Hinduism: A Short History (16 page)

91.

   The interested reader may consult the “Critical Bibliography” by Umesh Mishra, appended to Ganganatha Jha (ed.),

, Benares Hindu University, 1942, for further names and details.

92.

I, 1, 2.

93.

   Ibid., I, 2, 1.

94.

   Ganganatha Jha,

, pp. 359ff.

95.

I, 1, 22: “There can be no creator of this relation because no Soul is cognized as such by any of the means of cognition. If there had been such a creator, he could not have been forgotten.” Prabhākara in his

offers arguments against the assumption of a God who would be creator and supervisor of the universe. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa holds that the world is beginningless and hence does not have a creator, nor does it need any. There cannot be any omniscient person.

96.

   P. V Kane,

, vol. V/II, p. 1210.

97.

   Ganganatha Jha,

, p. 178.

98.

   Ibid., p. 77f.; “The doctrine of the self-validity of knowledge

forms the cornerstone on which the whole structure of the Mīmāṃsā philosophy is based. Validity means the certitude of truth. The Mīmāṃsā asserts that all knowledge excepting the action of remembering

or memory is valid in itself, for it itself certifies its own truth and neither depends on any extraneous condition nor on any other knowledge for its validity.” S. N. Dasgupta,

, vol. I, p. 372.

99.

   G. Jha,

, p. 176.

100.

VI, 1, 5.

101.

on

VI, 1, 5. But according to

V 1, 1, 2 gods offer sacrifices to one another.

102.

   Kumārila Bhaṭṭa,

on

VI, 1, 5.

103.

VI, 1, 6ff. 26ff.

104.

   Ibid., VI, 1, 39ff.

105.

   P. V. Kane,

, vol. V/II, p. 1212: the

of the Mīmāṃsākas is different from that of the Vedas or

is unmixed bliss which cannot be acquired while on earth.

106.

II, 1, 5: “There is

, because action is enjoined.” Cf. G. Jha,

, pp.

.

107.

IV, 3, 15.

108.

on IV, 3, 15.

109.

   Ibid., on VI, 1, 1.

110.

“Liberation must consist in the destruction of the present body and the non-production of the future body.” Quoted by G. Jha,

, p. 38. Cf. P. V Kane,

, vol. V/II, p. 1216.

111.

, Sambaṇḍhakṣepa Parihāra 108ff.

112.

   Cf. N.K. Brahmā,

, chap. VI: Karma-Mārga or Path of Action, pp. 91–136.

113.

   Ibid., p. 94.

114.

   P. V Kane,

, p. 1217.

115.

   “Indra, Giver of Light,” in

, Aurobindo Ashram: Pondicherry, 1956, pp. 271–279. Quotes on p. 276 and 279.

116.

   The information is based on an article in

, vol. 14, no. 8 (August 1992) which mentions V L. Manjul from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune as source.

5

A SHORT HISTORY OF VAIṢṆAVISM

Vaiṣṇavism has a history of millennia. In the course of time it has absorbed many traditions and undergone various developments. It is not easy to trace the components of modern Vaiṣṇavism. As S. K. Chatterji writes: “Viṣṇu is partly Āryan, a form of the Sun-God, and partly at least the deity is of Dravidian affinity, as a sky-god, whose colour was that of the blue sky (Tamil
viṇ
‘sky‘; Prākṛt forms of
Viṣṇu are viṇhu
or
veṇhu).”
¹
S. Chattopadhyaya calls the Viṣṇu worshiped by today’s Vaiṣṇavas “the accumulation of a host of un-Āryan local deities” and sees in the
avatāras
former tribal totems.
²
Vaiṣṇavas themselves, however, insist that their religion is Vedic, and their philosophers usually claim to represent the only true interpretation of the scriptures.

There are several hymns in the
Ṛgveda Saṃhitā
that are addressed to Viṣṇu
³
but there is no evidence of any particular community of Viṣṇu-worshipers. Viṣṇu is considered in early Vedic exegesis one of the names of the sun, and the solar origin of Viṣṇu seems to be corroborated by other facts also.
⁴
Some
Brāhmaṇa
passages address Viṣṇu as the “most excellent of the gods,” the “greatest,”
⁵
but that does not warrant the assumption that Vaiṣṇavas existed as a particular sect. Viṣṇu attains a certain prominence in the
Upaniṣads
and the
Sūtras
as the “protector of the embryo in the womb” – a function which he also holds in later Vaiṣṇavism.

The
Mahābhārata
mentions Sātvata and Pāñcarātra cults which could be prototypes of later Vaiṣṇava sects, as well as major non-Vedic sources of Vaiṣṇavism: worship of Nārāyaṇa and Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa. It seems fairly certain that the basis of the latter was an historical Kṛṣṇa, a hero from the Vṛṣṇi clan of the Yādava tribe residing in and around Mathurā.
⁶
In later Vedic literature the Vṛṣṇis are frequently mentioned as irreverent towards Brāhmins and as dark complexioned.

Pāṇini (sixth century B.C.E.) in his
Aṣtādhyayī
mentions
“bhakti
to Vāsudeva.” Vāsudeva was the object of such devotion at least as early as the fourth century B.C.E., as proved by the statement of Megasthenes that the Sourasenoi (the people in the Mathurā region) held Heracles in special honor: Heracles was the Greek analogue of Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa. This hero of the Yādava clan, who became the leader of a religious movement, was deified and styled
Bhāgavat
, a process which was completed by the second century B.C.E.

The pastoral character attributed to Kṛṣṇa has a different source and belongs to a later period. Probably it is due to his identification with the local deities of the Abhiras and other pastoral tribes. The formal and full identification of Kṛṣṇa-Vāsudeva with the supreme God Viṣṇu is an established fact in the
Bhagavadgītā
. The Brāhmins were keen on bringing this powerful religious sect within their orthodox Vedic faith and called it
Vaiṣṇava dharma
. Also the divinization of four other members of the Vṛṣṇi clan (the later
vyūhas
of Viṣṇu) seems to have taken place already by the first century B.C.E.

Vasūdevism spread through the migration of Yādava tribes. We can see some development of it even in the
Mahābhārata
. In its earliest portions there are several disrespectful attributes given to Vāsudeva, showing thereby that he was not considered divine.
⁷
But the Besnagar inscription testifies to Vāsudeva worship in the second century B.C.E. Inscriptions at Ghoṣundī and Nānaghāt (first century B.C.E.) mention the worship of Saṁkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva. At the beginning of the Common Era we find representations of Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu on the Viṣṇumitra coin and the Huviśa seal matrix.

The fully developed
vyūha
doctrine is in evidence in the Mora inscription (second century C.E.). It is one of the central tenets of the earlier Pāñcarātra and the later Śrī-Vaiṣṇava religion. Bhāgavatism has an interesting relation to some other sects: the Ajivikas seem to have been devotees of Nārāyaṇa. The Jainas include Vāsudeva and Baladeva among the sixty-three
śalaka-puruṣas
and the Jain Tirthȧṇkara Ṛṣabha was considered an
avatāra
of Viṣṇu by some Bhāgavats. “The later conception of the twenty-four forms of Viṣṇu was probably derived from that of the twenty-four Jain Tirthȧṇkaras.”
⁸

Also Buddhism has apparently contributed to the development of Bhāgavatism. There is a close resemblance between the Buddhist worship of the footprints of the Buddha and the Vaiṣṇava worship of
Viṣṇu-pada
. “The full development of the
avatāra-vāda
seems to have been influenced by the Buddhist conception of the former Buddhas, some of whom were worshiped in their own
stūpas
as early as the third century B.C. That a large number of Buddhists were admitted into the fold of the Vaiṣṇavas toward the close of the Hindu period is suggested by the inclusion of Buddha in the list of
Viṣṇu-avatāras.”
⁹
It seems that the Bhāgavatas or Pāñcarātrins were also largely responsible for the propagation of image worship among the higher sections of the orthodox Hindus.

While the imperial Guptas supported all branches of the Hindu tradition, they seem to have personally favored Vaiṣṇavism. Their coins show the Garuḍa emblem and Samudragupta is known to have been a Vaiṣṇava. The seventh-century author Bāṇa mentions Bhāgavatas.

From the post-Gupta period onward we find numerous images of Viṣṇu and his
avatāras
all over India. Ānanda Giri (ninth century C.E.) mentions in his
Śáṅkara Digvijaya
six different Vaiṣṇava sects: The
Bhaktas
were associated with Vāsudeva, the
Bhāgavatas
with Bhagavat, the
Vaiṣṇavas
with Nārāyaṇa, the
Cakrinas
with Pāñcarātra, the
Vaikhanāsas
with Nārāyaṇa; the
Karmahīnas
were without any specific ritual.

Mādhava (fourteenth century C.E.) describes in his
Sarvadarśana Saṅgraha
two different
Vaiṣṇava-darśanas: Rāmānuja-darśana
and
Pūrna-prajñā-darśana
. In the later middle ages numerous
bhakti
movements flourished, and several attempts were made to unify all the Vaiṣṇava sects under one authority. In the fourteenth century all the existing Vaiṣṇava orders were affiliated with one of the four major Vaiṣṇava traditions
(catuḥ--saṃpradāya)
, each distinguished by its own version of Vedānta:

The Śrīvaiṣṇava -saṃpradāya (Viśiṣṭādvaita)

The Brahmā -saṃpradāya (Dvaita)

The Kumāra -saṃpradāya (Dvaitādvaita)

The Rudra -saṃpradāya (Śuddhādvaita)

At the Kumbhamelās, which take place every three years, members of all Vaiṣṇava
saṃpradāyas
(as of all other religious orders) congregate and elect a president. At these as well as at the yearly, predominantly Vaiṣṇava, Māghamelās (“gatherings”) in Prāyāg, they regulate their internal affairs.
¹⁰

Philosophically Vaiṣṇavism has absorbed almost every type of thought except the extreme
Advaita
of the Śaṇkara school. Though admitting a wide range of philosophical theories to explain the relationship between God and humans, it never accepted complete identity. The most prominent characteristic of Vaiṣṇavism is the development of
bhakti
.

At a comparatively early time the worship of Vāsudeva was combined with that of Śrī. Originally probably an independent deity – the Indian version of the Great Goddess, connected with harvest and fertility – she became associated with Viṣṇu as his consort. Some peculiar developments within Vaiṣṇavism which elevate the position of Śrī even above Viṣṇu bring Vaiṣṇavism into the vicinity of Tantrism and Śāktism.

Vaiṣṇavism today is a vigorous, if diverse, religion and claims the largest number of followers within mainstream Hinduism. Several of its more recent branches have begun mission work in India and abroad.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF VIṢṆU MYTHOLOGY

Only five hymns out of the 1,028 contained in the
Ṛgveda
are addressed to Viṣṇu, and only in a few other instances is Viṣṇu mentioned in other hymns.
¹¹
Nevertheless, we are not justified in concluding from this that “Viṣṇu was a minor deity” when the Saṃhitās were composed.
¹²
The
Ṛgveda
is representative of only a section of the religion of the vedic Indians, containing hymns used at the highly developed and important
Soma
sacrifice performed by Brahmin orthodoxy. It is correct to say that Viṣṇu did not figure prominently at the
Soma
sacrifice, but the attributes given to him allow us to say that he was important.
¹³
Together with Indra he is invoked as the saviour from Vṛtra and is called “the greatest.”
¹⁴
He has the very important function of being “supporter” of heaven and earth, providing living-space for all beings.

The most popular myth connected with Viṣṇu from the earliest times is his being
trivikrama
– he who with three strides covered the earth and ether and heaven. The
Ṛgveda Saṃhitā
mentions this “mighty deed of Viṣṇu” several times. It deals especially with the “third step,” “the highest step,” which is beyond the reach of mortals and which is said to be “the well-loved mansion, where men devoted to the gods are happy.”
¹⁵
There is a salvific element contained in
Viṣṇu trivikrama:
“he stepped forth over the realms of earth for freedom and for life.”
¹⁶