Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems (Routledge Revivals)

R G Bhandarkar

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317589327
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Historia de la religión

Bhandarkar's Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, first published in 1913, explores the origins of Vaishnavism by examining its sources of religion, aspects of the Mahabharata, and the Cult of Rama. Bhandarkar also discusses Saivism by exploring its origin and development. This text is ideal for students of theology.

GRUNDRISS DER INDO-ARISCHEN PHILOLOGIE UND ALTERTUMSKUNDE

(ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INDO-ARYAN RESEARCH)

BEGRÜNDET VON G. BÜHLER, FORTGESETZT VON F. KIELHORN,
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON H. LÜDERS UND J. WACKERNAGEL.

III. BAND, 6 HEFT.

VAIṢṆAVISM, ŚAIVISM AND MINOR RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS

BY

R. G. BHANDARKAR

Part. I.

VAIṢṆAVISM.

I. Introductory.

§ 1. The old Vedic gods became indissolubly involved in the elaborate and mechanical system of worship that had grown up. Speculations as regards the appropriateness of the rules and modes of worship and their efficacy as regards man’s good in this world and the next became prevalent. But all this did not satisfy the religious spirit of the people. Religious speculation of a more natural order came to be established about the close of the Hymn-period and was continued into that of the Upaniṣads. The various problems about God, man and the world engaged the attention of many thinkers and a variety of solutions was arrived at. It is generally believed that the Upaniṣads teach a system of Pantheism; but a close examination will show that they teach not one, but various systems of doctrines as regards the nature of God, man and the world and the relations between them. The religio-philosophic systems of modern times, which are mutually inconsistent, quote texts from the Upaniṣads as an authority for their special doctrines. These references to the old books are correct in the most prominent cases, but when the advocates of the systems force into other texts of an opposite nature a meaning consistent with their own special doctrines, they are manifestly wrong. That the Upaniṣads teach not one but various systems must follow from the fact that they are compilations just as the Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā is. The speculations of the old seers were clothed by them in words, and these were handed down orally and came to form a large floating mass. When the idea of collecting these speculations arose, they were incorporated into books for the use of individual Vedic schools. Hence it is that we find certain verses, passages and whole sections occurring in one Upaniṣads reproduced in another¹).

No doubt, the idea of the immanence of God in the world is very prominent in the Upaniṣads. But if that is what constitutes Pantheism, the liberal religious thought of the present day in Europe also must be regarded as Pantheistic. With the immanence of God is associated his transcendence also, as stated in the Vedānta-Sūtra II, 1, 27¹). In addition to these two doctrines the Upaniṣads teach that God is the protector of all beings, is the lord of all and dwells in the heart of man, that seeing him as he is and everywhere is eternal bliss, that this is to be attained by contemplation and the purification of the soul, and that in the blissful condition the individual soul attains to a perfect similarity with the supreme soul²). They also teach the absorption of the individual soul into the supreme as of a river into the ocean and the unconsciousness of the soul when everything but himself fades away from his knowledge. In this respect the doctrine may be regarded as Pantheistic or as setting forth the illusory character of all phenomena. Speculation in the Upaniṣad times was very free and it veered round even to the denial of the soul as a substance ³).

In the subsequent development of religious thought and worship these Upaniṣad doctrines played an active part. The Henotheism, so fully explained by Max Müller, and its ultimate result, the identification of the various gods, also influenced later thinkers. The conception that the supreme spirit manifests himself in various forms which we find expressed in the Upaniṣads is a development, in the opposite direction, of the idea that one God, for instance Agni, is the same as Varuṇa, Mitra, Indra and Aryaman⁴). If these several gods are one, one god may become several. This led to the conception of Incarnations or Avatāras, which plays such a prominent part in the later religious systems.

But for ordinary people an adorable object with a more distinct personality than that which the theistic portions of the Upaniṣads attributed to God was necessary and the philosophic speculations did not answer practical needs. Thus some of the old Vedic gods and others, which were new, became the objects of worship.

II. The Rise of a New Theistic System.

§ 2. The tide of free speculations culminated in the east into such systems as those of Buddhism and Jainism and, though they denied the existence of God as a creator or did not use the idea for the promotion of righteousness, and the former practically denied the existence of the human soul as a substance, still these systems had the needful personal element in the shape of their founders. In the west, however, a theistic system with a god who had come to dwell among men arose. The various religious systems and superstitions that prevailed in the fourth century B. C. are given in the following passage, occurring in the Niddesa, which though of the nature of a commentary is regarded as one of the books of the Pāli Buddhistic Canon¹): “The deity of the lay followers of the Ājīvakas is the Ājīvakas, of those of the Nighaṇṭhas is the Nighaṇṭhas, of those of the Jaṭilas (ascetics wearing long matted hair) is the Jaṭilas, of those of the Paribbājakas is the Paribbājakas, of those of the Avaruddhakas is the Avaruddhakas, and the deity of those who are devoted to an elephant, a horse, a cow, a dog, a crow, Vāsudeva, Baladeva, Puṇṇabhadda, Maṇibhadda, Aggi, Nāgas, Supaṇṇas, Yakkhas, Asuras, Gandhabbas, Mahārājas, Canda, Suriya, Inda, Brahmā, Deva, Disā is the elephant, the horse, the cow, the dog, the crow, Vāsudeva, Baladeva, Puṇṇabhadda, Maṇibhadda, etc., respectively.” Here a Buddhist who cannot but be expected to show scant courtesy to religious systems other than his own, places the worshippers of Vāsudeva and Baladeva on the same level with those of fire, moon, sun and Brahmā, and even elephants, crows, dogs, etc. But the worship of Vāsudeva was destined to become the predominant religion of a large part of India even to the supersession of that of fire, sun, moon and Brahmā and, of course, of the superstitious adoration of the lower animals. And it will be now our duty to trace its rise and progress.

§ 3. In his comment on Pāṇini IV, 3, 98, Patañjali distinctly states that the Vāsudeva contained in the Sūtra is the name of the “worshipful”, i. e. of one who is pre-eminently worshipful, i. e. God²). The worship of Vāsudeva must be regarded to be as old as Pāṇini.

In an inscription found at Ghosuṇḍi in Rājputāna³) which unfortunately is in a mutilated condition, the construction of a wall round the hall of worship of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva is mentioned. From the form of the characters in the inscription it appears to have been engraved at least two hundred years B. C.

In another inscription recently discovered at Besnagar⁴), Heliodora represents himself to have erected a Garuḍadhvaja or a column with the image of Garuda at the top in honour of Vāsudeva, the god of gods. Heliodora calls himself a Bhāgavata, was the son of Diya, was a native of Takṣaśilā and is spoken of as an ambassador of the Yavana and as such came on a political mission from Aṃtalikita to Bhāgabhadra who must have ruled over Eastern Mālwa. In this inscription occurs the name Aṃtalikita which in all likelihood is the same as Antialkidas of the Bactro-Greek coins. This name as well as the form of the characters show that it belongs to the earlier part of the second century before the Christian era. At that time Vāsudeva was worshipped as the god of gods and his worshippers were called Bhāgavatas. The Bhāgavata religion prevailed in the northwestern part of India and was adopted even by the Greeks.

In the inscription No. I in the large cave at Nānāghāṭ¹), the names of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva, in a Dvandva compound, occur along with those of other deities in the opening invocation. This inscription appears from the form of the characters to belong to the first century before the Christian era.

In the passage in the Mahābhāṣya in which Patañjali, to account for the appearance of the name Vāsudeva in P. IV, 3, 98, says that this is not the name of a Kṣatriya, but that of the Worshipful One, the question to be considered is whether Patañjali means this Vāsudeva to be quite unconnected with the Vāsudeva of the Vṛṣṇi race. From the occurrence of the names Vāsudeva and Baladeva close to each other in the passage from the Niddesa referred to above, and that of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva as worshipful or divine persons in a Dvandva compound in two of the three above inscriptions, it appears that the Vāsudeva referred to by Patañjali as the Worshipful One must be the Vāsudeva of the Vṛṣṇi race. But to account for the appearance of the name in the Sūtra, though the required form can be made up in accordance with the next Sūtra (P. IV, 3, 99), Patañjali says that Pāṇini looks at Vāsudeva in his capacity as a divine person and not as a Kṣatriya. One must take it in this sense, since the Ghosuṇḍi inscription noticed above, in which Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva are associated as worshipful persons, must be older than Patañjali himself. Besides, Patañjali begins the discussion of the Sūtra by first taking Vāsudeva as the name of a Kṣatriya and raising an objection against it. This objection is answered in one way, Vāsudeva being still regarded as a Kṣatriya, and it is only optionally that he gives another explanation, that that name is not the name of a Kṣatriya, but of a divine person. This optional explanation given in the last resort must, therefore, be understood in the sense given above. And from all the accounts of the Bhāgavata school contained in the whole literature it is clear that the worshipful Vāsudeva belonged to the Vṛṣṇi race.

III. Analysis of the Nārāyaṇāya Section of the Mahābhārata.

§ 4. Having thus established on irrefragable evidence the existence during the three or four centuries before Christ of a religion with Vāsudeva as its central figure and of a school of his followers known by the name of Bhāgavata, I will now proceed to examine the detailed accounts contained in the literature and especially in the Mahābhārata. This was not done before, because the date of the Mahābhārata or any portion of it cannot be ascertained with any approach to certainty. The Nārāyaṇīya section of the Śāntiparvan, to which we shall devote a detailed consideration, is, however, older than Śaṃkarācārya who quotes from it.

Nārada is represented to have gone to the Badarikāśrama to see Nara and Nārāyaṇa. The latter was engaged in the performance of religious rites. Nārada asked Nārāyaṇa whom he worshipped, while he himself was the Supreme Lord. Nārāyaṇa told him that he worshipped his original Prakṛti (form), the source of all that is and that is to be. Nara and Nārāyaṇa as well as Kṛṣṇa and Hari, sons of Dharma, are represented as the four forms of the Supreme.

Nārada flies into the sky to see that original Prakṛti and alights on a peak of Meru. There he saw white men without senses, not eating anything, sinless, with heads like umbrellas, making a sound like that of thundering clouds and devoted to Bhagavat. Then Yudhiṣṭhira asks Bhīṣma who those people were, and how they came to be what they were. Bhīṣma tells the story of the king Vasu Uparicara, who worshipped God according to the Sātvata Vidhi (form of ritual). He was a glorious king honoured by Indra, devoted to truth and holy. The best of the learned in the Pāñcarātra system were honoured with the first seat at dinner by him. The narrator then proceeds to mention the Citraśikhaṇḍins, who appear to be the original promulgators of this religion. The mountain Meru was the place where they revealed it. They were seven, consisting of Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasiṣṭha. The eighth was Svāyaṃbhuva. From these eight emanated this excellent Śāstra. This they promulgated in the presence of the great Bhagavat, who said to the Ṛṣis: “You have composed a hundred thousand excellent Ślokas (stanzas), which contain rules for all the affairs of men and are in harmony with Yajus, Sāman, Ṛc, and Atharvāṅgiras, and lay down precepts about the religion of action as well as that of contemplation or repose. I created Brahman from my peaceful and Rudra from my wrathful nature. This Śāstra will be handed down from person to person until it reaches Bṛhaspati. From Bṛhaspati the king Vasu will obtain it. The king will follow this Śāstra and will become my devotee. After his death this Śāstra will be lost.” Telling all this the great god disappeared. Then the Citraśikhaṇḍins spread the religion until it reached Bṛhaspati. Then the old Kalpa having ended and the son of Aṅgiras, the priest of the gods, being born, the gods were happy. The king Vasu Uparicara was his first pupil. He learned this Śāstra from Bṛhaspati. At one time he brought forward an extensive horse-sacrifice, but no animal was killed on the occasion. The oblations were devised in accordance with the words of the Āraṇnyakas. The god of gods showed himself to Vasu and accepted his oblation, but was unseen by anybody else. Since the oblation was taken away by Hari without snowing himself to Bṛhaspati, the latter got angry and dashed upwards the sacrificial ladle. At that sacrifice, Ekata, Dvita, and Trita, sons of Prajāpati, and sixteen Ṛṣis, many of whom are now known as the authors of literary works, such as Medhātithi, Tittiri, and Tāṇḍya, are represented to have been present. When Bṛhaspati was angry, they all said that the great Hari was not to be seen by any man at random, but by one who was favoured by his grace. Ekata, Dvita and Trita said: “On one occasion we went to the north for the attainment of eternal bliss near the milky ocean and practised austerities for four thousand years and at the end a voice in the air declared: ‘Well, how can you see that great Lord? In the milky ocean there is a white island where there are men possessing the lustre of the moon, who are the devotees of the god, possess no senses, do not eat anything and being devoted solely to the god (Ekāntin or monotheistic) are absorbed in him, who is bright like the Sun. Go to that island; there shines my souľ. Accordingly we went to the white island, and, dazzled by the light of that being, were not able to see him. Then the truth flashed upon us that the god cannot be seen by us unless we have gone through austerities. After further austerities for a hundred years we saw the men of the lustre of the moon with their minds fully absorbed in the contemplation of God. The refulgence of each man was like that of the sun on the last day. Then we heard a sound: ‘Jitaṃ te Puṇḍarīkākṣa’ etc. (Triumphant art thou, Lotuseyed one). A short time after a voice in the air declared: ‘Go you away as you came. That great being is not to be seen by one who is not devoted to him’. Then we returned without being able to see him. How then will you be able to see him?” Having heard this from Ekata, Dvita and Trita, Bṛhaspati finished the sacrifice.

Vasu Uparicara had to live in a hole in the earth on account of the curse of the Ṛsis, who in a controversy with the gods maintained that no animal should be sacrificed, but only vegetable grain, while the gods contended that a goat should be sacrificed. The question was referred to Vasu who declared in favour of the gods. Vasu was raised from the hole by Nārāyaṇa, whom he had devotedly worshipped, by sending his Garuḍa to lift him up. He was thence taken to the Brahma world.

The story of Nārada’s visit to Śvetadvīpa is then continued. He praises the great being by uttering names expressive of his purity and grandeur, and the great being then manifested himself to him, saying that he was not to be seen by one who was not solely devoted to him (Ekāntin) and that, as Nārada was such a one, he showed himself to him. He then proceeds to explain to him the religion of Vāsudeva. Vāsudeva is the supreme soul, the internal soul of all souls. He is the supreme creator. All living beings are represented by Saṃkarṣaṇa, who is a form of Vāsudeva. From Saṃkarṣaṇa sprang Pradyumna, the mind, and f...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Original Title Page One
• Part I. Vaiṣṇavism.
• Part II. Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems.
• List of Abbreviations.
• Index of Sanskrit Words and Proper Names.
• General Index.
• List of Sectarian Works Consulted.
• Contents