Hinduism: A Short History (13 page)

Among the
Śaiva Purāṇas
it is only the
Skanda Purāṇa
that narrates the story ast length.
⁷⁴
It is told by Ṛṣi Lomaṣa, when asked how Indra could become king without the help of a
guru
. Viśvarūpa had been Indra’s
purohita
. He had three heads: with the first he performed sacrifices for the
pitṛs
, with the second for the
devas
and with the third for the
asuras
. The
devas
accused him of giving the sacrifice that was due to them, to the
asuras
. Indra cuts off his heads with a hundred
vajras
. Now Indra is guilty of Brāhmaṇa-murder. An interpolation tells us that the only means to atone for a
mabāpāpa
(mortal sin) is
kīrtaṇa
(singing the name of the Lord).
Brabmahatyā
runs after Indra as a red, smoking monster. Indra hides in the water for three hundred years of the gods. There is chaos in the three worlds and the whole earth is chastised because of Indra’s sin. Indra’s
brabmahatyā
is taken from him, and divided into four parts, and Indra is reinstated as king. Viśvakarman now creates Vṛtra through his
tapas
. Brahma tells the gods that Vṛtra can only be killed through a weapon made from the bones of Dadhici. Dadhici agrees to give up his body. The description of the Indra-Vṛtra battle is brief; Indra immediately kills Vṛtra. The
Purāṇa
remarks that it was only
Śivaliṅgapūjā
which provided Indra with the strength to kill Vṛtra.

The
Devi-Bhāgavatam
is considered by most scholars to be a
Upapurāṇa.
⁷⁵
But even so it enjoys great authority among Sāktas. It also narrates the Indra-Vṛtra episode at some length. Its frame is noteworthy: the
ṛṣis
ask Sūta to tell them about Vṛtra. They have already heard something – in a few
ślokas
they narrate the original story.
⁷⁶
The
Devī-Bhāgavatam
now brings an extended and embellished version. Suta refers to King Janamejaya who had “before” asked the same question, and he narrates what Janameya had been told. First Viśvarūpa is described as a pious
yogi –
but his origin already is connected with his father’s hatred for Indra. Indra, worried that Viśvarūpa might try to usurp his place, sends
āpsaras
to tempt him. When this proves a failure he comes on his elephant Airāvata and kills Viśvarūpa with his
vajra
. The
munis
lament his death and call Indra a “great sinner.” Indra asks a carpenter to cut off his heads. Only when Indra offers him as a reward a share in the sacrifice, the head of every animal, does he do as he is told. Thousands of birds come out from the severed heads. Tvaṣṭṛ succeeds in producing Vṛtra from
homa-fire
on the eighth day. He gives him various weapons with which he defeats Indra. Vṛtra is described as a model ascetic, practicing
tapas
, bathing in holy rivers, giving food and drink to Brahman-guests. Brahmā grants him the boon not to be wounded by any weapon. In the next battle between
devas
and
asuras
, Vṛtra remains victorious. The beaten
devas
first approach Śiva. Śiva sends all to Viṣṇu who is
chalajñā
, “a knower of tricks and ruses”. Viṣṇu advises cunning; he dispatches Gandharvas to seduce Vṛtra and promises to enter Indra’s
vajra
. The
devas
are told to pretend friendship with Vṛtra. Then Viṣṇu sends all to Devī. He admits that he himself was able to kill the demons in former times only through her help. The gods approach Devī and praise her, and Devī appears in a beautiful form. Indra finally succeeds in killing Vṛtra at dusk with his
vajra
covered with froth.
⁷⁷

If we remove those elements which can be clearly seen as sectarian additions, we get from the various sources a fairly complete idea of a powerful ancient salvation story which anticipates in several of its elements later salvation myths. Names change; the basic issue of salvation remains. Viṣṇu, Śiva, and Devī are the names of the Supreme God in later times; they still battle with demons who endanger the three worlds. The concretization of the figures of Indra and Vṛtra leads to rather absurd final stages: Indra becomes one of the
lokapālas
, a doorkeeper of the new High God, and Vṛtra becomes a devotee of the new High God.
⁷⁸
Modern
bhaktas
, finally, venerate him as a saint.
⁷⁹
The
Vāyu Purāṇa
tells us that from his mouth thousands of sons issued during his battle with Indra; all of them became followers of Mahendra.
⁸⁰
The
Matsya Purāṇa
mentions a Vṛtraghātaka as the ninth of twelve
avatāras
of Viṣṇu.
⁸¹

Indra, together with Agni, is the most prominent deity of the
Ṛgveda
, invoked in more than a quarter of the hymns, and asked to help and save people. He is “unrivalled.” We do not know anything definite about specific Indra-festivals in Vedic times. Some scholars see evidence that the Indra-Vṛtra war was dramatically performed in honor of Indra at the occasion of an annual Indra festival.
⁸²
There are some references from as late as the seventh or eighth century C.E. which mention some sort of Indra festival in South India.
⁸³
In Nepal, even today, an
Indm-yātrā
is said to be in vogue.
⁸⁴
J. Gonda thinks that Indra had also been the “genius of generation and agriculture” and that fertility rites had been performed in his honor.
⁸⁵
Even today some tribes in India in times of drought torture dogs so that Indra may hear their lament and send rain. It is not impossible that the great Vedic salvation myth of the Indra-Vṛtra battle was originally performed in a way similar to the Rāmā-Ravaṇa battle re-enacted nowadays at the time of Dassehra. Iconography does not yield anything of interest in connection with the Indra-Vṛtra myth. Most scholars agree that Vedic worship was un-iconic. There are a few scattered verses which might be interpreted as description of Indra images – one hymn is supposed to refer to the selling or lending out of an Indra image
⁸⁶
– but the evidence is not strong.

There are some early Indra representations on coins, but none of them shows the Vṛtra-battle.
⁸⁷
On some Indo-Greek coins Indra appears as a personified
vajra
. At an early time the Greeks identified Indra with Zeus, their own High God, and the representations are almost identical. Under the supposition that the figures on coins were copied from then existing cult images one could assume that there had been Indra cult images during the Indo-Greek period. Indra had been the tutelary deity of ancient Śvetavatalāya or Indrapura in the neighborhood of Kapiśa. Some representations show his elephant Airāvata. But at the time, when classical Indian sculpture was developing toward its first golden period, Indra had ceased to be the High God of India, and classical and medieval art knows him only as a lesser divinity, one of the eight
dikpālas
, the guardian deity of the Eastern quarter.

Varāhamīhira’s
Bṛhatsaṃhitā
(sixth century C.E.) contains a chapter in which the construction, origin, and use of the
Indm-dhvaja
(banner) is described, without mentioning whether an Indra image was used: “The elephant of Mahendra is white and has four tusks. He has a thunderbolt in his hand and has as his cognizance the third eye placed horizontally on his forehead.”
⁸⁸
The
Aṃśumadbhedāgama
(eighth century C.E.) says that the color of the Indra image should be dark, with two eyes and two arms, with handsome features, adorned with
kirita
(crown),
kuṇḍalas
(earrings),
hara
(necklace),
keyura
(bracelets), dressed in a red garment, carrying in his right hand a
śakti
(missile), in his left an
aṅkuśa
(goad). He should be accompanied by Indrāṇī, standing on his left.
⁸⁹
Fine panels exist in which Indra is represented in his paradise, Indra on his elephant, and Indra as
lokapāla
, but there is no known representation of the Indra-Vṛtra battle.

PŪRVA MĪMĀṀSĀ: ORTHODOX VEDIC EXEGESIS

Vedic philosophy in the most orthodox sense is represented by Pūrva Mīmāṃsā. Its basic text are the
Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras
ascribed to Jaimini (c.600 B.C.E.), and commented upon by many later scholars, the most famous of whom was Śābara (second century B.C.E.), author of the
Śābara-bhāṣya
, who was the major source for later scholars.
⁹⁰
Among the greatest of later scholars are Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (seventh century C.E.), author of the celebrated
Śloka-vārtika
, the
Tantra-vārtika
, and the
Tup-ṭīka;
commentaries on parts of the
Jaimini-sūtras
and the
Śābara-bhāṣya
, and Prabhākara Miśra (seventh century C.E.), author of the
Bṛhatī
.

The polymath Maṇḍana Miśra (eighth century C.E.) was considered a great Mīmāṃsāka in his youth. After succumbing to Śaṇkara in a philosophical debate he became an Advaitin. As a Mīmāṃsāka he wrote works such as
Vidhi-viveka, Bhāvana-viveka
and
Vibhrama-viveka
. The tenth-century scholar Parthasārathi Miśra is considered the most important Mīmāṃsā writer after Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Prabhākara, and the author of several standard works, such as the
Nyāya-ratna-mālā
and the
Tantra-ratna
. He is best known as the author of the much studied
Śāstra-dīpika
. Throughout the centuries Mīmāṃsā, due to its practical importance both for the performance of ritual and for jurisprudence, was cultivated by many great scholars, some of whom were primarily heads of religious schools such as Vedānta Deśika (thirteenth century C.E.) and Madhva (fourteenth century C.E.) or Appayya Dīkṣita (eighteenth century C.E.). Leaving out many important names
⁹¹
from the intervening centuries, this short list of eminent Mīmāṃsā scholars is concluded with the name of Gaṅgānātha Jhā (1871–1941), who as the occupant of various important academic positions revitalized the study of Mīmāṃsā, and translated many major works into English.

The sole aim of Mīmāṃsā is to ascertain the exact meaning of Vedic
dharma: “Dharma
is that which is indicated by means of the Veda as conducive to the highest good.”
⁹²
The Mīmāṃsākas take it for granted that the performance of sacrifices is the means to attain the highest good and that the Veda is the instrument for this. “The purpose of the Veda lying in the enjoining of actions, those parts of the Veda which do not serve that purpose are useless; in these therefore the Veda is declared to be non-eternal.”
⁹³

The very use of
karma
as synonymous with
yajña
shows how much at the time of the
Mīmāṃsa-Sūtras
the sacrifice was in vogue as the most prominent religious action. Though most of the great Vedic
yajñas
in the classical sense are no longer performed, the importance of
Pūrva Mīmāṃsā
is still great even today and the principles of Vedic exegesis developed by the Mīmāṃsākas, and their epistemology, are accepted even by many of those who otherwise disagree with their doctrines. Here we are only concerned with Pūrva Mīmāṃsā statements regarding the sacrifice as a means of salvation, a topic central to the interest of the Mīmāṃsākas which constitutes the pivot of their classical works.
⁹⁴

In a consistent further development of an objectivation of salvation, classical Mīmāṃsā does not admit the existence of any God as creator and destroyer of the universe. The Mīmāṃsakas even formulate arguments which positively disprove the existence of a creator god.
⁹⁵
The world, according to their views, had always been in existence; there was never any
sṛṣṭsi
(creation) and there will never be a
pralaya
(end of the world). Therefore the only real agent procuring salvation is the impersonal sacrifice, or rather its essence,
apūrva.
⁹⁶
“Sacrifice,” therefore, is the only topic that is of real interest. The question of the eternity of the Veda
⁹⁷
– of the means to its correct understanding, of the validity of human knowledge – have to be treated as preliminary to the topic of sacrifice.
⁹⁸
Pūrva Mīmāṃsā restricts the meaning of “Veda” or scripture to
“mantras
and
brāhmaṇas”
It also respects
smṛti
and custom, but for obtaining the “highest fruit” only the Veda is valid.
⁹⁹

The Mīmāṃsākas emphasize that “desire for heaven” is the basic presupposition for performing a sacrifice, whose end is to obtain heaven. By that criterion several categories of living beings are excluded from the role of sacrificer; therefore they are not qualified for this role.
¹⁰⁰
Deities, too, are excluded, because apart from themselves there are no other deities to whom they could offer sacrifices and there cannot be an offering to oneself.
¹⁰¹
Also the Vedic
ṛṣis
, like Bhrgu, are not qualified, because they cannot belong to the
gotras
named under “Bhṛgu and so on.”
¹⁰²
Women and
śūdras
are categorically excluded from the performance of sacrifices.
¹⁰³
Those who have not enough wealth and those who suffer from a physical disability are also not entitled to perform sacrifices conducive to heaven.
¹⁰⁴

The Mīmāṃsākas deal elaborately with various classes of sacrifices. Here it may suffice just to point out the “fruit.” Since one of the qualifications of a sacrificer is his desire for heaven, heaven is the highest fruit of sacrifice. The Mīmāṃsākas are equally clear about the fact that heaven cannot be obtained on earth but only after death.
¹⁰⁵
To explain the infallible efficacy of the sacrifice they developed the ingenious theory of
apūrva.
¹⁰⁶
Since the act of the sacrifice itself is transitory, it has to create a permanent effect, and this is called
apūrva. Apūrva
is different according to different sacrifices and consequently one of the most important questions is to which particular word in the Vedic injunction the
apūrva
is related. It is considered related to the verb, because the verb
(kriyā)
is expressive of something yet to be accomplished.