aranyakas are not
specifically mentioned as a part of the Shruti. They are part of the Shruti and must be
for the simple reason that they are a part of the Brahmanas. The position of the
Upanishads is not clear. But if they are not included in the Shruti one can well
understand why they were excluded. But the case of the Sutras stands on a different
footing. They are definitely excluded from the category of Shruti and for reasons which it
is not possible to comprehend. If there were good reasons for including the Brahmanas in
the category of Shruti the same reasons could not fail to justify the inclusion of the
Sutras. As Prof. Max Muller observes:
"We can understand how a nation might be led to ascribe a superhuman origin to their ancient national poetry, particularly if that poetry consisted chiefly of prayers and hymns addressed to their gods. But it is different with the prose compositions of the Brahamanas. The reason why the Brahmanas, which are evidently so much more modern than the Mantras, were allowed to participate in the name of Sruti, could only have been because it was from these theological compositions, and not from the simple old poetry of the hymns, that a supposed divine authority could be derived for the greater number of the ambitious claims of the Brahmans. But, although we need not ascribe any weight to the arguments by which the Brahmans endeavoured to establish the contemporaneous origin of the Mantras and Brahmanas there seems to be no reason why we should reject as equally worthless the general opinion with regard to the more ancient date of both the Brahmanas and Mantras, if contrasted with the Sutras and the profane literature of India. It may easily happen, where there is a cannon of sacred books, that later compositions become incorporated together with more ancient works, as was the case with the Brahmanas. But we can hardly imagine that old and genuine parts should ever have been excluded from a body of sacred writings, and a more modern date ascribed to them, unless it be in the interest of a party to deny the authority of certain doctrines contained in these rejected documents. There is nothing in the later literature of the Sutras to warrant a supposition of this kind. We can find no reason why the Sutras should not have been ranked as Sruti, except the lateness of their date, if compared with the Brahmanas, and still more with the Mantras. Whether the Brahmanas themselves were aware that ages must have elapsed between the period during which most of the poems of their rishis were composed, and the times which gave rise to the Brahmanas, is a question which we need hardly hesitate to answer in the affirmative. But the recklessness with which Indian theologians claim for these Brahmanas the same title and the same age as for the Mantras, shows that the reasons must have been peculiarly strong which deterred them from claiming the same divine authority for the Sutras."
The third point relates to the changes that took place in
the scope of the term Shruti and in their infallibility. Manu excludes[f10] the " Brahamanas " from the category of Shruti as
may be seen from the following extract from his Smriti:
" By Sruti is meant the Veda, and by Smriti the
institutes of law; the contents of these are not to be questioned by reason, since from
them (a knowledge of) duty has shown forth. The Brahman who, relying on rationalistic
treatises, shall contemn these two primary sources of knowledge must be excommunicated by
the virtuous as a sceptic and reviler of the Vedas.. . . . 13. To those who are seeking a
knowledge of duty, the Sruti is the supreme authority." The fourth point relates to
the claim put forth in the Puranas for precedence over the Vedas
in the order of creation. The Vayu Purana says[f11] :
"First of all the Shastras, the Purana was uttered by
Brahma. Subsequently the vedas issued from his mouth". The Matsya Purana not only
claims priority of creation for the Puranas as against the Vedas, but also the qualities
of eternity and identity with sound, which was once predicated of the Vedas alone. It says[f12] :
" Pitamaha (Brahma), first of all the immortals, took shape; then the Vedas with their Angas and Upangas (appendages and minor appendages), and the various modes of their textual arrangement, were manifested. (3) The Purana, eternal, formed of sound, pure, extending to the length of a hundred crores of verses, was the first of the Sastras which Brahma uttered; and afterwards the Vedas, issued from his mouth; and also the Mimansa and the Nyaya with its eightfold system of proofs. (5) From him (Brahma), who was devoted to the study of the Vedas, and desirous of offspring, sprang mind-born sons, so called because they were at first created by his mind."
The Bhagwat Purana claims equality
of authority with the Vedas. It says:
" (Bramharatra) declared the Purana called the Bhagavata,
which stands on an equality with the Veda."
The Brahma-Vaivartta Purana has the audacity to claim superiority over
the Vedas. It says:
"That about
which venerable sage, you have inquired, and which you desire, is all known to me, the
essence of the Puranas, the preeminent Brahma-Vaivarta, which refutes the errors of the Puranas and Upapuranas,
and the Vedas."
This survey discloses a number of riddles in regard to the Vedas. In addition to the three riddles namely why did the Brahmins insist that the Vedas were eternally pre-existing, that they were non-man, non-God made, that they were infallible. There are other riddles regarding the Vedas which are equally puzzling—The Vedas at one time did not have any precedence or infallibility. Why did the Brahmins feel it necessary to give the Vedas this infallibility, why did the Brahmins exclude the Sutras from the term Sruti and why did the Brahmins give up the infallibility of the Vedas and sought to give infallibility to the Puranas?
THE RIDDLE OF THE VEDANTA
Of the six schools of philosophy which were expounded by the
ancient philosophers of India the most famous is of course the Vedanta philosophy. Not
only has it the name but it has also a hold on the Hindus which none of its rivals has
ever had. Every follower of the Vedas is proud of the Vedanta. He not only owns it but
regards it as the most valuable contribution which India has made to the philosophic
thought of the world. He regards Vedanta philosophy as embodying the end or aim of the
teachings of the Vedas, a sort of culmination or flowering of the teachings of the Veda.
He never suspects that there was any time in the history of India when the Vedanta
Philosophy was regarded as repugnant and hostile to the Vedas. He would never believe that
there was a time when the word Vedanta had a totally different meaning than the meaning
which is now current and according to which the word Vedanta far from being used in the
sense of culmination of Vedic thought was used to designate a body of thought contained in
a body which was outside the range of the cannonical part of the Vedic literature. Yet
that was in fact the case.
It is true that this repugnance between the Vedas and the
Vedanta does not become manifest from the word Upanishad which is the generic name of the
literature on which the Vedanta philosophy came to be built up and about the etymology of
which there is a considerable difference of opinion.
Most European scholars are agreed in deriving Upanishad from
the root sad, to sit down, preceded by the two prepositions ni, down, and upa, near, so
that it would express the idea of session, or assembly of public sitting down near a
person. As Prof. Max Muller points out there are two objections to the acceptance of this
derivation. Firstly such a word, it would seem, would have been applicable to any other
This is a 21-page typed first copy entitled ' The Riddle of
the Vedanta : The chapter seems complete and does not contain any modofications by the
author.—Ed.
portion of the Veda as well as to the chapters called
Upanishad, and it has never been explained how its meaning came thus to be restricted.
Secondly the word Upanishad, in the sense of session or assembly has never been met with.
Whenever the word occurs, it has the meaning of doctrine, secret doctrine, or is simply
used as the title of the philosophic treatises which contains the secret doctrine. There
is a third explanation noted by Prof. Max Muller proposed by Sankara in his commentary on
the Taittiriya-Upanishad II, 9, is that the highest bliss is contained in the Upanishad
(param sreyo'syam nishannam). Regarding this Prof. Max-Muller says:
"The Aranyakas abound in such etymologies, which
probably were never intended as real as plays on words, helping to account somehow for
their meaning."
Prof. Max Muller however favours a derivation of the word
Upanishad from the root sad to destroy and meant knowledge which destroys ignorance, the
cause of Samsara, by revealing the knowledge of Brahma as a means of salvation. Prof. Max
Muller points out that this is the meaning which the native scholars have unanimously
given to the word Upanishad.
If it be granted that this is the true derivation of the
word Upanishad it would be one piece of evidence in support of the thesis that there was a
time in the history of India when Vedanta was regarded as a system of thought which was
repugnant to the Vedas. But it is not necessary to depend upon the help of etymology to
support the thesis. There are other evidences better and more direct. In the first place
the word Vedanta was never used to denote " the last books of the Vedas " which
they are. As observed by Prof. Max Muller[f13] :
"Vedanta as a technical term, did not mean originally
the last portions of the Veda, or chapters placed, as it were, at the end of a volume of
Vedic literature, but the end, i.e. the object, the highest purpose of the Veda. There
are, of course, passages, like the one in the Taittirya-Aranyaka (ed. Rajendra Mitra p.
820), which have been misunderstood both by native and European scholars, and where
Vedanta means simply the end of the Veda: yo vedadu svarah prokto vedante ka
pratishthitah, ' the 0m which is pronounced at the beginning of the Veda, and has its
place also at the end of the Veda". Here Vedanta stands simply in opposition to
Vadadu, it is impossible to translate it, as Sayana does, by Vedanta or Upanishad.
Vedanta, in the sense of philosophy, occurs in the Taittiriya-Aranyaka (p. 817), in a
verse of the Narayania-Upanishad, repeated in the Mundak-Upanishad III, 2, 6 and elsewhere Vedantavignansuniskitarhah, 'those who
have well understood the object of the knowledge arising from the Vedanta, ', not 'from
the last books of the Veda', and Svetasvatara-up. VI, 22, vedante paramam guhyam, ' the
highest mystery in the Vedanta '. Afterwards it is used in the plural also,
e.g.Kshurikopanishad, 10 (bibl. Ind. p. 210) pundariketi vedanteshu nigadyate, 'it is
called pundarika in the Vedantas ', i.e. in (he Khandogya and other Upanishads, as the
commentator says, but not in the last books of each Veda."
More direct evidence on the point is that which is contained
in the Gautama Dharma Sutras. In Chapter XIX verse 12 speaks of purification and says[f14] :
"The purificatory (texts are), the Upanishads, the
Vedantas, the Samhita text of all the Vedas" and so on.
From this it is clear that at the date of Gautama the
Upanishads were distinguished from Vedantas and were not acknowledged as a part of the
Vedic literature. Hardatta in his commentaries says "those parts of the Aranyakas
which are not (Upanishads) are called Vedantas ". This is unimpeachable proof that
the Upanishads did not come within the range of the Vedic literature and were outside the
cannon.
This view is also supported by the use of the Veda in the
Bhagwat Gita. The word Veda is used in the Bhagwat Gita at several places. And according
to Mr. Bhat2 the word is used in a sense which shows that the author did not include the
Upanishads in the term.
That the Upanishads were excluded from the cannonical
literature of the Vedas is provided by the opposition of the Upanishads to the views
preached in the Vedas that the religious observances and sacrifices were the only means of
salvation. A few citation from some of the Upanishadas will suffice to show their
opposition to the Vedas. The Mundaka Upanishad says:
" Brahma was produced the first among the gods, maker
of the universe, the preserver of the world. He revealed to his eldest son Atharva, the
science of Brahma, the basis of all knowledge. (2) Atharvan of old declared to Angis this
science, which Brahma had unfolded to him; and Angis, in turn, explained it to Satyavaha,
descendent of Bharadvaja, who delivered this traditional lore, in succession, to Angiras.
(3) Mahasala Saunaka, approaching Angiras with the proper formalities, inquired, 'What is
that, 0 venerable sage, through the knowledge of which all this (universe) becomes known?'
(4) (Angiras) answered, 'Two sciences are to be known— this is what the sages versed
in sacred knowledge declared—the superior and the inferior. (5) The inferior
(consists of) the Rig-veda the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharva-veda, accentuation,
ritual, grammar, commentary, prosody, and astronomy. The superior science is that by which
the imperishable is apprehended." The Chhandoyaga Upanishad says:
"(1) Narada approached Sanatkumara, saying, 'Instruct
me, venerable sage'. He received for answer, 'Approach me with (tell me) that which thou
knowest; and I will declare to thee whatever more is to be learnt.' (2) Narada replied, '
I am instructed, venerable sage, in the Rig-veda, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur-veda, the
Atharva-veda (which is) the fourth, the Itihasas and Puranas (which are) the fifth Veda of
the Vedas, the rites of the pitris, arithmetic, the knowledge of portents, and of great
periods, the art of reasoning, ethics, the science of the gods, the knowledge of
scripture, demonology, the science of war, the knowledge of the stars, the science of
serpents and deities; this is what I have studied. (3) I, venerable man, know only the
hymns (mantras), while I am ignorant of soul. But I have heard from reverend sages like
thyself that ' the man who is acquainted with soul overpasses grief. Now, I venerable man,
am afflicted; but do thou transport me over my grief. Sanatkumara answered, 'That which
thou hast studied is nothing but name. (4) The Rig-veda is name; and so are the
Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvana, which is the fourth and the Itihasas and
Puranas, the fifth Veda of the Vedas, etc. (all the other branches of knowledge are here
enumerated just as above), all these are but names; worship name. (5) He who worships name
(with the persuasion that it is) Brahma, ranges as it were at will over all which that
name comprehends;—such is the prerogative of him who worships name (with the
persuation that it is) Brahma, Is there anything venerable man' asked Narada, 'Which is
more than name?', 'There is,' replied (Sanatkumara), 'something which is more than name'.
'Tell it to me', rejoined Narada."
The Brahadarnyaka Upanishad says:
"In that (condition of profound slumber,) a father is
no father, a mother is no mother, the words are no words, the gods are no gods, and the
Vedas are no Vedas, sacrifices are no sacrifices. In that condition a thief is no thief, a
murderer of embryos is no murderer of embryos, a Paulakasa no Paulakasa, a Chandala no
Chandala, a Sramana no Sramana, a devotee no devotee; the saint has then no relation,
either of advantage or disadvantage, to merit or to sin; for he then crosses over all
griefs of the heart."
This is what the Katha Upanishad has to say:
"This soul is not to be attained by instruction, nor by
understanding, nor by much scripture. He is attainable by him
whom he chooses. The soul chooses that man's body as his own
abode ".
"Although this soul is difficult to know, still it may
easily be known by the use of proper means. This is what (the author) proceeds to say.
This soul is not to be attained, known by instruction, by the acknowledgement of many
Vedas; nor by understanding, by the power of recollecting the contents of books; nor by
much scripture alone. By what, then, is it to be attained? This he declares ".
How great was the repugnance to the Upanishadas and the
philosophy contained in them will be realized if one takes note of the origin of the words
Anuloma and Pratiloma which are usually applied to the marriage tie among the Hindus.
Speaking of their origin Mr. Kane points out that[f15] :
"These two words Anuloma and Pratiloma (as applied to
marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the Vedic literature. In the Br. Up. (II. 1.15)
and Kausitaki Br. Up. IV. 18 the word ' Pratiloma ' is applied to the procedure adopted by
a Brahmana of going to a Kshatriya for knowledge about " Brahman ". Anuloma
means according to the heir that is in the natural order of things. Pratiloma means
against the heir that is contrary to the natural order. Reading the observations of Mr.
Kane in the light of the definition of the word Pratiloma it is obvious that the
Upanishads far from being acknowledged as part of the Vedic literature were if not
despised, held in low esteem by the Vedic Brahmins. It is a riddle to find that the
Brahmins who were opponents of the Vedanta should become subsequently the supporters and
upholders of the Vedanta.
II
This is one riddle of the Vedanta. There is another. The
Vedantists were not the only opponents of the Vedas and its doctrine of ritualism as a
means of salvations. Madhava Acharya the author of the Sarva Darshana Sangraha mentions
two other opponents of the Vaidikas, Charvaka and Brahaspati. Their attack on the Vaidikas
was quite formidable in its logic and its.....
The opposition of Charvaka can be seen from the following
quotation which reproduces his line of argument against the Vaidikas[f16] : " If you object that, if there be no such thing as
happiness in a future world, then how should men of experienced wisdom engage in the
agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of
money and bodily fatigue. Your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary,
since the agnihotra, &c„ are only useful as means of livelihood, for the Veda is
tainted by three faults of un-truth, self-contradiction, and tautology; then again the
impostors who call themselves Vedic pundits are mutually destructive as the authority of
the Jnan-kanda is overthrown by those who maintain authority of the Jnan-kanda reject that
of the Karmakanda; and lastly, the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent
rhapsodes of knaves, and to this effect runs the popular saying: 'The Agnihotra, the three
Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes, Brihaspati says, these
are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense'. rahaspati was far
more bold and militant in his opposition to Vaidism. As reported by Madhava Acharya
Brihaspati argued[f17] : " There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any
soul in another world, Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders &c„ produce
any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves and smearing
one self with ashes, Were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge
and manliness. If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,
Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead, Then here, too, in the case of travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey. While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt. When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again ? If he who departs from the body goes to another world, How is that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred? Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans
Established here.All these ceremonies for the dead , There
is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of veda were buffoons, knaves and demons.
All these ceremonies for the dead,—there is no other
fruit anywhere. The three Authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves.
All the well-known formulas of the Pandits, jarphari,
turphari, And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Aswamedha.
These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various
kinds of presents to the priests, While the eating of flesh was similarly commended by
night prowling demons."
Why did the Vedic Brahmans compromise with the Vedantists
but did not compromise with Charvak and Brihaspati. It is a riddle that awaits
explanation.
Ill
A third riddle remains to be mentioned. This is its most
appropriate place for it has reference to the Vedas and Vedantas, not in their crude form
but in the philosophical garb which was given to them by two masters of the art of
systematization whose names are quite well known in the history of Sanskrit Literature
namely Jaimini and Badarayana, the former as the author of Mimansa and the latter as the
author of Brahma Sutras. To them and to their work a reference has already been made in
the earlier pages and some idea has been given of their place in the formulation of the
Vedik beliefs and Vedantik speculations. What remains to be done is to compare and
contrast the attitude which one has-towards the philosophy of the other.
Starting on this inquiry one is struck by the parallelism
between Jaimini and Badarayana in the presentation of the subject matter. As Prof.
Belvalkar points out the Vedant Sutras are very closely modelled upon the Karma Sutras. In
the matter of methodology and terminology Badarayana very carefully follows Jaimini. He
accepts Jaimini rules of interpreting the text of the Shruti. He uses Jaimini's technical
terms in the sense in which they have been used by Jaimini. He uses the very illustrations
which are employed by Jaimini.
The parallelism shows that Badarayana must have felt that he
was the exponent of a rival philosophy which was being attacked by Jaimini and that in
replying to the attack he must follow Jaimini's technique.
Question is did Badarayana take the stand of an opponent of
Jaimini? .
That Jaimini was his opponent Badarayana himself admits, the
attitude of Jaimini towards Vedanta. It is stated by Badarayana in his Sutras 2-7 and
explained by Shankaracharya in his commentary. Jaimini contends that:
" No one undertakes a sacrificial act unless he is
conscious of the fact that he is different from the body and that after death he will go
to heaven, where he will enjoy the results of his sacrifices. The Texts dealing with
self-knowledge serve merely to enlighten the agent and so are subordinate to sacrificial
acts."
In short Jaimini says that all that Vedanta teaches is that
self is different from the body and outlives the body. Such a knowledge is not enough. The
Self must have the aspiration to go to Heaven. But it can't go to heaven unless it
performs Vedic sacrifices which is what his Karmakand teaches. Therefore his Karmakand is
the only way of Salvation and that the Jnankand from that point of view is quite useless.
For this Jaimini relies on the conduct of men who have believed in Vedanta [f18] :
" Janaka, emperor of Videha performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed" (Brih. 3.1.1); "I am going to perform a sacrifice, sirs" (Ch. 5.11.5). Now both Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of the Self. If by this knowledge of the Self they had attained Liberation, there was no need for them to perform sacrifices. But the two texts quoted show that they did perform sacrifices. This proves that it is through sacrificial acts alone that one attains Liberation, and not through the knowledge of the Self as the Vedantins hold."
Jaimini makes a positive assertion that the scriptures
unmistakably declare[f19] " that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate
relation to sacrificial acts." Jaimini justifies it because he says*[f20] "the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the
departing soul to produce the results.)"
Jaimini refuses to give an independent position to Badarayana's Jnana kanda. He takes his stands on two grounds.
First[f21] "Knowledge of the Self does not independently produce
any result."
Second[f22] according to the authority of the Vedas " Knowledge
(of Self) stands in a subordinate relation to work." This is the position of Jaimini
towards Badaryana's Jnanakanda. What is the position of Badarayana towards Jaimini and his
Karma Kanda? This is explained by Badarayana in Sutras 8 to 17.
The first position[f23] taken up by Badarayana is that the Self spoken of by
Jaimini is the limited self i.e. the soul and is to be distinguished from the supreme soul
and that the supreme soul is recognized by the Scriptures.
The second[f24] position taken by Badarayana is that the Vedas support both
knowledge of Self as well as Sacrifices.
The third[f25] position taken up by Badarayana is that only those who
believe in the Vedas are required to perform Sacrifices. But those who follow the
Upanishadas are not bound by that injunction. As Shankaracharya explains:
"Those who have read the Vedas and known about the
sacrifices are entitled to perform work (sacrifice). No work (sacrifice) is prescribed for
those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishadas. Such a knowledge is
incompatible with work." The fourth[f26] position taken up by Badarayana is that Karmakanda is
optional to those who have attained Bramhadnan. As Shankaracharya explains:
"That some have of their own accord given up all work.
The point is that after knowledge some may choose to work to set an example to others,
while others may give up all work. There is no binding on the knowers of the Self as
regards work ". His last and final[f27] position is that:
" Knowledge of the Self is antagonistic to all work and
so cannot possibly be subsidiary to work."
And as evidence in support of it he relies[f28] on the scriptures which recognizes Sannyasa the fourth
Ashram and relieves the Sannyasi from performing sacrifices prescribed by the Karma Kand.
Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the
attitude of the two schools of thought towards each other. But the one given above is
enough as it is so very typical. If one stops to consider the matter the position wears a
strange appearance. Jaimini denounces Vedanta as a false Shastra, a snare and a delusion,
something superficial, unnecessary and unsubstantial. What does Badarayana do in the face
of this attack? Does he denounce the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false Shastra, a snare and
a delusion, something superficial unnecessary and insubstantial? No. He only defends his
own Vedanta Shastra. But one would expect him to do more. One would expect from Badarayana
a denunciation of the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false religion. Badarayana shows no such
courage. On the contrary he is very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini's Karmakanda
based on the scriptures and the scriptures have authority and sanctity which cannot be
repudiated. All that he insists on is that his Vedanta
doctrine is also true because it has also the support of the scriptures.
This is not all. What Badarayana does is to use the term
Vedanta to cover these senses. He uses it so as to emphasize that the Upanishads do form a
part of the Vedic literature. He used it also to emphasize what Vedanta or the Dnyanakanda
of the Upanishads is not opposed to the Karmakanda of the Vedas that the two are
complimentary. Indeed this is the foundation on which Badarayana has raised the whole
structure of his Vedanta Sutras.
This thesis of Badarayana—which underlies his Vedanta
Sutras and according to which the Upanishadas are a part of the Veda and there is no
antagonism between the Vedas and Upanishads—is quite contrary to the tenor of the
Upanishads and their relation to the Vedas. Badarayana's attitude is not easy to
understand. But it is quite obvious that Badarayana's is a queer and a pathetic case of an
opponent who begins his battle by admitting the validity of the premises of his adversary.
Why did Badarayana concede to Jaimini on the question of infallibility of the Vedas which
were opposed to the Upanishads? Why
did he not stand for truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is a
riddle that requires explanation.
THE RIDDLE OF THE TRIMURTI
To say that Hindu Religion is made up of sects is no less
true than to say that Hindu Society is made up of castes. But not half the attention paid
to the study of castes has been paid to the study of sects. This is as unfortunate as it
is strange. Sects have played as great a part in India's history as castes have done.
Indeed some sects just as some castes have made the history of India what it is.
The sects which make up the Hindu Religion are of course legion. It is impossible to explore the origin of all and compare and contrast their cults within the compass of a chapter. All that can be done is to take the most important ones and to present some of problems connected with them. The most important of these sects in the history of India have been three, one believing in the cult of God Brahma, second believing in the cult of Vishnu and the third believing in the cult of Shiva or Mahesha. The following arc some of the questions, which cannot but puzzle the student who has studied the origin and history of these cults.
The Chula-Niddessa a Buddhist treatize refers to various sects which were at one time prevalent in India. Classified on the basis of creeds and cults they may be listed as follows:
I CREEDS
Serial
Name of the Sect.
Essence of the creed No.
1 Ajivika
Shravaka[f29]
.
Ajivika[f30]
2 Nigatta
Shravakas
. .
Nigautha[f31]
This Riddle may be read along with the Riddle No. 11 which
deals with The Rise and Fall of Gods. This title ' The Riddle of the Trimurti ' however
does not find place in the original Table of Contents, nor was it available in the MS
received by the Govt. This copy has been spared by Shri S. S. Rege—Ed.
AND SPEECHES I CREEDS— contd.
Serial Name of the Sect. |
Essence of the creed |
No. |
|
3 Jatil Shravakas |
|
4 Parivrajaka Shravakas 5 Avarudha Shravakas |
. Parivrajaka[f33] . Avarudhaka |
11 CULTS |
|
Serial Name of the Sect No. |
The deity which is . worshipped |
1 Hasti Vratikas[f34] |
. Hasti[f35] |
2 Ashva Vratikas |
. Ashva[f36] |
3 Go Vratikas |
. Go[f37] |
4 Kukur Vratikas |
. Kukku[f38] |
5 Kaka Vratikas |
. Kaka[f39] |
6 Vasudeo Vratikas |
. Vasudeo |
7 Baldeo Vratikas |
. Baldeo |
8 Puma Bhadra Vratikas |
. Puma Bhadra |
9 Mani Bhadra Vratikas |
. Mani Bhadra |
10 Agni Vratikas 11 Naga Vratikas 12 Suparna Vratikas 13
Yaksha Vratikas |
• Agni . Naga . Suparna . Yaksha |
14 Asura Vratikas |
. Asura |
15 Gandharva Vratikas |
. Gandharva |
16 Maharaja Vratikas 17 Chandra Vratikas |
. Maharaja . Chandra |
18 Surya Vratikas 19 Indra Vratikas |
. Surya . Indra |
20 Brahma Vratikas |
. Brahma |
21 Deva Vratikas |
. Deva |
22 Deesha Vratikas |
. Deesha |
Comparing the cults of the three Gods with the cults of the
various Gods mentioned in the list, two conclusions are obvious. One conclusion is that
the cults of Vishnu and Mahesha are new fabrications, later in origin than those mentioned
in the Chula Niddessa. The second conclusion is that all the old cults have disappeared.
Searching for the causes of this strange phenomenon it is quite clear that New Cults could
not have come into being unless the Brahmins had taken up the cause of propagating these
new cults. Similarly old cults could not have disappeared if the Brahmins had not ceased
to propagate them. The question that puzzles the student of history is why did the
Brahmins fabricate these new cults? Why did they give up the old cults ? The question not
only puzzles but staggers the student when the God that has vanished in this revolution is
no other than Indra. Indra is a Vedic God. He is the greatest of the Vedic Gods. The
Brahmins worshipped Indra and praised him as the supreme God for hundreds if not thousands
of years. What made the Brahmins give up Indra and become the devotees of Brahma, Vishnu
and Mahesh? Were the reasons for transfer of loyalties by the Brahmins spiritual or
commercial?
Who is this Shiva whom the Brahmins adopted as their God in
preference to Indra? The story of Daksha Prajapati's Yajna and the part played by Shiva
throws great light on Shiva. The story is that somewhere in the Himalayas king Daksha was
performing an Yajna. This Yajna was attended by all Devas, Danavas, Pishachas, Nagas,
Rakshasas and Rishis. But Shiva absented as Daksha did not give him invitations. Dadhichi
one of the Rishis scolded Daksha for his failure to invite Shiva and to perform his puja.
Daksha refused to call Shiva and said "I have seen many of your Rudras. Go away, I
don't recognize your Shiva." Dadhichi replied " You have all conspired against
Shiva, take care, your Yajna will never reach a successful finis." Mahadeo coming to
know of this created a Rakshas from his mouth and this Rakshas destroyed the Yajna started
by Daksha. This shows that there was a time when Brahmins refused to recognize Shiva as
the God to be worshipped or it shows that Shiva was against the Yajna system of the
Brahmanas.
The difference between the Aryans and the Non-Aryans was
cultural and not racial. The cultural difference centred round two points. The Aryans
believed in Chaturvarna. The Non-Aryans were opposed to it. The Aryans believed in the
performance of Yajna as the essence of their religion. The Non-Aryans were opposed to
Yajna. Examining the story of Daksha's Yajna in the light of these facts it is quite
obvious that Shiva was a Non-Vedic and a Non-Aryan God. The question is why did the
Brahmins, the pillars of Vedic culture, adopt Shiva as their God?
The third question that puzzles the student is the
reformation and transformation which the Brahmins have made in the original format of
Shiva and Vishnu.
The Hindus are not aware that Shiva is a non-Vedic,
non-Aryan God. They identify him with God Rudra mentioned in the Vedas. So that to the
Hindus Rudra is the same as Shiva. Now in the Taiteriya Samhita of the Yajur-Veda there is
a hymn in praise of Rudra. In this hymn Rudra i.e. Shiva is described as the lord of
thieves, robbers, dacoits, as the King of the degraded, of potters and blacksmiths. The
question is how did the Brahmins venture to accept this king of thieves and robbers as
their supreme God?
There is another reformation in the character of Rudra which
the Brahmins have made while accepting him as their God Shiva. In the Ashvalayan Grihya
Sutra the proper way of worshipping Rudra is prescribed. According to it the worship of
Rudra was to be the sacrifice of a bull. The Sutra gives details of the season, and the
Nakshatra for performing this sacrifice. It tells the householder to select the best bull
from the stable. It prescribes its colour. It recommends that it should be fat. It should
be consecrated with rice water or barley water. Then it should be slaughtered and offered
to the Rudra addressing him by all his names and his tail, hide, head and feet should be
thrown into the fire. Evidently Rudra was a ' himsak ' God to whom animal sacrifice was
necessary. Shiva on the other hand has been an Ahimsaka God. He is not offered animal
sacrifice. Question is what compelled the Brahmins to make Shiva give up his meat diet and
be a vegetarian.
Hindus all over India accept without shame or remorse the
virtue of Linga Puja—Phallus worship. This phallus worship is associated with Shiva
and it is commonly held that the true way of worshipping Shiva is to worship the Shiva
Linga. Was Linga puja always associated with Shiva? Some very interesting facts are
brought to light by Prof. Dandekar in his essay on " Vishnu in the Veda ". Says
Prof. Dandekar:
"The most significant word in this connection is
Sipivista, which is exclusively employed in the Veda with reference to Vishnu. The
passages where the word occurs in RV (VII. 99.7; VII. 100. 5-6) seems to have been kept
obscure with a purpose. The Vedic poets evidently sought to make a guarded and casual
reference to that aspect of Vishnu's personality which was indicated by the word,
Sipivista. Many attempts have been made to explain the word, but few satisfy the
requirements of philosophy and none brings out the true nature of Vishnu. It is not
possible to separate philologically the word Sepa (Penis) from sipi. Other similar idg.
forms are Sipha (a root pkt. chepa, lat. oippus, seipio (staff) etc. Even Nirukta (V. 7)
seems to be vaguely supporting this view though its further explanation is not clear.
Added to that word is a form from the root viz., thus making the whole word mean 'the
changing phallus; the swelling and diminishing penis '. We may now easily understand why
the Vedic poets speak in such guarded and obscure way about this form of Vishnu. In this
connection it is very significant to note what Nirukta (V. 8-9) says of this name of
Vishnu: The word sipivista has thus unmistakably preserved Vishnu's ancient phallic
nature. There are also many other incidental references to Vishnu in the Vedic hymns and
ritual, which clearly associate him with the notion of fertility, productivity and self
life."
" One of the obscure features of the Vedic
Shraddha-ritual is that the Angustha, without nail, is to be dipped into the offering
intended for the pitars. This action is accompanied by an invocation to Vishnu. The
Angustha is undoubtedly a symbol of the phallus. Vishnu is, in this rite, clearly
connected with the phallic aspect of the Vedic ritual. In later literature we find Vishnu
actually identified with the thumb. In the I. S. passage (VI. 2.4.2) we find another piece
of evidence in this regard. Vishnu's entering into the mother earth is a symbolical description of a fertility rite. The
words, Tanvardhanah, used with reference to Vishnu's (VII. 99.1; VIII. 100.2) may further
be understood to be, indicative, of his phallic nature. Vishnu is significantly
identified, in later literature, with Hiranyagarbha, and Narayana. Vishnu's close
connection with Sinivali (AV. VII. 46.3), the 'broad-hipped' divinity protecting the
feminine sex-functions, throws considerable light on this aspect of Visnu's personality.
According to the Sankhyana-grahyasutra (I 22.13), the Mantra (X. 184.1) accompanies the
garbha-ceremony, thus suggesting that Vishnu is the efficacious protector of the embryos.
In AV (VII. 17.4), Vishnu is clearly connected with sex-functions. The two ephithets of
Vishnu Nisiktapa (VII. 36.9) 'protector of the semen', and Sumajjani (1. 156.2)
'facilitating easy birth' speak for themselves. The word, Paumsya 'manly vigour' is
Significantly used with reference to Vishnu in RV (E. 155.3-4). In the Vrsakapi-hymn (X.
86), Indra is said to have been exhausted, when a bold, lascivious monkey administered to
him some medicine, through which Indra regained his manly power. This Vrsakapi is
identified, in later literature, with Visnu, the word being also mentioned as one of his
names in the Visnusahasranarna."
On the evidence produced by Prof. Dandekar phallus worship
was in its origin connected with Vishnu. In the Puranas we do not find the Phallus worship
associated with Vishnu. In the Puranas it is associated with Shiva. This is a most
astounding transformation. Vishnu who was from the beginning associated with the Linga
worship was dissociated from it and Shiva who had no association with the Linga worship
has come to be identified with it. Question is what made the Brahmins dissociate Vishnu
from Linga worship and fasten it on to Shiva?
There remains the last and the important question. It
relates to the inter-relations of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha.
Nothing probably sums up so well the inter-relations between
Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha as does the story of the birth of the God Dattatraya. Briefly
the story is that one afternoon when Sarasvati, Laxmi and Parvati, the wives of the three
Gods were sitting together chit-chatting, Narada, the sage on eternal tour, came to visit
them. In the course of the conversation a question arose as who was the most chaste woman
in the land. Narada held out that Anusuya the wife of Rishi by name Atri—as the
purest and most chaste woman. This was violently disputed by the three, each one of whom
claimed to have that title. Narada disproved their claim by recounting the many acts of
adultery which one of them was guilty of. They were silenced but they became very angry.
They wanted to retrieve their position vis-a-vis Anusuya. In their wisdom they decided
that the only way by which this could be done was to have Anusuya seduced to illicit
intercourse. Having decided upon their plan of action the three women told to their
husbands when they returned in the evening what Narada said about them in the afternoon
and scolded them by saying that they were the cause of their wives humiliation. For if
they had committed adultery with Anusuya she and they would have been on the same level
and Narada would not have found cause to humiliate them. They asked their husbands whether
they cared for their wives and if they did were they not in duty bound to proceed
forthwith to invade the chastity of Anusuya and to pull her down from the high pedestle of
purity and chastity on which Narada had placed her. The Gods were convinced that what was
suggested by their wives was their duty and that they could not shirk the task.
The three Gods started on an expedition to rob Anusuya of
her honour and marched on to the hutment of Atri. The three Gods disguised themselves as
three Brahmin Mendicants. When they arrived Atri was away. But Anusuya welcomed them and
prepared food for them. When the meal was ready she asked them to sit and partake of the
meal. The three Gods replied that they would take food at her house only if she agreed to
serve them food in a naked condition. The rule of hospitality in ancient India was that
Brahmin guest must not depart dissatisfied. Everything he asked must be given to him. In
obedience to this rule Anusuya agreed to serve them naked. While she was serving food to
them in this naked condition Atri arrived. On seeing Atri the three Gods who were taking
food with Anusuya standing naked took the form of new born babes. The three Gods in the
form of babes were placed by Atri in a craddle. In the craddle their bodies having become
integrated into one and their heads having remained separate there arose the God
Dattatraya who has one body and three heads representing the three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu
and Mahesha.
The story has a stink of immorality in it and the close of
it may have been deliberately designed so as to cover up the actual fact of Brahma, Vishnu
and Mahesha having outraged Anusuya to lower her down to the level of their wives. Be that
as it may the story illustrates the view once prevalent among the Hindus that three Gods
Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha were co-equal in status and their functions are complimentary
and not competitive. They were spoken of as forming Trimurti—three in one and one in
three, all sustaining the world, Brahma by creating it, Vishnu by preserving it and Shiva
by destroying it.
This state of harmony did not last long. The Brahmins who
were the propagandists of these three Gods divided themselves into three camps each
becoming devoted to one to the exclusion of the other two. The result of this was a
systematic campaign of villification and degradation by the Brahmins devoted to one God of
the other Gods.
It is interesting as well as instructive to note what the
Brahmins have done to Brahma. There was a time when the Brahmins raised Brahma to the
highest pinnacle of power and glory. They presented him as the creator of the
Universe—the first Prajapati. He was their sole supreme God. The Brahmins had
developed the theory of Avatar which holds that God when necessary incarnates into
different forms, human or animal. This they use for twofold purpose, firstly to elevate
the supremacy of a God in whom they are interested and secondly to reconcile the conflict
between Gods as different personalities.
The Brahmins have run riot with this theory of Avatar and
different Puranas have given different lists of Avatars as will be seen from the
following:
|
According to Hari Vamsha |
According to Narayani Akhyan |
According to Varaha Purana |
According to Vayu Purana |
According to Bhagwat Purana |
1 |
Varaha |
Hansa |
Kurma |
Narasinha |
Sanatkumar |
2 |
Narasinha |
Kurma |
Matsya |
Vaman |
Boar |
3 |
Vaman |
Matsya |
Varaha |
Varaha |
|
4 |
Parshuram |
Varaha |
Narasinha |
Kurma |
Nara-Narayan |
5 |
Rama |
Narasinha |
Vaman |
Sangram |
Kapila |
6 |
Krishna |
Vaman |
Parshuram |
Adivaka |
Dattatraya |
7 |
|
Parshuram |
Rama |
Tripurari |
Jadna |
8 |
|
Rama |
Krishna |
Andhakarh |
Rashabha |
9 |
|
Krishna |
Buddha |
Dhvaja |
Prithi |
10 |
|
Kalkin |
Kalkin |
Varta |
Matsya |
11 |
|
|
|
Halahal |
Kurma |
12 |
|
|
|
Kolhahal |
Dhanwantri |
13 |
|
|
|
|
Mohini |
14 |
|
|
|
|
Narasinha |
15 |
|
|
|
|
Vaman |
16 |
|
|
|
|
Parshuram |
17 |
|
|
|
|
Ved Vyas |
18 |
|
|
|
|
Naradeo |
19 |
|
|
|
|
Rama |
20 |
|
|
|
|
Krishna |
21 |
|
|
|
|
Buddha |
22 |
|
|
|
|
Kalkin |
These Avatars are all said by these Puranas to be the
Avatars of Vishnu. But to begin, with when the Avatars had begun to be coined the story of
the two Avatars—-of the Boar[f40] and the Fish[f41] —which in later times given to Vishnu was given by the
Brahmins to Brahma. Again even when the Brahmins admitted Shiva and Vishnu as co-equal
with Brahma they maintained the supremacy of Brahma over Shiva and Vishnu. The Brahmins
made him the progenitor of Shiva[f42] and propagated the view that if Vishnu[f43] became the preserver of the world it was because of the
command of the Brahma. With the plurality of Gods, conflicts between them were always
present and some God to act as Arbitrator and settler of disputes was necessary.
Puranas are full of such conflicts, even wars among Gods.
There were conflicts between Rudra and Narayana[f44] , between Krishna and Shiva[f45] . In these conflicts the Brahmins have made Brahma the
Arbitrator.
The same Brahmins who elevated Brahma to such pre-eminence
turned against him, started degrading him and mud-slinging him. They started propagating
the view that Brahma was really inferior to Vishnu and Shiva. Contrary to their previous
utterances the Brahmins said that Brahma was born from Shiva[f46] and some said that he was born from Vishnu[f47]
The Brahmins completely inverted the relation between Shiva
and Brahma. Brahma was no longer the God who could give salvation. The God who could give
salvation was Shiva and they reduced Brahma to the position of a common devotee
worshipping Shiva and Linga in the hope of getting salvation[f48] . They reduced him to the position of servant of Shiva by
making him the charioteer of Shiva[f49] .
The Brahmins did not stop with degrading Brahma. They
villified him in the worst manner possible. They broadcast the story of his having
committed rape on his own daughter Sarasvati which is repeated in the Bhagwat Purana[f50] :
"We have heard, O Kshatriya, that Svayambhu (Brahma)
had a passion for Vach, his slender and enchanting daughter, who had no passion for him.
The Munis, his sons, headed by Marichi, seeing their father bent upon wickedness,
admonished him with affection: 'This is such a thing as has never been done by those
before you, nor will those after you do it,- that you, being the lord, should sexually
approach your daughter, not restraining your passion. This, 0 preceptor of the world, is
not a laudable deed even in glorious personages, through imitation of whose actions men
attain felicity. Glory to that divine being (Vishnu) who by his own lustre revealed this
(universe) which abides in himself,—he must maintain righteousness '. Seeing his
sons, the Prajapatis, thus speaking before him, the lord of the Prajapatis (Brahma) was
ashamed, and abandoned his body. This dreadful body the regions received, and it is known
as foggy darkness."'
The result of this degrading and defamatory attacks on
Brahma was to damn him completely. No wonder that his cult disappeared from the face of
India leaving him a nominal and theoretical member of the Trimurti.
After Brahma was driven out of the field there remained two
parties of Brahmanas, one engaged in favour of Shiva and the other engaged in favour of
Vishnu. Let us see what they did as protagonists of their rival deities. Neither party
succeeded in driving out the cult of its rival God. The cult of Shiva and the cult of
Vishnu have continued to exist and flourish. Notwithstanding the many cults that have
subsequently come into existence they have not been eclipsed. This is largely due to the
propaganda and counter-propaganda carried on by the Brahmin protagonists of Shiva and
Vishnu. How well matched the propaganda and counter propaganda was, can be seen from the
following few illustrations.
Vishnu is connected with the Vedic God Sun. The worshippers
of Shiva connect him with Agni. If one has Vedic origin the other must have Vedic origin
as well. One cannot be inferior to the other in the matter of nobility of origin.
Shiva must be greater than Vishnu and Vishna must not be
less than Shiva. Vishnu has thousand names[f51] . So Shiva must have thousand names and he has them[f52] . Vishnu has his emblems[f53] . So must have Shiva and he has them[f54] .
In the performance of deeds of glory the propaganda in
favour of one is fully matched by counter-propaganda in favour of the other. One
illustration of this is the story regarding the origin of the holy river Ganges[f55] . The devotees of Shiva attribute its origin to Shiva. They
make it take its origin from Shiva's hair. But the Vaishnavas will not allow it. They have
manufactured another legend. According to the Vaishnavite legend the blessed and the
blessing river flowed originally out of Vaikunth (the abode of Vishnu) from the foot of
Vishnu, and descending upon Kailasa fell on the head of Shiva. There is a two-fold
suggestion in the legend. In the first place Shiva is not the source of the Ganges. In the
second place Shiva is lower than Vishnu and receives on his head water which flows from
the foot of Vishnu.
Another illustration is furnished by the story which relates
to the churning of the oceans by the Devas and the Asuras. They used the Mandara mountain
as the churning rod and huge serpent Shesha as a rope to whirl the mountain. The earth
began to shake and people became afraid that the world was coming to an end. Vishnu took
the Avatar of Kurma (tortoise) and held the earth on his back and prevented the earth from
shaking while the churning was going on.
This story is told in glorification of Vishnu. To this the
Shaivites add a supplement. According to this supplement the churning brought out fourteen
articles from the depth of the ocean which are called fourteen jewels. Among these
fourteen a deadly poison was one. This deadly poison would have destroyed the earth unless
somebody drank it. Shiva was the only person who came to drink it. The suggetion is that
Vishnu's act was foolish in allowing the rivals the Gods and Demons to bring out this
deadly poison. Glory to Shiva for he drank it and saved the world from the evil
consequences of the folly of Vishnu.
Third illustration is an attempt to show that Vishnu is a
fool and that it is Shiva who with his greater wisdom and greater power saves Vishnu from
his folly. It is the story of Akrurasura[f56] . Akrur was a demon with the face of a bear, who,
nevertheless, was continuously reading the Vedas and performing acts of devotion. Vishnu
was greatly pleased and promised him any boon that he would care to ask. Akrurasura
requested that no creature; then existing in the three worlds, might have power to deprive
him of life, and Vishnu complied with his request; but the demon became so insolent that
the Devatas, whom he oppressed, were obliged to conceal themselves, and he assumed the
dominion of the world ; Vishnu was then sitting on a bank of the Kali, greatly disquieted
by the malignant ingratitude of the demon; and his wrath being kindled, a shape, which
never before had existed, sprang from his eyes. It was Mahadeva, in his destructive
character, who dispelled in a moment the anxiety of the Vishnu.
This is countered by the story of Bhasmasura intended to show that Shiva was a fool and Vishnu saved him from his folly. Bhasmasura having propitiated Shiva asked for a boon. The boon was to be the power to burn any one on whose head Bhasmasura laid his hands. Shiva granted the boon. Bhasmasura tried to use his boon power against Shiva himself. Shiva became terrified and ran to Vishnu for help. Vishnu promised to help him. Vishnu took the form of a beautiful woman and went to Bhasmasura who became completely enamoured of her. Vishnu asked Bhasmasura to agree to obey him in everything as a condition of surrender. Bhasmasura agreed. Vishnu then asked him to place his hands on his own head which Bhasmasura did with the result that Bhasmasur died and Vishnu got the credit of saving Shiva from the consequences of his folly.
The rivalry and the consequent enmity among these Gods is
best illustrated by the legend as to which of them is the first born. The story as related
in the Skand Purana[f57] says that one time Vishnu lay extended asleep on the bosom
of Devi, a lotus arose from his navel, and its ascending flower soon reached the surface
of the flood, Brahma sprang from that flower, and looking round without any creature on
the boundless expanse, imagined himself to be the first born, and entitled to rank above
all future beings; yet, resolved to investigate deep and to ascertain whether any being
existed in its universe who could controvert his pre-eminence, he glided down the stock of
the lotus and finding Vishnu asleep, asked loudly who he was ? ' I am the first born '
answered Vishnu; and when Brahma denied his primogeniture, they had an obstinate battle,
till Mahadeo pressed between them in great wrath, saying It is I who am truly the first
born. But I will resign my place to either of you, who shall be able to reach behind the
summit of my head, or the soles of my foot. Brahma instantly ascended; but having fatigued
himself to no purpose in the regions of immensity, yet loath to abandon his claim,
returned to Mahadeo, declaring that he had attained and seen the crown of his head, and
called as his witness the first born cow. For this union of pride and falsehood, the angry
God ordained, that no sacred Shiva rites should be performed to Brahma and that the mouth
of cow should be defiled. When Vishnu returned, he acknowledged that he had not been able
to see the feet of Mahadeo, who then told him that he was the first born among the Gods,
and should be raised above all. It was after this Mahadeo cut off the fifth head of Brahma
who thus suffered the loss of his pride, his power and his influence.
According to this story Brahma's claim to be the first born
was false. He was punished by Shiva for making it. Vishnu gets the right to call himself
the first born. But that is allowed to him by the grace of Shiva. The followers of Brahma
had their revenge on Vishnu for stealing what rightfully belonged to him with the help of
Shiva. So they manufactured another legend[f58] according to which Vishnu emanated from Brahma's nostrils
in the shape of a pig and grew naturally into a boar—a very mean explanation of
Vishnu's avatar as a boar.
The rivalry among these Gods had taken the shape of rivalry
among traders and results in indecent abuse of Shiva by Vishnu and of Vishnu by Shiva.
Such are the facts about the Trinity and its subsequent
history. There is nothing new in the conception of Trinity. The conception of Trinity is
an old one, older than Yaska. To reduce the chaos of innumerable Gods the early Brahmins
were engaged lo select some Gods and to make them pre-eminent over the rest. The number of
such pre-eminent Gods was fixed at three. Of these Agni
and Surya were two. For the third place there was rivalry between Vayu and Indra.
Consequently one finds the Irinity of Agni, Indra and Surya or Agni, Vayu and Surya. The
new trinity is identical in its conception with the old though different in its personnel.
Every member of this Trinity is new. It seems alter the first Trinity was dissolved no new
Trinity existed for a considerable time. In the Chulla Nidessa there is mention only of
Brahma Vratikas. There is no mention of Vishnu Vratikas or Shiva Vratikas. This means that
at the time of the Chula Nidessa the cult of Vishnu and the cult of Shiva had not come
into being. They were later on added to the cult of Brahma and constituted into a Trinity.
Several questions rise in one's mind when one considers the part played by the Brahmins in
the evolution and confounding of the Trinity.
The first that arises is the faithlessness of the Brahamins to their Gods. the easy manner in which they abandon one set of Gods for another. In this connection one is reminded of the Jewish priests and Nebuchad-Nez-Zar.
"Neb-U-Chad-Nez-Zar[f59] the king made an image of gold, whose height was three
score cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits he set it up in the plain of Du-ra, in
the province of Bab-y-lon.
"2. Then Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king sent to gather
together the princes (satraps), the governors (deputies), and the captains (governors),
the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the
provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king had
set up.
"3. Then the princes, the governors, and the captains,
the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the
provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar
the king had set up: and they stood before the image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar had set up.
4. "Then an herald cried aloud. To you it is commanded,
0 people, nations, and languages.
5. That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute,
harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the
golden image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king hath set up;
6. And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
7. Therefore at that time, when all the people heard, the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king had set up."
8. Wherefore at that time certain Chal-de-ans came near, and
accused the Jews.
9. They spake and said to the king Neb-u-chad-nez-zar,
" O King, live for ever."
10. "Thou, 0 King, hast made a decree, that every man
that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and
all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image."
11. "And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that
he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."
12. "There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the
affairs of the province of Bab-y-lon, Sha-drach, Me-shach and A-bed-ne-go; these men, 0
king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which
thou hast set up."
13. "Then Neb-u-chad-nez-zar in his rage and fury
commanded to bring Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go. Then they brought these men
before the king.
14. Neb-u-chad-nez-zar spake and said unto them, "Is it
true, 0 Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the
golden image which I have set up?"
15. "Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the
sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of
musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well; but if ye worship not,
ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that
God that shall deliver you out of my hands?"
16. Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go, answered and said
to the king, " O Neb-u-chad-nez-zar, we are not careful to answer thee in this
matter."
17. " If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, 0
king."
18. "But if not, be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we
will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set
up."
19. "Then was Neb-u-chad-nez-zar full of fury, and the
form of his visage was changed against Sha-drach, Me-shach and A-bed-ne-go ; therefore he
spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was
wont to be heated.
20. And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his
army to bind Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go and to cast them into the burning fiery
furnace.
21. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen,
and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning
fiery furnace.
22. Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and
the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Sha-drach,
Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go.
23. And these three men, Sha-drach, Me-shach, and
A-bed-ne-go, fell bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnance." Why did the
Brahmins give up the first Trinity? There is no indication that they were compelled to
foreswear those Gods. Was it love of gain or lucre?
The second question is why did the Brahmins who became the
votaries of the three Gods follow the principle of live and let live ? Why was one sect
bent on destroying the other. There was no doctrinal difference between these sects worth
the name. Their theology, cosmology and philosophy were all one and the same. The riddle
becomes all the great. Was this sectarian quarrel political? Did the Brahmins make
religion a matter of politics? Otherwise what is the explanation of this quarrel?
II SMARTH DHARMA
The Sacred literature of Smarth Dharma consists of the Smritis or the Law Books. These law books contain
what may be called the Canon Law. This Canon Law as will be seen later on is vast in its
compass and treats of such subjects as law, government, civic rights and duties of the
different classes in society, penances for sins and punishments for offences. The purely
secular part of this Dharma is not relevant for the purpose in hand. What is relevant is
that part of it which is accepted as belonging strictly to religion.
The Smarth Dharma i.e. Dharma based on Smritis is based on
five dogmas. The first dogma of Smarth Dharma is the belief in Trinity of Gods, composed
of three Gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh or Shiva. In this Trinity, Brahma is the creator
of the world, Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the destroyer. Instead of the
thirty-three Gods of the Srauta Dharma, Smarth Dharma limits the pantheon to only three.
The second dogma of the Smarth Dharma is the recognition of
the purificatory ceremonies which are called Sanskaras or sacraments. According to the
Smarth Dharma every householder must perform certain ceremonies. If he does not he becomes
a patit i.e. one who is fallen from grace and
therefore.....
(The above text is on
a typed Page No. 21. Further pages of this chapter are missing. The following text is from
the loose sheets enumerated in blue pencil
from page No. 55 to 65 only, except page No. 56.
All these pages have corrections and instructions in the handwriting of the author.)—Ed.
There are few loose
pages on ' Smarth Dharma and Tantrik Dharma '. Smarth Dharma is numbered as Part II while
Tantrik Dharma is numbered as Part II 1. It seems that Part I consisted of Srauta Dharma.
There is only one page of Smarth Dharma numbered as 21. The Tantrik Dharma starts from
page 55 and ends at page 65 except page No. 56
with three more handwritten pages added by the author.—Ed.
Punishments and Penances occupy very prominent place in
Pauranik Dharma. In the Srauta Dharma Yama has nothing to do with the future punishment of
the wicked. The idea of penal retribution after death for sins committed during life is
unknown. But the Puranas have considerably enlarged the Powers of Yama in this respect.
" Yama fulfils the office of judge of the dead, as well
as sovereign of the damned; all that die appearing before him, and being confronted with
Chitragupta, the recorder, by whom their actions have been registered. The virtuous are
thence conveyed to Swarga, or Elysium, whilst the wicked are driven to the different
regions of Naraka, or Tartarus ".
" The dreadful Chitragupta with a voice like that
issuing from the clouds at the mundane dissolution, gleaming like a mountain of collyrium,
terrible with lightning like weapons, having thirty-two arms, as big as three yojans,
red-eyed, long-nosed, his face furnished with grinders and projecting teeth, his eyes
resembling oblong ponds, bearing death and diseases. "
Sin will be punished after death. So also there is expiation
for sin if the sinner wishes by performing certain penances for removing sin.
But what is sin? According to the Pauranik Dharma it does
not mean the commission of a moral wrong. It means the non-performance of the observances
prescribed by the Puranas. Such is Pauranik Dharma.
III TANTRIK DHARMA
What is known as the Tantrik Dharma centres round the
worship of Shakti. Shakti literally means power
or energy. But in Tantrism it means the female partner of a male God. The literature of
the Tantrik Dharma is quite vast and forms quite a separate branch of the Hindu Religious
literature. It is necessary to observe that the Shakta form of Hinduism is equipped with a
vast mythological personnel of its own, an immense array of female personalities,
constituting a distinct division of the Hindu Pantheon.
In its origin the Tantrik Dharma is only an extension of the
Pauranik Dharma. It is the Puranas which first began with the recognition of the female
unmarried goddesses or as objects of worship. This was followed by the recognition of
married females who were the wives of the Gods. It is in support of their recognition of
the right of the wives of the Gods to be worshipped as goddesses that the Puranas set out
the principle of Shaktism. According to the Puranas a deity though single has a dual
character. In one it is quiescent, in the other active. The active nature of the deity is
called his Shakti (i.e. his power). This Shakti
of the deity is personified by the Puranas as the wife of the deity. This is the
foundation of what is called Shaktism or the worship of the wife of certain deities.
The essence of Shaktism lies in the exclusive worship of the
female deity in her most comprehensive character as the great power (Sakti) of Nature, the
one mother of the Universe (Jagan-Mata, Jagad-Amba)—the mighty mysterious Force whose
function is to direct and control two quite distinct operations; namely, first, the
working of the natural appetites and passions, whether for the support of the body by
eating and drinking, or for the propagation of living organisms through sexual
cohabitation; secondly, the acquisition of supernatural faculties and magical powers
(siddhi), whether for a man's own individual exaltation or for the annihilation of his
opponents.
And here it is necessary to observe that the Sakta form of
Hinduism is equipped with a vast mythological Personnel of its own—an immense array
of female personalities, constituting a distinct division of the Hindu Pantheon.
Yet the whole array of the Tantrik female Pantheon spreading
out as it does into countless ramifications, Shaktism has its root in the wife of Shiva.
By common consent she is held to be the source or first point of departure of the entire
female mythological system. She also stands at its head; and it is remarkable that in
every one of the male God Shiva's characteristics, his consort is not only his
counterpart, but a representation of all his attributes intensified. We have already
pointed out how it came to pass that the male God gradually gathered under his own
personality the attributes and functions of all other divinities, and thus became to his
own special worshippers the great God (Mahadevah) of Hinduism. Similarly and in a much
greater degree did his female counterpart become the one great goddess (Maha-devi) of the
Sakta hierarchy: representing in her own person all other female manifestations of Brahma,
Vishnu and Shiva, and absorbing all their functions. For this reason even the wives of
Brahma and Vishnu were said to be her daughters. As to the opposite and contradictory
qualities attributed to her, these are no source of difficulty to a Hindu mind. She is
simply in all respects a duplicate of her husband but a duplicate painted in deeper or
more vivid colours.
And just as Shiva is at one time white (Sveta, Sukla) both
in complexion and character, at another black (Kala); so his female nature also became one
half white (whence one of her names Gauri) and the other half black (whence her name
Kali).
Then, again, each of these opposite characters became
variously modified and endlessly multiplied. The white or mild nature ramified into the
Saktis called Uma, Gauri, Lakshmi, Sarasvati, etc., the black or fierce nature into those
called Kali, Durga, Candi, Camunda, etc. And just as Shiva has 1008 names or epithets, so
his wife possesses a feminine duplicate of nearly everyone of his designations. At least
one thousand distinct appellations are assigned to her, some expressive of her benignant,
some of her ferocious character. Notably it is declared in the Tantras that if any one
repeats eight of her names containing the letter m,
kings will become his servants, all men will love him, and all his difficulties come to a
happy termination.
In short, all the other Saktis came to be included by the
Saktas under the Sakti or female energy of
Shiva, which eventually developed into innumerable separate manifestations
and personifications.
But it began in a rather modest way by starting the worship
of the Durga along with Shiva, Laxmi along with Vishnu, Radha along with Krishna and Sita
along with Rama. The number of Shaktis was not defined.
Sometimes only eight Saktis are enumerated and sometimes
nine, viz, Vaishnavi, Brahmani, Raudri, Mahesvari, Narasinhi, Varahi, Indrani, Karttiki,
and Pradhana. Others reckon fifty forms of the Sakti of Vishnu, besides Laxmi; and fifty
of Siva or Rudra, besides Durga or Gauri. Sarasvati is named as a Sakti of Vishnu and
Rudra, as well as Brahma. According to the Vayu-purana, the female nature of Rudra (Siva)
became two-fold, one half Asita or white, and the other half Sita or black, each of these
again becoming manifold. The white or mild nature includes the Saktis Uma, Gauri, Laxmi,
Sarasvati, &c., the black or fierce nature includes Durga, Kali, Candi, Camunda,
&c.
Soon however all the Shaktis were universalized under the
Shakti or female energy which eventually developed into innumerable separate
manifestations and personifications.
These personifications, following the analogy of some of
Vishnu's incarnations, are sometimes grouped according to a supposed difference of
participation in the divine energy, such for example as the full energy (puma sakti), the partial (ansarupini) the still more partial (kala-rupini), and the partial of the partial
(kalansa-rupini), this last including mortal women in various degrees, from Brahman women downwards, who are all worshipped as
forms of the divine mother manifesting herself upon earth; for it must not be forgotten
that in the Sakta creed every female is a present divinity.
The more usual classification, however, begins with the
Mahavidyas. These are held to be ten in number, that number being probably selected to
match the ten chief incarnations of Vishnu. They are called Mahavidyas as sources of the
goddess' highest knowledge; that is to say, of the knowledge which confers preternatural
powers. They have all different attributes, and are thus designated: (1) Kali (sometimes
called Syama), black in colour, fierce and irascible in character. (2) Tara, a more benign
manifestation, worshipped especially in Kashmir. (3) Shodasi, a beautiful girl of sixteen
(also called Tripura worshipped in Malabar). (4) Bhuvanesvari. (5) Bhairavi. (6)
Chinna-mastaka, a naked goddess holding in one hand a blood-stained scimitar and in the
other her own severed head, which drinks the warm blood gushing from her headless trunk.
(7) Dhumavati, in the form of smoke. (8) Vagala or Bagala, having the face of crane. (9)
Matangi, a woman of the Bhangi caste. (10) Kamalatmika. Of these the first two are
especially Mahavidyas, the next five vidyas, and the last three Siddhavidyas.
The next class of personifications or.manifestations of the
goddess are the Matris or Matrika (or Maha-matris), the great mothers of the Universe.
These are more important than the Mahavidyas in their connexion with the prevalence of
Mother-worship, a form of religion which, among the peasantry of India, often takes the
place of every other creed. This will be more fully explained in the chapter on tutelary
deities.
The Matris or Mothers are: 1. Vaishnavi, 2. Brahmi or
Brahmani, often represented with four faces or heads like the God Brahma, 3. Karttikeyi,
sometimes called Mayuri, 4. Indrani, 5. Yami, 6. Varahi, connected with the boar
incarnation of Vishnu, 7. Devi or Isani, represented with a trident in one hand as wife of
Shiva, 8. Laxmi. Each of these divine Mothers is represented with a child in her lap.
Closely related to the Mothers is a class of female personifications called the eight
Nayikas or mistresses. These, of course, are not necessarily mothers. In fact no other
idea is connected with them than that of illegitimate sexual love. They are called Balini,
Kamesvari, Vimala, Aruna, Medini, Jayini, Sarvesvari and Kaulesi. Another class of
manifestations is that of the Yoginis. These are sometimes represented as eight fairies or
sorceresses created by and attendant on Durga, sometimes as mere forms of that goddess,
sixty or sixty-five in number, and capable of being multiplied to the number of ten
millions.
Other classes not worth enumerating are the Dakinis and
Sakinis. These are simply female friends or ogresses of most repulsive habits, and are not
so much manifestations of the goddess as impish servants always attendant on her.
But it is in the form Kali—-the form under which the
goddess is worshiped at Calcutta—-that she is most terrible. The following is a free
translation of two passages in the Tantras descriptive of Kali's appearance:
" One should adore with liquors and oblations that Kali
who has a terrible gaping mouth and uncombed hair; who has four hands and a splendid
garland formed of the heads of the giants she has slain and whose blood she has drunk; who
holds a sword in her lotus-like hands; who is fearless and awards blessings; who is as
black as the large clouds and has the whole sky for her clothes; who has string of skulls
round her neck and a throat besmeared with blood; who wears ear-rings (consisting of two
dead bodies): who carries two dead bodies in her hands; who has terrible teeth and smiling
face; whose form is awful and who dwells in burning-grounds (for consuming corpses); who
stands on the breast of her husband Maha-deva."
(Page Nos. 63-64
are missing. The script of Page No. 65 only is given below along with the concluding para
written in the handwriting ofthe author.)
The Tantrik worship is altogether different from Srauta or
Pauranik worship. It is in keeping with its central philosophy namely the best form of
worship is the fullest satisfaction of the carnal desires of man. The Tantrik worship is
summed up in what are called five Makaras. The
five Makaras are: (i) The drinking of Madya
(i.e. wine and liquors of various kinds).
(ii) The eating of Mama
(meat). (iii) The eating of Malsya (fish).
(iv) The eating of Mudra (parched or fried
grain). (v) The performance of Maithun (sexual
intercourse with a woman).
The Tantrik Puja consists in the performance of these acts.
It is not necessary to draw attention to the fact that whatever is declared as nishidha (prohibited) is allowed in the Tantrik
worship even sexual intercourse with a woman being prescribed as part of the Puja. Such is
the growth of the Hindu Religion. On reading this history a student of true religion is
forced to ask: Where is the place of morality in the Hindu Religion?
Religion no doubt started its career by asking many
questions: " What am I?"" Who made the Universe?" " If God made
it what is the relation of Ego to God?" "What is the right way to propitiate God
?" " What is the relation between I and the Non-I i.e. between man and
universe?" "What constitutes good life or that will please God?" etc.
Most of these questions have been taken over by theology,
metaphysics, philosophy and ethics, into which religion has become split. But there is one
question that remains with religion to preach and propagate namely what constitutes good
life. A religion which does not do so is no religion at all.
Why have the Brahmins made the Hindu religion so nude; so
devoid of morality? The Hindu religion is nothing but worshipping so many Gods and
Goddesses, worshipping so many trees, visiting so many places of pilgrimage and making
offerings to the Brahmins. Was the religion formulating for enabling the Brahmins to earn
their living? Did they ever think that morality is the foundation of society and that
unless morality is imbedded in religion it (has no driving)*[f60] force. These are questions which the Brahmins must answer.
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE VEDAS
The Hindus are enjoined to study the Vedas every day. the
Satapatha Brahmana explains the reasons for it. It says:
"There are only five great sacrifices, which are the
great ceremonies, viz., the offering to living creatures,*[f61] the offering to men, the offering to the fathers, the
offering to the gods, and the Veda-offering (Brahma-yajna). 2. Let an oblation be daily
presented to living creatures. Thus the offering to them is fulfilled. Let (hospitality)
be daily bestowed even down to the bowl of water. Thus is the offering to men fulfilled.
Let the oblation to the gods be daily presented[f62] as far as the faggot of wood. Thus is the offering to the
gods fulfilled. 3. Next is the Veda-offering. This means private study[f63] (of the sacred books). In this Veda-sacrifice speech is the
juhu, the soul the upabhrit, the eye the dhruva, intelligence the sruva, [f64] truth the ablution, and paradise the conclusion. He who,
knowing this, daily studies the Veda, conquers an undecaying world more than thrice as
great as that which he acquires who bestows this whole earth filled with riches. Wherefore
the Veda should be studied. 4. Verses of the Rig-veda are milk-oblations to the Gods. He
who, knowing this, daily reads these verses satisfies the gods with milk-oblations; and
they being satisfied, satisfy him with property, with breath, with generative power, with
complete bodily soundness, with all excellent blessings. Streams of butter, streams of
honey flow as svadha-oblations to the fathers. 5. Yajush-verses are offerings of butter to
the gods.
(This is a six-page typed copy on ' The Infallibility of the
Vedas 'having no corrections or instructions by the author. The latter portion of this
chapter is not available.—Ed.)
He who, knowing this, daily reads these verses, satisfies
the gods with offerings of butter; and they, being satisfied, satisfy him, etc. (as in the
preceding paragraph). 6. Saman-verses are soma-libations to the gods. He who, knowing
this, daily reads these verses, satisfies the gods with soma-libations; and they being
satisfied, satisfy him, etc. (as above). 7. Verses of Atharvan and Angiras
(atharvangirasah[f65] ) are oblations of fat to the gods. He who, knowing this,
daily reads these verses, satisfies the gods with oblations of fat; and they etc. (as
above). 8. Prescriptive and scientific treatises, dialogues, traditions, tales, verses and
eulogistic texts are oblations of honey to the gods. He who, knowing this, daily reads
these, satisfies the gods with oblations of honey; and they etc. (as above). 9. Of this
Veda-sacrifice there are four Vashatkaras when the wind blows, when it lightens, when it
thunders, when it crashes; wherefore when it blows, lightens, thunders, or crashes, let
the man, who knows this, read, in order that these Vashatkaras may not be interrupted[f66] . He who does so is freed from dying a second time, and
attains to an union with Brahma. Even if he cannot read vigorously, let him read one text
relating to the gods. Thus he is not deprived of his living creatures."
xi. 5, 7, 1 : " Now comes an encomium upon Vedic study.
Study and teaching are loved. He (who practises them) becomes composed in mind.
Independent of others, he daily attains his objects, sleeps pleasantly, becomes his own
best physician. Control of his senses, concentration of mind, increase of intelligence,
renown, capacity to educate mankind [are the results of study]. Increasing intelligence
secures for the Brahman the four attributes of saintliness, suitable conduct, renown, and
capacity for educating mankind. When so educated, men guarantee to the Brahman the
enjoyment of the four prerogatives which are his due, reverence, the receipt of gifts,
freedom from oppression, and from death by violence. 2. Of all the modes of exertion,
which are known between heaven and earth, study of the Veda occupies the highest rank, (in
the case of him) who, knowing this studies it. Wherefore this study is to be practised. 3.
On every occasion when a man studies the Vedic hymns he (in fact) performs a complete
ceremonial of sacrifice, i.e. whosoever, knowing this, so studies. Wherefore this study,
etc., etc. 4. And even when a man perfumed with unguents adorned with jewels, satiated
with food. and reposing on a comfortable couch, studies the Veda he (has all the merit of
one who) performs penance (left) to the very
tips of his nails[f67] : (such is the case with him) who, knowing this, studies.
Wherefore etc. 5. Rig-veda-verses are honey, Sama-verses butter, Yajus-verses nectar
(amrita). When a man reads dialogues (vakovakya) and legends these two sorts of
composition are respectively oblations of cooked milk and cooked flesh. 6. He who, knowing
this, daily reads Rig-veda verses, satisfies the gods with honey; and they, when
satisfied, satisfy him with all objects of desire, and with all enjoyments. 7. He who,
knowing this, daily reads Sama-verses, satisfies the gods with butter; and they, when
satisfied, etc. (as before). 8. He who, knowing this, daily reads Yajus-verses, satisfies
the gods with nectar; and they, etc. (as before). 9. He who, knowing this, daily studies
dialogues and the different classes of ancient stories, satisfies the gods with
milk—and flesh-oblations; and they, etc. (as before). 10. The waters move. The Sun
moves. The Moon moves. The constellations move. The Brahman who on any day does not study
the Veda, is on that day like what these moving bodies would be if they ceased to move or
act. Wherefore such study is to be practised. Let a man therefore present as his offering
a verse of the Rig-veda, or the Saman, or the Yajush, or a Gatha, or a Kumvya, in order
that the course of his observances may not be interrupted." Manu also supports the
Satapatha Brahmana. He says:
" The Veda is the eternal eye of the fathers, of Gods,
and of men; it is beyond human power and comprehension; this is a certain conclusion.
Whatever traditions are apart from the Veda, and all heretical views, are fruitless in the
next world, for they are declared to be founded on darkness. All other (books) external to
the Veda, which arise and pass away, are worthless and false from their recentness of
date. The system of the four castes, the three worlds, the four states of life, all that
has been, now is, or shall be, is made manifest by the Veda. The objects of touch and
taste, sound, form, and odour, as the fifth, are made known by the Veda, together with
their products, qualities, and the character of their action. The eternal Veda supports
all beings; hence I regard it as the principle instrument of well-being to this creature,
man. Command of armies, royal authority, the administration of criminal justice, and the
sovereignty of all worlds, he alone deserves who knows the Veda. As fire, when it has
acquired force, burns up even green trees, so he who knows the Veda consumes the taint of
his soul which has been contracted from works. He who comprehends the essential meaning of
the Veda, in whatever order of life he may be, is prepared for absorption into Brahma,
even while abiding in this lower world."
Manu however is not satisfied with this. He goes much beyond
and enunciates the following new doctrine—
" By Sruti is meant the Veda, and by Smriti the
institutes of law: the contents of these are not to be questioned by reason, since from
them (a knowledge of) duty has shone forth. The Brahman who, relying on rationalistic
treatises[f68] , shall contemn these two primary sources of knowledge, must
be excommunicated by the virtuous as a sceptic and reviler of the Vedas. . . . . 13. To
those who are seeking a knowledge of duty, the sruti is the supreme authority."
[f1]1
Atharva-Veda XIX 54. 3
[f2].2 Quoted in Muir's Sanskrit Texts vol.
III. p. 3.
[f3]3 Quoted in Muir Sanskrit Texts, p.
[f4]' Muir Sanskrit
Texts. III p. 8.
[f5]1
Muir 1 pp. 9-10
[f6]2 Muir 1 p. 8.
[f7]3 Ibid. 1
p. 10.
[f8]The
reference to the Vedas in the Apastamba Dharma Sutras must not be misunderstood. Apastamba
does not invest the Vedas with any authority at all. Knowledge of Vedas is made by him as
an electoral qualification for membership of the Assembly whose agreed decision is the law
and the only law.
[f9]2 This is the
period assigned to the Sutras by Prof. Max-Muller. The Apastamba being the oldest.
[f10]"
some may dispute this on the ground that the word Veda includes ' Brahmana' also. This of
course is a fact. But it seems to me that Manu uses the term Shruti in a restricted sense
so as to exclude the Brahmanas. This is supported by the fact that there is in the Manu
Smriti no reference to the Brahmanas except in one place (iv. 100) where he says that only
the Mantra portion -need be studied
[f11]1
Quoted in Muir Sanskrit Texts Vol. III p. 27.
[f12]2
Ibid.,
p. 28.
[f13]1 The Upanishads
(S.B.E.) Vol. I, Introduction p. 1xxxvi.
[f14]1 The Upanishads
(S.B.E.) Vol. I, Introduction p. 1xxxvi.
[f15]History
of Dharmasastra Vol. II. Part I p. 52
[f16]' Sarva Darshan
Sangraha (Translated by Cowell) p. 64.
[f17]1 sarva Darshan
sangraha p.10.
[f18]1 sarva Darshan
sangraha p.10.
[f19]2 Badarayana
Sutra 4.
[f20]See
Badarayana Sutra 5.
[f21]4
Badarayana Sutra 6. Shankar's commentary
[f22]. 5 See
Badarayana Sutra 7. Shankar's commentary.
[f23]6
Sec Badarayana Sutra 8. Shankar's commentary
[f24]1
See Badarayana Sutra 9.
[f25]See Badarayana
Sutra 12.
[f26]3
See Badarayana Sutra 15
[f27]4
See Badarayana Sutra 16.
[f28]5 See Badarayana
Sutra 17.
[f29]1
Shravaka means a desciple.
[f30] 2 Mendicants following special rules with regard
to livelihood
[f31]3
Mendicants who are free from all ties and hindrances
[f32]1
Mendicants who twist their hair on the head
[f33]2 Mendicants who
escape from society.
[f34]3
Vratika means a devotee
[f35]Elephant.
[f36]5 Horse
[f37]6 Cow
[f38]7 Dog
[f39]8 Crow.
[f40]1 Ramayana- Quoted in Muir's Sanskril
Texts Vol. IV p. 33.
[f41]2
Mahabharata--Vana Parva & Linga Purana- Muir lbid..
pp. 38-39.
[f42]3 Vishnu
Purana-Muir lbid p. 392.
[f43]4 Ramayana - Muir
lbid p. 477.
[f44]1
Mahabharat Shanti Parva Quoted in Muir Vol. IV. p. 240.
[f45]2
Mahabharat Shanti Parva lbid. p. 279.
[f46]3
Mahabharat Anushasan Parva—Muir lbid. p.
188
[f47]. 4 Bhagwat
Purana—lbid. p. 43.
[f48]5 Mahabharat
quoted in Muir's Sanskrit Texts Vol.-IV p. 192.
[f49]6 lbid. p. 193.
[f50]7
Muir's Sanskrit Texts Vol. IV p. 47.
[f51]1
See
Vishnu Sahasranama.
[f52]2
They are mentioned in the Padma Purana
[f53]3
See above
[f54]4 They are (1)
Flowing Ganges (2) Chandra i.e. Moon and (3) Shesh (snake) and (4) Matted hair.
[f55]5 Moore: Hindu
Pantheon pp. 40-41.
[f56]1 The story is
told in Vishnu Agama and is quoted in Moore's Hindu Pantheon pp. 19-20.
[f57]2 Quoted in
Moore's Hindu Pantheon pp. 17-18.
[f58]1 Quoted by
Moore, lbid. p. 184.
[f59]1 Old Testament
Daniel Chap. 3. verses 1-23.
[f60]* The words are
introduced by us as this portion of the page is moth-eaten.
[f61]This sacrifice,
as I learn from Prof. Aufrecht, consists in scattering grain for the benefit of birds,
etc. See Bohtlingk and Roth's Lexicon, s. v. bali. In regard to the other sacrifices see
Colebrooke's Misc. Essays, i. pp. 150, 153, 182 ff.. 203 ff.
[f62]2 In explanation
of this Prof. Aufrecht refers to Katyayana's Srauta Sutras, iv. 1. 10 and Manu. iii. 210,
214, 218.
[f63]3 Svadhyayah
sva-sakhadhyanam " Reading of the Veda in one's own sakha."—comm.
[f64]4 These words
denote sacrificial spoons or ladles of different kinds of wood. See the drawings of them
in Prof. Muller's article on the funeral rites of the Brahmans. Journ. of the Germ. or.
Sec. Vol. ix. pp. lxxviii and Lxxx.
[f65]1
The Atharva Samhita is so called
[f66]2 Sec Bothlingk
and Roth's Lexicon, s. v. chhambat.
1 This sentence
is differently rendered by Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. x. p. 112, as follows: "He
burns (with sacred fire) to the very tips of his nails." In a later page of the same
Essay we are told that according to the doctrine of a teacher called Naka Maudgaly as
stated in the Taittiriya Aranyaka, the study and teaching of the Veda are the real tapas
svadhyaya-pravachane eva tad hi tapah). In the text of the Aranyaka itself, vii. 8, it is
declared that study and teaching should always accompany such spiritual or ritual acts as
satyam, tapas, dama, sama, the ognihotra
sacrifice, etc
[f67]. See Indische
Studien, ii. 214, and x. 113.
[f68]1 This. however,
must be read in conjunction with the precept in xii. 106, which declares arsham
dharmopadesam cha veda-sastravirodhina yas tarkenanusandhatte sa dharman veda naparah
" He, and he only is acquainted with duty, who investigates the injunctions of the
rishis, and the precepts of the smriti. by reasonings which do not contradict the
Veda."